Silence in the Gates?

Amos is one of the lesser known prophets. He does not have the same stature among Christians as Isaiah, Jeremiah or even Hosea. Yet Amos is a fascinating book for 21st century Christians because of the intersection in the book between worship, money, politics, and the church.

Amos preached to the Northern Kingdom prior to her destruction by Assyria in 722 B.C. He is the only prophet who preached exclusively to the Northern Kingdom, also known as Israel. Amos begins his book by denouncing the sins of the nations surrounding Israel (Amos 1:1-2:5).  Of course, if you were in the North at the time this would have been wonderful news. Edom, Gaza, Moab, and even your brother to the South, Judah, were directly in the path of God's wrath. Lots of amens from the pews for this part of the sermon. But then Amos turns his guns on the Northern Kingdom (Amos 2:6-16) and folks begin to fidget, look away, and hope the clock moves faster. Not only does Amos rebuke Israel for her sins, she gets the longest and most scathing rebuke of all. The rest of Amos from 2:6 until 9:10 is devoted to the condemnation of the Northern Kingdom and the coming judgment for her sins.

Amos focuses on several sins he sees in Israel. First, he condemns idolatry. Bethel is mentioned seven times in Amos. What was special about Bethel? That is where Jeroboam had set up one of his two golden calves for the Northern Kingdom to worship (I Kings 12:25-29). Throughout the book Amos condemns Israel's idolatry (Amos 2:6-8, 3:13-14, 4:4-5, 5:4-5, 21-23, 7:9, 8:13-14). Israel has bent her knee to the gods of this world, not to Yahweh. Her worship is a mockery. It is not according to God's Word. It is not sincere (Amos 8:5-6). No matter how much pomp and show there is, God hates it (Amos 5:21).

The second sin is greed, which leads to bribes, theft, oppression of the poor, luxurious living, and crooked business practices (Amos 3:10, 15, 4:1, 5:11-12, 6:4-6, 8:5-6, 10).  There is a close connection between idol worship and economic injustice in Amos.

The third sin is that of rejecting God's Word, in particular the word of the prophet. We see in this in Amos 3:7-8 where Amos defends his ministry. We see it in Amos 7:10-17 where Amaziah the priest, on orders from Jeroboam the king, orders Amos to go prophesy somewhere else. We see it in the promise that God will remove his word because of Israel's sins (Amos 8:11-12). We read it in the repeated use of the word "hear" (Amos 3:1, 13, 4:1, 5:1, 7:16, 8:4).

 And we see it in Amos 5:10-15. Here is the text:

They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth. Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions and how great are your sins— you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time, for it is an evil time. Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said. Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph. 

I find this text interesting because it shows how wicked men are not tolerant. They do not want equal voice for all. Wicked men hate righteous men who rebuke them in the gates. Amos is not mentioned by name, but the implication is clear, especially in light of 7:10-13. Israel does not want his public condemnation of her sins. The prophet is told to quiet down and stop creating such a fuss. Israel doesn't want or need his speeches on the steps of capital. They don't like his sermons that mention the sin by name and hints at those who might be engaged in it. They don't like the letter to the editor from the local pastor or the minister who shows up at a city council meeting. The prudent are silent. They know which way the wind is blowing. Those who strive to be righteous are afflicted. The people don't want to hear God's anointed messenger. Amos has got to go. Therefore God will send a famine of his word. Men will wander seeking God's word, but will not find it (Amos 8:11-12).

Justice is mentioned 4 times in Amos all between 5:7 and 6:12 (5:7, 15, 24, 6:12). In 5:7, 24 and 6:12 it is coupled with righteousness. God expects there to be justice and righteousness in the gates (c.f. Isaiah 5:7). The gate was where public business was conducted (See Genesis 23:10, 18, 34:20, Deut. 21:19, 22:15, 24, 25:7, Ruth 4:1, 10, 11, II Samuel 15:2).  In other words, God expects Israel to obey him in all spheres, including the civic one. Israel is not free to ignore Amos and his preaching. God expects his word to be honored in the courtroom, the business office, the legislative office, and city hall. Amos tells Israel that justice is not a private matter reserved for dinner table and sanctuary. It is not enough to have God's word in the pulpit and with coffee in the morning. God's word must take up residence in the public square.

Several points flow from this. I assuming that while the specific application might have changed from Old Testament to New Testament, God still desires righteousness and justice in the gates just as he did in Amos' day.

• The link between idolatry and economic injustice is often overlooked. The frequent mention of Bethel in Amos points to Israel's idol worship as the center of her decay. Therefore our worship must be according the God's Word.  When our worship becomes encrusted with man-made traditions we are risking judgment. We know this. But what we don't realize is that a community, church, denomination, or country that worships idols will be a greedy culture that tramples on the poor and cares little about economic justice. Theft, from both private and public sectors will become rampant. People will begin to rob God of the tithe due to him. Like vultures the rich will strip the poor. You can be sure that where idols are worshiped money will be as well. Too many Christians want to fix economics without fixing worship. That is impossible. If we worship God as he ought to be worshiped then our economic problems will begin to heal. Without right worship economic justice is a vapor. 

