Bible and Beeswax

Thoughts and products about theology and culture.

Tag: Jesus

  • Friendship with Those Who Disagree with You

    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…)
  • The Fathers on The End Times

    The Fathers on The End Times

    I’m slowly compiling research, and hopefully putting a book together! One element that I’ve been researching is what the pre-Nicene fathers specifically state about the end times. I’ve found some really interesting trends, and, to my knowledge, have put together some things that no one else has compiled. If someone else has already done a comparison like this, then I’d love to see it because it’s a lot quicker to build on other people’s work!

    Anyway, here’s the summary below of what I’ve found. If anyone wants the more thorough overview, and then also the really, really in-depth comparison, just comment and I’ll do a separate post.

    (more…)
  • Lo! How a rose e’er blooming?

    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

    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…)
  • 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.” -Turretin
    Exact:
    “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.
  • All Loves Excelling

    Good quote from Bunyan in his work “All Loves Excelling” on the mediatorial dominion of Jesus Christ:

    He has obtained to be made of God the chief and high Lord of heaven and earth for us…’All things’ saith he ‘are delivered unto me of my Father, and all power in heaven and earth is given unto me’, and all this because He died…wherefore God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things in earth, or things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2).

    And all this is, as was said afore, for our sakes. He has given him to be head over all things to the Church (Ephesians 1:22). Wherefore, whoever is set up on earth, they are set up by our Lord. ‘By me,’ saith he, ‘kings reign and princes decree justice, by me princes rule and nobles, even all the judges of the earth’ (Proverbs 8:15-16). Nor are they, when set up, left to do, thought they should desire it, their own will and pleasure. The ‘Metheg-amma’, the bridle, is in his own hand, and he giveth reigns or check even as it pleaseth him (2 Samuel 8:1). He has this power for the well-being of his people. Nor are the fallen angels exempted from being put under his rebuke. He is the only potentate (1 Tim. 6:15), and in his times will show it. Peter tells us he is gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him (1 Peter 3:22). This power, as I said, he has received for the sake of his Church on earth, and for her conduct and well-being among the sons of men. Hence, as he is called the king of nations in general (Jeremiah 10:7), so the kings of saints in special (Revelation 15:3). And as he is said to be head over all things in general, so too his Church in special.

    Cover My Web Expenses!


    Think about this one, please: I do not advertise on this website, though I do have web expenses! Consider donating to help cover these expenses, and to see more articles like this produced regularly.

  • 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 Mastricht

    Footnotes:
    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 GospelCompel 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 2:6-7

    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.

  • 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).