Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: God
-
Friendship with Those Who Disagree with You
Part of living life, and living the Christian life, is figuring out how to be friends with people who differ from you, who believe you are in the wrong, and that you are living inconsistent with some kind of law (either a deities’ law or a man-made standard for ethics).
(more…) -
Lo! How a rose e’er blooming?
I decided to take the original text of the well-known hymn, and translate it without trying to keep the rhyme scheme. Why? Just because!
Here it is below:
(more…) -
God is Incomprehensible
Defining Incomprehensibility
Incomprehensibility is that theological concept that, negatively, means what cannot be known of God, and, positively, means that only particulars can be known of God without fully circumscribing the entirety of Him.
(more…) -
Definitions in Philosophy and Theology
I started this post just reviewing patristic quotes of immutability, but as I’ve thought through the idea, I think that I need to review definitions of some basic words used in theology and philosophy, and really think through some implications. I’ve decided this post should be split into multiple posts. I should probably also re-write a lot of this and try to publish it somewhere, and actually make some income off of my thoughts [which, if you do think this deserves some level of monetary support, please do donate!!]. Regardless–
(more…) -
A Summary of How Theologians Describe God
The works of God with respect to Himself and His creatures 1:
1. Immanent/Internal Works (ad intra)
- B. Extrinsic 4
2. Transient/External Works (ad extra) 9
- A. Creation
- B. Providence (in later theology) / Governance (in early theology)
- Extraordinary/Special providence (WCF 5.3)
- C. Redemption
Some Notes:
- In the end, all theological logic is nominal. I don’t think we can know what this parsing out actually refers to in se (in itself) in God. But I think the parsing out of concepts helps us understand how to categorize our little ectypal revelation about God.
↩︎ - Intrinsic works remain within and refer to God.
↩︎ - NECESSARY works are those that are who God is. Of His Immanent works, this includes intrinsic works of His being and Persons. UNNECESSARY works are things that are not necessitated by who God is but are accidental to His nature. Of His immanent works, this includes the extrinsic works. All of His transient works are also unnecessary (given the definition of unnecessary).
↩︎ - Extrinsic works remain within but refer to things outside of God.
↩︎ - Decrees – In early Reformed work ‘providence’ was the purposing of how the decrees would be carried out. It was called the, “parent of predestination” – Bavinck.
↩︎ - I take a via media in my ordering of the decrees between the infralapsarian and supralapsarian positions by placing permission of the fall after creation, but glorification prior to all.
↩︎ - I also place the covenant of redemption within the logical ordering of the decrees. In the various charts I’ve studies of Reformed/patristic theologies, I’ve yet to find one that describes where this covenantal concept fits within the immanent works of God.
↩︎ - There is a debate among theologians regarding the nature of the decree as how to view Christ’s role in Redemption—Christ as fideiussor or Christ as exprommisor.
“The Son’s sponsio was not an expromissio (surety) [disagreeing with Berkhof], such that the guilt of sin was transferred without further ado from the elect to the Son and they had already become guiltfree through the pact itself. Rather it was a real fideiussio (bail), a guarantee which was already effective from the start, even before the Son, in view of this merit of his in the future, had fulfilled his vow by completing the work of redemption.” -Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 380
ie. in Heppe’s view Christ said, “I agree to bail them out once they sin, with foresight of my work.” But in Berkhof’s view, Christ said, “I agree to undertake their debt now.”
Sponsio, “An engagement to pay a certain sum of money to the successful party in a cause.” -Black’s Law Dictionary
Surety, “A person who binds himself for the payment of a sum of money or for the performance of something else, for another, who is already bound for the same. A surety differs from a guarantor, and the latter [guarantor] cannot be sued until after a suit against the principal. 2. The surety differs from bail in this, that the latter [bail] actually has, or is by law presumed to have, the custody of his principal, while the former [surety] has no control over him. The bail may surrender his principal in discharge of his obligation; the surety cannot be discharged by surrender.”
