Logical Ordering of Genesis 1-2

   Last night, I listened to one of the more interesting conversations I have been involved in lately. The discussion concerned the eternal decree. I have no intention of retreading the strength and weaknesses of my infralapsarian position, so relax. The issue had not been presented to me in proper context before as it should have been, perhaps because I did not understand the conditions of the discussion. The key factor is the issue of timelessness. Last spring, the issue of timelessness and the application of this concept to eschatology by Pannenberg was an enlightening moment, and quite persuasive, I might add. So, it seemed quite logical to apply the same concept of timelessness to the eternal decree, in fact, in retrospect, how else would you do it?! 

   Let’s examine first the paradigm that is overriding this discussion. We have two realms, two realities, two Kingdoms. The First realm is the realm of God. In this realm of God, He is timeless, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. The second realm is creation. It is helpful to consider that if space is created, so is the linear (calm down physicists) aspect of time. Even if you want to discuss curved space time, quantum physics and time travel, there is an aspect of time that is in constant motion, that is inseparable from the concept of space. Time is the fourth dimension. Time is as much a part of space and creation as matter and energy. This is a key point to bring forward into the discussion of the eternal decree.

   For the purpose of review and to introduce the parts of the eternal decree, let us consider as example the infralapsarian position. The eternal decree is ordered as follows:

• ·         Decree to create
• ·         Decree to allow the fall of man (all men)
• ·         Decree to discriminate or for the election of some men
• ·         Decree to save the elect by Christ
• ·         Decree to apply salvation in Christ to the elect

Several book keeping points need stating. First, infralapsarianism is a Calvinist position, an in house discussion, if you will. The purpose of this discussion is not to argue the issue of the elect. I could have taken the example of the eternal decree from the Amyraldian  position instead as the example, but I don’t find that helpful in the long term in my persuasion to a reformed position to use other arguments as my example. But what follows works with ANY of the versions of the eternal decree. Second, and most importantly, this ordering is a logical order, not a chronological order.

   That this is a logical ordering is the point from which we will carry forward. The issue concerning the eternal decree is to look at the mind of God prior to creation and try and understand what He was thinking when he got around to creation. The point that we need to insert here is that time is a part of creation, but not a part of the realm of God. God is outside of time. There is a great creaturely temptation to deal with discussions of the eternal decree in chronological fashion, but this is an error. The discussion is in terms of logical ordering and needs to be emptied of any notion of chronological ordering. The reason for this distinction is important in other areas of theological discussion, but it should be kept in mind here as a fundamental principle of the eternal decree. 

   This is difficult, of course, for the creaturely mind to comprehend. The creature is created within the space-time continuum where time is part of the fabric of our existence. This is why Calvin warns us against actually contemplating this issue. This decree is outside of the realm of creatures and outside of progressive revelation as given us in Scripture. But in our creaturely desire to understand the divine, we make this attempt.

   Finally, we come to the meat of this discussion: creation. The Genesis 1-2 text has been discussed abundantly, and with particular zeal over the past couple of years within the context of the BioLogos debate. If you recall, the cornerstone of the BioLogos position is that science is not at odds with Scripture in the creation debate. Their rationalizations are interesting, but miss this key theological point. God exists and creation occurs. God is outside of time and time is an inextricable part of creation. This is important for the Genesis discussion precisely because of the issue of time.

   Back in 1954, Meredith Kline proposed the two register approach to this text. The key feature of this construct was to view the Genesis text as a separate literary genre, creation genre, rather than a historical narrative as most of the conversation about this text tends to do. I have given this link many times in the past, and hopefully it will work for you, but here is the updated Kline article from four decades later. The reason that this  view of Genesis appeals to me so much is the following logical construct.

   If we assume that the eternal decree is outside of time, because God is outside of time, then the decree to create is outside of time. The logical ordering of creation will likewise be outside of time. Scripture is by its very existence within creation is God’s revelation to man and subject to the confines of space time. But this does not mean that God would reveal to man a logical construct that takes place outside of time with the intention of the application of chronological principles to that revelation. It makes far better sense to consider the Genesis 1-2 text within the timelessness of God’s realm. God introduces time as a part of creation. Logical order of creation takes place prior to creation. Logically, one must first conceive of a thing before one makes a thing. This is not true of God in a timeless realm, but it is impossible to convey logical order without the danger of perception within a chronological order within the realm of creation. 

   Perhaps the very issues of apparent contradiction seen between the two chapters are meant to point exactly to the issue of logical order and not to chronological order. Only by their difference does Scripture draw attention to the notion that it is the revelation of creation ORDER and not a creation TIMELINE that is revealed in Genesis 1-2. The important issue of the Genesis 1-2 text is the position or role of man in the creation order. The eternal decree that includes creation is outside of time, and time is only introduced into creation at the point of creation. A revelation of the eternal order of our role within creation should be viewed from the context of the eternal decree and not from the view within creation itself. That is the fallacy of using chronological arguments in this portion of divine revelation. 

   It can be argued to extend this point to Genesis 3, but that is a massively huge jump, and one that cannot be made with any sort of certainty. The notion of Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity rather than their human primacy does seem to fit with the logical argument of the prior chapters. The expulsion from Eden would mark the beginning of historical narrative, their entering into that portion of creation that is no longer both in this realm and the realm of God and thereby subject to the rule of time. The Kline literary framework model does not include the Eden section, but I would argue that it may well belong with the prior chapters rather than with the subsequent.

   So, in summary, the arguments for Calvinism and the extra-Biblical eternal decree lead one logically to a view of the creation revelation Scripture to be viewed in a similar logical ordering model rather than a chronological ordering model. This is consistent both with inerrancy and infallibility as we are viewing the text (correctly) in a proper context using the framework paradigm. This view of Genesis 1-2 as logical ordering allows the position that science and Genesis 1-2 are not contradictory. 

 --Troll--

Funeral homily

In the name of the triune God, amen.

Bradley Coates was a great man in this world.  Beloved husband, loving father, cherished friend, ardent benefactor of charities around the city.  Bradley Coates was a great man.

Bradley Coates was a man who understood that he was a sinner.  It was with tears in his eyes that he met with me last week proclaiming the depth of his despair.  He delineated a list of transgressions against his wife, his children, his friends and even his enemies.  Bradley Coates had discovered the blackness of sin in his heart.

