Bible and Beeswax

Thoughts about theology and culture.

Author: bibleandbeeswax

  • Wilhemus à Brakel on the Image

    Current theological discussion about the image of God is centered around a rather pragmatic view. “Ancient interpreters foolishly assigned the place of the image to the soul,” say contemporary scholars, “while we realize that man has no soul. Since man has no soul, the image was imbued purely to the work that God created man to do.” But this sort of reasoning is, for one thing, naturalistic. Why take the revelation of God as descriptive of truth (ie man is made in God’s image), while at the same time argue that the revelation of God is not descriptive of truth (ie that man has a soul)?

    But, for those scholars that still believe humans have souls, and yet argue that the image of God is only in the practical outworking that humanity was tasked to do, Wilhelmus à Brakel has a rather profound argument! His logic starts off in sound contradiction to the contemporary argument when he says

    The image of God does not consist in the perfection of the body, for God is a Spirit. It does not primarily consist in the exercise of dominion which was bestowed as a consequence of this image, but rather it exists in the soul.

    Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service Vol. 1, p. 323

    The three possibilities of the “seat” of the image are: the body of man, the utility of man, or the soul of man. Wilhelmus states that the body cannot be the “seat” of the image because God has no body. Dominion cannot be the image because, he reasons, dominion flows from the fact that man is made in God’s image.

    He goes on to explain how the image of God in the soul of man becomes the basis for dominion. First of all, man was created in the image, and not “in a purely natural state” without the image (p. 325). Further, the image wasn’t “bestowed upon him above and beyond his nature.” The image is “a natural element of man’s nature” (p. 326). This matters because it entails that “image-bearing” isn’t something that is imparted like a crown placed on a head. Instead, it is an element originally constituted in human nature, though not essential to it.

    So, what then is the “image”? Wilhelmus states that it is the “goodness of man” or the “perfection of man, which consists in a faint resemblance to the communicable attributes of God” (p. 323). He uses the illustration of a painting. The soul’s nature–it’s spirituality, rationality, immortality, and various faculties (intellect, will, affections) form the canvas of the image. The soul’s form, or the painting itself, or “the true essence of the image of God” (p. 324) is its knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

    In effect, Wilhelmus is saying that if you were to look simply at the “painting” without regard for the canvas, you would see un-fallen man’s perfect knowledge of God, his complete righteousness, his pure holiness, and this would be the “image” of God. You did not see what God is like, first of all in the works of man, but first of all in who man was in his innermost character. From this character, then, perfect dominion was exercised. This expressed the image, or was a consequence of the image.

  • Eternal Functional Subordination…Continued

    Debates in the Reformed circles of the Church range from petty to vicious to important, and I have no interest in jumping into unnecessary argumentation. But, I think the debate over whether Jesus is eternally, but functionally, subordinate to the Father in the Triune Godhead is an important one. The debate itself is basically over, but its after-effects linger.

    That said, I just want to contribute one additional piece of information that is best used in contradiction to the view that Jesus is eternally subordinate. It comes from that pious minister, Wilhelmus à Brakel, who says,

    When Christ acknowledges the Father to be greater than He (John 14:28), the reference is not to His divinity, for as such He is equal to the Father (Phil. 2:6) and one with the Father (1 John 5:7). This has reference to His office as Mediator, in respect to which the Father calls Him His Servant (Isa. 53:11)

    Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christians Reasonable Service, Vol. 1, p. 174.

    This quote is helpful in that it forces us to consider the manner in which God’s decrees relate to His Being, as well as to the relation of the Persons. Does God’s eternal decree to save people through Jesus entail that Jesus is eternally functionally subordinate to the Father? The problem with this concept is that it entails eternal dependency. A subordinate, even a subordinate in only a functional sense, entails dependence. If two CEOs of the same business work with equal power in their offices, but legally CEO #2 must always execute the plans of CEO #1, then CEO #2 must rely upon CEO #1. But in the Godhead there can be no “reliance” of one Person upon the Other. And the decree to be a Mediator does not make the Son functionally subordinate because it does not make the Son eternally dependent. á Brakel later says,

    Dependency is a reality in men, but not in God. The Son has life in Himself as the Father has life in Himself (John 5:26). The attribute of eternity excludes all possibility of dependency. In the execution of the covenant of grace each Person operates according to the manner of His existence. Thus, the Father’s operation proceeds from Himself, the Son’s from the Father, and the Holy Spirit’s from the Father and the Son–all of which occur without dependency as this would suggest imperfection.

