Just a brief breaking of the silence--which I promise to rectify very soon--to give a nod in recognition of today's anniversary. There have been any number of well-worded tributes and not a few acknowledgements that Calvin himself would have eschewed any celebration of this day. But I'll offer my introductory comments from my current Sunday School series on Calvin:
We are not interested in developing a party spirit (1 Corinthians 3:4-7) or even of celebrating a man. Calvin, who did not even want a marker for his grave, would have been the first to decry attempts to place him on a pedestal. That which we properly celebrate, though, is the way God used and worked through this man so powerfully and with such enduring influence for the kingdom. It is right, to paraphrase Paul, to imitate Calvin as he imitated Christ (after 1 Corinthians 11:1). We could do far worse than to echo Calvin when he prayed, “I offer my heart to you, O Lord, promptly and sincerely.”
Friday, July 10, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Apologies for Irregular Posting
Things have been a bit crazy lately.
And I have to take a break for the next couple of weeks. Hope to get back to regular contributions (and finishing the current series) in July.
And I have to take a break for the next couple of weeks. Hope to get back to regular contributions (and finishing the current series) in July.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Political Concepts in Apostolic Writings III
Let's take a look at Ephesians 2:19-22 next. On the face of it, this would not seem to apply to our present discussion but, in fact, it addresses questions of allegiences and community that pertain. What does this passage say about the community to which Christians belong? The referent passage is verses 11-13—Paul describes the reversal of the separation of the Gentiles that takes place in Christ. The Ephesian Christians used to be "outside the camp," far off from the people of God. Now they have been brought near, even "fellow citizens with the saints, and...of God's household." The people of God is trans-national. I have much more in common with fellow believers in Africa or Asia than I do with non-believers that live in my neighborhood.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Political Concepts in Apostolic Writings II
Next I will consider Romans 13:1-7, which is perhaps the most explicit statement in the New Testament on the role of government. From where (whom) does civil government get its authority? According to Paul--and, more importantly, the Holy Spirit--all existing authority derives from God and has been established by God. And therefore those who unrighteously resist said authority are resisting God. Paul exhorts obedience to said authority, observing how government, when it does its God-appointed duty, is in fact a minister of God for the promulgation of justice and the restraint of sin.
These can be hard concepts for individualistic Westerners with a strong sense of personal liberty to internalize. We are used to thinking of government as something that infringes upon liberty or makes demands upon us. We may say "No king but King Jesus," but then we usually live as though Jesus is even less of a governing presence than the government we resist.
These can be hard concepts for individualistic Westerners with a strong sense of personal liberty to internalize. We are used to thinking of government as something that infringes upon liberty or makes demands upon us. We may say "No king but King Jesus," but then we usually live as though Jesus is even less of a governing presence than the government we resist.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Political Concepts in Apostolic Writings I
Sorry about the unexpected break in blog entries--I had a rather busy week and more.
Picking up this little exegetical exercise with the book of Acts, let's take a look at Acts 4:18-21 and compare Acts 5:17-42. What is at point in this and the comparison passage? Chiefly the point is contained in 5:29: "We must obey God rather than men." Now, in neither instance is the conflict between the people of God and governmental authorities, although the high priest and the Sanhedrin certainly possessed a societal authority. But the underlying principle applies to the Christian's relationship with any kind of secondary (to God) authority. Our highest allegiance is to the Lord. Any legitimate secondary authority that commands the Christian to disobey God has lost its legitimacy, at least regarding the point in contention. Nevertheless, the Christian may be called upon to submit to the consequences of refusing to heed the secondary authority. Note that the response of the apostles was not to call for the overthrow of the Sanhedrin or to foment a rebellion.
Picking up this little exegetical exercise with the book of Acts, let's take a look at Acts 4:18-21 and compare Acts 5:17-42. What is at point in this and the comparison passage? Chiefly the point is contained in 5:29: "We must obey God rather than men." Now, in neither instance is the conflict between the people of God and governmental authorities, although the high priest and the Sanhedrin certainly possessed a societal authority. But the underlying principle applies to the Christian's relationship with any kind of secondary (to God) authority. Our highest allegiance is to the Lord. Any legitimate secondary authority that commands the Christian to disobey God has lost its legitimacy, at least regarding the point in contention. Nevertheless, the Christian may be called upon to submit to the consequences of refusing to heed the secondary authority. Note that the response of the apostles was not to call for the overthrow of the Sanhedrin or to foment a rebellion.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues VIII
The last of the passages from the gospels I will examine from the perspective of politics is John 19:11. Pilate has just threatened Jesus, whom he thinks is being uncooperative, by reminding Jesus that he has the power either to crucify him or release him--in other words, your life is in my hands, Jesus, so start playing ball. What does Jesus say to Pilate about their respective authority? He tells Pilate that Pilate's authority is a delegated authority, that he would have no power over Jesus unless that power had been granted to him by heaven. God is calling all the shots here. In the spheres of authority, God is supreme. Secondary authorities such as Pilate are just that and would not enjoy authority unless God wills it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues VII
Today's text is John 18:33-37. Pilate interviewed Jesus, who had been brought before him by the Jewish religious leaders under a charge of "evildoing" (verse 30). Somehow Pilate got hold of the idea that Jesus claimed to be a king and asked him directly whether he was the King of the Jews. Jesus replied, after an effort to find out Pilate's source for this question, that he has a kingdom but of a different kind than the kingdoms Pilate knows. Jesus' kingdom does not operate according to the rules of this world and its political organizations. In fact, it does not even come from this world. He affirmed that he is a king, but a king quite outside Pilate's experience. He is the king of truth.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues VI
Today I'll look at Luke 6:27-38, called the “political manifesto” of Jesus by one author. This is an abbreviated form of the Sermon on the Mount. The statements Jesus makes exhort other-centeredness, the same orientation we found yesterday. They concern how we treat enemies--with sacrifice and grace, with no thought of reward. How are the statements it contains political? To the extent that interpersonal relationships are political these might hold up as political exhortations, or even within like-minded communities. Do these words apply solely to individuals, or are larger groups or societies in mind? It is hard to see how human organizations on the level of states could adhere to these guidelines. But then I don't believe Jesus preached to nations as much as he preached to the nations.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues V
Next we'll look at Mark 10:42-45. The immediate context is the rather bold request by James and John that they be accorded the privilege of sitting on the right and left hand of the glorified Christ--positions of supreme prestige and power. The other ten disciples, naturally, grumble about this display of arrogance, more than likely because they hadn't thought to ask first. Jesus' response, following an observation that the disciples didn't really know what it was they were asking and that the desired positions weren't up for grabs, was to teach a lesson about relationships in the kingdom by drawing a contrast to the way that pagans exercise authority over others.
What is Jesus’ comment about the relationship of pagan rulers to those under them? That pagan rulers "lord it over" their subjects. They take full advantage of the trappings of power. They live in the high style, frequently justifying it as "appropriate" to the eminence and prestige of the office they occupy. But Jesus holds these rulers up as a negative example. How does he contrast leadership relationships in the kingdom/church? Greatness in the kingdom of God is not defined by power, wealth, influence, living life high on the hog. Rather, greatness in the kingdom is other-centered, a life of service. And the greatest example was set by the Lord himself, who "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (verse 45).
What is Jesus’ comment about the relationship of pagan rulers to those under them? That pagan rulers "lord it over" their subjects. They take full advantage of the trappings of power. They live in the high style, frequently justifying it as "appropriate" to the eminence and prestige of the office they occupy. But Jesus holds these rulers up as a negative example. How does he contrast leadership relationships in the kingdom/church? Greatness in the kingdom of God is not defined by power, wealth, influence, living life high on the hog. Rather, greatness in the kingdom is other-centered, a life of service. And the greatest example was set by the Lord himself, who "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (verse 45).
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues IV
The next text I will examine is Matthew 28:18-20, our Lord's "valedictory" to his disciples. Jesus has “all authority in heaven and earth,” a rather broadly-encompassing statement. There is nothing in all creation that escapes his lordship. How does he instruct his followers? Are they to take up arms to make him king? Are they to overthrow the prevailing powers? Are they to lead a rebellion? No. They are to make disciples of all men--to exhort and instruct everyone everywhere regarding the good news that in Christ God has reconciled the world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). Christ does not establish his lordship by overthrowing the earthly powers that be. His lordship is already established and the days of those earthly powers are numbered. They continue only at his pleasure. But in the meantime his people are to be about the business of telling people what is already reality.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues III
Matthew 22:15-22 is perhaps the most famous of this short series of passages I am considering, other than John 18:33-37 which I will discuss next week.
In contrast to yesterday's passage, in which the issue was a religious tax, the question put to Jesus here by the Pharisees and Herodians (in an effort to trap him and obtain a basis either for denouncing him to the Roman authorities or discrediting him before the people) involves the relationship between Jews and Romans. More specifically, it addresses the relationship between political authorities and those under those authorities. As is always the case, Jesus sees right through their little plot and uses the question as an opportunity to teach on a more important subject than whether it is lawful to pay taxes. He reminds his listeners that there are legitimate authorities and that God's authority is supreme over all (for what "things" are not God's?), so that in all things our primary motive is to glorify and obey God.
What does it mean to “render unto Caesar” while keeping God’s authority paramount? God has placed us in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, including the country of our habitation and the laws under which we live. So long as "Caesar" does not require us to do anything that violates God's principles we must respect his derived authority.
In contrast to yesterday's passage, in which the issue was a religious tax, the question put to Jesus here by the Pharisees and Herodians (in an effort to trap him and obtain a basis either for denouncing him to the Roman authorities or discrediting him before the people) involves the relationship between Jews and Romans. More specifically, it addresses the relationship between political authorities and those under those authorities. As is always the case, Jesus sees right through their little plot and uses the question as an opportunity to teach on a more important subject than whether it is lawful to pay taxes. He reminds his listeners that there are legitimate authorities and that God's authority is supreme over all (for what "things" are not God's?), so that in all things our primary motive is to glorify and obey God.
What does it mean to “render unto Caesar” while keeping God’s authority paramount? God has placed us in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, including the country of our habitation and the laws under which we live. So long as "Caesar" does not require us to do anything that violates God's principles we must respect his derived authority.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues II
The next passage to consider is Matthew 17:24-27. The issue here specifically is a religious tax. What does this passage say about meeting civic responsibilities? Actually, nothing. The point is that followers of Jesus, because of their relationship to God, are free from onerous obligations imposed by the religious community. Yet Jesus is willing to comply—after a fashion—with the requirement so as not to offend. Does this teach us anything about our relationship to society at large? Perhaps that if we are asked (even required) by the society in which we live to perform a task or fulfill an "obligation" that does not contradict God's word or violate a biblically-informed conscience that we should comply so as not to give offense. The cross--and the gospel that proclaims it--carries sufficient offense that we need not add to it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues I
Over the next eight posts I'll examine selections from the four gospels that I believe address politics. The first of these is Matthew 5:13-20, taken from the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus tells his hearers they are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He observes that some things are not meant to be hidden--indeed, they cannot be. He uses his famous "city on a hill" metaphor. He then states the permanence of the law and emphasizes the importance of personal righteousness.
What are the purposes of salt and light? Salt preserves and adds flavor; light illuminates, exposes, and chases away darkness. How do these things apply to disciples of Jesus? They are meant to enjoin combatting the cultural effects of sin and disobedience to God. A sin-soaked world is a rotten world; salt can help prevent or forestall rot. A sin-soaked world is a dark world, and light cleanses.
The "city on a hill" metaphor has a long use in American political rhetoric, going all the way back to Puritan days. President Reagan famously used it to describe America, adding the word "shining" as an adjective for "city," implying that the nation was a beacon to the rest of the world. I have a mental image of Emerald City from The Wizard of Oz. While rhetorically effective, the application of this phrase can be problematic for Christians. Is it really legitimate to apply an analogy meant for Christ's disciples to a nation-state that does not have a revealed covenant with God?
That the law of God is a permanent standard--or stands until all has been fulfilled--and a reflection of God's holy character underscores the main thrust of the Sermon, that the righteousness God requires is impossible for man to achieve under his own power. The law cannot save; rather, it points toward the Savior by convincing men of their urgent need. Similarly, the laws of human government have no power to save or even to transform, and the law that neglects or ignores the Lawgiver is doomed to failure.
Jesus tells his hearers they are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He observes that some things are not meant to be hidden--indeed, they cannot be. He uses his famous "city on a hill" metaphor. He then states the permanence of the law and emphasizes the importance of personal righteousness.
What are the purposes of salt and light? Salt preserves and adds flavor; light illuminates, exposes, and chases away darkness. How do these things apply to disciples of Jesus? They are meant to enjoin combatting the cultural effects of sin and disobedience to God. A sin-soaked world is a rotten world; salt can help prevent or forestall rot. A sin-soaked world is a dark world, and light cleanses.
The "city on a hill" metaphor has a long use in American political rhetoric, going all the way back to Puritan days. President Reagan famously used it to describe America, adding the word "shining" as an adjective for "city," implying that the nation was a beacon to the rest of the world. I have a mental image of Emerald City from The Wizard of Oz. While rhetorically effective, the application of this phrase can be problematic for Christians. Is it really legitimate to apply an analogy meant for Christ's disciples to a nation-state that does not have a revealed covenant with God?
That the law of God is a permanent standard--or stands until all has been fulfilled--and a reflection of God's holy character underscores the main thrust of the Sermon, that the righteousness God requires is impossible for man to achieve under his own power. The law cannot save; rather, it points toward the Savior by convincing men of their urgent need. Similarly, the laws of human government have no power to save or even to transform, and the law that neglects or ignores the Lawgiver is doomed to failure.