↩︎ - Transient/External works involve the execution of the decree(s) and are always related to the economic Trinity and the doctrine of inseperable operations, “opera ad extra trinitatis indivisa sunt”. ↩︎
-
Atonement Thoughts
How did Christ atone for His People?Protestant Theologians debate whether it was in an Equivalent or Exact Sense:Equivalent:“Not indefinite as to the duration, still…equivalent as to the value on account of the Person suffering.” -TurretinExact:“Christ “made satisfaction by undergoing the same punishment…they themselves were bound to undergo…essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accident of duration and the like.” -Owen, quoted in “He Died for Me” p. 114.Unsure:“He was to suffer what we were to suffer, if not the exact, every way the same, yet the equivalent, that which was sufficient to Christ’s ends” -Thomas Manton, quoted in “He Died for Me” p. 118. -
An Attempt at a Tertium Quid in the Lapsarian Debate
The age-old Post-Reformation debate between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism is useful at times, and, personally, I have flip-flopped between both. At this time, though, I have developed what I think is somewhere between the two of them. You internet theologians let me know what you think:
Works of God with Respect to Himself and Creatures
I. Immanent/Internal (ad intra)
A. Intrinsic (Remain within God)
i. of His Being
ii. of His Persons
B. Extrinsic (Go outside of God)
i. Decrees, “the counsel of His will” (in older theology providence is the purposing of how the decrees will be carried out)
a. To be glorified by vessels of glory & wrath
b. To Create
c. To Permit the Fall
d. To Redeem the Elect [ie covenant of redemption & the tertium quid]
II. Transient/External (ad extra) [execution of the decree]
A. Creation
B. Providence (in later theology) or Governance (early)
C. Redemption
Sources:
A compilation of Heinrich Heppe, Herman Bavinck, Wilhelmus á Brakel, and Petrus van MastrichtFootnotes:
i. The decrees. As Bavinck says, “The means are all subordinate to the ultimate goal, but they are not for that reason subordinate to each other. Creation is not just a means for the attainment of the fall, nor is the fall only a means for the attainment of grace and perseverance…Twisse already noted: ‘These elements are not just subordinated to each other, but are also related coordinately.’” -Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, p. 390. -
Book Review: Compel Them to Come In
Compel Them to Come in: Calvinism and the Free Offer of the Gospel by Donald MacLeod
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
MacLeod’s new work echoes much of what is said in Murray’s much-shorter work, albeit in a more readable format. It has an interesting structure, addressing divine sincerity in the middle of the book rather than at the beginning. This was an odd choice, but it is my only criticism. Positively, there are numerous insights woven throughout the book that make this a go-to for preachers, evangelists, and lay evangelists. It certainly has me redoing/updating my evangelism training class!
View all my reviews -
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 2:6-7In 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.
-
Certainty and Doubt
Christians have looked warily at postmodernism for some time now. Its amorphous nature has never been appealing, and its candy-shop variety of metaphysical conclusions has been hard to accept. Sure, one can enjoy certain aspects of so-and-so’s post-structuralism, or rejoice in what’s-his-face’s view of textual analysis, or delight in another fellow’s critique of modernism’s epistemological arrogance, but Christians have long had issue with accepting “postmodernism” as an overarching system of thought.
It is now vogue to challenge the “modernist” view of the mind, knowledge, and certainty. I totally agree with this program, because most “modernist” epistemologies are, indeed, arrogant, and fundamentally flawed. But, unfortunately it’s also vogue to categorize historic, Christian views of knowledge as “modern”, suggesting that it is arrogant, blind, or even sinful to be “certain”. I’d like to suggest, at the least, that God calls Christians to arrive at certainty through the Scriptures. It is not modernism that gives Christians the belief that they can achieve epistemological certainty, but Scripture.
The Content of Our Certainty
That said, this article is not going to focus on overarching epistemological certainty. Rather, this will focus on how a person can become certain that Jesus is who He says He is. I’m distinguishing these primarily because, while entirely reasonable, a Christian’s view of Jesus is based in faith. This faith is a supernatural gift from the Holy Spirit, and exceeds rationality. Faith isn’t given to someone out-of-context. As Paul puts it, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rm. 10:17). God’s typical pattern is to endow the gift of faith to someone when they read or hear the Bible being read or preached. While reason can lead us to conclude that so-and-so book is well written or logical, only the Spirit of God can lead one to conclude that the Bible is God’s Word. He “testifies” to one’s mind that the Biblical author’s testimony is true, and these two witnesses (author and Spirit) enable one to render the verdict that Scripture is God’s Word (Jn. 3:32, 5:32, 8:18; Rm. 8:16; Hb. 10:15). This article addresses the next step: Now that a person believes in Christ, how certain can they be about who He is?