• The world expects, indeed demands, that the church is silent about wickedness in the public square. Evil men, whether in the church, government, media, the academy, or Hollywood do not like being called out publicly. Therefore any Christian who speaks to the public sins of our age, such as sodomy, fornication, adultery, abortion, corrupt business practices, politicians who can be bought, denying that Scripture is God's Word, or female ministers, and rebukes the men and women who commit such sins can expect kickback. They will be told to never again prophesy here (Amos 7:13).

• A pastor is not identical to an Old Testament prophet, but there are connections between the two. One of the tasks of a minister, just like the Old Testament prophet, is to confront the sins in his church and in society. He is not to be silent in the face of evil and wickedness.  This does not mean every sermon must be fire and brimstone or a political screed. But his head should be up and his eyes open for what is happening out there and in here. If the sins in his congregation or the sins of the culture are never addressed with clarity and calls to repent then what exactly is he doing up there? If no one ever says to him, "Sit down and shut up. We are sick of hearing about our sin" then perhaps he is not doing his job.

• Despite some clamor that God has no place in politics and ignoring some unhelpful ideas about Christian political engagement, Amos does teach us that God expects holiness in the civic realm. The courts, the laws, the rules about businesses, how money should impact elections, and care for the weak and poor among us are all legitimate concerns for Christians, including Christian ministers. All our questions will not be answered by simply saying we need to seek Biblical justice and righteousness in the city gates. Nor am I saying Christian ministers should develop economic policies. But just admitting that God expects holiness in the civic realm is a good start. Too many Christians, jaded perhaps by past failures or influenced by bad theology, believe that politics, economics, law, and similar subjects are unworthy of our attention. Amos, and indeed all the prophets, tell us this cannot be. Christians must work for justice and righteousness in the gates.

• Finally, looking at Amos 7:10-13 we can see that sometimes prophetic preaching will also be treasonous. Amos is preaching to Israel not America. America does not stand in the same relationship with God as Israel did. Nonetheless, every country has its idols. Israel's was a calf at Bethel. America does not set up golden calves, but she does have idols. When Amos preached to the idols in Israel he was accused of conspiring against the king (Amos 7:10). When a pastor attacks the idols in his land he can expect to not just be accused of religious intolerance, but also of conspiring against political powers. He is not just religiously out of touch, but also a traitor. We can see this unfolding already with the issue of sodomy. 

John the Revival Preacher

In a blog post from October Dr. Leithart, quoting from Kimberly Belcher says Augustine taught that infants are the perfect subjects of baptism. Here are the last three paragraphs of the post. Emphasis mine. Quote marks and page numbers mean the quote is from Belcher's book

How can an infant be an ideal subject of baptism when the infant cannot believe? To this, Augustine's answer was that the infant can in fact believer [sic]: “Augustine calls unbaptized infants ‘unbelievers,' but infants who have been baptized are ‘believing.' Infant ‘faith,' according to this, is accessible to outside analysis and decisively determined by ritual initiation” (83).

This reveals a radical difference between pre- and modern understanding of “faith”: “The modern assumption is that faith is an ephemeral disposition perceptible only by the subject. Faith can only be affirmed by the person himself or herself, and he or she may deceive others. Moreover, faith is defined within a cognitively centered definition of the self. . . . Since infants' cognitive ability does not allow them to affirm propositions, infant faith is not well defined. Within this context., an adult's affirmation of faith ‘on behalf of' an infant catechumen, since the adult has no knowledge of the infant's inner state, is understandably interpreted as a pious falsehood or as only a promise of future development” (82).

This is simply not what Augustine means by “faith.” It is not for him a cognitive state known only to the subject. Like truth, it is something that can be marked on the body, something into which one can be initiated without knowledge or consent. As Belcher puts it, “Baptism should immerse the intiand into a new way of being, not begin an intellectual conversion. The truth of the profession of faith transforms human capacities, rather than expressing the initiand's assent to an objective truth. The church's certainty guarantees the objectivity of the proclamation, but the ritual affirmation changes the initiand's subjective world and his or her way of being in that world” (84). For Augustine, one becomes a believer by being initiated into the faith, rather than by having an intellectual conversion or a conversion of will. [Emphasis mine.]

Does Leithart agree with this? It is hard to tell. He often quotes authors without giving his take on the quote. But given his past writings one could guess that he, at the very least, finds this a helpful way of saying things. But is it good to talk about faith like this? Should we say that one becomes a believer by baptism or that faith comes via baptism? Is this the way the Bible talks about faith and salvation? Are evangelicals wrong to call people to believe in Jesus? Should we instead call them "into the faith" via baptism? Are believing in Jesus and coming into the faith synonymous? Is faith active, such as resting, grasping, believing in Christ? Or is it passive such a being baptized, being brought into the church, or being marked out from the world? Are both biblical options? And if so, are they synonymous? If being in the faith makes one a believer, what happens to the subjective, internal side of the faith? Does it become superfluous, automatic, or irrelevant?