Bradley was baptized in 1946 as an infant in Dublin.  When he moved to the United States as a youth, he attended Roman Catholic mass until he was old enough to leave home.  By his own admission, Bradley Coates had not been back to Church, any church, since 1964, that is, he had not returned until last week.  So many have asked me these questions: is there really a life after death, is there a heaven and a hell, where will Bradley be, and will we see him again?  These are important questions, questions that deserve answers to the best of my ability.

Let me begin with Baptism, briefly.  As an infant, Bradley was brought into covenant community with Christ Jesus.  Remember the words of our Baptism: he is marked as Christ’s own forever.  While Bradley may not have darkened the doors of any church for decades, clearly he was a repentant sinner who received absolution and the grace of God in salvation through the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross.  This is a theme on which many of you have heard me preach many times over the years.  Therefore, while his path was one lacking in the fellowship and communion of faith over the preponderance of his life, Kaitlin, you should have some assurance that Bradley is in communion with his Lord and Savior as we speak.

What of death?  If a man such as Bradley, who appeared among us in the Church so rarely can be said to have received the gift of salvation, what, then, does death matter?  Let us remember the words of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans (5:12)

And so death is the result of sin.  Some of you might assume that death is the natural course of events.  Death is the only outcome of this life that any of us has ever experienced in others, and the only outcome that we expect for ourselves.  God said to Adam after his disobedience in the Garden of Eden: “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:19 ESV)

Clearly death is a penalty for sin, and Bradley knew that he was a sinner.  But is death the end?  Let us turn to the words of Christ Jesus in John.  “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36 ESV) If Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, where shall we find it?  If we are all members now of the Kingdom of God through Christ and His baptism, and His Kingdom is not of this world, where shall we find it?  Jesus says to the thief on the cross next to him who recognizes Him in His glory, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43 ESV)

There is no doubt that both the thief and Jesus Christ our Lord died bodily on that day.  And yet, Jesus speaks of being with the thief in Paradise that very day.  How can this be?  We all know what happened to Jesus, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time. (1 Corinthians 15:4-6a ESV) Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.  Can we assume that we will all follow in Jesus’ footsteps?  Is there resurrection for Bradley so that he may join our Lord? 

Let me answer with the words of Paul to the saints in Corinth:

“I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. So we do not lose heart. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.  For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.  So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage. (2 Corinthians 4:13b-14, 16-18a, 5:1-8a ESV)

            Kaitlin, be then of good courage.  I believe that Bradley did truly repent of his sin and understand his need for salvation through faith and thanksgiving as given to him by the Spirit through the redeeming work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  I believe that he did truly receive the gift of this saving faith.  I believe that like those saints of Corinth, Bradley has been given his new house, his new body, that is eternal in the heavens.  I believe that Bradley is in paradise with His Lord and Savior this very day.  May it be that we all have that saving faith that was given to Bradley, so one day, when it is our turn, we may join also in communion with Jesus Christ in His eternal kingdom.

            Amen.

These are fictional people.  The exercise was to discuss death, resurrection and heaven in a funeral homily.

Solid Ground

It is tragic when I read the words of friends and family who take verses and rip them out of context to suit their ends.  This is the reason that I am in seminary: to add the weight of respect of letters among men to the explanation of the Word so that some men might actually hear.  Today’s passage is from John 14, the first part.

            “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

            Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

            “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:1-14 ESV)

I saw today, tragically, from some whom I love, the typical “name it, claim it” abuse of verses 12-14.  Let us look at this 14^th chapter of John with some perspective and see if we can shed some light on the various parts.

First, and most importantly, Jesus is talking to his disciples, men who are following him and yet do not understand at this point of the story why it is that Jesus has come, nor what he is doing.  Jesus has just told Peter that Peter will deny Jesus.  We have the benefit of hindsight, but we should not lose touch with the context.  This chapter is so incredibly dense, that I will have to keep focus on the verse in question, but always in the context of this first statement: Jesus is talking to his remaining eleven disciples.

Starting with the first verse, we run into our first question on translation.  Is the phrase Believe in God or You believe in God?  So, if Jesus has just informed Peter and the other apostles of Peter’s denial, then when he says to Believe in God, there is a context of denial.  This is an imperative, yes; but it is in the context of speaking to a group who clearly do believe in God.  So why should Jesus use this imperative? 

This chapter is one of the sentinel Trinitarian passages in the Bible.  In this first section, Jesus lays out His own unity with and yet separate person from God.  In the second section, Jesus will lay out His unity with and yet separate person from the Holy Spirit.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.  Let’s continue.

Jesus sets up Thomas by saying “…And you know the way to where I am going.” Realize that Jesus has just described metaphorically heaven and yet Thomas, who is just not seeing the point of all of this says.  “We don’t know where you are going.  How can we know the way?”

This is vitally important point.  Even one of the eleven remaining disciples did not know the way, did not know the goal, did not know the purpose of Jesus and His coming into the world, and the manner of His leaving the world.  Is it any wonder that we today have such a perverted view of Jesus and His life and ministry?  What were the Jews expecting?  What did they get instead?  This dichotomy of expectation and realization is part of the backdrop of Christianity both then and now.  What do we expect and what has actually been realized?

We all know the famous quote of John 14:6.  If you don’t, I’m sorry, but we’ll have to come back to that another day.  Let us look for now at John 14:7: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” This is a remarkable statement.  He is accusing His disciples of not knowing Him!  Look at His audience here: the eleven remaining disciples!  If you had known me….  Why does he say this?  Remember what we keep saying, context, context, context.  This is about Jesus making the claim, over and over again, until He gets it through their thick skulls, that He is from God, He is of God, He is God.

Now comes the big set up for our quoted passage for today.  Philip requests that Jesus “show us the Father, and it is enough.” Now, look how this follows on the heels of what Jesus has just said!  You have to love the humanity of the Apostles.  They have the Real Deal, Jesus Himself, in flesh and blood, standing (or sitting) with them, and they still have ears filled with wax, minds full of worldly clutter, totally incapable of hearing the message right in front of them.  It is truly remarkable.  Types and shadows, my friends, types and shadows.  To the ears of the nonbeliever, all this is foolishness.  But to the ears of the believer, these are the Words of Salvation.  Look at these words Jesus spoke to the scribes and Pharisees back in John 8:

"But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:45-47 ESV)

Is Jesus comparing His own eleven to the scribes and Pharisees?  In a very real sense, yes, He is.  We are all condemned to death under Adam.  It is not until Jesus arises from the dead, overcoming death and sin, that any one of them gets it!  If the Apostles don’t get it despite seeing with their eyes and hearing with their ears, how are we to do so?  That is the role of the Holy Spirit, and we are coming to that shortly.