    Functional subordiantion is indeed an argument in favor of dependency, and á Brakel’s argument thoroughly contradicts it. In executing the Covenant, each Person “operates according to the manner of His existence”, i.e. without dependence upon the manner of the other Person’s existence. He reasons later that since the Son is begotten, the Son may only operate as the begotten-One. This does not entail that He is subordinated to the Father, but only explains the mode of His existence. So, the concept of eternal, though functional, subordination puts the cart ahead of the horse. It seems like an unreasonable conflation of God’s immanent decrees with His external acts or extrinsic decrees. While there is obviously a relation between the economic work of God to the objective reality of God, the correspondence is not one-to-one, but of analogy. The Son is not objectively, eternally, subordinated to the Father. Instead, it is best to confess what Paul confessed, that,

    Though He was in the form of God, He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

    Philippians 2:6-7

    In my paraphrase: Though Jesus was everlastingly God, equal in worth and power and dignity to the Father, He did not consider that equality something to be clung to greedily, but He veiled His glorious attributes and took on tangible, actual servant-hood at a particular point in time, namely when He became a human. God did not cease to be God, but willingly veiled His everlasting power by becoming a man. So too, we should humble ourselves for the sake of others.

  • Book Review: A Hot Peppercorn

    A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter's Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy

    A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy by Hans Boersma

    My rating: 4 of 5 stars


    A difficult yet rewarding read about the unique views of Richard Baxter regarding justification. Baxter’s controversies with John Owen are set within their appropriate historical context, and due diligence is paid to Baxter’s well-meaning intent in rejecting the High Calvinist doctrine of eternal justification. Boersma gets to the heart of the matter when he suggests that Baxter’s two-fold view of the will of God is at the essence of his alternate understanding. The author comprehensively traces Baxter’s two-fold understanding as derived from Twisse, as developed in regards to God’s will (will of favor, will of law), Christ’s two-fold acquisition (new law of ownership, new law of command), and the believer’s two-fold justification (personal and universal righteousness).



    View all my reviews

  • Canon Videos

    In doing research for ordination (I’ll be ordained in the PCA, Lord-willing), I’ve come across a few good videos about the development of the biblical canon.  Kruger is a thoughtful, tempered, godly voice in a world of scholarly speculation.

     

     

     

  • Book Review: The Symbolism of Evil

    The Symbolism of EvilThe Symbolism of Evil by Paul Ricœur
    My rating: 1 of 5 stars

    If this book is a good demonstration of phenomenology, then phenomenology is a series of arrogant assumptions, linguistic fallacies, and logical fallacies.

    View all my reviews

  • Spirituality of the Church & the Arts

    In the Reformed world, transformationalism is the most prevalent view of Church-culture relations. This view espouses that because Jesus rules over all things, even culture is a part of Jesus’ kingdom. A general tagline for transformationalism is, “Christ transforms culture”. Practically, this view means that when a person becomes a believer in Jesus Christ, their habits, their work life, their customs, are all altered as the individual seeks to be obedient to Jesus. Now, even the Spirituality of the Church view agrees with this concept. But transformationalism implies, next, that as an individual alters their customs, the culture itself is altered. As the culture is altered, it is being reclaimed by Jesus Christ. This is one way in which Christ’s rule spreads visibly and tangibly in the world. Now, this sounds like a triumphant and optimistic view of Christ’s kingdom, and indeed, it is, however I question the biblical-ity of it. Despite that question, my main point in this short post isn’t to critique transformationalism. It is, instead, to offer a viable demonstration of how the Spirituality of the Church view is carried out in relation to culture, particularly the arts.