I want to examine these questions by looking at how the New Testament uses the term faith beginning with the Gospel of John. I will look at other New Testament books in the future.  In particular, I am going to focus on whether the New Testament presents faith as active or passive. In other words, can someone become a believer without their knowledge or consent through baptism? And if the answer is yes, in what sense can they be called believers? Should we call the baptized to repent and believe? In this post I am focused solely on John. I am aware of how passages in the New Testament could support Augustine's point. I will address those as I move through this series. So don't say, "Well what about that passage in Acts?" I will get there, but not yet.

For my non Greek readers, faith and believe both come from the same Greek word.  Thus you could substitute "believe" for "having faith in" and "faith" for "belief." John's gospel contains around 41% of the total uses of the verb "believe" in the New Testament (c. 98 out of 241). Thus it is a good place to start in understanding how faith is used in the New Testament, though we will see it used in a variety of ways in other New Testament books. It is interesting that John does not use the noun "faith" at all with the possible exception of John 20:27.

Of all the books I have looked at so far, John's was the easiest to determine whether or not faith is active or passive. The word "believe" is used almost exclusively by John to mean believe in Jesus, believe something about him that indicates you understand he is the Christ, or believe His words. It could be paraphrased three ways: Believe in me, believe me, believe what someone/something has said about me. The key point for my purpose is that the word believe in John's gospel is active, not passive. Here a few examples:

John 3:14-16

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned.
John 3:35 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life.
John 4:39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him.
John 6:29 This is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent.
John 6:35 Whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
John 6:69 We have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.
John 9:35-38

Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?" Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you." He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him. 

John 10:42 And many believed in him there.
John 11:35 Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.
John 11:45 Many Jews therefore,who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believe in him.
John 14:1   Believe in God; believe also in me.
John 17:20 I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word.
John 20:31 But these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

Here are ten other uses of the word believe in John: John 1:7, 1:50, 2:11, 2:22, 5:24, 5:38, 7:39, 12:38, 14:12, 19:35.

Even when the word "believe" is used without the preposition "in", such as in John 8:45-46, the meaning is the same. Jesus is saying in John 8:45-46  believe that I am the Son of God (see also John 6:30-36, 10:25-26, 11:42, 16:31, 20:29). It is not hard to see how this is equivalent to "believe in me."

Believe in John's gospel is active. We believe in Jesus. We believe in His name. We believe He came from the Father. We believe the Father's witness to Him. We believe that his works testify to who he is. We believe the Apostles who speak of him. At the end John exhorts us to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  In fact, throughout the book John sounds like a revival preacher calling on all who read to trust in the name of Jesus.

There is no indication in John's gospel that we are brought into the faith via baptism or some other external rite. Faith is trust in Jesus Christ that leads to everlasting life including being resurrected to glory (John 6:40). In John, faith is an internal and subjective act with outward results including confession that Jesus is the Christ, obedience to him, etc. That does not mean there are no allusions to baptism or the Lord's Supper in John's gospel. Nor does it mean that baptism is based on something subjective thus undercutting paedo-baptism or that baptism fails to do something objective. But it does mean that in John's gospel one does not have faith by being baptized, through a rite, or by being in the church. For John a believer is someone who had a conversion of the will by God's grace (John 10:29) and a conversion of the intellect by understanding who Jesus is (John 11:27, 13:19, 20:25-27). A believer is someone who has put his trust in Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Related Posts
John 6, the Lord's Supper, and Belief in Christ
Two Types of Preaching

What is Liberal Theology?

Kevin DeYoung quotes Gary Dorrien, a liberal theologian on what liberal theology is.

Fundamentally it is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to re-interpret the symbols of Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority. Specifically, liberal theology is defined by its openness to the verdicts of modern intellectual inquiry, especially the natural and social sciences; its commitment to the authority of individual reason and experience; its conception of Christianity as an ethical way of life; its favoring of moral concepts of atonement; and its commitment to make Christianity credible and socially relevant to modern people. 

Essentially, the argument is that science, reason, and experience trump the Scriptures.

Bavinck on Organizing Theology

Here is the final paragraph from Part I of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics Vol I: Prolegomena. This chapter is entitled "The Method and Organization of Dogmatic Theology." Throughout the chapter Bavinck explains what men have used in the past to organize theology. He then gives this concluding paragraph to explain how he organizes his dogmatics. To be clear early in the chapter he says  Scriptures are the sole foundation of theology. The question he is now answering is how should we organize theology. All parentheses are his.

Accordingly, the order that is theological and at the same time historical-genetic in character deserves preference. It, too, takes its point of departure in God and views all creatures only in relation to him. But proceeding from God to his works, in order through them again to ascend to and end in him. So in this method as well, God is beginning, middle, and end. From him, through him, and to him are all things (Rom. 11:36). But God is not drawn down into the process of history here, and history itself is treated more justly. God and his works are clearly distinguished. In his works God acts as Creator, Redeemer, and Perfecter. He is "efficient and exemplary Cause of things through creation, their renewing Principle through redemption, and their perfective Principle in restoration (Bonaventure). Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God as he has revealed himself in Christ; it is the system of Christian religion.  And the essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that the creation  of the Father, ruined by sin, is restored in the death of Son of God and re-created by the grace of the Holy Spirit into a Kingdom of God. Dogmatics show us how God, who is all sufficient in himself, nevertheless glorifies himself in his creation, which, even when it is torn apart by sin, is gathered up again in Christ (Eph. 1:10). It describes for us God, always God, from the beginning to the end-God in his being, God in  his creation, God against sin, God in Christ, God breaking down all resistance through the Holy Spirit and guiding the whole of creation back to the objective he decreed for it: the glory of his name. Dogmatics therefore is not a dull and arid science. It is a theodicy, a doxology to all God's virtues and perfections, a hymn of adoration and thanksgiving, a "glory to God in the highest" (Luke 2:14).