So, what is Jesus’ response to Philip? First, His response is almost incredulous. “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” Really, Philip?  Aren’t you listening?  “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?” Really Philip?  Now, one more time in small words, Philip, and the rest of you, so that you will all understand me plainly. “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does His works.  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.”

One aside, the word works in this contexts means not just signs and wonders, miracles and healing, and all of the great stuff Jesus does, but much more importantly, all of the teaching that He has done, all of the re-examination of scripture that He has done (and notably will do shortly after His resurrection.) The words that I say to you....  The point of this statement is not the works, the point is to believe that Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus.

And now, finally, we are ready for our verses for the day, John 14:12-14.  

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." (John 14:12-14 ESV)

Look, you lot, you are the believers.  It’s all going to be on your back, because I have to leave very soon.  You will have to do works, greater works than what I have done.  Now, here, it is very important to look at that word works again in this context.  Clearly, Jesus doesn’t mean that they will have to duplicate what He Himself is about to in terms of the resurrection.  That much I think we can state as a given.  So, there are limits to the scope of these works.  What is the point of the works?  To demonstrate that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father.  Does that mean signs and wonders and miracles?  Sure, we know that it does.  What is the purpose of these signs and wonders and miracles and are they all of what the apostles need to be doing?  Works, importantly, specifically and most prominently means to teach, to spread the Word.  How do we know this?  That’s what Jesus will follow through with in the next section.  If the apostles have to do great works, they are going to need a Helper.  And Jesus will define the Work of the Helper.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26 ESV)

Ah, so remembering and repeating the Words of Jesus is a big time Work.  Whatever you, the eleven remaining apostles, ask in My name, this is will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  Please, please, please, read that highlighted portion again and again.  I know that you will want to highlight the next line, because that is what our fallen minds seek.  We want to name it and claim it.  But it is not about us, it never has been. It’s all about Jesus, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

That’s enough for today.  Go to church, one in which the Word of God is preached from the Bible, in an expository manner, explaining the Word in light of the unfolding mystery of redemptive history, in light of the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ our only mediator and advocate.

– Troll –

Dialoguing, part 3

As this seems destined to become quite a series, I think that your last post, Susan, raises too many issues to answer in one post.  In addition, not all of my direct questions were answered, meaning that I am still at a loss understanding the position for which you debate. 

To start, I am going to review my questions and make sure that I have a grip on your responses.  What is the problem?  Incredibly, we identify the problem in similar terms, but we seem to have a different understanding of the history of the American church.  I will spend some time in this area.  The question concerning phonemes and pictographs deserves a linguistic response, and that I will give.  The question that might have been the second most important asked regarding continuing revelation was unanswered.  If your experience differs from mine, how do we know whose revelation is correct?  And then that favorite buzzword comes up, “relationship.” You have stated yourself that people do not know God.  How then can they have a relationship with One Whom they do not know?  Finally, it seems that exegesis will be a necessary part of the discussion.  My position has been articulated in the many, many posts linked to the right.  But rather than just pointing and saying read this, let’s try a couple of passages out for size and see what happens.  I’m willing to go in that direction for now.

The problem.  Historically, what was the main issue behind the Protestant Reformation?  The issue can be boiled down to one of authority.  If there can be more than one pope at a time, (there were actually three at one time in the 15^th century,) and the pope is infallible, then how do we believe this situation as mere humans?  The answer was the Wycliffe run to the authority of scripture.  Scripture is fixed.  It is an immutable authority.  While interpretation may vary, interpretation is a product of man.  Scripture is the inspired Word of God, perhaps better termed the expired or breathed Word of God.  The reason that Reformed get so bent out of shape about continuing revelation is that it smacks of popery, and we have already had enough martyrs for that cause.

You raise the question that if the Pentecostal Movement is the culprit, then why haven’t the mainline denominations given into the Pentecostal reformative process of the last century?  OK, here’s your answer: of course they have.  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the theology of the mainline denominations has been there, and in fact, they were there before the Evangelicals got there.  The mainline denominations are to some small degree coming back towards some semblance of orthodoxy.  They have seen the logical end point of that path in horror and are warning the Evangelicals against their current course.  Let’s look at this in terms of the US historical experience before we tackle the theology.  Leaving the philosophical effects of the First and Second Great Awakenings aside for a moment, let’s look at two of the main movers and shakers of the modern American church: John Wesley and Charles Finney. 

John Wesley was an Anglican who had his Moravian boating experience and then rejected Calvinism.  Simplistic, yes, I know.  But bear with me.  He became enamored of the Arminian theology that was infecting the Church of England.  His application of this theology in a society that was individualistic and self reliant to a fault, 18^th century America, led to a practice that fit more with the Arminian theology than the liturgy of the Church of England.  Then, along comes Charles Finney, a thorough going Pelagian, who talks of excitements and a bench of expectation or some such nonsense.  It was the forerunner of the altar call. Here is one of several articles I can provide on the irony of Charles Finney as a Christian leader.  The problem when you take all of the teeth out of the Law and all of the Grace out of the Gospel is that what you have left is a religion of individualism. God helps those who help themselves, and a nation that actually believes that statement is Biblical.  When we all can have our own private revelation that is different from scripture, outside of scripture, where is the authority?  We have moved from a flawed pope to a total lack of authority.  Failure to see the Evangelical movement, the Pentecostal movement, the Wesleyan movement as effected by Finney is naïve.  Regarding the protestant liberals, those mainline denominations we were talking about, those are the very churches to whom Dorothy Sayers was referring.  They are not following the Pentecostal movement.  They were there first.  We can talk about Mechan next, if you like.  That link is actually posted to the right.