We’ll look at a number of passages that explain the nature of certainty, but I just want to point out that a Christian seeks to be certain of specific things. He wants to be certain of “the things [he] has been taught,” (Lk. 1:4), of, “God’s mystery, which is Christ,” (Col. 2:2), of, “the gospel,” (1 Th. 1:5), of, “hope” (Hb. 6:11), and of, “faith” (Hb. 10:22). These are all roughly synonymous to mean that the Christian seeks to be certain of what the Scriptures say about Jesus. While Jesus is, indeed, a mystery (Col. 2:2), He is a mystery we can know intimately, and with certainty.
The Basis of Our Certainty
In Luke 1:1-4, Luke explains his purpose for composing yet another gospel narrative,
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke’s basic reason for writing another gospel is so that “Theophilus”, likely a patron of this expensive scholarship, may be certain about what he has been taught (v. 4). The fourth verse is ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. Those two bolded words are important, and roughly translated they mean, “in order that you may know with certainty about the things you have been taught.” So, according to Luke, certainty is a type or quality of knowledge. The word that Luke uses for certainty is ἀσφάλεια (asphaleia), which ranges in meaning from “stability of a circumstance” to, “stability of an idea” to, “restriction of movement such that there is security.” So, for example, Luke uses this word again in part two of his account, the Acts of Christ through the Spirit, in Acts 5:23, “We found the prison doors securely locked…”. A basic analogy to certainty is then that of the door to a home (as opposed to a “foundation”, so commonly employed in today’s epistemology arguments). If your home is built on a solid foundation, then you are protected from having storms wash away your belongings, but if any robber can come and kick down your door then your possession are still insecure.
What This Means:
1. Certainty isn’t Arrogant
If Theophilus had sinfully or arrogantly pursued “certainty” about his belief in Jesus, I think Luke would have had quite a different introduction. What purpose would an additional narrative serve? “While, dear Theophilus, you pursue certainty of these things about Jesus, I can only provide you a competing narrative that you must accept in opposition to those other stories.” As it is, though, Luke’s introduction reveals his attitude towards certainty. Certainty isn’t arrogant or presumptuous, but a godly attitude and mindset.
2. Certainty Ought to be Pursued
A Christian doesn’t necessarily begin with complete certainty. Yes, initially a Christian will have certainty in general, like a single lock upon a door, but as they grow they will learn how to better barricade that door. Luke suggests that after having built a home upon the foundation that Christ tells us to build upon (Lk. 6:47-49), we are to strengthen the stability of the door so that we might be secure against thieves and robbers. The problem is that thieves and robbers come and attempt to break down the door. Perhaps the lock has been loosened, and now you’re not sure what to do. You’ve become uncertain about what you’ve been taught. Now you must go through a process to arrive at certainty again. This means that doubt, much beloved by postmoderns, will likely be included in the journey to certainty. But doubt itself is not the goal, nor is doubt even desirable. This is intimately related with the doctrine of assurance of salvation. The Scriptures are clear: a person may lose their assurance or grow weaker in their assurance for a number of reasons. While this is the case, the authors of Scripture repeatedly encourage their congregations to pursue assurance (Hb. 10:22). Similarly, when we are challenged, we ought to pursue certainty about the things we’ve been taught about Jesus.
3. Certainty Can be Attained
I hope it’s apparent that if certainty couldn’t be attained, Luke would have no reason to state that this is his chief goal in his work. The fact is that while certainty can be attained, the Scriptures speak of various levels of certainty for the Christian. The Christian who has lost his certainty may regain it, and grow in it. For an example, let’s look at the verse I just mentioned in passing: Hebrews 10:22,
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
The author of Hebrews uses one vital word: πληροφορία (plerophoria). It generally means, “A state of complete certainty.” This certainty isn’t presumption, and it isn’t arrogance, but it is the conclusion of filling up something. Just like a cup can be filled to the brim, so too our certainty can be fully filled. The author of Hebrews argues that this is the ideal situation: he wants his readers to have this complete certainty. Though the moon may not be full, it can become full, and this is something we ought to expect. This is the standard and goal that the authors of Scripture maintain we can indeed attain (Col. 2:2; 1 Th. 1:5; Hb. 6:11).