    Two Views

    Imagine that you are an artist, and you become a Christian. How should you then make art? This is the subject of numerous books, all of which have varying advice and approaches. Some suggest that you must make symbolic representations of biblical themes and ideas. Others say that you must merely make art very beautifully. In short, I’d argue that there are two prevalent views today: 1. Symbolic Christian Art (Symbolists) 2. Aesthetic Christian Art (Aestheticians). Now, any adherent to the second view would hate the fact that I attached “Christian” to the

    “Sunset on the Sea” John Frederick Kensett

    term art. They say that you can no more make Christian Art than you can have a Christian Toilet. Obviously, they are correct, however I simply use the term to mean “art made by Christians”. So, calm yourselves. Many people in the first group are very strongly anti-modernist. They believe that Modern art has destroyed a culture, and cannot be used honorably. Others within the group disagree, and employ modernist techniques and practices while they also use symbolism. The second group generally believes that Modern art is, as a whole, useful to the Christian, and uses aspects of the philosophy and aesthetic of modern art. The Symbolists employ a more worldview-based, common-sense-realist epistemology while the Aestheticians have what is often called a “sacramental” view of reality, or a more post-modern epistemology. Despite all of these differences, both groups agree that Christians have, as a common task as artists, to create works of art that compel hope in the gospel. The problem is this: to what extent does your artwork carry out that task, and to what extent do you as an individual carry out that task?

    An Altered Approach

    “Putti Musicians in a Medallion, Surrounded by Musical Attributes, Flowers, and Fruit” French Artist

    This is where the Spirituality of the Church is exceedingly helpful. It says that you should reconsider your purpose in making art. It is not the task of art to share the gospel. It is the task of individuals to verbally share the message about Jesus’ saving work. Spirituality of the Church argues that as members of God’s Kingdom, you also ought to live in a way that persuasively demonstrates the verbal message that you believe Jesus. But that ethical life doesn’t somehow prepare an unbeliever to believe. This means that whatever job a Christian has, it is not the burden of the job to convince others about Jesus. If you are a farmer, your production of soy is not going to convince the world that Jesus is risen from the dead. Rather, it is the burden of the person, the Christian, to share the message, and to support the message with a godly life. But what about art? Art is distinct in that it is a communicative thing. Soy is farmed for consumption, but art for contemplation (supposedly). So, doesn’t that make art distinctly responsibly for the communication of Christianity? Well, while visual art employs a kind of visual language, yet it is not sufficient to share the gospel. Yes, it may communicate certain themes. Yes, it may depict truths. But the medium is the message, and the medium is not fit for the proclamation that we are responsible to make as people. This will undoubtedly anger some people, but I argue it nevertheless. The gospel itself is expounded through auditory or literary means, “faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” What Paul has in mind is not a play, demonstrating Jesus’ work. He is not considering a movie, depicting Jesus’ work. He does not consider a novel, somehow relating to Christian themes. No, Paul has in mind the explicit, clear, and precise verbal or written presentation of the good news about Jesus.

    Preparation?

    In the sacramentalist mindset, artists often argue that beautiful aesthetics prepare a person to believe in Jesus Christ. In the symbolist mindset, artists argue that complex literary or visual symbols help persuade a person to believe in Jesus. Personally, I believe this is a unfounded idea, and akin to a kind of preparationism. While God uses varying means to ultimately convert a person, the burden of the artist is not to make their art for the evangelistic purpose. So Spirituality of the Church then compels an artist to say, “I can’t make art that compels a person to believe. I can’t make art that is persuasive. But I, as an individual, must do this with my ethic and my speech.”

    A Concession

    The arts are unnecessarily burden by an evangelistic ethos–both in the symbolist and aesthetician schema. Yes. I say all of this, but then I must add something: we talk about what we love. Art is indeed communicative. As Christians, we will talk about our love for Jesus. But the problem I’ve been responding to is with our expectations. We should not expect our art to be converting instruments, though obviously God may use them in that manner. But, while the subjectivity of the visual language of art makes it unfitting for evangelism, at the same time art is quite fitting for a “discussion” of certain themes or ideas that the artist finds important. So, as a Christian, your art is about truths you find valuable. Beauties you love. Concepts that are fascinating. Typically, these ideas will be related to Jesus, yes, but not always specifically. There are Christians who make art about geography, theology, aesthetic quality, time, space, etc. You are free to make it about whatever subject is God-honoring. In the end, the Spirituality of the Church entails that you, as a believer, have the task of making your craft in a God-honoring way, and beyond that, in sharing the gospel personally, and living it out with godly character.