Linguistics.  One of the languages that I have studied is Sanskrit.  It is perhaps second in line of all Indo-European languages going back in its roots 5000 years.  While the Asian languages developed in a decidedly pictographic direction, the Indo-Iranian languages, e.g. Persian, evolved differently.  Sanskrit, still, is typologically unique in its absolutely phonetic alphabet.  The symbols all represent discrete sounds that have been unchanged in over 4000 years.  The reason is that the words represent ideas.  Sanskrit was involved in the holy writings of the Hindu and therefore the hope was to pass these writings down untainted through time.  By holding the phonetic quality tightly unchanged, the meanings of the words were similarly unchanged.  This extreme is not represented across the rest of the Indo-European languages, but it does serve to point out that language developed more phonetically in the West.  This is not to divorce all pictographic aspects from Western language, but it is to call into question any over reliance in that sort of system in Western language. Take the Egyptians as an example.  We assumed for decades that the “pictographs” on the temples and pyramids were of the Eastern language type.  The Rosetta Stone made clear that even the pictures of the Egyptians were used phonetically.  While there will be some overlap in our study of languages, it should not be assumed that any significant meaning can be gleaned from a pictographic interpretation of Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian, Greek or Latin.

Experience.  This is the most troubling of all the issues that we raised.  If my experience is different than all ten people in the room, who am I to say that my experience is the authentic experience?  There is no remaining authority upon which to make that judgment.  This is the logical extension of continuing revelation in the way in which it is practiced today.  No adequate discussion of that topic is ever forthcoming.  The authority of scripture is diminished by this practice.  As I said before, Luther’s writings are not a part of the Canon, not even for Lutherans.  Until there is a clear understanding of the Holiness of God and the authority of scripture, this conversation will continue to be apples and prairie dogs.

Relationship.  You ask if I testify to an active relationship with Christ?  No, I don’t.  My experience with Christ is not relevant to anyone else.  The problem is that people do not know who God is.  The Holiness of God and His absolute Holiness is not understood.  The complete sinfulness of all sin is meaningless.  The depth of our despair is unknown.  We are a vast sea of death before the feet of God.  Christ accomplished changing that situation.  As he says in John’s gospel, “It is finished.” This is news, good news, in fact.  My relationship with Him is not relevant to that news.  I proclaim the Good News of Christ Crucified (meaning that as a shorthand for Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension.)  The Holy Spirit is responsible for the individual responses of people.  My telling of my response has little more than passing fancy to that rare interested person.  The news is the thing.  The news is the Word that saves.  It’s all about the News.  So, no, I don’t spend 2 seconds on my relationship with Christ in a discussion with others.  I just want to talk about Christ.

Exegesis.  Since you mentioned Psalms, I wanted to do one of those first, but I’m short on time this week.  So, with some indulgence, perhaps we can consider Isaiah 59.  We can try Psalm 36  or 140 or something else perhaps in the future.  And we can do Acts 2 if you like.  You mentioned Peter’s Pentecost sermon in your first post.  We’ll do that passage as well.  That will be more than plenty for a couple of posts each.  I’ll work on those for you soon.

– Ogre –

With Troll watching closely….

Election from Dr. Riddlebarger

Sometimes the best posts are links to another's work. 

Dr. Riddlebarger has been running a series similar to my own.  Even though we are going a bit out of order with this, I thought I'd post it.

Election

Troll

Justification

Returning to our building blocks series on vocabulary, today we are going to tackle one of the most important terms in all of Christian theology.  Raise your hand if you have ever heard this term in a sermon at church.  Really?

Justification.  From Webster, justification is the act of proving or showing one to be just, right, or reasonable.  Let’s not spend any time considering the obvious breakdown in terms of man, but instead, let’s think of these ideas from the perspective of God.  On the Last Day, we will quite literally face a trial.  There will be a judge.  The charge is sin and the penalty is eternal damnation.  What is just?  God’s view of justice, we have seen is perfect obedience to His will.  What is right or righteous?  What can we say about the righteousness of God?  This perfect righteousness has been attained by one Man only.  Is this reasonable?  When the writer of the rulebook says that these are the rules, I’d say it is perfectly reasonable as well.  Justification is the means by which people may obtain perfect righteousness before God on Judgment Day.  Let’s break it down again by groups.

Pelagian.  Remember that this groups starts from the denial of original sin.  Therefore, Adam is a bad example and Jesus is a good example.  That is why the question “What would Jesus do?” is appropriate in this context.  There is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness.  All of our efforts in our life time become the grounds for our justification.  We will be judged based upon our own actions, thoughts and omissions.  Our lives will be on display and we will be judged.  This is clearly fair.  No one will deny that this is the most fair system.  I have two questions: is it the most Biblical system, and do you really want fair?

Semipelagian.  This group starts with original sin that is subsequently cleansed for all of mankind by the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross.  Our righteousness is still based upon our own efforts in thought, word and deed, by what we have done and what we have left undone.  At Judgment, we will be able to say that we got a good start with a clean slate.  But the righteousness of Jesus is not imputed to us beyond the moment of our birth.  From then on, we are back to “What would Jesus Do?” as our road map to Salvation.  Once again, this is fair to us, though not so much to Jesus who had to die to give us that fresh start.  Therefore, God designed a system that was fair to the creature, but not to Himself.  Really?  That’s what we want to believe?

Arminianism.  We are entering the realm of prevenient grace, yet again.  At the moment we receive prevenient grace, and cooperate with God by believing and having faith, we are justified.  The trouble is in the issue of maintaining that justification.  The rest of our lives involves our vocabulary word for the next post, sanctification.  Even though there is a prevenient grace that precedes our response, this is still a synergistic system of justification.  Justification is by grace through faith, but not by grace alone through faith alone.

Roman Catholicism.  In order to understand the Roman Catholic view of justification, we need to start with something very similar to the Arminian view of justification, and then add the Arminian view of sanctification, to get a combined justification and sanctification that is the full Roman Catholic definition of justification.  In other words, Rome has no use for sanctification; to Rome, it is all part of the same thing.  This is not an altogether unhelpful concept as it is at least honest.  But because the first part is as a result as the input of prevenient grace, the second part which we view as sanctification is pure works, albeit within the context of the infusion of regular dosed inputs of grace.  There is no way to be clear on this topic in one paragraph, so if this seems confusing, it is because the terms are not the same in this system.