Monday, May 4, 2009
A Sampling of Kingdom Parables
Although these are all taken from Matthew (and most from chapter 13), this is just a representative sample that brings out certain important aspects.
1) Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43: One of the unusual cases in which we have both the parable and Jesus’ interpretation. In the “now,” God’s kingdom is a corpus per mixtum, to use Augustine’s phrase. But in God’s time it will be made pure.
2) Matthew 13:31-33: From a small and inauspicious start, the kingdom grows to immense proportions. Like yeast, the kingdom pervades the whole and influences all. How does this work itself out in the life of the believer? Is there any aspect of human life untouched by the kingdom?
3) Matthew 13:44: The immense value of the kingdom.
4) Matthew 13:45-46: Likewise.
5) Matthew 13:47-50: Similar picture to that of the parable of the wheat and tares. Recall the biblical significance of repetition as a device for emphasis.
6) Matthew 20:1-16: The sovereignty of God over his kingdom and its utter graciousness. God gives his good gifts as he sees fit.
1) Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43: One of the unusual cases in which we have both the parable and Jesus’ interpretation. In the “now,” God’s kingdom is a corpus per mixtum, to use Augustine’s phrase. But in God’s time it will be made pure.
2) Matthew 13:31-33: From a small and inauspicious start, the kingdom grows to immense proportions. Like yeast, the kingdom pervades the whole and influences all. How does this work itself out in the life of the believer? Is there any aspect of human life untouched by the kingdom?
3) Matthew 13:44: The immense value of the kingdom.
4) Matthew 13:45-46: Likewise.
5) Matthew 13:47-50: Similar picture to that of the parable of the wheat and tares. Recall the biblical significance of repetition as a device for emphasis.
6) Matthew 20:1-16: The sovereignty of God over his kingdom and its utter graciousness. God gives his good gifts as he sees fit.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Nature of the Kingdom of God
There are several facets to the kingdom of God.
1) God as king. In 1 Samuel when Israel complains to Samuel that his sons are unworthy successors to him as judge and it was time the nation had a king just like the surrounding pagan nations, God told Samuel they were not rejecting Samuel but him. God has always been the rightful ruler of the people of God (indeed, of all creation for that matter). Ezekiel 34 records God's plans to dismiss the human authorities of the nation for their sins and incompetence and take over the position himself. Only in this way can the people receive good government.
2) Now and not yet. A recurring theme through Scripture is the partial realization of the promises of God in the coming of Christ. The kingdom has been realized in part, yet the complete manifestation is still future. In Luke 17 Jesus makes this explicitly clear; verse 21 speaks of the realized presence of the kingdom and in the very next verse describes the future coming of the kingdom.
3) Not political, not of this world, but a real kingdom. When Jesus appeared before Pilate he acknowledged that he was indeed a king but not of the sort that the Roman governor would recognize. John 18:36-37 records this statement.
4) Men are translated from one kingdom to another by regeneration (John 3:1-3, Colossians 1:13-14). This spiritual transformation occurs only by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not under the control of men. Furthermore, it is the only way by which real change in the nature of man can occur. What happens when secular governments try to change men--as they frequently have, with ample evidence in the 20th century of such attempts--apart from God’s transformative power? Most commonly such efforts end in large numbers of deaths.
By the way--happy birthday, Mom!
1) God as king. In 1 Samuel when Israel complains to Samuel that his sons are unworthy successors to him as judge and it was time the nation had a king just like the surrounding pagan nations, God told Samuel they were not rejecting Samuel but him. God has always been the rightful ruler of the people of God (indeed, of all creation for that matter). Ezekiel 34 records God's plans to dismiss the human authorities of the nation for their sins and incompetence and take over the position himself. Only in this way can the people receive good government.
2) Now and not yet. A recurring theme through Scripture is the partial realization of the promises of God in the coming of Christ. The kingdom has been realized in part, yet the complete manifestation is still future. In Luke 17 Jesus makes this explicitly clear; verse 21 speaks of the realized presence of the kingdom and in the very next verse describes the future coming of the kingdom.
3) Not political, not of this world, but a real kingdom. When Jesus appeared before Pilate he acknowledged that he was indeed a king but not of the sort that the Roman governor would recognize. John 18:36-37 records this statement.
4) Men are translated from one kingdom to another by regeneration (John 3:1-3, Colossians 1:13-14). This spiritual transformation occurs only by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not under the control of men. Furthermore, it is the only way by which real change in the nature of man can occur. What happens when secular governments try to change men--as they frequently have, with ample evidence in the 20th century of such attempts--apart from God’s transformative power? Most commonly such efforts end in large numbers of deaths.
By the way--happy birthday, Mom!
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Kingdom of God
The concept of the kingdom of God is one of the great themes of all Scripture. As we have seen already, the OT abounds in passages that declare God’s righteous rule over his creation, including men and their affairs.
The kingdom is the principal theme of Jesus’ message in the synoptic gospels. It also appears briefly in John 3 as we will see.
1) Matthew 4:17, 23: Jesus announced the arrival of the kingdom--he said it was "at hand"--and preached repentance in preparation for the kingdom. In association with this proclamation he carried on a ministry of healing.
2) Mark 1:15: Jesus declared "the time is fulfilled" (compare Galatians 4:4) and urged on his hearers repentance and belief.
3) Luke 4:42-43: Jesus states that he was sent specifically for the purpose of preaching the kingdom of God.
4) Finally, the interview Nicodemus conducted with Jesus as recorded in John 3 opens with Jesus' declaration that spiritual rebirth is a precondition for seeing the kingdom.
The kingdom is the principal theme of Jesus’ message in the synoptic gospels. It also appears briefly in John 3 as we will see.
1) Matthew 4:17, 23: Jesus announced the arrival of the kingdom--he said it was "at hand"--and preached repentance in preparation for the kingdom. In association with this proclamation he carried on a ministry of healing.
2) Mark 1:15: Jesus declared "the time is fulfilled" (compare Galatians 4:4) and urged on his hearers repentance and belief.
3) Luke 4:42-43: Jesus states that he was sent specifically for the purpose of preaching the kingdom of God.
4) Finally, the interview Nicodemus conducted with Jesus as recorded in John 3 opens with Jesus' declaration that spiritual rebirth is a precondition for seeing the kingdom.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Purpose Statements of Jesus
Our Lord was plain-spoken about the reasons for his coming, for his ministry. He frequently cited the Old Testament, pointing back to the many ways in which it spoke of him.
1) Luke 4:16-21: The inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry. He reads from Isaiah 61:1-2 (and possibly Isaiah 58:6). His words after putting up the scroll, that the prophecy had been fulfilled in the hearing of his listeners, were jaw-dropping in their significance.
2) Matthew 11:2-6: Jesus’ response to the questions of John the Baptist; verse 5 echoes the passage in Luke and alludes to Isaiah 35:5-6.
3) Mark 10:45: The well-known “ransom” passage. Jesus puts his emphasis on service and sacrifice.
1) Luke 4:16-21: The inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry. He reads from Isaiah 61:1-2 (and possibly Isaiah 58:6). His words after putting up the scroll, that the prophecy had been fulfilled in the hearing of his listeners, were jaw-dropping in their significance.
2) Matthew 11:2-6: Jesus’ response to the questions of John the Baptist; verse 5 echoes the passage in Luke and alludes to Isaiah 35:5-6.
3) Mark 10:45: The well-known “ransom” passage. Jesus puts his emphasis on service and sacrifice.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Old Testament Expectations
With today's post I begin to look at Jesus in the context of politics. As is always the case, Jesus transforms whatever he touches.
The Old Testament contains several passages that speak of God’s promised Messiah, the one who would deliver Israel from her enemies and establish his permanent reign of righteousness. As we have seen, the religious and political climate of first-century Judea fueled expectations of the imminent arrival of such a deliverer. These passages (except for the last) are representative of the hopes of many in Israel.
1) Genesis 49:10-12: The promise of an ultimate king from the line of Judah.
2) Psalm 2: The supremacy of God’s chosen king.
3) Psalm 24: The identification of God with the King of glory.
4) Jeremiah 23:1-8: The promise of a righteous king; God provides for his people to take care of them.
5) Ezekiel 34:20-31: The idyllic king portrayed as the faithful shepherd, established by God.
6) Zechariah 9:9-10: The coming king.
7) Isaiah 52:13-53:12: The passage that many in Israel neglected to incorporate into their thinking—God’s suffering servant, the one who dies to redeem his people. Subsequent Jewish biblical commentary has tended to identify Israel herself, rather than Messiah, as the suffering servant.
The Old Testament contains several passages that speak of God’s promised Messiah, the one who would deliver Israel from her enemies and establish his permanent reign of righteousness. As we have seen, the religious and political climate of first-century Judea fueled expectations of the imminent arrival of such a deliverer. These passages (except for the last) are representative of the hopes of many in Israel.
1) Genesis 49:10-12: The promise of an ultimate king from the line of Judah.
2) Psalm 2: The supremacy of God’s chosen king.
3) Psalm 24: The identification of God with the King of glory.
4) Jeremiah 23:1-8: The promise of a righteous king; God provides for his people to take care of them.
5) Ezekiel 34:20-31: The idyllic king portrayed as the faithful shepherd, established by God.
6) Zechariah 9:9-10: The coming king.
7) Isaiah 52:13-53:12: The passage that many in Israel neglected to incorporate into their thinking—God’s suffering servant, the one who dies to redeem his people. Subsequent Jewish biblical commentary has tended to identify Israel herself, rather than Messiah, as the suffering servant.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Daniel
I conclude this brief overview of godly men, leadership, and politics in the Old Testament with a look at Daniel. He was taken into exile in Babylon as a young man and early on earmarked by the Babylonians for potential service within their governmental system.
Daniel 1:1-21: Here is an introduction to the situation faced by Daniel and his compatriots, with specific mention of how they held their convictions in the face of pressure to conform and ended up being vindicated.
Daniel 2:46-49: Nebuchadnezzar, in recognition of Daniel's gifts, sets him in high authority in Babylon, even over many native officials.
Daniel 3:8-30: Daniel's friends, previously placed by Daniel in similarly high authority, choose conscience over convenience. God again vindicates their faithful obedience.
Daniel 6:10-23: Jealous rivals conspire against Daniel and manage to bring about official condemnation. But Daniel remains unyielding, meekly in the real sense of that word, and God defends him. At the end, he is once again raised up while his rivals who meant to harm him met their deaths.
Although these servants got in trouble by obeying God rather than men, their actions ended up being celebrated by their earthly masters. We cannot always count on this--there have been many who laid down their lives rather than compromise with earthly rulers--but the reward for faithfulness to God is greater than the approval of men.
Daniel 1:1-21: Here is an introduction to the situation faced by Daniel and his compatriots, with specific mention of how they held their convictions in the face of pressure to conform and ended up being vindicated.
Daniel 2:46-49: Nebuchadnezzar, in recognition of Daniel's gifts, sets him in high authority in Babylon, even over many native officials.
Daniel 3:8-30: Daniel's friends, previously placed by Daniel in similarly high authority, choose conscience over convenience. God again vindicates their faithful obedience.
Daniel 6:10-23: Jealous rivals conspire against Daniel and manage to bring about official condemnation. But Daniel remains unyielding, meekly in the real sense of that word, and God defends him. At the end, he is once again raised up while his rivals who meant to harm him met their deaths.
Although these servants got in trouble by obeying God rather than men, their actions ended up being celebrated by their earthly masters. We cannot always count on this--there have been many who laid down their lives rather than compromise with earthly rulers--but the reward for faithfulness to God is greater than the approval of men.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Old Testament Case Studies in Government: David
David is perhaps the paradigmatic human ruler of Israel. He receives a covenant from God regarding his throne and Scripture looks forward to the enthronement of "David's greater Son" as the fulfillment of that covenantal promise. How did David rule?
2 Samuel 5:1-5: A summary of how David came to be made king over all Israel (he was first king over Judah; the other tribes accepted him seven years later).
2 Samuel 7:1-28: The Davidic covenant and David's prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving. As king, David was most concerned that God be glorified and obeyed.
2 Samuel 9:1-13: David's kindness to Mephibosheth. An excellent example of grace and clemency, desirable qualities in a godly ruler.
What does it mean to rule as God's anointed? Obviously this is a circumstance very few leaders can legitimately claim for themselves. In the United States, we witnessed a great deal of criticism of former president George W. Bush for his remarks that he believed God wanted him to be president at the time he served. Evidently his critics don't believe in the sovereignty of God, that God raises up kings and nations and brings them down again according to his good purposes. It seemed to them Mr. Bush was being prideful when all he was really stating was a theological obviousness.
2 Samuel 5:1-5: A summary of how David came to be made king over all Israel (he was first king over Judah; the other tribes accepted him seven years later).
2 Samuel 7:1-28: The Davidic covenant and David's prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving. As king, David was most concerned that God be glorified and obeyed.
2 Samuel 9:1-13: David's kindness to Mephibosheth. An excellent example of grace and clemency, desirable qualities in a godly ruler.
What does it mean to rule as God's anointed? Obviously this is a circumstance very few leaders can legitimately claim for themselves. In the United States, we witnessed a great deal of criticism of former president George W. Bush for his remarks that he believed God wanted him to be president at the time he served. Evidently his critics don't believe in the sovereignty of God, that God raises up kings and nations and brings them down again according to his good purposes. It seemed to them Mr. Bush was being prideful when all he was really stating was a theological obviousness.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Samuel
After the conquest of Canaan, Israel for several hundred years was ruled by a series of judges, persons of varying character and ability whom God raised up often in response to a moral or military crisis in the nation. The cycle observed in the Book of Judges is one of Israel's descent into sin and idolatrous rebellion against God, divine chastisement (often in the form of incursions by surrounding pagan nations), a crying out to God for deliverance, God's appointing a judge to deal with the crisis and get the nation back on track, and then a period of spiritual and material prosperity leading back into a time of forgetfulness and eventually sin. An excellent illustration of this pattern is found in Judges 2:7-23; a shorter version appears in 1 Samuel 12:10-11.