    “Painting Palette” Balthus (Balthasar Klossowski)

  • A Short Critique of Liberation Theology

    Liberation theology gets one truth correct about the gospel, which is that Jesus identifies with the oppressed. But there are two major issues with liberation theology’s understanding of this concept. First, though Jesus does “identify” with the oppressed in a sense, yet the cross is emptied of its power when it is seen merely as a symbol of camaraderie with oppressed people. Liberation theologians believe that the cross is symbolic of Jesus’ identification with oppressed classes: either victims of racial, religious, and economic oppression. It is similar to the notion that lurks within liberal theology that Jesus’ sufferings are simply His public statement to the world that certain social ills are wicked. And while, certainly, at the cross of Jesus we see the height of religious, racial, and political oppression, yet the cross itself is not meaningful merely with this insight. Instead, as Paul puts it–the cross is the power of God unto salvation–not merely unto elevation or liberation from certain material evils. And so this is the reason why, first, liberation theology is largely flawed in its description of the cross: it ignores the main purpose of the cross: salvation from the condemnation of sin.


    Second, liberation theology is flawed in its understanding of the oppressed in that it misidentifies the oppressed persons for whom Jesus died. Jesus’ death was for those oppressed by the power of sin, Satan, and the fear of death. Jesus did not die to create economic equality in this world. He did not die to create perfect race relations in this world. He did not die to teach the equality of religions. No, He died to purchase a peculiar people from the wrath of God, and to restore them to fellowship with Him. Only in this context, again, only in THIS context of redemption from wrath, is there any hope of secondary effects: that of racial reconciliation, economic generosity or sharing, and religious peace. Paul’s teaching that we, though many races, though male and female, are also one in Christ, first necessitates that we be in Christ for salvation from sin. The example of the early Church in sharing our resources, in creating economic equality, necessitates that we first be disciples of Jesus Christ. God’s revelation of a sheet holding unclean foods was given to Peter, a follower of Jesus, compelling him to share the good news of Jesus’ saving grace to those of other ethnicities and religions. By misidentifying the oppressed persons for whom Jesus died, liberation theology bankrupts the cross of its power. It first obfuscates the gospel by ignoring the truest plight of man (the effects of sin), and by keeping people from truly trusting Jesus for salvation it also keeps them from additional benefits of the gospel.

  • Book Review: The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up

    The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and OrganizingThe Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing by Marie Kondō
    My rating: 3 of 5 stars

    The natural and insightful side of this book is unfortunately (pun-intended) obscured by the rather Shinto-Buddhist-New-Age elements. But, if you remove the unnecessary elements of the book, it really does have some insightful points. In many ways, this work reminds me of some Puritan works on the necessity of thrift, of caring for possessions, and of being content with what God has given us.
    So, this book is worth reading if you actually plan on implementing some of the plans suggested here, especially her suggestions about tidying by category, and by touching each object. Further, Kondō has some insight into good ways to fold and hang clothes, to respect material objects in general, to organize your possessions at the end of a workday, etc. I recommend this as a “pick and choose” book. Don’t embrace her theories about why the method works, but I do think the method itself might be worth embracing as a useful tool to tidy. For me, its main use is in forcing me to reconsider why I have what I have, and in reminding me to thank God for what He has given me when I handle each object in my home.

    View all my reviews

  • Book Review: The Marrow of Modern Divinity

    The Marrow of Modern DivinityThe Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher
    My rating: 5 of 5 stars

    This book, besides the Bible itself, may be my favorite book. It is a wonderful explanation of the gospel, the free offer of that gospel, and of the issues of legalism and antinomianism. This edition also contains an explanation of the ten commandments. The whole of the book was convicting in numerous way, as well as encouraging, hopeful, truthful, and beneficial. I hope that any serious theologian will read it, along with Boston’s comments, and be blessed by it!

    View all my reviews

  • Deus: A Parody of Invictus

    I’ve been unsettled by the poem Invictus ever since I had to memorize it in High School.  It is lauded and celebrated by so many as an example of the resolve of will required to persist in this harsh world.  But I actually believe it is an arrogant poem.  So, randomly, and recently, I wrote a parody version of it that I’d like to call Deus.

    Out from the night that once was me,
    Black as a pit from pole to pole,
    I thank the Everlasting God,
    For my redeeméd soul.

    In the kind crib of circumstance
    I often wince and cry aloud.
    Beneath the rod of providence,
    My head is humbled but now bowed.

    Beyond this place of holy tears
    There is the Light without a shade.
    There the infinite blissful Years,
    Shall find me wholly unafraid.

    It matters much how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishments the scroll.
    But God is the master of my fate:
    Christ is the captain of my soul.