Reformed and Calvinism.  We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone to the glory of God alone as testified in scripture alone.  Every part of that sentence has historical references and is worthy of conversation.  We will be going through each of the five solas in the near future.  The bottom line is that this is a system of monergism; God does it all.  Our justification before God on the Last Day is based solely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ to us, with absolutely no contribution of our own merits.  Our faith that brings this righteousness to us is solely a gift from God through the power of the Holy Spirit, having no input of cooperation from us whatever.  We don’t think about any aspect of the Law as capable of contributing to justification, only as defining the terms required for justification.  We do not presume to elevate ourselves to a position capable of contributing anything worthwhile to the efforts of Jesus on the cross; it is all to the Glory of God alone, not to us.

This was intended as a brief overview of the basic positions, a reference point.  In one sermon this past week, I heard a basically Arminian definition of justification articulated, without ever using the Biblical term justification, followed by thirty minutes of rambling explanation that sounded semipelagian or Pelagian in the amount of effort required for justification.  This illustrates two important points.  The reason that we don’t have the vocabulary any longer is that even when discuss the topics, we don’t hear the Biblical words used.  This leads to imprecision and a muddying of waters that I believe is intentional.  Second, the exegesis that passes for scholarly and Biblical most often fails to view these definitions in light of the redemptive historical narrative.  There is a metanarrative that has been lost as well as the vocabulary of the faith.  The two are intertwined and essential to mutual understanding.

In our next vocabulary post, we will attempt to unravel the key distinctives of sanctification.

– Troll –

Defending Doctrine

With the timeliness that suggests providence, the New Reformation Press reprinted a fabulous quote from the English writer of the early 20^th century, Dorothy Sayers, that is a great starting point for tonight’s rebuttal.  Here is the link:

            The New Reformation Press: More Than a Feeling

I have already linked to the comments to which I will refer tonight at the end of the prior post.  The text is well written and on the whole more cordial than I have been.  Let us address then, with the decorum and grace of Christians, our differences, and see if I too can suggest a reading list that matches at the very least the distinguished names we encountered there. (There is almost no possibility that I will achieve what I am seeking to do with this post in terms of decorum, so I will apologize now so that I don’t miss my chance later.) Let’s begin.

While I would agree with Ogre that we may be worlds apart in theology and doctrine I do believe that we share a common goal in understanding that the Church needs reformation.

This sentence should take primacy in our discussion.  The importance of this next point is vital in our discussion.  If we both think the Church needs reformation, what do you believe is the problem?  If I am at all convicted that we might view the same problems, I am certain we have different solutions.  Our reformations would look nothing alike.  From my perspective, your reformation took place in the mid-19^th century, and you have already won the day.  Your reformation is the reason for the modern church we have today.  What more, pray tell, would you have us do to the church that we haven’t already done in the last 150 years?  We have revivals, altar calls, modern music, an abandonment of the word and sacrament means of grace, and a disdain for doctrine that would truly embarrass and disappoint Screwtape all the more.  Where else can you go to destroy the last vestiges of the Reformed tradition?

Perhaps we can find the answer to this question as we explore the next section of the post. 

I am here to testify to the power of Christ crucified and alive in me. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God written with man’s hand and that the full meanings of Scripture are still being unlocked for us today as God reveals new truth about Himself through His Word. I believe that there are layers of meaning in Scripture when taken in the original Hebrew from both a pictographic and phonic context and that what is stated in the Bible is pertinent for today as Jesus is a fulfillment of the law as set forth in the Old Testament.

I have read this several times, and I must confess that I have no idea what it means.  As a seminary student who will soon embark upon the study of Greek and Hebrew, and as a person who has already formally studied to a limited degree four languages other than English (mastering none of them,) I have a great idea of the importance of phonemes, conjugation, inflection and grammar.  I have no idea of the pictographic or phonic context of any of those languages.  Maybe I’m just being stubborn and your meaning is the same as mine.  But there exists in this passage the insistence upon continuing revelation based upon the Word rather than as specifically and carefully recorded in the Word.  The idea of divine inspiration is being applied to the modern eye and ear receiving the Word rather than to the humans who recorded the Word.  I am here to testify to the power of Christ crucified and alive in me. This creates a situation in which there is continuing revelation.  The implication is that the revelation of redemptive history as laid out across time and as recorded in the Bible is insufficient to its stated purpose: the salvation of man.  This is a troubling perspective to me and one to which I will return in a bit.  You see, I am here to testify to Christ incarnate, crucified and arisen.  Do you see the difference?  I am not a part of the predicate of my declaration.

Not for one second do I want to challenge the experience of any person who claims the title of Christian.  I avoided that in my first post, and I shall do that now.  But I will leave this question out there on the subject: if experience is the key to conversion and ongoing revelation, and my experience is different than yours, how is the revelation the same?  How can we all call ourselves by the same label, when each has his own experience of God?  Let’s move onto the next statement I would like to discuss.

The Apostolic Reformation is not about doctrine, rules or a denomination but rather about relationships and ‘fathering’ the next generation. It is our desire to model Christ-likeness through the power of the Holy Spirit and His grace to the people around us on an intergenerational level….

My favorite line on this subject comes from Mike Horton, and he’s so well read, who knows where he found it: How can you have a relationship with someone you know little or nothing about?  Here is the problem.  If you want to go around proof texting, you are going to have to dirty your hands with some doctrine.  The two are not separable.  The Bible was not created to give us a sort of Barlett’s quotations of useful phrases to fit any occasion.  There is a story that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation, the story of the greatest rescue mission of all time.  Doctrine is the plotline of that story.  Doctrine is the story. (Paraphrasing Dorothy Sayers.) 

Rather than discussing an exegesis of Acts 2 and the Joel passage that it quotes, which I have done several times before, I want to avoid the exegesis issue with you for a while longer.  How can one at the same time as claiming not to be a theologian, nonetheless use passages towards a specific purpose or goal, the very functionality of being a theologian of one stripe or another?  We cannot debate theology when one side does not acknowledge that we are doing just that.  We are all theologians, every one of us, including the Muslims, the Buddhists and the atheists.

