A Debate on the Marks of the Church: First Clarification

By now, if you are reading this at all, you are aware that this is a series of posts on two blogs that are interacting with each other. At the beginning of each future post in this series, there will be a link to The Monroe Doctrine so that the prior post to which I am responding will be available to my readers. Please take a moment to read the post entitled “Church Discipline: an opening response.”

After carefully reading my foil’s opening remarks, it is evident that I did not adequately present the historical Anglican position. In my desire to reflect the mood of what is actually taught to the laity, I missed proper emphasis on what is taught to clergy. Since this will be a series about ideal ideas as opposed to the relative strengths of particular parishes, I will do well to stick to doctrine over practice. In my own future, I will certainly endeavor to make these two congruent. The issue at hand prior to embarking upon the great issue of discipline is the sacraments.

In a discussion of the marks of the Church, it comes as no surprise that each will impact the others in some manner. Therefore, a clear understanding of the theology behind each will shed light on future remarks. We have little disagreement on the correct preaching of the Word. The only differences arise from the different methods of selecting passages from which the sermons are based. Theologically, it is a wash; by emphasis, however, there is a difference that needs to be underscored.

The Monroe Doctrine author (MDA) asks for clarification on the issue of the sacraments. Let us begin with the issues raised regarding the number of sacraments. While it is true that Anglicanism inherited seven from Rome, it is also true that the Anglican Communion holds that only two were instituted by Christ and are worthy of the full status of sacrament. The other five, which I listed before, are worthy only of the title of “sacramental rites.” This is important because the implication here is that there is an involvement of the Holy Spirit in sacraments.

This brings me to my first key point on Anglican sacraments. The 39 Articles join with the Lutheran Augsburg Confession in rejecting the Zwinglian view of sacraments as anthropocentric ritual. By their very institution by Christ, Anglicans affirm that sacraments do not do any work, but rather God the Holy Spirit works on us through the sacraments. The sacraments are a gift from Christ whereby God does something, as opposed to them being a God-given way for us to declare something to Him or man. This is an important distinction, consistent with the views of Augustine, but one that may not be afoul of Presbyterian thinking.

In terms of Baptism, the laity often view Baptism as an open sacrament because of our (mutual) paedobaptism. In actual fact, far more adult baptisms are performed annually than infant baptisms in the Anglican Church. For the Anglican, this idea of an open sacrament is simply not the case, nor do I image that it is for the Presbyterian. As Baptism is a sacrament, a person who is baptized but does not repent and receive regeneration is as much bringing damnation upon himself as is a person who does not rightly receive the Lord’s Supper. The language of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is echoed in terms of both sacraments. Interestingly, Calvin states a similar position in his sermon on Ephesians 2:11-13, including Baptism on equal footing with the Lord’s Supper as sacraments that condemn the reprobate. Articles 25 and 26 predate and actually predict the position of the Westminster Confession on this issue and the next.

The specific issue raised by MDA concerns regeneration. Following John Donne in the seventeenth century is Bishop Arthur Lake who developed the covenant model of Baptism within the Anglican Church. A full understanding of covenant theology in terms of Exodus 19 was outlined. What was also emphasized, however, is that election and covenant inclusion are not synonymous. This speaks directly to the issue of regeneration. While regeneration and Baptism are simultaneous in the elect, this does not deliver the same view of the sacrament as the Lutheran view. Covenant inclusion does not guarantee election, as that is involved in predestination. Many Anglicans will be surprised to find this Calvinist idea in their heritage, but one only has to study the divines to see that this is consistent. Lake is clear to strike at the Armininian idea of free will, preferring the liberation of will through grace that Calvinists will recognize. It is fair to say that this is not espoused by all Anglican clergy, but it is important in our discussion to look at the roots of the denomination for the answers to doctrinal issues. It is clear that Anglicanism has developed a doctrinal mud on this issue, but the roots are more crystalline. The 39 Articles clearly promote a view consistent with the later Westminster Confession.

I think that this puts MDA and me on similar footing concerning the issue of falling from grace. This is simply not possible within the context of a truly regenerated saint. The thought process that led me to that earlier quote was one of appearances concerning the practice of discipline. In good time, we will pound out our differences concerning the reprobate within the covenant community.

Returning to the issue of fencing the table, as MDA has reminded me of that expression, we now have another issue to consider. If Baptism is not only a covenant initiation ritual, but also a true sacrament through which God the Holy Spirit operates, then the reprobate is already condemned from the moment of Baptism. This follows logically from the definition of sacrament. Often, the Anglican laity will produce this terse definition: a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual and invisible grace. This definition is an Anglican truth, but it leaves much on the table for discussion. While not often spoken, the implication of the Holy Spirit being at work in the sacrament is all that Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11. But since the reprobate has already been condemned in Baptism, what further purpose is served by fencing the table?

Again, here is where the view of the Lord’s Supper demonstrates both differences in theology as well as differences in purpose. Because of the activity of the Holy Spirit in sacraments, the role of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is sanctification. While this is similar to the view of Rome, the economy of grace is vastly different. This is not a finite particle of grace for the repudiation of a particular sin as in the Roman Catholic system, but rather more like a recharging of the battery. The Anglican needs this sacrament and feels unhealthy when going too long between. But I would refer you back to the service order for references concerning the confession and absolution that occur just prior to the prayer of consecration. While this may just be a lot of words to some of the laity, the clergy and certainly Anglican theologians take that portion of the service seriously. The absolution is as efficacious in fencing the table as need be, since the reprobate have already condemned themselves in Baptism.