Samuel was the last in the line of people who judged Israel.
1 Samuel 7:15-8:9: This passage begins with a description of how Samuel conducted his business as judge, then moves into an account of the failure of the next generation--his sons "turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice." This occasioned Israel's demand for a king. Samuel warned them thoroughly what this would mean at the command of God, who told Samuel that Israel was not rejecting him but God himself.
This style of government depends heavily on having the right person for the job. In the hands of a godly man like Samuel the nation was ruled righteously. But even then the leader can do only so much--if the people fail the nation falls.
Samuel was the last in the line of people who judged Israel.
1 Samuel 7:15-8:9: This passage begins with a description of how Samuel conducted his business as judge, then moves into an account of the failure of the next generation--his sons "turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice." This occasioned Israel's demand for a king. Samuel warned them thoroughly what this would mean at the command of God, who told Samuel that Israel was not rejecting him but God himself.
This style of government depends heavily on having the right person for the job. In the hands of a godly man like Samuel the nation was ruled righteously. But even then the leader can do only so much--if the people fail the nation falls.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Joseph
I mentioned Joseph yesterday as one of the patriarchs, although he is not classically included in that category. Scripture depicts him, however, as a man of unusual political influence, and that in a country foreign to his people.
Genesis 39:1-6a: Joseph started small--he was faithful in little things. Brought as a slave to Egypt, he did such a good job working for his new Egyptian master that he quickly rose to a position of responsibility. So great was Potiphar's confidence in the abilities of Joseph that he gave no thought for his business and household affairs except for the meal he was presently eating.
Genesis 41:33-57: After a period of unjust condemnation (occasioned by a false witness) Joseph again rose in the esteem of his foreign overlords. Pharaoh recognized his talents, and Joseph responded by exercising his new responsibilities with competence, to the great benefit of the people he served.
Genesis 47:13-26: Through his stewardship, Joseph was able to prevent mass starvation. The consequence of this was to bring everything within Egypt under the control of Pharaoh. And yet the people regarded him as a savior and not a tyrant.
Genesis 39:1-6a: Joseph started small--he was faithful in little things. Brought as a slave to Egypt, he did such a good job working for his new Egyptian master that he quickly rose to a position of responsibility. So great was Potiphar's confidence in the abilities of Joseph that he gave no thought for his business and household affairs except for the meal he was presently eating.
Genesis 41:33-57: After a period of unjust condemnation (occasioned by a false witness) Joseph again rose in the esteem of his foreign overlords. Pharaoh recognized his talents, and Joseph responded by exercising his new responsibilities with competence, to the great benefit of the people he served.
Genesis 47:13-26: Through his stewardship, Joseph was able to prevent mass starvation. The consequence of this was to bring everything within Egypt under the control of Pharaoh. And yet the people regarded him as a savior and not a tyrant.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Abraham
A common model of government in the early history of the people of God was the patriarch, a man who was the acknowledged head of a household or clan, including the attached servants and helping hands. Abraham was one such patriarch.
Genesis 12:1-6 depicts God's initial call to Abram (as he was originally styled) out of the land of his ancestors into "a land that I will show you." He was the head of a small band of relatives and servants who packed up their possessions and hit the road in obedience to God's command.
Genesis 13:1-9 depicts Abram as, having prospered greatly during a temporary stay in Egypt, returning to Canaan. He and his nephew Lot had so much livestock that the land could not support all of it in one place. Abram acted as a peacemaker (for there had been contention between his servants and Lot's servants over land use) and leader by arranging for a workable settlement. And he was gracious enough to let Lot pick the best land. His object was the wisest use of people and possessions to engender prosperity for all.
Genesis 14:11-16 depicts Abram as the defender of his family, an able military commander who conducted an effective action against foreign threats. He was professionally a man of agriculture and trade but when the need arose he was able to protect his family interests through use of necessary force.
Other examples of patriarchs described in Genesis are Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph.
Genesis 12:1-6 depicts God's initial call to Abram (as he was originally styled) out of the land of his ancestors into "a land that I will show you." He was the head of a small band of relatives and servants who packed up their possessions and hit the road in obedience to God's command.
Genesis 13:1-9 depicts Abram as, having prospered greatly during a temporary stay in Egypt, returning to Canaan. He and his nephew Lot had so much livestock that the land could not support all of it in one place. Abram acted as a peacemaker (for there had been contention between his servants and Lot's servants over land use) and leader by arranging for a workable settlement. And he was gracious enough to let Lot pick the best land. His object was the wisest use of people and possessions to engender prosperity for all.
Genesis 14:11-16 depicts Abram as the defender of his family, an able military commander who conducted an effective action against foreign threats. He was professionally a man of agriculture and trade but when the need arose he was able to protect his family interests through use of necessary force.
Other examples of patriarchs described in Genesis are Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Divine Mandates for Human Government
Isaiah 1:16-17 and Micah 6:8 offer a convenient summary of the biblical mandate for the behavior of societies as well as individuals:
1) Cease to do evil.
2) Learn to do good.
3) Do/seek justice.
4) Love kindness.
5) Rebuke the oppressor.
6) Defend the fatherless and plead for the widow.
7) Walk humbly with God.
All of these are tall orders for even the best earthly government just as they are for each individual. But this is the standard to which we are called.
1) Cease to do evil.
2) Learn to do good.
3) Do/seek justice.
4) Love kindness.
5) Rebuke the oppressor.
6) Defend the fatherless and plead for the widow.
7) Walk humbly with God.
All of these are tall orders for even the best earthly government just as they are for each individual. But this is the standard to which we are called.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Political Images in Scripture, Part Two
Here are the remaining items in Dr. Barr's list:
4) The eschatological image: Evoking a vision of a new world to come and hence a new world order in which God will restore all things and banish evil, re-establishing his direct rule over his creation. Political upheaval and violence are often seen as heralds of God’s actions in human history (Mark 13:7-8). Such a viewpoint can encourage isolationism, interventionalism, and sympathy for revolution.
5) The image of migration/pilgrimage: The people of God are wanderers, pilgrims, strangers in a strange land. This world is not their home—they are seeking a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Separatist movements, self-exile, colonization are common embodiments of this idea.
6) The image of liberation: The redemptive picture of the Exodus—God freeing his people from an oppressor. Solidarity of the people of God with the downtrodden, the poor, the burdened; seeking deliverance from evil circumstances. But the Hebrews of old were not asked to issue calls for social reform in Egypt, and when they went to Canaan they subjugated (even massacred) the inhabitants there.
And this is likely not an exhaustive list. We can readily see, then, that the task of identifying the political perspective of Scripture is not easy. People with particular worldviews have often been able to go to the Bible and find corroboration or encouragement for their ideas and goals. Searching out the whole counsel of Scripture is our charge. Because there is ultimately one Author of Scripture we may be confident that a unified perspective is contained therein--we must be diligent to discern his voice and submit to it.
4) The eschatological image: Evoking a vision of a new world to come and hence a new world order in which God will restore all things and banish evil, re-establishing his direct rule over his creation. Political upheaval and violence are often seen as heralds of God’s actions in human history (Mark 13:7-8). Such a viewpoint can encourage isolationism, interventionalism, and sympathy for revolution.
5) The image of migration/pilgrimage: The people of God are wanderers, pilgrims, strangers in a strange land. This world is not their home—they are seeking a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Separatist movements, self-exile, colonization are common embodiments of this idea.
6) The image of liberation: The redemptive picture of the Exodus—God freeing his people from an oppressor. Solidarity of the people of God with the downtrodden, the poor, the burdened; seeking deliverance from evil circumstances. But the Hebrews of old were not asked to issue calls for social reform in Egypt, and when they went to Canaan they subjugated (even massacred) the inhabitants there.
And this is likely not an exhaustive list. We can readily see, then, that the task of identifying the political perspective of Scripture is not easy. People with particular worldviews have often been able to go to the Bible and find corroboration or encouragement for their ideas and goals. Searching out the whole counsel of Scripture is our charge. Because there is ultimately one Author of Scripture we may be confident that a unified perspective is contained therein--we must be diligent to discern his voice and submit to it.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Political Images in Scripture, Part One
Dr. Barr (professor of Hebrew at Vanderbilt University and Oxford University) perceives six distinct ways of considering politics in Scripture. Here are the first three:
1) The theocratic image: God has directed how human societies should be governed, most particularly in the Mosaic law. Human leaders are surrogates for God and rule with delegated authority (see Romans 13:1). Church and state are partners. Biblical problems with this idea center on the legitimacy of assumed delegated authority—when Israel demanded a king, God considered this rebellion against his established rule through judges (1 Samuel 8:1-9; compare Deuteronomy 17:1).
2) The alien state: The Israelites regarded the governments of the surrounding nations as anti-God and threats to their national safety; the prophets are full of words of judgment against the nations. Yet Jesus (as we will explore in greater detail later) seemed to take a far more neutral stance, saying little if anything against the civil government and speaking of his kingdom as “not of this world.”
3) The prophetic image: The prophets called for social justice and warned Israel of judgment in the form of political and cultural subjection by the surrounding nations. The role of the church, then, was to be the conscience of the state. In this case, the prophetic image conflicts with the theocratic image—God has seen fit to overthrow established authorities deemed abusive toward the people and hence disobedient to him. Yet the prophetic call to reform was usually cast in religious and not political terms—Israel was to return to the true worship of God and away from idols.
1) The theocratic image: God has directed how human societies should be governed, most particularly in the Mosaic law. Human leaders are surrogates for God and rule with delegated authority (see Romans 13:1). Church and state are partners. Biblical problems with this idea center on the legitimacy of assumed delegated authority—when Israel demanded a king, God considered this rebellion against his established rule through judges (1 Samuel 8:1-9; compare Deuteronomy 17:1).
2) The alien state: The Israelites regarded the governments of the surrounding nations as anti-God and threats to their national safety; the prophets are full of words of judgment against the nations. Yet Jesus (as we will explore in greater detail later) seemed to take a far more neutral stance, saying little if anything against the civil government and speaking of his kingdom as “not of this world.”
3) The prophetic image: The prophets called for social justice and warned Israel of judgment in the form of political and cultural subjection by the surrounding nations. The role of the church, then, was to be the conscience of the state. In this case, the prophetic image conflicts with the theocratic image—God has seen fit to overthrow established authorities deemed abusive toward the people and hence disobedient to him. Yet the prophetic call to reform was usually cast in religious and not political terms—Israel was to return to the true worship of God and away from idols.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Authority Spheres
Chapter XXIII of the Confession is entitled "Of the Civil Magistrate" (you knew I had to go there eventually). The first paragraph reads as follows:
"God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers."
Some have written that government is a necessary evil. I disagree. In my previous posts, although it may have been rather subtle, I have built a case that government is a positive good, a creation ordinance--God governs, and man created in his image is charged with government--and that good government is all the more necessary given the fallen moral state of man.
But not all government is equal. There exist spheres of authority, a concept most commonly associated with Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch Reformed thinker and one-time prime minister of the Netherlands. In brief, it can be asserted that the supreme authority is God himself and that under him there are divinely-appointed secondary authorities: the civil government, the church, and the family. Because human relationships are multifaceted there will be some overlap of these spheres, but there will also be areas in which each sphere operates exclusively (under God, of course) of the others. Later posts will spend some time fleshing these ideas out. But next I turn my attention to some political images seen in the Bible, drawing upon the work of James Barr.
"God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers."
Some have written that government is a necessary evil. I disagree. In my previous posts, although it may have been rather subtle, I have built a case that government is a positive good, a creation ordinance--God governs, and man created in his image is charged with government--and that good government is all the more necessary given the fallen moral state of man.
But not all government is equal. There exist spheres of authority, a concept most commonly associated with Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch Reformed thinker and one-time prime minister of the Netherlands. In brief, it can be asserted that the supreme authority is God himself and that under him there are divinely-appointed secondary authorities: the civil government, the church, and the family. Because human relationships are multifaceted there will be some overlap of these spheres, but there will also be areas in which each sphere operates exclusively (under God, of course) of the others. Later posts will spend some time fleshing these ideas out. But next I turn my attention to some political images seen in the Bible, drawing upon the work of James Barr.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Why Men Require Government II: Their Moral State
Chapter IV, paragraph 2: "After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures."
Chapter VI, paragraphs 1 and 2: "Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."
Man was created as originally innocent but fell into sin. If government was part of the original created order--as we saw yesterday, God governs his creation, and man was given dominion over the creations to govern them--how much more necessary is it when sin is introduced and disrupts the relationships between God and men and between men?
Chapter VI, paragraphs 1 and 2: "Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."
Man was created as originally innocent but fell into sin. If government was part of the original created order--as we saw yesterday, God governs his creation, and man was given dominion over the creations to govern them--how much more necessary is it when sin is introduced and disrupts the relationships between God and men and between men?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Why Men Require Government I: Creatureliness
Two paragraphs from the Westminster Confession of Faith help answer the question of the necessity of government--in part because men are creatures, contingent beings.
Chapter IV, paragraph 1: "It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good."
Chapter V, paragraph 1: "God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy."
While there are many things to learn from these two paragraphs, the point here is that God has authority over his creatures; their origin from and dependency upon him grant him lordship. Because he made them he knows best how they are meant to function. God governs men and he would do so even if they had never departed from their original state as created. This matter will concern us in my next post.