While the quote is long and decontextualized, it shows why Bavinck does not think Christ can be the organizing principle of theology. Dogmatics begins with God, which obviously includes Christ, but is not limited to Him, then proceeds to creation, redemption, and ultimately glorification. This method keeps God and his works related, but distinguished. It also allows for full development of the Trinity and their works while again allowing them to be interrelated, but distinguished.

Ten Quotes: Escape from Reason by Francis Schaeffer

My father introduced me to Francis Schaeffer, a gift for which I am very grateful. Schaeffer's thought guided me through much of my college and post college years. It is has been a long time since I read anything by him. A friend of mine recently read Escape from Reason and then my oldest son just read How Should We Then Live? After hearing some of the conversation about Schaeffer, I decided to pick him up again. I was glad I did. He saw fifty years ago, what many Christians cannot even see today when our country and to a large degree the church has abandoned rationality (not rationalism) for mysticism and self-determination. Here are some of my favorite quotes from Escape from Reason. Many of these are longer because it helps to have context. Remember as you read these quotes that Schaeffer wrote this in 1968.

When nature is made autonomous, it is destructive. 

It is an important principle to remember, in the contemporary interest in communication and in language study, that the biblical presentation is that, though we do not have exhaustive truth, we have from the Bible what I term "true truth." In this way we know true truth about God, true truth about man and something truly about nature. Thus on the basis of the Scriptures, while we do not have exhaustive knowledge, we have true and unified knowledge. 

Men act the way they think.

The conclusions he [Marquis de Sade] drew were these: if man is determined then what is is right. If all of life is only mechanism-if that is all there is- then morals really do not count. Morals become only a word for a sociological framework. Morals become a means of manipulation by society in the midst of the machine. The word "morals" by this time is only a semantic connotation word for non-morals. What is, is right. 

The basic position of man in rebellion against God is that man is at the center of the universe, that he is autonomous-here lies his rebellion. Man will keep his rationalism and his rebellion, his insistence on total autonomy or partially autonomous areas, even it means he must give up rationality.

Often they [20th Century Middle Class Americans, which made up many churches] still think in the right way-to them truth is truth, right is right-but they no longer know why.

The significant thing is that rationalistic, humanistic man began by saying that Christianity was not rational enough. Now he has come around in a wide circle and ended as a mystic-though a mystic of a special kind. He is a mystic with nobody there. The old mystics always said that there was somebody there, but the new mystic says that that does not matter, because faith is the important thing. It is faith in faith, whether expressed in secular or religious terms.  

 The God is Dead school still uses the word Jesus...But Jesus here turns out to be a non-defined symbol. They use the word because is is rooted in the memory of the race. It is  Humanism with a religious banner called Jesus to which they can give any content they wish. 

Any autonomy is wrong. Autonomous science or autonomous art is wrong, if...we mean it is free from the content of what God has told us. This does not mean that we have a static science or art-just the opposite. It gives us the form inside which, being finite, freedom is possible.

It is possible to take the system the Bible teaches, put it down in the  market place of the ideas of men and let it stand there and speak for itself.  

And One:

There are certain unchangeable facts which are true. These have no relationship to the shifting tides. They make the Christian system what it is, and if they are altered, Christianity becomes something else. This must be emphasized because there are evangelical Christians  today who, in all sincerity, are concerned with their lack of communication, but in order to bridge the gap they are tending to change what must remain unchangeable. If we do this we are no longer communicating Christianity, and what we have left is no different from the surrounding consensus.  

Gran Torino, Unforgiven, and the Justice of God

Just a quick note. Both of these movies are rated-R and contain quite a bit of salty language. Unforgiven also has some sexual content.  I will be giving the basic plot of the each movie including the ending. So if haven't seen them and plan to you may want to come back. 

Gran Torino  is movie directed by and starring Clint Eastwood. He is an old Korean War vet who lives in Detroit. The movie opens with his wife's funeral. His neighborhood has been overrun by Asians. He is the last white man left. He spends his days keeping up his yard, drinking at the bar, mocking the local priest, and yelling racial epithets at his Asian neighbors. Through a series of events he becomes friends with the Asian family next door. He takes the teenage son under his wings and mentors him. However, he figures out that the teenage son will never be free of  a local gang. This gang ultimately beats up and rapes (this is not seen on screen) the boy's sister in retaliation for his refusal to join the gang as well as his friendship with the veteran. No one will give up the men in the gang. The neighborhood is silent. The movie ends with Clint Eastwood, going to the gang's house unarmed. Eastwood tricks them into shooting and killing him publicly so they will go to jail and the boy and his family can be free. He sacrifices his life so the young man can have a new life. 