As a brief aside, the comparison of Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin and John Wycliffe to Pierce, Wagner and those others as like individuals is troubling.  Martin Luther, John Knox and John Calvin followed the example of Wycliffe who was perhaps first in articulating sola scriptura before we came to know that view of authority as such.  The others you mentioned absolutely do not hold to anything remotely resembling sola scriptura.  In my effort to keep my tone civil, I need to let this go.  The simplest thing to say so that I can move on is that Martin Luther’s writings are not a part of the Canon, not even for Lutherans.

On the topics of dominion and theocracy, we can agree that your first statement about not speaking for NAR is certainly true.  Your definition of dominion is completely different than that given by Wagner and has no significant eschatological import as his certainly does.  So we can safely avoid that discussion as I was remarking on Wagner’s position, not on your experience, which I have stated that I consider out of bounds. 

In your last paragraph, you returned to proof texting and using a verse out of context.  Again, I think it would be wonderful to do exegesis of some of these passages that you quoted, but it would require a commitment by you to stay the course.  What will you do when your understanding of a passage runs afoul of other passages?  Will you follow the thread of reason and discernment to a different path, or will you accept contradiction within the Word of God? 

If you want to be challenged, keep coming back.  I have only two rules that I will keep for myself on this thread.  First, I will not discuss your experience or mine for that matter.  Neither is contained within the Bible.  Second, although I linked to your website in the prior post, I do not use names on this blog.  I have been blessed with far too little humility and far too little knowledge, and I do have my own experience with the Holy Spirit.  Be that as it may, I believe that there is such a thing as saving faith and that faith has a specific object.  We can call each other brothers in Christ when that definition is at least preserved.  Please do return as this debate might be helpful to many others who read here.

And finally, as for that once promised reading list, and I’m sure I’ll be getting some suggestions from some of my brothers tomorrow, here are some that you yourself recommended in your post, indirectly of course, plus a couple of others.

The Institutes of Religion by John Calvin. 

The Small Catechism by Martin Luther.

Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis.

Putting Amazing Back into Grace by Mike Horton

Try the Building Blocks posts on this blog from this year.

And I leave you with Dorothy Sayers once again.

The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion what the Church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ.

…Theologically this country is at present is in a state of utter chaos established in the name of religious toleration and rapidly degenerating into flight from reason and the death of hope. 

– Ogre –

The New Apostolic Reformation

Earlier today, in suggesting one of the links on the lower right column of this blog, a website was recommended to me suggesting similarities between the two organizations.  The organization that I named was the magazine Modern Reformation. This magazine is the doctrinal hard copy of the White Horse Inn radio show.  The organization compared to these is the New Apostolic Reformation on a site that is called Global Spheres.  Here are the links:

Modern Reformation           WhiteHorse Inn                   Global Spheres

If you are familiar with WHI and MR, I apologize in advance.  The stated goals of these two organizations is:

We believe that each generation must rediscover and apply the gospel to their own time. We long to see a second reformation – a modern Reformation take hold of our churches and return them to the God-honoring, Christ-centered, Spirit-wrought places of worship they should be….  So, we’re putting our time and resources to work toward one, helping Christians “know what they believe and why they believe it.”

It is important to understand that their discussion is all about doctrine, all about the Gospel.  The theme is that you do not even attempt to answer questions about the world until we have the Gospel straight.  We’ll see how this works in a bit.

The stated goal of GS and the NAR is:

NAR has no official statements of theology or ecclesiology, although a large number of us do happen to agree upon many somewhat radical conclusions. Most of us have long track records of service within traditional Christianity, and we have needed to go through paradigm shifts to get where we are now. Keep in mind that one of the affects of every paradigm shift is that some people get pulled out of their comfort zones. One of the reasons for opposition to some of the more radical ideas of NAR is that certain people have decided not to change and they are upset with those who have chosen to change.

So, while one group seeks to return to Christ-centered, Bible-centered, confessional (or creedal) historic Christianity, the other group is seeking to leave this mold.  Let’s look at some specific planks of the NAR and evaluate them in terms of the historic Reformed traditions that are represented by WHI and MR. 

Apostolic governance.  This conversation is in terms of modern alignment of prophets with apostles.  The first thing for the Reformed mind to grasp is that these terms are not restricted in Pentecostal minds to the Biblical period.  Even when we will accept that prophecy in terms of using prophetic voice in teaching and instructing is a modern exercise, we would never presume to use the term “Apostle” outside of its Biblical context or timeframe.  This whole concept is a non-category to the Reformed mind.  While most Pentecostals will assume incorrectly that the reformed are all cessationists, believing that all gifts of the spirit ceased at the death of the last apostle, our understanding of the gifts of the spirit are still very much “confined” by scripture.  The understanding of the gifts of the spirit in the Reformed mind is that they are rooted in the John 14 and 16 passages as exemplified by the sermons in Acts.  In other words, the Holy Spirit was sent to testify to the truth of the Scriptures concerning Jesus Christ.  No more and no less.  The Pentecostal mind, for reasons that I personally do not understand, does not feel that this is sufficient understanding of these gifts.  This position is further fleshed out in the next few concepts. 

The office of prophet.  The Reformed will note quickly that it is always Old Testament scripture that refer to the office of prophet.  (Yes, there are 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, but that is really not the scope of this post.)  We will go on to state in a matter of fact manner that the purpose of those OT prophets was to testify to the coming messiah.  We will point to Matthew 3 and say that John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets; because we had no need of prophets in that sense once Jesus began His earthly ministry.  But the Pentecostal will point to those same OT promises out of redemptive historical context and say look at these verses!  Here are the examples quoted by Dr. Wagner:

Surely God does nothing unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)  Believe in the Lord your God and you shall be established; believe His prophets and you shall prosper. (2 Chronicles 20:20)

Note for ESV users, the word prosper is translated succeed for us, thus you can see immediately where that difference leads.  Yes, this is the style of Biblical interpretation that leads to the prosperity “gospel.” On another day, we can do proper Biblical exegesis of these two passages, but that is not the purpose of this post.

Dominionism.  Here we have another non-category for Reformed believers.  This word is best translated into our categories as a sort of theology of Glory.  As most of us are amillennial in our eschatology, we need to keep touch with the premillennial dispensationalism that remains the mainstay of Pentecostal theology.  This term is a gradual conversion of the world to Christianity, or the granting of dominion over the earth as it is in heaven.  This is a far cry from our understanding of the Great Commission that we hold completely satisfies the requirements prior to the second coming of Christ.  By dominionism, these Pentecostals hold that conversion of at least a majority of the earth to Christianity is necessary to induce the Second Coming, or create the necessary conditions for the Second Coming.  We will not be discussing raptures or raptors or rafters in this post.