Chapter IV, paragraph 1: "It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good."
Chapter V, paragraph 1: "God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy."
While there are many things to learn from these two paragraphs, the point here is that God has authority over his creatures; their origin from and dependency upon him grant him lordship. Because he made them he knows best how they are meant to function. God governs men and he would do so even if they had never departed from their original state as created. This matter will concern us in my next post.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Political Situation in Early First Century Judea
If we are to learn from Jesus, and indeed all of his word, regarding politics it is helpful to know something of the context in which he lived and taught.
I begin with a brief history of post-exhilic Israel. The southern tribes returned in part to the land in the late fifth century BC under Persian sponsorship and rebuilt the city and walls of Jerusalem. About one hundred years later, however, the Persians and their empire, including the Jewish lands, fell to Alexander the Great. His successors ruled the area, bringing Hellenization but also increasing oppression, until the Maccabean Revolt in the 160s BC restored Jewish religious freedom. The war for political independence achieved success in 142 BC but the process of adopting Greek ways, at least by the ruling classes, continued.
The principal players in Judean politics in the early first century included the Romans, the Herodians, and the Jewish religious parties.
1) The Romans: Far and away the dominant power in the ancient Mediterranean world, the Romans added Palestine to their empire when Pompey the Great occupied Jerusalem in 63 BC. The region was created the Roman province of Judea. Initially they tried to rule the province through local leadership, but by the time of Jesus’ public ministry a substantial territory was under the direct control of a Roman governor and the peace enforced by a Roman army.
2) Herod and his family: Herod, an Idumean [descendant of Edom] proselyte to Judaism, was created king by the Romans in 37 BC. He was an effective and productive, if somewhat ruthless, ruler. Upon his death in 4 BC his kingdom was divided amongst his three sons: Philip took the northeast; Herod Antipas the region of Galilee and Perea; and Archelaus had Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but only until AD 6, and after that these regions were ruled by Roman procurators.
3) The religious parties: There were four main divisions. (a) The Pharisees were the party of religious and cultural purity. Orthodox Jews, they wanted to preserve distinctive Jewish religious and cultural values. Politically, they were conservatives. Religious quietists who developed an elaborate oral tradition concerning the Law, they were not actively involved in political life except where matters affected their own self interest but were generally considered to represent the opposition party. They resisted Hellenization. They are the religious ancestors of the Hasidic Jews. (b) The Sadducees were religious liberals. Like many liberals today they did not believe in a resurrection or a life to come, and consequently put their energies into politics and the affairs of this life, in partnership with the Roman administration. They actively collaborated with the Hasmoneans and then the Herodians and remained the chief political party until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. (c) The Zealots were at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Fanatical Jewish nationalists, they were crusaders, freedom fighters, and revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of Roman tyranny, if necessary by means of terrorism and violence. (d) the Essenes, a separatist group that lived in community on the shores of the Dead Sea. They expected the imminent arrival of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s final victory over his enemies.
I begin with a brief history of post-exhilic Israel. The southern tribes returned in part to the land in the late fifth century BC under Persian sponsorship and rebuilt the city and walls of Jerusalem. About one hundred years later, however, the Persians and their empire, including the Jewish lands, fell to Alexander the Great. His successors ruled the area, bringing Hellenization but also increasing oppression, until the Maccabean Revolt in the 160s BC restored Jewish religious freedom. The war for political independence achieved success in 142 BC but the process of adopting Greek ways, at least by the ruling classes, continued.
The principal players in Judean politics in the early first century included the Romans, the Herodians, and the Jewish religious parties.
1) The Romans: Far and away the dominant power in the ancient Mediterranean world, the Romans added Palestine to their empire when Pompey the Great occupied Jerusalem in 63 BC. The region was created the Roman province of Judea. Initially they tried to rule the province through local leadership, but by the time of Jesus’ public ministry a substantial territory was under the direct control of a Roman governor and the peace enforced by a Roman army.
2) Herod and his family: Herod, an Idumean [descendant of Edom] proselyte to Judaism, was created king by the Romans in 37 BC. He was an effective and productive, if somewhat ruthless, ruler. Upon his death in 4 BC his kingdom was divided amongst his three sons: Philip took the northeast; Herod Antipas the region of Galilee and Perea; and Archelaus had Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but only until AD 6, and after that these regions were ruled by Roman procurators.
3) The religious parties: There were four main divisions. (a) The Pharisees were the party of religious and cultural purity. Orthodox Jews, they wanted to preserve distinctive Jewish religious and cultural values. Politically, they were conservatives. Religious quietists who developed an elaborate oral tradition concerning the Law, they were not actively involved in political life except where matters affected their own self interest but were generally considered to represent the opposition party. They resisted Hellenization. They are the religious ancestors of the Hasidic Jews. (b) The Sadducees were religious liberals. Like many liberals today they did not believe in a resurrection or a life to come, and consequently put their energies into politics and the affairs of this life, in partnership with the Roman administration. They actively collaborated with the Hasmoneans and then the Herodians and remained the chief political party until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. (c) The Zealots were at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Fanatical Jewish nationalists, they were crusaders, freedom fighters, and revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of Roman tyranny, if necessary by means of terrorism and violence. (d) the Essenes, a separatist group that lived in community on the shores of the Dead Sea. They expected the imminent arrival of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s final victory over his enemies.
Friday, April 17, 2009
A Definition of Politics
Here's a reasonable one:
“The art and/or science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. The management of a political party; the conduct and contests of parties with reference to political measures or the administration of public affairs; the advancement of candidates to office; in a bad sense, artful or dishonest management to secure the success of political candidates or parties; political trickery.”
Another succinct summary of what I call the elements of politics is the following. It may sound familiar to some.
1) To form a more perfect union
2) To establish justice
3) To ensure domestic tranquility
4) To provide for the common defense
5) To promote the general welfare
6) To ensure the blessings of liberty to the current and subsequent generations (otherwise known as the posterity)
“The art and/or science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. The management of a political party; the conduct and contests of parties with reference to political measures or the administration of public affairs; the advancement of candidates to office; in a bad sense, artful or dishonest management to secure the success of political candidates or parties; political trickery.”
Another succinct summary of what I call the elements of politics is the following. It may sound familiar to some.
1) To form a more perfect union
2) To establish justice
3) To ensure domestic tranquility
4) To provide for the common defense
5) To promote the general welfare
6) To ensure the blessings of liberty to the current and subsequent generations (otherwise known as the posterity)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A New Series: Jesus and Politics
Over the next several weeks I plan to write on the subject of politics from what I believe is a biblical perspective. Clearly it is impossible to cover the entire scope of politics and church-state relations here. However, I will look closely at what the Bible and particularly Jesus have to say on the subject, and spend some time identifying important Christian contributions to political thought. I’ll ask and try to answer the question whether the United States is or ever was a Christian nation. I’ll consider some contemporary Christian criticism of standard political philosophies, drawing upon the work of J. Budzieszewski, a UT-Austin professor of philosophy and government; the book he edited entitled Evangelicals in the Public Square will be a major source. And I’ll examine the 2008 document called “An Evangelical Manifesto.”
I am fully aware this is a contentious subject but I am confident it can be discussed in a manner befitting Christ’s people to the glory of God. I will endeavor to maintain an atmosphere of balance—if I am successful, you will not know for sure my political persuasion or preferences.
We'll start tomorrow with a definition of politics.
I am fully aware this is a contentious subject but I am confident it can be discussed in a manner befitting Christ’s people to the glory of God. I will endeavor to maintain an atmosphere of balance—if I am successful, you will not know for sure my political persuasion or preferences.
We'll start tomorrow with a definition of politics.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Ligonier 2009 Wrap-Up
Over the years, I've learned there are three things I can always count on happening when I attend the national conference:
1) I will learn far more than I expected and the days just whiz by.
2) My posterior is not suited for three days of sitting.
3) Dr. Sproul will repeat one (or more) of his stories, allowing me to sit back and enjoy the break from taking notes for several minutes.
I've gotten more disciplined about the conference bookstore. Used to be out of control--every time I visited the place I'd come out with another purchase. But the past couple of years I mentally set myself a modest budget and I've been able to stick to it. I still think there's books left over from last year in my "to read" pile. Oh, well.
Tomorrow I hope to embark upon that "Jesus and Politics" series I promised before I left for Orlando. There will also be a review of a recent book called Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican...or Democrat that I found in the local library last week.
1) I will learn far more than I expected and the days just whiz by.
2) My posterior is not suited for three days of sitting.
3) Dr. Sproul will repeat one (or more) of his stories, allowing me to sit back and enjoy the break from taking notes for several minutes.
I've gotten more disciplined about the conference bookstore. Used to be out of control--every time I visited the place I'd come out with another purchase. But the past couple of years I mentally set myself a modest budget and I've been able to stick to it. I still think there's books left over from last year in my "to read" pile. Oh, well.
Tomorrow I hope to embark upon that "Jesus and Politics" series I promised before I left for Orlando. There will also be a review of a recent book called Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican...or Democrat that I found in the local library last week.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Consuming Fire: Holiness, Wrath, and Justice
As is his wont, Dr. Sproul concluded the conference. His text was 1 Chronicles 13:1-14.
We live in a culture and sadly in a church that doesn't consider God to be holy. If we do understand he is holy, there is no grasp of his justice; and if we do understand holiness and justice, we will not want to hear about God's wrath. We much prefer God's love, compassion, and grace. We assume grace. We are not amazed by grace. The text provides one example of the outbreak of God's wrath found in Scripture. This often forms one basis of criticism against Scripture's inspiration--according to this line, the Bible is just the product of a prescientific nomadic people lacking sophistication, attributing a man's sudden death to an offended deity. It is alleged the portrayal of this wrathful God is out of character with the NT concept of God. These passages need to be looked at again, to find out what's going on. This episode was supposed to be a joyous occasion. David brings the ark back from where it rested after capture and then release by the Philistines. He had a special ox cart built to transport the ark. Musicians, choirs, dancers. But one ox stumbles and the cart tilts. The ark is in immediate danger of falling onto the ground. Uzza instinctively (probably) seeks to prevent this and puts his hand on the ark to steady it. Instantly he is struck dead. Commentators have tried to produce naturalistic explanations or even attribute arbitrariness or darkness to God. Evidently these people never read Numbers 4, the instructions as to the care of the sacred vessels of the tabernacle. The ark, designed by God himself, had rings built in so that it could be transported by wooden rods, carried by the Kohathites on foot (not on carts). They would never have direct contact with the ark. There is an explicit warning not to touch the ark or else death results. Uzza was probably a Kohathite and should have known better. According to Jonathan Edwards, Uzza was guilty of arrogance. He assumed contact with the ground would be a greater sacrilege than contact with a human hand. Yet the earth does not defile the throne of God as does the touch of sinful man. Uzza had profaned the most holy object in all of Israel. Leviticus 10:1ff. Nadab and Abihu offering profane fire. They were also executed summarily by God for this offense. Experimental worship--innovative. God determines what is pleasing to him. [Cited the attractions of idolatry as demonstrated in the golden calf incident.] When Uzza was executed, David got angry. He had a hard time with God's wrath. What do we suppose Aaron's reaction was to the death of his sons? Leviticus 10:3--a reminder of God's requirement that all who approach him must regard him as holy. Instead, Nadab and Abihu came in profanity. Give a thought to how we come to and participate in worship. The relatives were instructed to remove the bodies outside the camp and were forbidden to mourn their deaths. Citation of Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Sproul said typically it was assigned in American lit classes as an example of sadistic preaching (although a true sadist wouldn't bother to warn people of God's wrath). The text for this sermon was "their feet shall slip in due time." Their fall was inevitable without repentence. The dam metaphor used by Edwards--God's wrath is heaping up and threatens to break forth at any time. The bow metaphor--the bow is bent and the arrow is aimed at your heart; the only thing holding back your doom is God's hand. The spider metaphor--hanging by one slender thread over the fire; the flames of wrath are burning all around. The sermon actually teaches the grace of God. Is it scary anymore? No one believes in hell these days. We all lie to ourselves that we have nothing to worry about from God. Edwards asked his congregationif there was any reason apart from God's grace why they were still alive. Sproul recounted the incident of students and late term papers from early in his teaching career as an illustration of justice and grace and the way we take advantage of grace.
In the middle of his sermon, Dr. Sproul recommended "Gospel Worship" by Jeremiah Burroughs as important reading for everyone.
