Today In Theology » Apologetics

Today In Theology » Apologetics http://www.learntheology.com/blog Relating Theology To Our World Today! Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:44:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 en Warfield on the Two Natures of Christ http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2008/08/warfield-on-two-natures-of-christ.html http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2008/08/warfield-on-two-natures-of-christ.html#comments Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:05:00 +0000 Martin Downes tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-2250608632616966454

Here is Warfield on the Chalcedonian definition:

"The final statement...was arrived at, externally considered, through protracted and violent controversies, during the course of which every conceivable construction of the biblical data had been exploited, weighed, and its elements of truth sifted out and preserved, while the elements of error which deformed it were burned up as chaff in the fires of the strife.

Out of the continuous controversy of a century there issued a balanced statement in which all the elements of the biblical representation were taken up and combined. Work so done is done for all time; and it is capable of ever-repeated demonstration that in the developed doctrine of the Two Natures...and in it alone, all the biblical data are brought together in a harmonious statement, in which each receives full recognition, and out of which each may derive its sympathetic exposition.

This key unlocks the treasures of the biblical instruction on the Person of Christ as none other can, and enables the reader as he currently scans the sacred pages to take up their declarations as they meet him, one after the other, into an intelligently consistent conception of his Lord."

B. B. Warfield, "Recent Christological Speculation," in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield vol. III: Christology and Criticism, p. 264-5

And here is the Chalcedonian definition (451 AD):

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.]]>

A brief extract from Warfield:

"Kenoticism differs from Socinianism fundamentally, however, in that Socinianism took away from us only our Divine Christ, while Kenoticism takes away also our very God. For what kind of God is this that is God and not God alternately as he chooses, and lays off and on at will those specific qualities that make God the kind of being we call "God"...

It really ought to be clear by now that there cannot be a half-way house erected between the doctrines that Christ is both God and man and that Christ is merely a man. Between these two positions there is an irreducible "either or," and many may feel inclined to adopt Biedermann's caustic criticism of the Kenotic theories, that only one who has himself suffered a kenosis of his understanding can possibly accord them welcome."

B. B. Warfield, "The Twentieth-Century Christ," in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield vol. III: Christology and Criticism, p. 376]]>

Timothy was a man under pressure when he read his second letter from the apostle Paul. He was facing the perennial pressures that authentic preachers and churches have found themselves under.

The external pressure came in the form of persecution. Verbal and physical persecution is painful. Paul knows this better than anyone, so he writes:

"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God." (2 Tim. 1:8)

Here is the key perspective from which Timothy must look upon persecution.

What will keep Timothy from buckling under the pressure of persecution?

Objectively it is because of Christ's resurrection, his abolition of death and the grave, and his bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel (1:10).

Believers have the promise of life, eternal life, in Christ Jesus (1:1). They know that Christ has been raised (2:8), and that if they endure they will also reign with him (2:12). Moreover the hardship that Timothy is being called upon to endure (1:8, 2:3) will not eliminate gospel preaching and the securing of the salvation of all God's people (2:9-10).

Subjectively it is because God has given not a spirit of fear but of power and love and a sound mind (1:7). This is why Timothy must stir up the gift that he has been given.

Timothy will be enabled to face persecution and hardship (the inevitable consequence that accompanies godly living for Christ's sake, 3:12) by calling to mind that he will one day face Christ, the judge of the living and the dead (4:1).

And he who knows now, before God, that the Lord Jesus will judge all men, will no longer be able to face those same men now with the fear that dreads the harm that they can do and silences the preaching of the gospel.

It is a solemn thought that God can sustain his people when they suffer for the gospel so that they will not be ashamed of the testimony of their Lord. It is a solemn thought that Jesus Christ will make his enemies a footstool for his feet.

The second, and internal, pressure facing Timothy came in the form of false teaching. I'll deal with this in a later post.]]>

Here's a great quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

"The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity.

I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace. May God grant us...the power to instruct, and...to receive instruction on this vital subject."]]> http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2008/08/spurgeon-on-law-and-gospel.html/feed This is not yet your grandfather’s Calvinism http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-is-not-yet-your-grandfathers.html http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-is-not-yet-your-grandfathers.html#comments Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:34:00 +0000 Martin Downes tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-6305215945481579725

After reading several reviews I finally decided to read through Collin Hansen's Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists.

The book is obviously intended to be impressionistic about the younger generation of Calvinists within evangelicalism in the United States. As well as interviews with several prominent speakers and authors (John Piper, Al Mohler, Lig Duncan, Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris, C. J. Mahaney etc.) there are plenty of reflections with young people connected with the ministries of those men (either attending, studying at, or working for Mars Hill, Bethlehem Baptist, RUF, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, etc.).