A theocracy.  This is putting the cards on the table.  Here is where we finally can look at tangible differences that both sides understand.  The Reformed position is that the only Biblical theocracy on the planet past, present and future was First Temple Israel.  The Pentecostal, dispensational system insists that a vital part of dominionism is a Christian theocracy.  That we Reformed not only see this as unnecessary, but disagree on its Biblical foundation, is to see into the heart of the gulf between the groups.  The two kingdom motif is a category distinction that does not exist in the Pentecostal world.  It would take a careful exegesis of several parables to teach the doctrine of two kingdoms, again beyond the scope of this post, so I will defer to past and future posts on this topic.

Extra-biblical revelation.  While both groups hold that the Holy Spirit is very active in the world today, because the Pentecostals overlook the normal “relatively mundane” gifts of the Holy Spirit, they assume incorrectly that the Reformed do not have a robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  Instead, the work of the Holy Spirit becomes one of extra-biblical revelation.  This is not seen as directly affronting John 14 and 16.  This is seen through an interpretation of those passages that hangs upon this part of one verse.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13 ESV)

From this half of one verse out of context, we get all of this extra-biblical revelation.  Read Dr. Wagner’s defense of this topic.  The violence that he does to the authority of scripture is the typical liberal working over.  The irony that a group that holds to the supposedly more enlightened view of the Holy Spirit has such a narrow view of inspiration when it comes to the Canon.  Arguing over the inclusion of the Apocrypha when it doesn’t support any of their arguments seems remarkable!

Supernatural signs and wonders.   Rather than spend any more energy on this topic, I’ll give it the same of course treatment that Dr. Wagner does.  Once we get to this part of the discussion, our world views, our Biblical views, our eschatology, our theology are so far apart, that I agree with him that this is an of course moment.  For the record, most Reformed to not doubt supernatural signs and wonders in the least.  They occurred all through the Bible.  They always occurred in reference with bringing Glory to God and bringing light to the story of redemptive history at that point in revelation. Our current point in the redemptive historical timeline we call the interadvental period.  Therefore, supernatural signs and wonders, when they begin to occur, should warn us that the Second Coming is truly at hand.

The last segment of Dr. Wagner’s perspective is called Relational Structures.  This is such a noncategory for the Reformed, I will defer any explanation for now.  I would like, instead to turn to the Reformed Confessions.

 The Reformed Confessions and Historical Documents

Here is the last link I will supply for this post.  It also exists at the bottom of the right column.  At this website, all of the historic Protestant confessions and catechisms can be found.  This is a valuable resource.  My Pentecostal friends, in order to understand this Reformed group with whom you so often disagree, it might be helpful to study your own history.  Eventually, you will run into one of these documents.  On this blog, I have a completed review of the 39 Articles and about ¾ of a review of the Heidelberg Catechism.  In order to have a discussion with someone who differs from your opinion, it is first important to understand their opinion.  Ignorance of these documents and their importance in the development of Protestant churches in the last 500 years is really inexcusable.  These documents are in the background of any conversation that you have with a Reformed Protestant on doctrine.

The WHI and MR have these confessions in mind when they give their mission statement that I quoted at the outset.  When you read them, you will begin to understand what we mean by the authority of scripture.

– Ogre –

The Vocabulary of the Faith: Imputation

I have tried doing posts on particular topics in the past and I have discovered that the language of the faith seems to bog down the conversation.  It was not that many years ago when I was a Biblical illiterate as well.  Biblical literacy is not just memorizing Bible verses.  Biblical literacy is having a working knowledge of the story, the major themes, the main characters.  When you studied Moby Dick in high school, your English literature teacher would not have accepted a synopsis of the novel that basically said that a whale ate Ahab’s leg, so he went on a revenge hunt.  While it is true, it does not even begin to touch on the complexity of the story.  If Ahab is an interesting character, the main character of the Bible is absolutely riveting.  Still, we have to acknowledge that the vernacular of the Bible is largely unknown or lost in this day.  My goal in the next few posts is first to introduce a few terms, then walk them through the various systems that we defined in the last few posts.  Do not worry if you do not understand them initially.  There will be a moment when it all clicks together.  Remember, this used to be standard fair for catechism of young children.  We can handle it.

Imputation.  We have already seen this word in action.  This word is a legal or accounting term in its usage.  Webster says that imputation is the attribution or ascription of a quality to a person or an object.  Webster goes on to give the word negative connotation with definitions such as accusation or insinuation, but this negative additional connotation is the result of the usage of imputation possible by a fallen creature than a quality of the term itself.  Still, we can see that we are attaching a quality to the object of the verb impute.  In its Biblical usage, imputation is a larger concept than this.  There is a specific quality of one party that we are going to not only attribute or ascribe to another, but we are going to transfer this quality to the other.  This is the legal or accounting aspect of this word.  In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean steals candlesticks from the Bishop of Digne.  When he is caught and brought back to face the Bishop, the Bishop imputes innocence to Jean Valjean, despite his clear knowledge to the contrary, in order that Jean Valjean is righteous in front of the magistrate.  Now, let’s take this into the Bible and see where and how this imputation works.

Original sin.  To understand this particular example of imputation, let’s consider a topic that is more familiar to us: inheritance.  Most of us are familiar with a document known as the Last Will and Testament.  If we are fortunate enough to have a wealthy family member who might have a bit of misfortune that results in his death, this document will distribute his worldly possessions to his family.  Now, unfortunately, if he was a horrible manager of money, the family will instead inherit his debts.  In the Biblical sense, this is the blessing and curses principle as it is applied to inheritance.  Regardless of your belief concerning a historic Adam, clearly we can use the language of government to call him the federal head of mankind.  In other words, Adam represents all of mankind in the Garden of Eden.  When Adam commits his sin, the punishment is death.  What is worse, his punishment under the curse principle is inherited by his family for a thousand generations (figuratively a very large number if you prefer.)  The bottom line is that mankind has the guilt of that sin imputed to us for the rest of time.  That’s a heavy inheritance.  The whole Old Testament is trying to teach us about this debt and the fact that we are incapable to restore our account.  The problem is that we have no access to the proper currency.