We live in a culture and sadly in a church that doesn't consider God to be holy. If we do understand he is holy, there is no grasp of his justice; and if we do understand holiness and justice, we will not want to hear about God's wrath. We much prefer God's love, compassion, and grace. We assume grace. We are not amazed by grace. The text provides one example of the outbreak of God's wrath found in Scripture. This often forms one basis of criticism against Scripture's inspiration--according to this line, the Bible is just the product of a prescientific nomadic people lacking sophistication, attributing a man's sudden death to an offended deity. It is alleged the portrayal of this wrathful God is out of character with the NT concept of God. These passages need to be looked at again, to find out what's going on. This episode was supposed to be a joyous occasion. David brings the ark back from where it rested after capture and then release by the Philistines. He had a special ox cart built to transport the ark. Musicians, choirs, dancers. But one ox stumbles and the cart tilts. The ark is in immediate danger of falling onto the ground. Uzza instinctively (probably) seeks to prevent this and puts his hand on the ark to steady it. Instantly he is struck dead. Commentators have tried to produce naturalistic explanations or even attribute arbitrariness or darkness to God. Evidently these people never read Numbers 4, the instructions as to the care of the sacred vessels of the tabernacle. The ark, designed by God himself, had rings built in so that it could be transported by wooden rods, carried by the Kohathites on foot (not on carts). They would never have direct contact with the ark. There is an explicit warning not to touch the ark or else death results. Uzza was probably a Kohathite and should have known better. According to Jonathan Edwards, Uzza was guilty of arrogance. He assumed contact with the ground would be a greater sacrilege than contact with a human hand. Yet the earth does not defile the throne of God as does the touch of sinful man. Uzza had profaned the most holy object in all of Israel. Leviticus 10:1ff. Nadab and Abihu offering profane fire. They were also executed summarily by God for this offense. Experimental worship--innovative. God determines what is pleasing to him. [Cited the attractions of idolatry as demonstrated in the golden calf incident.] When Uzza was executed, David got angry. He had a hard time with God's wrath. What do we suppose Aaron's reaction was to the death of his sons? Leviticus 10:3--a reminder of God's requirement that all who approach him must regard him as holy. Instead, Nadab and Abihu came in profanity. Give a thought to how we come to and participate in worship. The relatives were instructed to remove the bodies outside the camp and were forbidden to mourn their deaths. Citation of Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Sproul said typically it was assigned in American lit classes as an example of sadistic preaching (although a true sadist wouldn't bother to warn people of God's wrath). The text for this sermon was "their feet shall slip in due time." Their fall was inevitable without repentence. The dam metaphor used by Edwards--God's wrath is heaping up and threatens to break forth at any time. The bow metaphor--the bow is bent and the arrow is aimed at your heart; the only thing holding back your doom is God's hand. The spider metaphor--hanging by one slender thread over the fire; the flames of wrath are burning all around. The sermon actually teaches the grace of God. Is it scary anymore? No one believes in hell these days. We all lie to ourselves that we have nothing to worry about from God. Edwards asked his congregationif there was any reason apart from God's grace why they were still alive. Sproul recounted the incident of students and late term papers from early in his teaching career as an illustration of justice and grace and the way we take advantage of grace.
In the middle of his sermon, Dr. Sproul recommended "Gospel Worship" by Jeremiah Burroughs as important reading for everyone.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Third Q&A Session, Part Two
8) Is it possible for a nonelect person to truly want to be elect? No.
9) Contextualization? That is, putting the gospel into the context of the local cultural milieu. Because we're finite we inevitably think in a particular framework. But this can be taken too far, especially in postmodern thought. Adapting the gospel to a particular culture? It is wise to begin with where those you are trying to reach are, but recognize that no culture will accept the Bible. God is in the process of of creating a new people that will subvert the existing culture. Maintaining ethnic boundaries weakens our love for the church.
10) Predestination, election, and John 3:16. The verse is a call to faith, to belief in Christ. Predestination is best understood as a hedge against pride. We can't be boastful of our faith. What do you have that you have not been given? The believer is not better than those who don't believe, although he's certainly better off. Note the position of Paul's discussion of election in Romans and then in Ephesians. It is not fruitful to discuss this with unbelievers. "A family secret." Per Dr. Carson: a) That God is absolutely and utterly sovereign does not mitigate human responsibility, and b) human beings are responsible but not so as to make God absolutely contingent. What is the right way to balance a) and b)?
11) Did the fathers before Augustine teach the doctrines of grace? Each generation wrestles with peculiar problems of their times and cultures. Thomas Oden has shown that ideas of justification were present in the early fathers but it has to be admitted they didn't get everything right. So as with the doctrines of grace.
12) The difference between a prophet and a preacher. "Prophet" should not be applied in the sense of new revelation given authoritatively. Look at the range of meanings of these words in Scripture.
13) How to be an effective preacher with all the burdens we carry. Four-five hours in the morning devoted to study. The better educated you are before going into the ministry the more effective/efficient you can be in the pastorate. The most important way to serve the congregation is the right preaching and teaching of the word. Plan to pray, plan to study. Things will change according to the different stages of life.
9) Contextualization? That is, putting the gospel into the context of the local cultural milieu. Because we're finite we inevitably think in a particular framework. But this can be taken too far, especially in postmodern thought. Adapting the gospel to a particular culture? It is wise to begin with where those you are trying to reach are, but recognize that no culture will accept the Bible. God is in the process of of creating a new people that will subvert the existing culture. Maintaining ethnic boundaries weakens our love for the church.
10) Predestination, election, and John 3:16. The verse is a call to faith, to belief in Christ. Predestination is best understood as a hedge against pride. We can't be boastful of our faith. What do you have that you have not been given? The believer is not better than those who don't believe, although he's certainly better off. Note the position of Paul's discussion of election in Romans and then in Ephesians. It is not fruitful to discuss this with unbelievers. "A family secret." Per Dr. Carson: a) That God is absolutely and utterly sovereign does not mitigate human responsibility, and b) human beings are responsible but not so as to make God absolutely contingent. What is the right way to balance a) and b)?
11) Did the fathers before Augustine teach the doctrines of grace? Each generation wrestles with peculiar problems of their times and cultures. Thomas Oden has shown that ideas of justification were present in the early fathers but it has to be admitted they didn't get everything right. So as with the doctrines of grace.
12) The difference between a prophet and a preacher. "Prophet" should not be applied in the sense of new revelation given authoritatively. Look at the range of meanings of these words in Scripture.
13) How to be an effective preacher with all the burdens we carry. Four-five hours in the morning devoted to study. The better educated you are before going into the ministry the more effective/efficient you can be in the pastorate. The most important way to serve the congregation is the right preaching and teaching of the word. Plan to pray, plan to study. Things will change according to the different stages of life.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Third Q&A Session, Part One
First of all, a blessed Easter to everyone in the name of the risen Christ.
Thabiti Anyabwile, D. A. Carson, Robert Godrey, R. C. Sproul, and Derek Thomas participated in the third and final question/answer session.
1) A questioner perceived a de-emphasis on general revelation in Reformed theology. The panel disputed the question's point. General revelation brings knowledge of God and his goodness but does not bring the gospel. Book I of the Institutes is largely an exposition of the uses of general revelation.
2) How does one handle a poor work atmosphere, closed to the gospel? TA worked in a liberal policy thinktank in DC for six years. In many ways it was a hostile environment. Be faithful stewards of the mysteries of God, be joyful in one's relationship with God, and don't be bashful. Instead, be thankful that God has sent this one into the harvest field. We must love these people and not be afraid or resentful of them. It's a danger for us to love ideas more than people.
3) What challenges are there to the holiness of God in churches today? [Question not well worded--nothing challenges the holiness of God.] The church has become a poor cousin of commercial enterprise, filling gaps in perceived human need. Avoidance of suffering. Decline of honoring the Lord's Day, which does not allow for adequate time with him. The preaching of the word is one of the most important means of sanctification.
4) As a pastor of new church, a congregation of mostly all new Christians, from what biblical books should he preach first? It's all God's word, but would emphasize those portions that explain the gospel. Don't go slowly or with painstaking exegetical series taking years. Get congregations to know their Bibles, get a thorough grounding in the gospel. Use one of the catechisms as a framework of instruction.
5) Growing in the grace of God. Working out God's grace given us in Christ Jesus. We are increasingly transformed into his likeness. Outworkings in behavior, speech, thinking patterns.
6) What motivation is there for evangelism if one is a Calvinist? Guaranteed success. The same God who ordained the elect ordained the means. God's sovereignty underpins perseverance in evangelism.
7) Are we all equally sinful? We are all equally guilty. "Gilead"--distinction between honorable sinners and dishonorable sinners. Any gradation in sin is "small potatoes" compared to being a sinner at all. Jesus did recognize differences in degree, and the apostles recognized that hardness of heart mattered.
Thabiti Anyabwile, D. A. Carson, Robert Godrey, R. C. Sproul, and Derek Thomas participated in the third and final question/answer session.
1) A questioner perceived a de-emphasis on general revelation in Reformed theology. The panel disputed the question's point. General revelation brings knowledge of God and his goodness but does not bring the gospel. Book I of the Institutes is largely an exposition of the uses of general revelation.
2) How does one handle a poor work atmosphere, closed to the gospel? TA worked in a liberal policy thinktank in DC for six years. In many ways it was a hostile environment. Be faithful stewards of the mysteries of God, be joyful in one's relationship with God, and don't be bashful. Instead, be thankful that God has sent this one into the harvest field. We must love these people and not be afraid or resentful of them. It's a danger for us to love ideas more than people.
3) What challenges are there to the holiness of God in churches today? [Question not well worded--nothing challenges the holiness of God.] The church has become a poor cousin of commercial enterprise, filling gaps in perceived human need. Avoidance of suffering. Decline of honoring the Lord's Day, which does not allow for adequate time with him. The preaching of the word is one of the most important means of sanctification.
4) As a pastor of new church, a congregation of mostly all new Christians, from what biblical books should he preach first? It's all God's word, but would emphasize those portions that explain the gospel. Don't go slowly or with painstaking exegetical series taking years. Get congregations to know their Bibles, get a thorough grounding in the gospel. Use one of the catechisms as a framework of instruction.
5) Growing in the grace of God. Working out God's grace given us in Christ Jesus. We are increasingly transformed into his likeness. Outworkings in behavior, speech, thinking patterns.
6) What motivation is there for evangelism if one is a Calvinist? Guaranteed success. The same God who ordained the elect ordained the means. God's sovereignty underpins perseverance in evangelism.
7) Are we all equally sinful? We are all equally guilty. "Gilead"--distinction between honorable sinners and dishonorable sinners. Any gradation in sin is "small potatoes" compared to being a sinner at all. Jesus did recognize differences in degree, and the apostles recognized that hardness of heart mattered.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Be Ye Holy: The Necessity of Sanctification
Dr. Derek Thomas spoke next, taking 1 Peter 1:13-25 as his text. The point of all theology is to drive us into Christlikeness. We are saved to be holy. Start to think biblically, Christianly--get your mind ready. What do you think about when you're not thinking about anything? The answer is an indication of your spiritual state. 1 Samuel 1-2, Hebrews 2. We share in the holiness of Christ. Our sanctification is accomplished by our being brought into gospel union with Christ. We are children, part of a family, and must bear the family reputation. There will be a judgment and we must give an account.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Wounded for Our Transgressions: The Holiness of God and the Cross
I honestly did not plan it to come out this way (someone else must have), but this is certainly appropriate for Good Friday.
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, the president of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, spoke on the atonement. The American attitude toward sin is that we like it and we like it that God indulges us and forgives readily. This is, of course, a complete lie. If we don't know God and don't know ourselves we don't know anything worthwhile. American church life is trivial--we are a country full of Christianettes. Isaiah 6:1-7. The reign of King Uzziah (background information in 2 Chronicles 26), a good king who reigned 52 years and did many wonderful things. Judah prospered under him materially. But he became proud and desired to fulfill the role of priest as well as king (in imitation of surrounding pagan cultures and even some of the kings of Israel). God's judgment was to strike him with leprosy, which ended up being his legacy. It was in the year that Uzziah died in disgrace after trying to exalt himself that Isaiah had his vision of the exalted Lord. Isaiah sees the true king high and lifted up. Quite a contrast. What is the significance of the smoke? It's a common Scriptural description of the surroundings of God--his glory, his inapproachability, his veiledness. Maybe also an allusion to the altar of incense. God is very serious about how he is to be worshipped and how sinners may not approach him without the provisions he has stipulated. Isaiah is acutely aware of his sin and unworthiness and his helplessness. A seraph purges his lips with a burning coal from the altar. God initiates and accomplishes salvation. Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Only Messiah is rightly priest-king. We tend to take lightly the cost of salvation, what Christ had to give up, to endure, to pay. Psalm 116.
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, the president of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, spoke on the atonement. The American attitude toward sin is that we like it and we like it that God indulges us and forgives readily. This is, of course, a complete lie. If we don't know God and don't know ourselves we don't know anything worthwhile. American church life is trivial--we are a country full of Christianettes. Isaiah 6:1-7. The reign of King Uzziah (background information in 2 Chronicles 26), a good king who reigned 52 years and did many wonderful things. Judah prospered under him materially. But he became proud and desired to fulfill the role of priest as well as king (in imitation of surrounding pagan cultures and even some of the kings of Israel). God's judgment was to strike him with leprosy, which ended up being his legacy. It was in the year that Uzziah died in disgrace after trying to exalt himself that Isaiah had his vision of the exalted Lord. Isaiah sees the true king high and lifted up. Quite a contrast. What is the significance of the smoke? It's a common Scriptural description of the surroundings of God--his glory, his inapproachability, his veiledness. Maybe also an allusion to the altar of incense. God is very serious about how he is to be worshipped and how sinners may not approach him without the provisions he has stipulated. Isaiah is acutely aware of his sin and unworthiness and his helplessness. A seraph purges his lips with a burning coal from the altar. God initiates and accomplishes salvation. Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Only Messiah is rightly priest-king. We tend to take lightly the cost of salvation, what Christ had to give up, to endure, to pay. Psalm 116.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
A Holy Nation: The Church's High Calling
In one of the more universally praised sermons of the conference, Dr. D. A. Carson stepped up to speak from 1 Peter 2:4-10.
1) Our identity. A chosen people/race, a specific OT reference (Isaiah 43) applied originally to Israel now applied to Christ's people. A royal priesthood--this derives from the Exodus. Kingdom and priests or royal priests. The Levitical priesthood was not voluntary, rather by appointment. But in one way all the people of God are considered as priests, mediators between God and men. In the NT Paul speaks of discharging his priestly role through evangelism. Christians mediate through intercessory prayer. Nation here means ethnicity (the idea of nation-state is of 18th century origin). We are a holy nation. The distinction between communicable and incommunicable attributes. Holiness is in a unique category; it has concentric rings of meaning. At its core holy is almost an adjective for God as God. The highest order of angels cover their faces as they extol his holiness. What does this mean for a people commanded to be holy? Set aside by God for God, therefore holy but also behaviorally/functionally. God's special possession. God has ownership of all nations but his people are his in a special sense. Nothing intrinsic in ourselves, but by God's sovereign choice according to his purposes.