Unforgiven is another Clint Eastwood movie. This one is about a washed up old gunfighter in his last days. His wife is dead. He is without strength. The movie begins with him chasing a pig and ultimately falling in the mud.  He agrees to take on one last job with a young, hothead gunfighter who dreams of glory but does not understand the cost of killing men. Eastwood recruits his old partner, Morgan Freeman, to help him. He does the job, which means executing a man who cut up a woman's face. In the process he comes in conflict with the tyrannical, local sheriff, Gene Hackman. Hackman ultimately kills his partner in brutal fashion. The movie ends with Eastwood coming back to town and executing vengeance on Gene Hackman. Unforgiven is not your typical revenge movie. Killing in the movie takes a toll and is not treated lightly. Yet it still is a revenge flick. Eastwood's wrath is on full display at the end. 

As Christians we look at these two movies and see one that tells a Christian story of sacrifice for others and one that tells a non-Christian story of revenge. However, this is splitting apart what should not be torn asunder. Our God is a God of vengeance (Romans 12:19). Vengeance and wrath are part of the Christian story. The story of Jehu's purging of Ahab's house is a great, bloody example of God's wrath poured out on man. But wait you say, "Unforgiven is not about God's wrath. It is about man's wrath." To which I say, "That is all a movie can do." In movies men can be little christs sacrificing for those around them. Or in movies men can be little christs executing vengeance on the wicked. In other words, just as Gran Torino is Christ's sacrifice put on the small screen so Unforgiven is the wrath of Christ put on the small screen as well. We reap what we sow. Justice will be served. Wrongs will be set right. The wicked will either take the sacrifice of Christ or will pay with eternal damnation. 

This is not a wholehearted defense of revenge movies. Bloodlust is a real problem in our culture, especially among young men. Movies like these can appeal to that lust for blood instead of a longing for justice. Many of these movies exploit and glorify violence in a way that is not good. Many of them are just poorly done. But revenge movies resonate with humans because we all long for justice. When Gene Hackman whips Morgan Freeman to death we know that something has gone terribly wrong. Yes Freeman was not a good man, but Hackman is worse. So we wait for justice and vengeance. A father's daughter gets kidnapped and killed. The police never find the culprit. So we wait for justice. Men are burned alive in cages and we wait for justice. Sometimes justice comes in the form of  the magistrate's sword. Sometimes it comes in other forms, such as rival gangs or diseases brought on by wickedness. Sometimes it comes on the Last Day when all will stand before the seat of Christ. Sometimes it comes at the Cross.  But justice will come. Revenge movies remind us of this. Be careful. Don't spend all your time watching movies devoted to violence and vengeance. But don't reject them entirely either.  For the character of God is not just seen in the sacrifice at the Cross, but it is also seen in his wrath in Hell. 

Motherhood, Aristotle, and the Trinity

If you are a mom (or anyone else for that matter), please bear with me in this initial section. It is tough sledding, but there is fruit at the end. Fred Sanders' book on the Trinity has been an excellent read so far. Throughout the book he pulls in quotes and illustrations from many diverse sources. In the early chapters Sanders mentions Nicky Cruz, who was converted by David Wilkerson the author of the The Cross and the Switchblade, John Bunyan, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Thomas F. Torrance, and Gerald Bray among others. In one section Sanders is talking about the difference between who God is and what He does. He notes that God did not have to create. He was glorious, good, and loving before the world ever came into being and would have remained so had he never created. One person he quoted struck me. Here are the quotes from that individual:

He is the great God, "the God of the spirits of all flesh," the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity," and created not angels and men because he wanted them for his being in itself , and as such must necessarily be infinitely happy in the glorious perfections of his nature from everlasting to everlasting; and as he did not create, so neither did he redeem because he needed us; but he loved us because he loved us, he would have mercy because he would have mercy, he would show compassion because he would show compassion.

In other words, the creation of this world was a gift of grace. God was not constrained to create in any way. This person goes on to explain why Aristotle was mistaken in his belief that world had eternally existed alongside God.  Aristotle said this because he felt that a good God demanded an outlet for that goodness and therefore matter had to eternally exist as a way for God to show his goodness. This person refutes Aristotle using the Trinity:

For had he [Aristotle] ever heard of the great article of our Christian faith concerning the Holy Trinity, he had then perceived the almighty Goodness eternally communicating being and all the fullness of the Godhead to the divine Logos, his uncreated Word, between whose existence and that of the Father there is not one moment assignable. 

The person's point here is that God's goodness did not need a created world to be expressed. It had been expressed between Father and Son for all eternity. It is clear that this person has a grasp of ancient philosophy, Trinitarian theology, and the Scriptures. It is also clear that this person understands and delights in who God is. Who do you think said these things?

Book Review: From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective by David Gibson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I found this book an excellent resource for discussion of limited atonement or what the authors call "definite atonement." I like their term better than the classic term. The book is essentially a reference tool. There numerous essays by different men covering the historical, Biblical, theological, and pastoral aspects of definite atonement. The book gives the reader an excellent lay of the land.