In many ways the book fulfills what George Marsden once said about history being the story of personalities, wider movements, and institutions. The mediating structures in this case between the key personalities and the wider movement are largely conferences, books, and the multi-media distribution of the teaching ministry of the larger churches. Perhaps the last of those three is the most influential.

The book is something of an apologetic for the positive transforming impact of a reformed understanding of salvation. Story after story is given of the humbling, God exalting, missions motivating, church planting, power of God's sovereign grace in the gospel.

Calvinism transforms lives. It is the solid rock on which the suffering saints stand, and it is when these notes are struck again and again that passionate songs of praise pour out from grateful hearts.

Another standout feature is the legacy of great men long dead whose writings continue to feed the souls of the leaders and followers of this movement, most notably Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon.

The book also picks up on what should seem obvious, that what is nick named Calvinism is none other than Biblical religion. Not just God exalting theology, the kind that passes the litmus test described thus by Martyn Lloyd-Jones,

"In every view of salvation the place given in it to the glory of God provides the ultimate test. The proof that it is truly scriptural is that it gives all the glory to God."

but also one that simultaneously humbles the human heart in its presence, bends the knees, subverts pride, and makes God's bitterest enemies his closest friends. This is not just orthodoxy, it is orthodoxy that transforms lives.

The encounter with Calvinism often begins not with Calvin, or Edwards, or Spurgeon but with Moses in Exodus, with Jesus in the gospels, or with Paul's letters. Testimonies are provided throughout the book of young people who encountered Calvinism in the preaching, or the reading, of the Word of God. And they met it when they saw that the things of first importance, and how they impact a life in conversion, are shaped by Reformed adjectives. Depravity is total, grace is irresistible, election is unconditional.

Is there more to Calvinism than this? Of course there is. However, for many who are new to Reformed theology, it is met not in its grand historic vision or presentation (as found in the great churchly statements of the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession) but in relation to the power of God in salvation. This of course is also the common bond between Calvinists who hold to historic Reformed views across the board and those who embrace a Calvinistic view of salvation only.

I think this observation on an emphasis that runs throughout the book explains why this isn't yet your grandfather's Calvinism. There is more to the Reformation heritage, much more, and this needs to find its way into the rest of the story after p. 156. And I'm sure that there is more going on because once you follow the Calvinist trail of literature and history it leads to the rich pastures of the confessions and catechisms, and of covenant theology.

One criticism of the book is the failure to signal just how much today's resurgence relies on and remains connected to the continuing work of grace that has kept God's people believing in his sovereignty. The representation of Calvinists outside of the current resurgence relied more heavily on negative stereotyping and caricature than was healthy. Even though there is some attempt to signal connections to the past there isn't a sufficient indication of how the last few generations have held to and been transformed by the same truths.

Then again the book is impressionistic and focussed narrowly and deliberately on certain influential figures and centres. As a result the book tends towards reports of Baptists (with illuminating stories about the struggles over Calvinism in the SBC) more than Presbyterians. Although RUF and Ligon Duncan do feature it would have been helpful to take a close up look, for example, at First Presbyterian Jackson or Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia just as Mars Hill or Covenant Life Church were covered.]]>

Here is the text of Dr. David B. Garner's recent post at the WTS website:

Westminster and Evangelicalism
David B. Garner
Vice President for Advancement
Westminster Theological Seminary (PA)

What is evangelicalism? Who are evangelicals? Because evangelicalism has experienced a metamorphosis, the answer to these questions is more complicated than one might guess. In the term’s early use in 18th and 19th century in North America, where evangelicalism was more narrowly defined by revivalism and its associated emphasis on personal conversion, evangelicalism became identified with the largest Protestant movement in North America.

In the wake of the infiltration of theological liberalism into the mainline churches and the massive immigration of foreigners of diverse religious background, the virtually ubiquitous force of evangelicalism tempered, yet its arteries extended so as to influence a wide panorama of churches and para-church groups. Accordingly, the Institute for Study of American Evangelicals (ISAE) at Wheaton College defines evangelicalism as “a wide-reaching definitional ‘canopy’ that covers a diverse number of Protestant groups”.

On the current North American landscape, evangelicalism embraces, among others, Baptists, some Lutherans and Episcopalians, independents, Mennonites, Charismatics (Protestant and Catholic), Dutch Reformed, and Presbyterians. As evidenced by the vote to retain Clark Pinnock and John Sanders in the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003, the big tent of evangelicalism now extends from rigorous conservatism to forms of open theism and inclusivism.