2) Our purpose. That we may declare his praises, his excellences. Consider the sheer God-centeredness of this concept. Is God egocentric? Selfish? It is a supreme act of love for us that he requires this, for it is for our own good. God has no needs, he is entire in himself. There is also a sense of sheer privilege as we are called out of darkness and into his marvelous light.
3) Our foundation. Once not a people but now a people (Hosea 1 and 2). God's gracious restoration of his people; in the case of Romans 9 and 1 Peter 2 this is extended to Gentiles because Jews and Gentiles are in the same boat (Romans 1:18-3:20). This identity, purpose, and foundation erases all other distinctions.
Dr. Carson made repeated references back to the opening verses of the epistle throughout the sermon.
If anyone were inclined to obtain an audio copy of just one of the 2009 presentations this is probably the one for persons already familiar with Dr. Sproul's ideas; for newbies to Ligonier material I'd go with his Saturday message, the notes for which are yet forthcoming.
1) Our identity. A chosen people/race, a specific OT reference (Isaiah 43) applied originally to Israel now applied to Christ's people. A royal priesthood--this derives from the Exodus. Kingdom and priests or royal priests. The Levitical priesthood was not voluntary, rather by appointment. But in one way all the people of God are considered as priests, mediators between God and men. In the NT Paul speaks of discharging his priestly role through evangelism. Christians mediate through intercessory prayer. Nation here means ethnicity (the idea of nation-state is of 18th century origin). We are a holy nation. The distinction between communicable and incommunicable attributes. Holiness is in a unique category; it has concentric rings of meaning. At its core holy is almost an adjective for God as God. The highest order of angels cover their faces as they extol his holiness. What does this mean for a people commanded to be holy? Set aside by God for God, therefore holy but also behaviorally/functionally. God's special possession. God has ownership of all nations but his people are his in a special sense. Nothing intrinsic in ourselves, but by God's sovereign choice according to his purposes.
2) Our purpose. That we may declare his praises, his excellences. Consider the sheer God-centeredness of this concept. Is God egocentric? Selfish? It is a supreme act of love for us that he requires this, for it is for our own good. God has no needs, he is entire in himself. There is also a sense of sheer privilege as we are called out of darkness and into his marvelous light.
3) Our foundation. Once not a people but now a people (Hosea 1 and 2). God's gracious restoration of his people; in the case of Romans 9 and 1 Peter 2 this is extended to Gentiles because Jews and Gentiles are in the same boat (Romans 1:18-3:20). This identity, purpose, and foundation erases all other distinctions.
Dr. Carson made repeated references back to the opening verses of the epistle throughout the sermon.
If anyone were inclined to obtain an audio copy of just one of the 2009 presentations this is probably the one for persons already familiar with Dr. Sproul's ideas; for newbies to Ligonier material I'd go with his Saturday message, the notes for which are yet forthcoming.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Cosmic Treason: Sin and the Holiness of God
Thabiti Anyabwile took the pulpit next to speak on the subject of sin, with Numbers 25:1-18 as his text.
1) Verses 1-6: The horrible context. A proscription against idolatry lies at the heart of God's covenant with Israel. Despite God's protection of Israel from plotting by the king of Moab, the people begin to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. Spiritual adultery underlies the physical sin. They repay the faithfulness of God by bowing down to false foreign gods. Watch out for the seductive smiles of the world, for they are a greater danger than the world's disapproval and hate. God directs a drastic example be made of the leaders of the people.
--Sin is moral in nature, a transgression of what is right.
--Sin is personal, against God himself. An apostasy, a falling away, a turning.
--Sin is rebellion against God's rightful rule.
--Sin is dangerous, self-destruction. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
2) Verses 6-9: While the people are gathered grappling with the judgment of God, an Israelite man blatently brings a Midianite woman through in full sight of Moses and the people--really, in the sight of God himself. This is brazen sin, contemptuous of God. Phinehas deals decisively with this affront and thereby stops the plague that had killed many thousands. Do we side with the sinner in his sin or with God, seeking vindication for his name? Sin should cause brokenness and weeping.
3) Verses 10-13: Honorable commendation. God praises Phinehas and makes a special covenant with him and his descendants. Phinehas exhibits godly characteristics. God must also be commended and honored for his grace in ending the plague and for exalting his name. Because sin is treason it requires punishment, correction. That we may participate in his holiness. Sin requires atonement. God's wrath must be turned away. There must be reconciliation. Phinehas as priest points to Christ. Notice the promise of a perpetual priesthood.
4) Verses 14-18: See how the sinner and Midianite woman are remembered by name. God promises a judgment against Midian. God will be God over all, as is right.
1) Verses 1-6: The horrible context. A proscription against idolatry lies at the heart of God's covenant with Israel. Despite God's protection of Israel from plotting by the king of Moab, the people begin to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. Spiritual adultery underlies the physical sin. They repay the faithfulness of God by bowing down to false foreign gods. Watch out for the seductive smiles of the world, for they are a greater danger than the world's disapproval and hate. God directs a drastic example be made of the leaders of the people.
--Sin is moral in nature, a transgression of what is right.
--Sin is personal, against God himself. An apostasy, a falling away, a turning.
--Sin is rebellion against God's rightful rule.
--Sin is dangerous, self-destruction. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
2) Verses 6-9: While the people are gathered grappling with the judgment of God, an Israelite man blatently brings a Midianite woman through in full sight of Moses and the people--really, in the sight of God himself. This is brazen sin, contemptuous of God. Phinehas deals decisively with this affront and thereby stops the plague that had killed many thousands. Do we side with the sinner in his sin or with God, seeking vindication for his name? Sin should cause brokenness and weeping.
3) Verses 10-13: Honorable commendation. God praises Phinehas and makes a special covenant with him and his descendants. Phinehas exhibits godly characteristics. God must also be commended and honored for his grace in ending the plague and for exalting his name. Because sin is treason it requires punishment, correction. That we may participate in his holiness. Sin requires atonement. God's wrath must be turned away. There must be reconciliation. Phinehas as priest points to Christ. Notice the promise of a perpetual priesthood.
4) Verses 14-18: See how the sinner and Midianite woman are remembered by name. God promises a judgment against Midian. God will be God over all, as is right.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Second Q&A Session, Part Two
Without further ado...
7) Define the difference between a Calvinist and an Arminian. Do we believe that regeneration precedes faith or that faith precedes regeneration? Is salvation merely possible or has it been accomplished? The island of righteousness idea. Dr. Begg posits that a lot of "Arminian" Christians are just poorly taught or that's the default position. There ensued some discussion of the experiential aspects of salvation.
8) The distinction between preaching and teaching. The latter is the conveying and clarifying of truth; the former requires teaching with added aspects of persuasion, motivation, passion/intensity, exhortation, and application.
9) The origins of the idea of prevenient grace. In the true sense, it's found in Genesis 3. If by this is meant the RCC sense, it comes out of the notion that something is granted in baptism, coming before justification. An infusion of righteousness. But in order to be effective this righteousness requires assent and cooperation. The Arminian view is similar--grace comes not from baptism but from the preaching of the gospel and requires assent and cooperation.
7) Define the difference between a Calvinist and an Arminian. Do we believe that regeneration precedes faith or that faith precedes regeneration? Is salvation merely possible or has it been accomplished? The island of righteousness idea. Dr. Begg posits that a lot of "Arminian" Christians are just poorly taught or that's the default position. There ensued some discussion of the experiential aspects of salvation.
8) The distinction between preaching and teaching. The latter is the conveying and clarifying of truth; the former requires teaching with added aspects of persuasion, motivation, passion/intensity, exhortation, and application.
9) The origins of the idea of prevenient grace. In the true sense, it's found in Genesis 3. If by this is meant the RCC sense, it comes out of the notion that something is granted in baptism, coming before justification. An infusion of righteousness. But in order to be effective this righteousness requires assent and cooperation. The Arminian view is similar--grace comes not from baptism but from the preaching of the gospel and requires assent and cooperation.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Second Q&A Session, Part One
The second hour of question-answering was conducted by Drs. Begg, Ferguson, Lawson, and Sproul fils; Sproul pere was supposed to be the moderator, but it will come as no surprise that he made one or two contributions.
1) What was Calvin's position on the classical arguments for God's existence, or did he think belief in God is basic [meaning foundational or axiomatic]? The implanted knowledge of God, related to his view of men as created in the image of God. It is impossible for man to escape divine revelation, so the knowledge of God is a given. Calvin taught an immediate revelation. Self awareness, per Augustine, brings an awareness of one's contingency and dependence. There is a distinction between proof and persuasion.
2) What does being "reformed" mean? The five solas, especially sola Scriptura, at the heart of which is the saving gospel.
3) How does Calvin's concept of piety differ from John Wesley's sanctification? Sanctification and glorification are tightly linked. Wesley was profoundly influenced by pietism, so have to beware of the excesses of that movement. Calvin placed emphasis on mortification and vivification. Wesley was more inward-focused.
4) Monergism vs. synergism. Sanctification is properly understood as synergistic but this is solely because we are new creations. Our salvation is predicated wholely on Christ and his righteousness. Our works count nothing for our justification but we will be rewarded because of our works. God crowning his own gifts (Augustine).
5) How to deal with a passive congregation with respect to expositional preaching. Recall that the Lord's preaching was not readily received. Reliance on the Spirit. Be faithful and accurate in your presentation of the word and then get out of the way.
6) Did Jesus have the ability to sin? There was no external binding on him to prevent sin, but he could no more sin than the Father can lie. Jesus has no desire to sin. His will is solely to do the will of his Father.
1) What was Calvin's position on the classical arguments for God's existence, or did he think belief in God is basic [meaning foundational or axiomatic]? The implanted knowledge of God, related to his view of men as created in the image of God. It is impossible for man to escape divine revelation, so the knowledge of God is a given. Calvin taught an immediate revelation. Self awareness, per Augustine, brings an awareness of one's contingency and dependence. There is a distinction between proof and persuasion.
2) What does being "reformed" mean? The five solas, especially sola Scriptura, at the heart of which is the saving gospel.
3) How does Calvin's concept of piety differ from John Wesley's sanctification? Sanctification and glorification are tightly linked. Wesley was profoundly influenced by pietism, so have to beware of the excesses of that movement. Calvin placed emphasis on mortification and vivification. Wesley was more inward-focused.
4) Monergism vs. synergism. Sanctification is properly understood as synergistic but this is solely because we are new creations. Our salvation is predicated wholely on Christ and his righteousness. Our works count nothing for our justification but we will be rewarded because of our works. God crowning his own gifts (Augustine).
5) How to deal with a passive congregation with respect to expositional preaching. Recall that the Lord's preaching was not readily received. Reliance on the Spirit. Be faithful and accurate in your presentation of the word and then get out of the way.
6) Did Jesus have the ability to sin? There was no external binding on him to prevent sin, but he could no more sin than the Father can lie. Jesus has no desire to sin. His will is solely to do the will of his Father.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The Breath of the Almighty: The Holy Spirit
Dr. Alistair Begg, he of Parkside Church in Cleveland and the radio ministry Truth for Life, spoke on the subject of the Holy Spirit. His text was John 16:5-14. This is an inexhaustible subject. It is therefore important to stay grounded within Scripture and stay bound by its limits, for the Holy Spirit has been a subject of great speculation. Note the context of the passage. Jesus explains why it is that he must leave just at the time the disciples need him most.
1) The necessity of Jesus' departure. The Lord emphasizes that he is going back to the Father and this is to the disciples' advantage. If he doesn't go, the Helper/Counselor won't come to them. Think about the cost of all this--everything that will take place between this event and his ascension. In the entire drama of redemption the Spirit is the applicator of all the Father has decreed and the Son accomplished. Who is the one sent as a Helper? Verse 13 says "the Spirit of truth." He is a unique person, not a power or influence, and definitely not an "it." He is one with the Father and the Son, coequal and coeternal. He is sent by both Father and Son. He is never in isolation from the person and work of Christ or the will of the Father. The Spirit is the agent of creation (see Genesis 1) and the author of the new birth (John 3). He is the author of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3).
2) Another of the same kind of helper who comes alongside. He will be with and in the disciples and will remain forever.
3) When the Spirit comes, he will convict the world. He confronts the sin, he proves the world guilty. The Spirit will convict individuals. All this is to the advantage of the disciples and to all of us who have come along behind them. In verse 12 and following the Spirit comes and will guide them into all truth. He inspired the apostles to write down their witness and guided them in doing so. The activity of the Spirit is also to glorify Jesus. He takes what is Christ's and declares it to Christ's people and through Christ's people. He ever reminds us of our sonship (Romans 8) and works to transform us into the image of Christ, such that when Christ appears we will be like him.
1) The necessity of Jesus' departure. The Lord emphasizes that he is going back to the Father and this is to the disciples' advantage. If he doesn't go, the Helper/Counselor won't come to them. Think about the cost of all this--everything that will take place between this event and his ascension. In the entire drama of redemption the Spirit is the applicator of all the Father has decreed and the Son accomplished. Who is the one sent as a Helper? Verse 13 says "the Spirit of truth." He is a unique person, not a power or influence, and definitely not an "it." He is one with the Father and the Son, coequal and coeternal. He is sent by both Father and Son. He is never in isolation from the person and work of Christ or the will of the Father. The Spirit is the agent of creation (see Genesis 1) and the author of the new birth (John 3). He is the author of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3).