The historical views addressed are amazing. Barth, Torrance, McLeod Campbell, Davenant, Beza, Calvin, Amyraut, Owen, Baxter, Bavinck, Warfield, Driscoll, and Bruce Ware are all mentioned, as well as many others. Barth gets a lot of attention in various essays,which I found helpful because I know so little about him and his theology.

All the major passages supporting unlimited atonement are addressed. After reading the book, I am convinced the most difficult texts for definite atonement men are the passages that express a dual will, such as I Timothy 2:4. There were several essays on the Old Testament. Moyter's on Isaiah 53 was particularly helpful.

Several points were made over and over again. First, unlimited atonement puts a dissonance between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. Several authors mention this. I believe it is thorny issue for unlimited atonement view. Second, Christ's priestly intercession should be a larger part of the discussion. Does he intercede for those that are never saved? Can he die for those he does no function as a priest for? Third, does unlimited atonement logically end in universal accessibility to the Gospel? And if so, why do we not get that? Sinclair Ferguson's essay on this was thought provoking. Finally, one's views of the covenant and the Bible as a whole will influence the interpretation of specific texts. Much like any discussion of infant baptism, there must be exegesis of specific texts, but there also must be an understanding of the entire scope of Scripture.

Each of the essays could be a book. Therefore they are not in-depth. But they orient the reader to the major players, major texts, and major theological questions in the debate. This book is not a thorough discussion of the atonement. But it is an excellent introduction to one question related to the atonement: For whom to Christ die? It will be a valuable resource for any minister or theological student.

View all my reviews

Systematic Theology and I John 4:2

Does doctrinal precision have a place in the life of the church? Shouldn't citing the Bible, chapter and verse, be enough? This is another way of asking, "Do systematic theology and confessions have a place in the life of the church?" There has been a reaction against systematics in recent theological discussion. There is a "back to the Bible" movement that we are seeing. In many ways this is understandable and good. Whenever man creates a system there is always the danger that his system will trump what God's Word says. We need men to stand up and say, "I am not sure the Scriptures actually teach that." But when that man stands up and does that there is a subtle, but deadly assumption, that the man has no systematic theology. We think, "Here is a man who is just using the Bible without any creed or confession." But this is false assumption. Just like every church has a liturgy, every man has a systematic theology.

I want to use I John 4:2 as an example of why systematic theology and confessions are not just necessary, but inevitable.

Here is I John 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

In this passage John tells his readers to make sure they do not suck down every bit of theology they hear because there are false prophets who bring false doctrine. Therefore teaching must be tested. John gives them a very specific test: Do these teachers confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

If we ask someone do they believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and they say, "Yes" is that enough? Have they fulfilled what John requires of true teacher? Is that as far as the testing needs to go? The answer is, "No." A Mormon could agree with that bare statement. So could a Muslim on some level. A liberal Christian who believes that Jesus was a just a good moral example might agree with this. In fact if you paraphrased it, "Did a man named Jesus Christ live on earth 2,000 years ago" millions of people could answer in the affirmative and not be confessing what John is saying.

There must be follow up discussion. There must be a systematic discussion of who Jesus was, what it means that he came, and what it means that he came in the flesh.

Was he truly God? Was he truly man? Did he come from God? Was he created? Is he the Christ, that is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament and come to fruition in the New? Was he just a good man, a great prophet, a great moral example? One could even ask, especially in light John's teaching, did he come to offer Himself as a sacrifice for man's sins? For John the terms Jesus, Christ, flesh, and even came all have specific meaning that can only be filled out by using other texts of Scripture.

That is what systematic theology and confessions do. They take a topic like "Jesus" gather all the Biblical data on the subject and try to give what the Scriptures say about that topic. These systematic theologies and confessions are not God's Word. They are not a substitute for reading and studying the Bible. They must be tested against God's Word.  But they are good, necessary, and inevitable. Anyone who rejects them and claims to be just using the "Bible" still has a systematic theology. Their's is just not written down anywhere. It is floating around in their heads.

Book Review: Three Forms of Unity

The Three Forms of Unity by Guido de Bres
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I was glad to find a cheap well bound edition of The Three Forms of Unity. The doctrine is really, really good. As many have noted the Heidelberg Catechism is very pastoral in tone, which makes it a delight to read and study. But what surprised me was how pastoral the Canons of Dort was. Every pastor should have this on their shelf and read it on a regular basis. Here are a few lines I enjoyed:

Belgic Confession, Article 1: God is the overflowing fountain of all good.

Heidelberg Catechism #52: Christ shall cast all his and my enemies into everlasting condemnation.

HC #111: But what does God require in this commandment? [The eighth]
A: That I promote the advantage of my neighbor in every instance I can or may; and deal with him as I desire to be dealt with by others: further also that I faithfully labor, so that I may be able to relieve the needy.

Canons of Dort, Fifth Head, Article 1: Those people whom God according to his purpose calls into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he also sets free from the reign and slavery of sin, though in this life not entirely from the flesh and from the body of sin.