With the expansion of its stakes in recent decades, this evangelical tent now covers such associations as the Christian Coalition of America (a political advocacy group), L.E.A.R.N., Inc. (a pro-life group), Evangelicals Concerned, Inc. (a pro-homosexual group), and the Evangelical Environment Network (an environmental advocacy group).

Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) shares appreciation for traditional evangelicalism’s emphasis on the inerrancy and authority of the Scripture. At the same time, WTS remains committed to its confessional heritage and standards; the Westminster Standards have been and remain our doctrinal standard.

No matter how much evangelicalism morphs, the parameters of Westminster Reformed Orthodoxy guide and preserve the Seminary’s theological commitments on Scripture and any other doctrinal matter on which the Westminster Standards speak. Wherever and whenever strands of evangelicalism agree with the Westminster Standards, WTS happily identifies with evangelicalism. However, when any form of evangelicalism (or any other theological approach) runs contrary to historic Reformed orthodoxy and methodology, WTS consciously separates itself from evangelical identification.

Is WTS an evangelical institution? If by that we mean our resolute commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ revealed in the inerrant Word of God, and to the five solas of the Reformation – faith alone, scripture alone, grace alone, Christ alone, all to the glory of God alone – then we grant a strong affirmative. Indeed, the bond of Christian unity makes such not an option or a work of supererogation, but a basic Christian imperative.

But if we mean sharing theological common ground with inclusivists, open theists, and any other self-professing evangelicals who deny or compromise the unique authority of divine Scripture, we grant a strong denial. Rather, in view of our Reformed heritage and commitment to the Westminster Standards, we unequivocally affirm our commitment to Reformed orthodoxy.

These confessional parameters guide, preserve, and promote our approach to theological education, ministerial formation, and academic study. They summarize in brilliant, short compass, the teaching of scripture. They keep us accountable in all that we do to our ecclesiastical constituency. And they focus our hearts and minds upon the gracious God who has preserved his church, and his gospel, from generation to generation.]]>

Carl Trueman has posted a clear, helpful, and irenic essay entitled "Knowing the Times: Recent Controversies in Context" here. (HT: Justin Taylor)

A brief extract on "The ever broadening boundaries of evangelicalism":

In his new book, The Courage to be Protestant, David points to the increasing doctrinal minimalism of evangelicalism. Where once a raft of doctrines were assumed, now evangelicalism is defined almost by institutions and ethos rather than by theological confession.

If it is taught at a seminary calling itself evangelical, for example, or published by a press which has evangelical roots, then it is within the range of evangelical thought, even if it involves a low view of scripture, rejection of penal substitution, or even a question mark over the Trinity.

Further, Mark, in his book, Is the Reformation Over?, points out that many evangelicals, perhaps most, now reject justification by grace through faith as understood by the Reformers, a doctrine which has historically been one of the distinguishing hallmarks of evangelical Protestantism.

Strange times, indeed, when even the basics can no longer be assumed; but we must acknowledge that we stand at a point in history where the purview of evangelical thought is not determined by historic Christianity but is rather a function of the breadth of the beliefs of the faculty who serve at evangelical seminaries, the commissioning editors who work for evangelical presses, and the ministers who fill evangelical pulpits.

And this on "Confession and accountability":

So what is the significance of these recent events? As Academic Dean and as Vice President for Academic Affairs, I believe this lies above all in two specific areas.

First, it is now clear that Westminster is to be committed to a doctrine of scripture that reflects what is taught in the great confessions of the Reformation, and which has nurtured the confessional evangelical church for centuries. As evangelicalism in general broadens out, as it loses its connection with its confessional Reformation past, as it becomes increasingly vacuous at a doctrinal level, the leaders at Westminster have decided that that is not the path this institution will go down.

We will not accept that the Reformation creedal heritage is no longer relevant; we will not accede to the indefinite broadening of evangelicalism’s doctrinal horizons; nor will we subscribe to the modifications of the doctrine of scripture which are such a necessary part of that broadening. Rather, we will stand where we have always stood, on the great solas of the Reformation: Christ, scripture, grace, faith, and, above all, God’s glory. We are not, and will not be, a seminary which repudiates the great catholic legacy of the Reformation and of subsequent confessional evangelicalism.

Second, it has been made clear that Westminster professors are to be held accountable to more than just the canons of their chosen academic guild or the current trends of thinking in their various subdisciplines or even their friends and colleagues on Faculty. Accountability in times of crisis, of course, is always a painful experience.