2) Another of the same kind of helper who comes alongside. He will be with and in the disciples and will remain forever.
3) When the Spirit comes, he will convict the world. He confronts the sin, he proves the world guilty. The Spirit will convict individuals. All this is to the advantage of the disciples and to all of us who have come along behind them. In verse 12 and following the Spirit comes and will guide them into all truth. He inspired the apostles to write down their witness and guided them in doing so. The activity of the Spirit is also to glorify Jesus. He takes what is Christ's and declares it to Christ's people and through Christ's people. He ever reminds us of our sonship (Romans 8) and works to transform us into the image of Christ, such that when Christ appears we will be like him.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Holy One of God: The Holiness of Jesus
Dr. Lawson returned to the pulpit, taking Mark 1:21-28 as his text. There is no more dangerous place to be than where truth confronts false or dead religin. Satan is aroused, demons awakened, hell mobilized. There is peace in the house of death and they'd like to keep it that way. But as soon as light shines into the kingdom of darkness trouble begins. The truth is a great threat to Satan. This is where Jesus finds himself in this passage. The synagogue at Capernaum had rules but no relationship with God. The religious crowds were those who most opposed Christ. False, dead relgion was one of his greatest enemies (still is). Jesus here advances directly into one of Satan's strongholds. It was a takeover. Capernaum would become the headquarters of his Galilean ministry. He began to teach in this synagogue with all his considerable talents and authority. His hearers were amazed--the light shines into their darkness and it overwhelms. At this point a man appeared in the synagogue who had an unclean spirit--a demon. "What is there to you and us?" is the literal rendering of what he says. In other words, what do we have in common? Nothing, of course. The demon recognizes how alien Jesus is to him. Actually, there were a plurality of demons. The unclean spirit discloses the identity of Jesus as "the Holy One of God." It recognized Jesus' absolute holiness, a high confession for such unholy lips (James 2:19). Holy in all his ways and being. The phrase is a title for God himself, seen in Isaiah (see also John 6:69). A title of supremacy. God has come down to be among men. Jesus rebuked the demon, perhaps for interrupting his teaching the crowd, and cast it out. His observers were doubly amazed by all this: A new teaching, an authority they'd never heard, and the obedience of demons.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Hallowed Be Thy Name: The Holiness of the Father
Dr. Sinclair Ferguson spoke next, using several verses from John 17 as his text. Verse 11 of this chapter contains the only reference in all of Scripture to "holy Father." This prayer offers a unique window into the heart and mind of Christ, on the eve of his passion and death. It is a most sacred moment. We should approach it with awe and reverence. Recall the opening phrases of the Lord's Prayer--we are invited to use the same language. Jesus here widens the disciples' understanding of the Trinity.
What does it mean for the Lord of glory to say "holy Father?" As the Logos, God the Son ever addresses the Father as holy. "Holy" within the blessed existence of the Trinity can mean purity and intensity but not separation. An intensity of love and fellowship. In his prayer, Jesus voices longing not just to be reinstated to this intensity of love but to have his disciples behold it and share in it. Analogy with human relationships of intimacy. Being is fundamental to doing. John 5:19-20--the Son does nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing. John 10--Jesus speaks of giving his life for the sheep and says the Father loves him because of his coming death and resurrection. We have been brought into this family. If when we pray we say "our holy Father," then the church is the holy family. Since he is the holy Father he gives his children the Holy Spirit as a surety and seal of identification. He has set his heart on making all of his children like his holy Son and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. Recall how much it cost Jesus to express what he did in John 17.
What does it mean for the Lord of glory to say "holy Father?" As the Logos, God the Son ever addresses the Father as holy. "Holy" within the blessed existence of the Trinity can mean purity and intensity but not separation. An intensity of love and fellowship. In his prayer, Jesus voices longing not just to be reinstated to this intensity of love but to have his disciples behold it and share in it. Analogy with human relationships of intimacy. Being is fundamental to doing. John 5:19-20--the Son does nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing. John 10--Jesus speaks of giving his life for the sheep and says the Father loves him because of his coming death and resurrection. We have been brought into this family. If when we pray we say "our holy Father," then the church is the holy family. Since he is the holy Father he gives his children the Holy Spirit as a surety and seal of identification. He has set his heart on making all of his children like his holy Son and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. Recall how much it cost Jesus to express what he did in John 17.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
I AM the LORD, There Is No Other
Dr. Sproul officially opened the main part of the national conference by addressing the conference theme, the holiness of God. He stated that he detects a strand running through the great theologians and preachers, who all seem intoxicated with the majesty and holiness of God. His text was Isaiah 45:1-8, which he acknowledged is a "strange" text because it is addressed to Cyrus, who was not yet alive at the time of the prophecy. Israel was in bondage in Babylon. Cyrus was the future king of the Medo-Persian empire that would later defeat Babylon and liberate Israel. In this passage God calls Cyrus his "anointed," which of course is also rendered messiah. God says he will go before Cyrus and empower his armies to lay waste the present powers. Why? That Cyrus may know it is God, the Lord of Israel. All this is done not for Cyrus' sake but for the sake of Israel. Per Calvin, when God closes his holy mouth we should desist from speculation, but Sproul does so anyway with respect to Cyrus' thought when he heard this passage. At first, perhaps he thinks God is proposing a summit meeting, one potentate to another, but God goes on to declare his absoluteness and uniqueness. "Holy" has two common references: God's otherness, the sense in which he is different from his creation; and his purity, which is the sense in which we can obey the command to be holy (the first is incommunicable, as we can't be other than creatures). In the first sense it refers to his transcendent divine nature which we cannot imitate. How to grasp this? Three tools--the way of negation, the way of eminentia, and the way of affirmation. Aseity--God's self-existence. He is the only one who has the power of being in himself. All else is contingent.
[Here Dr. Sproul made his oft-repeated remarks on nothing.]
Aquinas' arguments for God's existence. One is that God possesses necessary being, which is what makes him holy. God is the kind of being who cannot possibly not be. God's being is also logically necessary. We have to take leave of our senses to assume God does not exist, or else from where did everything come?
[Here he told his story about the famous cosmologist and "gradual" spontaneous generation.]
Returning to the Isaiah passage: What does this God do? He creates all that is and provides blessing and curse/judgment.
[Here Dr. Sproul made his oft-repeated remarks on nothing.]
Aquinas' arguments for God's existence. One is that God possesses necessary being, which is what makes him holy. God is the kind of being who cannot possibly not be. God's being is also logically necessary. We have to take leave of our senses to assume God does not exist, or else from where did everything come?
[Here he told his story about the famous cosmologist and "gradual" spontaneous generation.]
Returning to the Isaiah passage: What does this God do? He creates all that is and provides blessing and curse/judgment.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The First Q&A Session, Part Two
Continuing with the questions...
5) What was Calvin's relation with Martin Luther and Lutherans? In a word, distant. Luther and Calvin probably never met. Calvin acknowledged an enormous debt to Luther but thought there were troubling elements in Luther's theology. Out of respect he took great care to correct without scolding. He had a different relationship with Philip Melancthon but was unhappy that (in his opinion) Melancthon pussyfooted and watered down Luther's stronger predestinarian views. He considered Luther a kind-of spiritual father and had hoped early on that Melancthon would prove a like-minded colleague. There was a bit of a falling-out when Calvin realized that Melancthon would not work for a thorough reformation. He had hoped for greater unity in the various reform movements but was disappointed.
6) What aspects of Calvin's thought should we disregard? The answer on this one was a little fuzzy. The panel began with a side comment that there were two Baptists on the dias, evidently referring to the disagreement over sacramentology. Someone also observed that Calvinism is broader than the famous five points.
7) What was central to Calvin's theology? The ideas represented by the five points (although anacronistic when applied to Calvin) reflect an underlying unity. The influence of the book of Romans. Solid trinitarianism. God himself is the gospel. A very high Christology.
8) Are we guilty of over-revering Calvin? We have to be careful not to be too vigorous in defending the five points, which are often the focus of attacks, thinking the whole of Calvin's teaching is at stake. We all have spiritual geneologies as well as physical geneologies. It is more important that someone have a high view of God, of Christ, and of the Bible than that he self-identifies as a Calvinist. We've come up with labels as shorthand, based on the previous experiences of the church.
9) What are some significant gleanings from Calvin's life and thought? The model of a gospel minister in a local congregation. A model preacher. A teacher who understood the necessity of the people of God learning. The fundamental problem man has is idolatry. Calvin's exposition of the atonement.
5) What was Calvin's relation with Martin Luther and Lutherans? In a word, distant. Luther and Calvin probably never met. Calvin acknowledged an enormous debt to Luther but thought there were troubling elements in Luther's theology. Out of respect he took great care to correct without scolding. He had a different relationship with Philip Melancthon but was unhappy that (in his opinion) Melancthon pussyfooted and watered down Luther's stronger predestinarian views. He considered Luther a kind-of spiritual father and had hoped early on that Melancthon would prove a like-minded colleague. There was a bit of a falling-out when Calvin realized that Melancthon would not work for a thorough reformation. He had hoped for greater unity in the various reform movements but was disappointed.
6) What aspects of Calvin's thought should we disregard? The answer on this one was a little fuzzy. The panel began with a side comment that there were two Baptists on the dias, evidently referring to the disagreement over sacramentology. Someone also observed that Calvinism is broader than the famous five points.
7) What was central to Calvin's theology? The ideas represented by the five points (although anacronistic when applied to Calvin) reflect an underlying unity. The influence of the book of Romans. Solid trinitarianism. God himself is the gospel. A very high Christology.
8) Are we guilty of over-revering Calvin? We have to be careful not to be too vigorous in defending the five points, which are often the focus of attacks, thinking the whole of Calvin's teaching is at stake. We all have spiritual geneologies as well as physical geneologies. It is more important that someone have a high view of God, of Christ, and of the Bible than that he self-identifies as a Calvinist. We've come up with labels as shorthand, based on the previous experiences of the church.
9) What are some significant gleanings from Calvin's life and thought? The model of a gospel minister in a local congregation. A model preacher. A teacher who understood the necessity of the people of God learning. The fundamental problem man has is idolatry. Calvin's exposition of the atonement.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The First Q&A Session, Part One
Drs. Duncan, Ferguson, Lawson, and Mohler participated in a Q&A forum at the end of the mini-conference on John Calvin. I took notes on nine of the submited questions and will split this up into two parts.
1) Why is Calvin important 500 years later? He was the first great biblical exegete of the church. Other theologians contributed greatly, of course, but Calvin had a genius for explaining the Bible. His time in history was key, for the Reformation was the greatest movement forward for Christianity since the beginning. The opportunity for dissemination of ideas through print and movement of people across national and geographical lines was unprecedented. This produced a multiplication effect. Calvin, as we've previously seen, had a tremendous institutional legacy. Calvin did theology with his life at stake [referring to the implied threat if Rome ever got her hands on him]. We face many of the same challenges today, by the way. He prepared able men who took his teachings to many others.
2) Where should laypeople start to learn about Calvin? His sermons are easy to read. The Institutes are very pastoral. Try his sermons on Galatians and Ephesians. Read the dedicatory letter at the start of the Institutes. Ferguson's lecture on Calvin's commentary on Romans and the commentary itself.
3) What is generally not known about Calvin? According to Ferguson, his favorite game was "Keys" [I'd always heard it was a form of ninepins]. The suffering of the man--virtually every day was something to be endured. Illnesses and infirmities. Emotional and relational difficulties. Yet the joyfulness of his piety is readily apparent. The general historical portrayal of the man found in popular writings is often incorrect. He was not the "tyrant of Geneva." He launched a mission movement, very uncharacteristic of Christian teachers and theologians of his day. He had the dedication of his friends. Remarkable for the strenuousness of the opposition and ugliness of the hate directed toward him in his life.
4) What about Servetus? Michael Servetus was a heretic who would have been condemned anywhere in Europe. He was warned not to come to Geneva. Calvin personally tried to dissuade him. He came anyway, was tried and condemned. Calvin tried to obtain a more merciful form of execution--beheading rather than being burned at the stake. In his answer, Mohler tried to put the matter in its historical context. Servetus was guilty of the equivalent of treason. Heresy is a threat to all of society but the government is not the correct agent for dealing with this. At the time, there was near-universal acceptance of the unitary model of church and state; by comparison, we are used to a radical separation model, making it very difficult for us to understand 16th-century thinking on this matter. Calvin was not the prosecutor for the case against Servetus; at the time, he was not even a citizen of Geneva. The men on the consistory were his political enemies and sought to embarrass him. Servetus begged to stay in Geneva because anywhere in France it would have been far worse for him.
Permit me to editorialize and provide some additional facts regarding the Servetus affair: Opinions on what to do about him were solicited from all the major Swiss cities, and the universal consensus was that he be condemned. Other reformers, even those with a mild reputation such as Philip Melancthon, were similarly firm. He already had the death sentence in France; anywhere within Roman Catholic authority he was a dead man. Was this the right way to deal with theological error? No, and it took Christian Europe a long time to come to grips with the fundamental inconsistency. Yet Calvin takes enormous criticism for the lone example of Servetus when far, far worse went on elsewhere. This again raises the issue of why this man was subject to such intense opposition and hostility and I would look to the gospels for the answer.
1) Why is Calvin important 500 years later? He was the first great biblical exegete of the church. Other theologians contributed greatly, of course, but Calvin had a genius for explaining the Bible. His time in history was key, for the Reformation was the greatest movement forward for Christianity since the beginning. The opportunity for dissemination of ideas through print and movement of people across national and geographical lines was unprecedented. This produced a multiplication effect. Calvin, as we've previously seen, had a tremendous institutional legacy. Calvin did theology with his life at stake [referring to the implied threat if Rome ever got her hands on him]. We face many of the same challenges today, by the way. He prepared able men who took his teachings to many others.