Jesus Christ on the Cross.  In this example, there are two imputations occurring.  This is sometimes called the Great Exchange.  In the first of these imputations, the sin of Adam is imputed back from all of the true believers to Jesus Christ.  In return, that capital that we so desperately require and have absolute no way to attain, righteousness before God, is simply given to us.  This perfect righteousness before God of Jesus Christ is imputed back to those who believe in the saving work of His work on the cross.  The amazing part of this double imputation is that is has already occurred.  This transaction is past tense.  It occurred 2000 years ago.  Plus, it costs us absolutely nothing.  It is completely free.  By this accounting move, all of our sin is imputed to Jesus Christ, while all of His righteousness is imputed to us.

Therefore, on Judgment Day, we can bring either our own self righteousness before God for judgment, or as Rod Rosenbladt likes to say, we can bet all of the blue chips on this Great Exchange.  We can be judged based upon the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.  Clearly, not all of the systems that we have discussed in prior posts view imputation in this way.  Therefore, let’s go through each of our systems and see what each makes of imputation.

Pelagian.  There is no role for imputation in this system at all.  Consider the first premise of the Pelagian: there is no original sin.  If you start with a denial of the first imputation, what need have you for the other two?  If Adam was a bad example, and Christ was a good example, we can work out our salvation without any of this legal or accounting funny business.  Besides, how is it fair that something that was done by Adam could be imputed to me?  How, in turn, is it fair that Jesus could die for anyone but Himself?  We’ve been here before, but let me restate the obvious, in this system, if Jesus Christ only can die for Himself, why did He have to die at all?  If Jesus Christ lived without sin, He should still be living and breathing and walking on this earth, encouraging all of us to do our best, to work our way to Salvation.  If this system is true, why did Christ have to die?

Semipelagian.  The first imputation is preserved in this system.  Now, let’s look at Jesus Christ on the cross.  Due to the first imputation of Adam’s sin to all of mankind, Jesus is going to rectify the situation by returning all of mankind to the same state as Adam and Himself: perfectly sinless creatures before God.  The idea of cleansing the slate is that all of the sin of all of mankind is imputed back to Jesus at the cross.  However, His perfect righteousness is not imputed back to us.  We have to earn our righteousness. (I want to avoid conversations about eschatology for now, so let’s assume that we are only talking about from 33 A.D. going forward.  Later, we will address the Old Testament times.) So, we now have two very important assumptions made by this system.  First, all of mankind is restored to sinless perfection so that we are conceived and are born in perfection.  Second, we are therefore responsible for our own salvation.  Do you know anyone who is perfect?

Arminian.  In this system, the assumptions of imputation are slightly different.  The first imputation is again preserved.  Now, before we continue, let me say that this section and the Roman Catholic section are a bit confusing.  Remember that we have this little issue of Prevenient Grace.  Do we assume that everyone receives this gift or not?  If everyone receives this gift, then we have reverted back to the Semipelagian view of imputation.  If this gift is only given to those in foreseen knowledge of their faith, then the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is only to those who come to saving faith.  The imputation of our sin to Jesus Christ is still to all of mankind, but we are free to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in order to receive the perfect righteousness of Christ or instead to continue in sin and lose our Salvation.  If this seems slippery and difficult to pin down, then you have arrived at my position.  I’m not even sure I’m explaining this position properly.  The reason is that there seems to be inherent contradiction in the application of prevenient grace.  If we cannot logically and consistently apply all of these Biblical terms to a system, then perhaps that system is flawed.

Roman Catholic.  This is pretty close to the Arminian view.  Sin is imputed to us.  Our sin is imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteous is imputed to us based upon prevenient grace.  This time, unrepented mortal sins will remove us from the grace equation, while a sin/grace deficit will send us to purgatory to complete our process of making ourselves perfect and righteous before God.  Again, there is this problem that not all will be saved, therefore, for whom did Christ die?  All sin was imputed to Christ, at least up until the moment of our birth.  But who receives the righteousness of Christ?  Perhaps, of these last two categories, it might be better said that while our sin is imputed to Jesus, His righteous is not imputed back to us.  It must be earned, just as in the semipelagian position, but with the assistance of and cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

Calvinist and Reformed.  The Calvinist position has already been explained: the full three imputation position with the Great Exchange as described at the outset.  What is important is the distinction that is drawn concerning who the parties are in the imputations.  The first is from Adam to all of mankind.  The second two involve Jesus on the cross and all true believers from across all of time, but not any of the reprobate.  Jesus accomplishes exactly His intention.  In all of the other systems, the whole of mankind is included in the imputation of sin back to Jesus Christ on the cross.  This distinction usually can be seen most clearly in a discussion of the familiar passage beginning with John 3:16.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:16-21 ESV)

Look at the grammar of this passage.  What you do not see are if-then statements.  If-then statements are the structure of Law passages.  This is a gospel passage such as the Matthew 5-7 passages that are so often abused in sermons.  Did God love the world?  Yes, that is a statement. Will those who believe in Jesus have eternal life?  Yes, that is a statement.  Does it say that “if you believe, you will be saved?”  In one sense, yes, it does.  But it does not say that you have the power over that belief and if you will just do the believing, you will be saved.  This is a declaration, not an if-then statement. 

Look at it this way.  I like to put bananas on my cereal in the morning.  In the fruit bowl in our kitchen are apples and bananas.  If you are a banana, you will end up in a bowl of cereal.  This is not suggesting that apples can turn into bananas or that apples have a choice in the matter.  Apples are who they are, and bananas are who they are. Now, look at the passage again.  Do you see the difference?  This is the difference between the Calvinist and Reformed mindset and most of the rest of Christendom.  There is an important distinction between Law and Gospel.  The grammar of the passage is important.

Those are the three Biblical imputations.  I expect that I have at least explained the meaning of the term, even if its application and to whom is still a bit fuzzy.  The extremes are easy.  There is no imputation in the Pelagian system, while there is very specific imputation in the Calvinist system.  We will see how these fuzzy middle grounds truly operate in the next post on our next important term: justification.

– Troll –