There is a human cost on all sides which press releases, theological statements, and minutes of meetings rarely, if ever, convey. While theology is indeed a great hobby, it is too often a nightmare of a profession. Yet those who teach must be held accountable for their teaching, however hard that may be; and, for too long at Westminster, too little attention has been paid to what we as Faculty teach while too much, perhaps, has been paid to what others outside of our church constituencies think of us.]]>

Christian Focus will be publishing a series of interviews that I did with senior ministers and seminary professors on handling truth and error in the church. I hope that the interviews will benefit all church members, but they will be especially useful for pastors, elders, and seminarians.

Several of the interviews were posted on the blog in 2007 (but are no longer available). There will also be new interviews in the book on justification and the New Perspective, with Ligon Duncan, plus others on inerrancy and hell.

The line up includes Carl Trueman, Mike Horton, Mark Dever, Tom Schreiner (on penal substitution), Scott Clark, Ligon Duncan, Derek Thomas, Joel Beeke, Kim Riddlebarger (on errors and the end times), Iain D. Campbell, Guy Waters, Ron Gleason, Gary L. W. Johnson, Tom Ascol, Geoff Thomas, Conrad Mbewe, and Sean Lucas (plus a few others that I'm very excited about but can't announce just yet).

The collection is topped and tailed with two chapters that I have written, a short primer on heresy and "What really matters in ministry" (directives for church leaders from Acts 20).

There's no release date as yet for the book.]]>

How should we study the doctrine of justification?

With full recongition of the holiness and justice of God, of our own guilt and inability to be justified by our own works, and with the sure hope that in Christ God has provided a perfect righteousness and a full atonement for sin. We need the clear knowledge that by faith alone, resting and relying on Christ alone, God will freely pardon all our sins and accept us as righteous in his sight.

Any other approach to this great subject, any pathway that reflects an academic detachment, or that places the stress on our own ability, is spiritually disastrous.

How should we study justification?

On our knees. But with our eyes lifted away from ourselves and toward Christ.

Herman Bavinck puts it so well:

To correctly assess the benefit of justification, people must lift up their minds to the judgment seat of God and put themselves in his presence.

When they compare themselves with others or measure themselves by the standard that they apply to themselves or among each other, they have some reason perhaps to pride themselves in something and to put their trust in it.

But when they put themselves before the face of God and examine themselves in the mirror of his holy law, all their conceit collapses, all self-confidence melts, and there is room left only for the prayer: "Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you" (Job 4:17-29; 9:2; 15:14-16; Ps. 143:2; cf. 130:3), and their only comfort is that "there is forgiveness before you, so that you may be revered" (Ps. 130:4).

If for insignificant, guilty, and impure persons there is to be a possibility of true religion, that is, of genuine fellowship with God, of salvation and eternal life, then God on his part must reestablish the broken bond, again take them into fellowship with him and share his grace with them, regardless of their guilt and corruption.

He, then, must descend from the height of his majesty, seek us out and come to us, take away our guilt and again open the way to his fatherly heart. If God were to wait until we--by our faith, our virtues, and good works of congruity or condignity--had made ourselves worthy, in part or in whole, to receive his favour, the restoration of communion between him and ourselves would never happen, and salvation would forever be out of reach for us.

This is why so much depends on the benefit of justification, and it is rightly denominated the article on which the church either stands or falls. For the fundamental question that arises in this connection is this: What is the way that leads to communion with God, to true religion, to salvation and eternal life: God's grace or human merit, his forgiveness or our works, gospel or law, the covenant of grace or the covenant of works?

If it is the latter, if our work, our virtue, our sanctification is primary, then the believer's consolation ends, and they remain in doubt and uncertainty to their last breath. Then Christ is violated in his unique, all-encompassing, and all-sufficient mediatorial office, and he himself is put on a level with other humans, with ourselves. Then God is robbed of his honor, for, if humans are justified on the basis of their works, they have reason to boast of themselves and are, partly or totally, the craftsmen of their own salvation.

Herman Bavinck, RD Vol. 4, p. 204-5]]>

Here is Bavinck on justification:

"...by it we understand that gracious judicial act of God by which he acquits humans of all the guilt and punishment of sin and confers on them the right to eternal life.

Certainly there can be no peace of mind and conscience, no joy in one's heart, no buoyant moral activity, or a blessed life and death, before the guilt of sin is removed, all fear of punishment has been completely eradicated, and the certainty of eternal life in communion with God fills one's consciousness with its consolation and power.

But this benefit--the complete forgiveness of sin--is so immense that the natural human intellect cannot grasp and believe it."

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation, p. 179]]>