2) Where should laypeople start to learn about Calvin? His sermons are easy to read. The Institutes are very pastoral. Try his sermons on Galatians and Ephesians. Read the dedicatory letter at the start of the Institutes. Ferguson's lecture on Calvin's commentary on Romans and the commentary itself.
3) What is generally not known about Calvin? According to Ferguson, his favorite game was "Keys" [I'd always heard it was a form of ninepins]. The suffering of the man--virtually every day was something to be endured. Illnesses and infirmities. Emotional and relational difficulties. Yet the joyfulness of his piety is readily apparent. The general historical portrayal of the man found in popular writings is often incorrect. He was not the "tyrant of Geneva." He launched a mission movement, very uncharacteristic of Christian teachers and theologians of his day. He had the dedication of his friends. Remarkable for the strenuousness of the opposition and ugliness of the hate directed toward him in his life.
4) What about Servetus? Michael Servetus was a heretic who would have been condemned anywhere in Europe. He was warned not to come to Geneva. Calvin personally tried to dissuade him. He came anyway, was tried and condemned. Calvin tried to obtain a more merciful form of execution--beheading rather than being burned at the stake. In his answer, Mohler tried to put the matter in its historical context. Servetus was guilty of the equivalent of treason. Heresy is a threat to all of society but the government is not the correct agent for dealing with this. At the time, there was near-universal acceptance of the unitary model of church and state; by comparison, we are used to a radical separation model, making it very difficult for us to understand 16th-century thinking on this matter. Calvin was not the prosecutor for the case against Servetus; at the time, he was not even a citizen of Geneva. The men on the consistory were his political enemies and sought to embarrass him. Servetus begged to stay in Geneva because anywhere in France it would have been far worse for him.
Permit me to editorialize and provide some additional facts regarding the Servetus affair: Opinions on what to do about him were solicited from all the major Swiss cities, and the universal consensus was that he be condemned. Other reformers, even those with a mild reputation such as Philip Melancthon, were similarly firm. He already had the death sentence in France; anywhere within Roman Catholic authority he was a dead man. Was this the right way to deal with theological error? No, and it took Christian Europe a long time to come to grips with the fundamental inconsistency. Yet Calvin takes enormous criticism for the lone example of Servetus when far, far worse went on elsewhere. This again raises the issue of why this man was subject to such intense opposition and hostility and I would look to the gospels for the answer.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Legacy of John Calvin, Part Three
Dr. Lawson concluded his presentation by expanding upon the idea that Calvin exerted an international influence. Calvin's ideas spread to the world. Geneva was a refuge city; once those refugees were able to return to their homelands they took Calvin's thought with them. Many returned to be martyrs. Translations of Calvin's work were made in several languages. Alistair McGrath refers to "a new type of being--the Calvinist--with a can-do approach to life." By 1556 there were about 2000 Reformed congregations in France; fully one-tenth of the French population was Reformed, at a time when it was required to be Roman Catholic and no one was permitted to emigrate. In Scotland, John Knox preached a complete rebuilding of the church. Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian thought was brought to American shores. The Westminster Standards and the Belgic Confession are both hugely based on Calvin's teaching. Lawson spoke of the Synod of Dort. The Great Awakening and Presbyterian influence on the American Revolution. William Carey and the modern missions movement. Time magazine has just published an edition in which the "new Calvinism" is listed as the number three idea shaping the world.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Legacy of John Calvin, Part Two
Dr. Lawson continued: Calvin put forward a Christian worldview, summed up as soli Deo gloria. See Romans 11:36. No man ever had a more profound view of God (per B. B. Warfield). He possessed zeal for the glory of God. A work ethic--all work is a calling from God. Prior to Calvin, a doctrine of vocation was reserved to apply to the clergy. Education--love God with all one's mind. In the Middle Ages, education was a valuable commodity in short supply. Even with the Renaissance education remained for the elite only. Calvin's Reformation changed all that. He established the Geneva Academy, which trained many of the Protestant clergy of the next few generations. A standard of law, order, and justice. Calvin explained the uses of the Law. Punishment must fit the crime. Free market capitalism. At its heart were certain values: Hard work, right of private ownership, investment, honesty and integrity in business, nobility of profit, necessity of caring for the poor out of the profits given by God. He established a Reformed church in Geneva and then spread abroad such ideas such as Scripture as the sole and final authority, the preaching of the Word, church leaders as a plurality of godly men, the regulative principle, and even democratic republicanism. Geneva was the laboratory for Calvin's view of church and state relations. There was limit on power, checks and balances, distinct branches of government. He emphasized divine sovereignty over human sovereignty. All of this to the preservation of individual liberty. Everything above was in the notes for the Geneva Bible, which was one reason James I of England authorized a new translation of the Bible in order to get rid of the influence of those notes. Calvin can be credited with instituting separation of church and state.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Legacy of John Calvin, Part One
Dr. Steve Lawson gave the last of four formal talks on John Calvin during the mini-conference. However, my notes on this presentation are too extensive to type up for one blog post, so I'll split this into three entries.
Dr. Lawson began by observing that Calvin's legacy is difficult to encompass, for he lived the life of twenty men. Virtually no area of life is untouched by his influence. He was the "man of the millennium." Dr. Lawson referred to a theological standard. Calvin was the architect of Reformed theology. Whereas Martyn Lloyd-Jones likened Martin Luther to a volcano that spewed out ideas, Calvin was a systematizer, an organizer who was greatly needed. He credits Calvin as preserving the heritage of the Reformation. The Institutes are the greatest theological work to emerge from the Reformation. He defended the biblical character of Reformation doctrine against the false charge of novelty. His literary output was incredible--commentaries, sermons, pamphlets, and letters. Most importantly, Calvin's work was a ministry of the word of God.
Dr. Lawson began by observing that Calvin's legacy is difficult to encompass, for he lived the life of twenty men. Virtually no area of life is untouched by his influence. He was the "man of the millennium." Dr. Lawson referred to a theological standard. Calvin was the architect of Reformed theology. Whereas Martyn Lloyd-Jones likened Martin Luther to a volcano that spewed out ideas, Calvin was a systematizer, an organizer who was greatly needed. He credits Calvin as preserving the heritage of the Reformation. The Institutes are the greatest theological work to emerge from the Reformation. He defended the biblical character of Reformation doctrine against the false charge of novelty. His literary output was incredible--commentaries, sermons, pamphlets, and letters. Most importantly, Calvin's work was a ministry of the word of God.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Doctrines of Grace
Dr. Sinclair Ferguson spoke on the doctrines of grace as perceived by John Calvin. He took as his text Ephesians 1:3-7, although admitted there were many places he could have gone. Ferguson reiterated the scriptural theme of God going before us in salvation. His focus was on grace in a larger sense, not necessarily in the narrower way we tend to think of it as the famous five points that are so often controverted. He spoke to three principle subjects:
1) The teaching about grace on which Calvin was reared. Medieval theologians majored heavily on grace and how to get it. From the Reformation perspective it wasn't lack of speaking about grace but wrong ideas about grace. The medieval perspective was adulterated, dis-grace. At baptism, grace was (supposedly) granted, even infused. The whole course of the Christian life was to nurture and enhance this grace so that ultimately the individual believer's life was righteous and then God would be able to justify him. "Heaven helps those who help themselves." This idea is rife in western Protestantism today. The most difficult thing for sinners to grasp is undiluted, unassisted (by men) grace. The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to teaching of free grace as fear of antinomianism. They also referred to a "legal fiction," claiming that the Reformers stated God pronounces a sinner righteous when he's not, missing the basis of why God could do this. Medieval religion offered no joy, and assurance was impossible. Ferguson quoted Robert Bellarmine's opinion that the greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance of salvation, because the church can't provide assurance through the sacraments and rites/rituals. Calvin's critique was that Rome substituted the pope and magisterium for the Spirit as the vicar of Christ. Rome's doctrine of justification is too fragile--it needs to keep being shored up.
2) The doctrines that Calvin expounded. He gave gospel responses to the rejection of Reformation teaching. Calvin always points to the gracious salvation of God in Jesus Christ. Men are born dead and live dead. We cannot but do and speak wickedness. We are under God's wrath and justly so. We are hopeless without God's sovereignty in salvation. The atonement is effective; unless one is a universalist every Christian maintains a limited atonement. God is never at odds with himself. There is a great sense of the efficacy of Christ's work. He didn't come simply to make salvation possible but actually to save. Irresistable grace--would God have permitted Christ's sacrifice without seeing the matter through?
3) The nature of the grace Calvin preached. Is grace a stuff or a substance we acquire? There is no such "thing" as grace, there is only Jesus Christ. It is not something outside of Christ dispensed by the Spirit like stock dividends. What the Spirit brings is faith in Christ himself, who is all the righteousness we will ever need.
1) The teaching about grace on which Calvin was reared. Medieval theologians majored heavily on grace and how to get it. From the Reformation perspective it wasn't lack of speaking about grace but wrong ideas about grace. The medieval perspective was adulterated, dis-grace. At baptism, grace was (supposedly) granted, even infused. The whole course of the Christian life was to nurture and enhance this grace so that ultimately the individual believer's life was righteous and then God would be able to justify him. "Heaven helps those who help themselves." This idea is rife in western Protestantism today. The most difficult thing for sinners to grasp is undiluted, unassisted (by men) grace. The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to teaching of free grace as fear of antinomianism. They also referred to a "legal fiction," claiming that the Reformers stated God pronounces a sinner righteous when he's not, missing the basis of why God could do this. Medieval religion offered no joy, and assurance was impossible. Ferguson quoted Robert Bellarmine's opinion that the greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance of salvation, because the church can't provide assurance through the sacraments and rites/rituals. Calvin's critique was that Rome substituted the pope and magisterium for the Spirit as the vicar of Christ. Rome's doctrine of justification is too fragile--it needs to keep being shored up.
2) The doctrines that Calvin expounded. He gave gospel responses to the rejection of Reformation teaching. Calvin always points to the gracious salvation of God in Jesus Christ. Men are born dead and live dead. We cannot but do and speak wickedness. We are under God's wrath and justly so. We are hopeless without God's sovereignty in salvation. The atonement is effective; unless one is a universalist every Christian maintains a limited atonement. God is never at odds with himself. There is a great sense of the efficacy of Christ's work. He didn't come simply to make salvation possible but actually to save. Irresistable grace--would God have permitted Christ's sacrifice without seeing the matter through?
3) The nature of the grace Calvin preached. Is grace a stuff or a substance we acquire? There is no such "thing" as grace, there is only Jesus Christ. It is not something outside of Christ dispensed by the Spirit like stock dividends. What the Spirit brings is faith in Christ himself, who is all the righteousness we will ever need.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
John Calvin and the Christian Life
The next speaker in the mini-conference on John Calvin was Dr. Ligon Duncan. His text was 1 Timothy 1:3-5--the goal of instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith. The practical fruits of godliness. Not just a head knowledge [compare 1 Corinthians 8:1) but transformed and changed by the truth (Romans 12:1-2). Piety is an important idea in Calvin's teaching. The word comes from the Latin pietas and applies to the whole understanding and practice of the Christian life. An experiential love of God as Father plus a fear and reverence of God as Lord. "Religio"--a heart matter, faith joined to fear and reverence. The pious man honors God as his own Father, yet fears/reverences him as Lord. There is a similar idea in classical Roman thinking reflective of the attitude of children toward parents and citizens toward the state. (By the way, the reason why Roman authorities often charged Christians with impiety and atheism was because they did not appropriately respect the state and they had rejected the Roman pantheon). In the NT, the idea of piety is frequently rendered as "godliness." What were the origins of Calvin's teaching on piety? Unlike the "conversion verses" of Augustine and Martin Luther, the biblical text that the Spirit used to convert Calvin is not known because he wrote so little about himself and did not elaborate much on this event. The Calvin scholar Battles speculated it might have been Romans 1:18-25, especially verse 21, because the central theme of Calvin's teachings was honoring God and being thankful to him. In Institutes III:6, the object of the work God is doing in us is to manifest in our lives harmony and agreement between God's righteousness and our obedience, and to confirm us in our adoption as his children. Two more aspects were that a love of righteousness that is foreign to us needs to be instilled, as against antinomianism; a rule is set forth that does not let us wander. The spirit of the current age is against the guiding use of the Law. Calvin highlights God's holiness as a foundation for our own righteous living, a motivation. When we hear mention of our union with God, recall the bond of holiness. We need to cleave to him, infused with his holiness, and then we can follow him. We come to him to become like him, to be conformed, that we might have fellowship with him. Pursue holiness. God's benefits in salvation are another motivation. Since cleansed by Christ, we will not want to get back in the mud. Keep the body of Christ free of spots and blemishes. Philippians 2:12-13. Piety has negative implications in our contemporary thinking; it's a synonym for hypocrisy in the mind of many. Calvin points out our lives are not characterized by perfection but of growth. A progressive sanctification. God is not done with us yet.
A summary of Institutes III:6-10:
1) Self denial
2) Cross bearing
3) Meditation on the future life; animated by a vital hope
4) The use of the present life; moderation in the enjoyment of temporal benefits, industry, thankfulness, cognizance that God is greater than his gifts
A summary of Institutes III:6-10:
1) Self denial
2) Cross bearing
3) Meditation on the future life; animated by a vital hope
4) The use of the present life; moderation in the enjoyment of temporal benefits, industry, thankfulness, cognizance that God is greater than his gifts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