View all my reviews

Christ Cannot Be the Organizing Principle of Our Theology

I am working through Volume 1 of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. In one section Bavinck answers the question why Christ cannot be the organizing principle of our theology. It is great quote because it emphasizes how we can only get to Christ through the Word. To speak of Christ as the organizing principle would be move outside of the solid ground of God's Word and into the realm of speculation and feeling. I think the last sentence is central. One disease of modern Christians is to pit one section of Scripture against another. Bavinck says that is untenable. I agree. Here is the quote:

"The christological organizing principle is subject to even more objections [than the Trinity as organizing principle].  However attractive it may seem at first sight, it is still unusable. It often rests on the false assumption that rather than Scripture the person of Christ specifically is the foundation and epistemic source of dogmatics. However, we know Christ only from and through Scripture. In addition, though Christ is quite certainly the central focus and main content of Holy Scripture, precisely because he is the midpoint of Scripture, he cannot be its starting point. He did not make his historical appearance immediately at the time of the promise [in Eden] but many centuries later. It is, moreover, undoubtedly true that Christ revealed the Father to us but this revelation of God through the Son does not nullify the many and varied ways he spoke through the prophets. Not the New Testament alone, nor only the words of Jesus, but Scripture as a whole is a Word of God that comes to us through Christ." (p. 110)

Young Men = Bambi on Ice

"The problem with vain disuptations and quasi-heresies and quarrels over words is that they are tempting bait for young men. Nobody loves arguing over open-hand theological issues like young men. There is something about the intellectual and emotional dawn of masculine maturation that instinctively draws young guys to stupid arguments. And many times the issues and topics are good things-things we should have opinions on or enjoy discussing. But young men are like Bambi on the frozen pond-all awkward limbs and little coordination." (Mark Driscoll in Entrusted with the Gospel, p. 79)

Book Review: Trials of Theology

Trials of Theology, The: Becoming a 'proven worker' in a dangerous business by Andrew Cameron

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


A brief book, which pull essays from men of the past and the present to address some dangers of theological study. It is primarily directed at students of theology who are in seminary or a similar setting. But it has much value for the pastor as well. I especially enjoyed Augustine's short letter about needing more time to study and pray, Warfield's essay on the religious life of theology students and Carson's essay on the dangers that come with studying the Bible. I still think Helmut Thielicke's book "A Little Exercise for Young Theologians" is a little bit better.

View all my reviews

Go to the Man in Charge

"In For the Time Being, Annie Dillard attempts to keep God around and keep Him nice (if weepy). And so she (like many others) scraps omnipotence, 'The very least likely things for which God might be responsible are what insurers call acts of God.'

Go that route. Katrina wasn't Him. Nothing involving fault lines is Him. Stop looking at Him like that--He's never so much as touched a tornado. He exists, and He's friendly, but if you're in some kind of trouble, you might just want to make a deal with the devil. Go to the man in charge, I always say. You can renege later, and you might get really good at the guitar in the meantime." (Nate Wilson, Notes from a Tilt-a-Whirl, p. 64)

Old Earth vs. Young Earth

Tim Challies is blogging from Ligonier Ministries Annual Conference. It sounds like they are addressing numerous thorny issues in the Church. One of these most thorny and contentious issues in the Church recently has been the age of the earth. Al Mohler gave a lecture on "Why Does the Universe Look So Old?" Challies gave a summary of the lecture on his blog. You can find it here. The article summarizes some of the main problems with the old earth theory from a theological standpoint. Mohler's point is that Christians give up way too much when we say the earth is millions or billions of years old.

A Little Exercise....

Sometimes short books can be the best books. A long, windy writer can often simply be long and windy, not deep and profound. I have tried to read some shorter books/pamphlets lately. These are great fillers when you have a few spare minutes. The other advantage is you can actually finish them and feel like you are accomplishing something.

I recently read A Little Exercise of Young Theologians. It is an excellent book and worth a read by anyone involved in theological study. Also it is only 41 pages. You get the impression that the author believed in some liberal views of the Scriptures, but this is a minor part of the book and should not keep you away.

Professor Thielicke, like an expert surgeon, dissects the various diseases that afflict young theologians and pastors. He uses the illustration of a young man returning from his early seminary studies and a Christian friend asks him a question about the Bible. Here is how Thielicke describes the young theologian's response. "Under a considerable display of the apparatus of exegetical science and surrounded by the air of the initiated, he produces paralyzing and unhappy trivialities, and the inner muscular strength of a lively young Christian is horribly squeezed to death in a formal armor of abstract ideas." (p. 8) He goes on to describe how often young men use theology to destroy instead of build.

Later he describes what he calls "theological puberty." That stage when a young man has lots of ideas running around in his head, but little actual experience. He says, "There is a hiatus between the arena of the young theologian's actual spiritual growth and what he already knows intellectually about this arena." In other words, he knows a lot about weapons, but hasn't done much actual fighting. Thielicke goes on, "So to speak, he has been fitted, like a country boy, with breeches that are too big, into which he must still grow up...meanwhile they hang loosely around his body, and this ludicrous sight is of course not beautiful." (p. 10)

He ends by pointing to the need for a Spirit filled life if a man is to be true theologian. "Whoever ceases to be a man of the Spirit automatically furthers a false theology, even if in thought it is pure, orthodox and basically Lutheran. [Thielicke was a professor at Lutheran Seminary.] But in that case death lurks in the kettle." (p. 36) "But it is all the more important to insist constantly and almost monotonously that a person who pursues theological courses is spiritually sick unless he reads the Bible uncommonly often and makes the most of opportunities by which, in preaching and Bible classes, that cornerstone is made visible." (p. 40)

I found this book an excellent reminder of the dangers of theology. Theology is a great tool, which can be used for great good, but it must be used with wisdom, discretion and good dose of the Spirit. Thielicke's book exposes those sins masked as knowledge and virtue that theologians so easily commit. Read it with good dose of prayer and confession.

Children in the Covenant: Part III

I have been extremely busy and have not had time to post. However, here is some grist for the mill from Schenck's book.

"The Reformed church has always believed, on the basis of God's immutable promise, that all children of believers dying in infancy were saved." (p. 118)

"Baptized children were to be taught and trained to believe, feel, act, and live as the children of God, not merely because it was wrong and perilous not to do so, but because failure to do this would be inconsistent with their position as members of the church." (p. 134)

"This [the classic reformed view] high conception of the promise of God and the significance of the baptism of children inculcates confidence, spiritual joy, and a high conception of God. It leads to reverent praise and thanksgiving. Furthermore it is an incentive, a stimulus to the Christian education of children. But where the truth of the covenant promise of God was forgotten, the consequence, Calvin thought, would inevitably be ingratitude to the mercy of God and negligence in the proper Christian education of children." (p. 149)

Children in the Covenant

"Baptism has no significance for Calvin if it does not mean admission to the visible church on th ground of the covenant promise, which includes presumptive regeneration of the children in the covenant. Calvin looks upon the child in the covenant as God's child, forgiven of sin and regenerated, with the new life as a latent seed, already at work in its heart. The child then opens its eyes redeemed on a world in which by careful nuture it is expected to grow and develop in the Christian ideal of life and character. The important point is that this child is presumptively a Christian. That Calvin so meant we see clearly from this passage:

'The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. How who admits aliens to baptism profanes it...For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, buy gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.'"

(Lewis Bevens Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, p. 13)

Joyful Martyrs: Part II

Last week I wrote how we are to embrace difficultes with joy that we might follow in the footsteps of our Lord. While the truth of this applies to all, there are particular groups prone to thinking things really should be easier. Here is some advice to those groups.

1. Parents need to carefully examine their attitude toward their children. It is very easy to approach young ones (or teenagers!) as a necessary duty, but not a joy. Children and all the difficulties associated with them can quickly become a burden. Instead of recognizing that raising children is the essence of building the Kingdom of Christ, we see our duties at home as obstacles to "the real work." We will bear little fruit if we see children as a burden and do not raise them in joy.

2. Pastors are frequently guilty of this approach to their flocks. They imagine that Paul never had things as bad as they do. The apathy, the immorality, the pettiness can create a perspective on God's people that is unbibical. A pastor can find himself looking on the flock as a great drain on his time and energy. He sees what God has given to other men and assumes that he deserves those things and that the path God has given these other men is easier than his. Both of these are carcinogens to the soul. The minute a man believes things are better somewhere else is the minute he begins to lose his passion for those in front of him. He is not called to be a Piper or MacArthur. He is called to embrace with joy the flock in front of him.

3. Finally, with the church in America in such disarray, we should expect God to raise up reformers whom God will use to call His people back. Young reformers in particular tend to think this type of thing is easy, a quick fix. The persecution, hatred, back-biting, and general animosity that often accompanies attempts at reform are forgotten. A good dose of church history will cure that. Reformers always pay a dear price for their attempts. From Jeremiah to Paul to Wycliffe to Bonhoefer the cost is heavy. All is rosy at the beginning, but the long, hot road of reform can discourage many a man. We are fools if we believe the recovery of the Gospel in our age will leave us or our loved ones unscarred.

In 1544 John Calvin published a book calling the German princes to support the Reformation in Europe. Calvin anticipates that many princes will not take up the mantle of the Reformation believing the work to be too difficult. Here is what he says, "However, considering, according to the well-known sentiment of an old proverb, that there is nothing illustrious which is not also difficult and arduous, can we wonder, that in the greatest and most excellent of all causes we must fight our way through many difficulties." How quickly we forget that all good things come at a great cost. Die with joy knowing that the Lord loves to raise the dead.

Children in the Covenant

If anyone wants to understand on a historical level where we have come since the Reformation, in particular with regard to baptism, then I would greatly encourage the reading of Lewis Bevens Schenck's book The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant. Schenck does a historical study beginning at the Reformation and ending in the early 1900s showing the devolution of the biblical doctrine of children in covenant. Reading it one can easily see that many presbyterians, and of course all baptists, have abandoned the reformers' view of children in the covenant. Much of the current Federal Vision controversy is explained by this book. Over the next couple of weeks I will be posting some of the quotes I liked. Here is the first.

"To John Calvin then 'baptism' signifies the forgivness of sins. This means in the legal language of theology that those baptized presumably stand in the sight of God as justified, that is, with the guilt and punishment of sin removed by the mercy of God. He accepts them no longer as sinners, but as heirs, 'heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.' And this adoptive act of God finds expression in the second meaning of baptism, 'regeneration.' (p. 8 )