One final point of clarification is the episcopate. While excommunication is among the possibilities of censure from a bishop, I have not heard of it being used with near the same frequency (as in never) relative to the Presbyterian system, again, my point of reference being my conversations with pastors. The bishop is far more likely to deal with the clergy under his charge in a censure than any laity. The issue of parity among ordained elders is a non-issue under the 39 Articles. The authority resides in the position, not the man. A retired bishop has no more authority than any Joe in the pew. We all Western Protestants fell from the same Romish tree. Anglicans feel less compelled to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Rejecting apostolic succession has more to do with political expediency than any theological determinative that I can see at this point.

In closing, I have a humorous observation. While I have chosen to use Luther as my source for the uses of the Law, MDA has selected the same from Calvin. There is little difference other than the ordering of the three. But here is also Luther’s quote on the abuses of the Law.

There are three ways in which the Law may be abused. First, by the self- righteous hypocrites who fancy that they can be justified by the Law. Secondly, by those who claim that Christian liberty exempts a Christian from the observance of the Law. "These," says Peter, "use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," and bring the name and the Gospel of Christ into ill repute. Thirdly, the Law is abused by those who do not understand that the Law is meant to drive us to Christ. When the Law is properly used its value cannot be too highly appraised. It will take me to Christ every time.

– Troll –

(I have not footnoted this blog post as it is not my custom in this blog.)

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Part 2 of Opening Salvo

In beginning of our discussion of the Presbyterian third mark of the Church, it helps from the outset to know that this is not a subject that is viewed lightly or without a very substantial history of vigorous debate. The Westminster Confession of Faith has a section on this topic, and the debate at the Westminster convention or court is interesting reading. There are books on this topic. But first, let me set out a general pattern.

As a pastor described to me, the idea is that most instances are resolved at the first or second level and never get to the last level. What are these levels? First, there is the concerned fellow covenant communicant or church member, but there should be two. They would confront a communicant over an issue of sin, hopefully to guild that person towards counseling with a goal of repentance. The next level of intervention would be the elders, who would similarly seek to correct the communicant, with the goal being restoration of that person by repentance. Finally, things get to the pastoral level and subsequently and organized process of courts within the church that resembles the legal system. This is the last resort and is usually reached only by the communicant either refusing to admit their sin or to be willing to turn from it.

While I will leave it to my friend to polish this process as much as he feels is necessary, I want to focus on the model of Church membership that drives this system. The covenant community has a door in that is baptism and a door out that is excommunication. What follows in the typical Presbyterian discourse on the subject is a lot of discussion about 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 16:19. “Binding and loosing” are translated as “forbid and allow,” and there is an implication of oversight based upon a standard.  The Westminster Confession emphasizes that the Church is a Kingdom, the representation of the Lord’s Kingdom in the already, but not yet; the inter-advental time in which we live. Kingdoms have laws, judges and authorities to implement determinations. This is the justification for their system, and all of it has some Biblical footing.

The Anglican Marks of the Church

Before I can point out my differences, I should first describe my system. We will require an understanding by all parties as to the position from which I debate. The Anglican view of the Church and its authority has been described as a three-legged stool, the legs of which are scripture, history and reason. The ultimate authority in the Anglican Church is scripture. The notable distinctives of the Anglican Church are the Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy (including the lectionary) and the episcopate (that claims apostolic succession.)

The Book of Common Prayer is a misunderstood document. One common criticism is that we use a secondary source for our services rather than the Bible. Actually, the Book of Common Prayer is about 90% Biblical quotation, and about 10% creeds and catholic tradition. Therefore, the criticism is unfounded. The beauty of the Book is that there is little difference between Anglican churches. There is a tradition and a familiarity to any Anglican service to its members, regardless of where they might attend on a given Sunday while traveling. Later, I will address the theology behind this tradition and the similarities and differences with Rome.

The lectionary is a three year cycle of scripture that is read each week. Necessarily, this means that not all areas of the Bible are covered completely. However, the criticism often leveled against the Anglican is that they are Biblically illiterate. Actually, though, they know far more of the Bible than they realize. They just don’t necessarily know where it came from in the Bible or how to find it. The lectionary also means that the same scripture is being read in every Anglican church on any given Sunday.

The episcopate is the most germane point to our topic. All authority in the church is held by the bishops or episcopate, who in turn serve all of their parishes. We will explore in later posts how that authority is used as we now have seen a takeover in the Episcopal Church by utilizing the avenues of power within that body.

Anglican Preaching

While it can certainly vary, the idea is that the sermon is based upon one of the readings for that day. Each day there is a first reading, which can be from any place in the Bible, an Epistle, most often from Paul as you would expect, but the other New Testament letters are not neglected, and a Gospel reading. Most sermons that I have heard have been based on the Gospel. The readings are laid out so that there is a vein of cohesion between them each week. The best sermons find that vein and lay it bare for the congregation. The theology of the preaching of the Word is the same in theory, but in practical application, there is far more importance placed in the sacraments. If I were to ask a random Anglican which is most important, most would point to the sacraments. I wonder and fear if this is a commentary on the quality of the sermons. Still, at root, this is a Calvinist group, born of the Reformation, and shaped largely by Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer was responsible for the creation of the BCP. A perusal of the various versions of this document will reveal a drift in theology from time to time, but a solid foundation particularly in the 1928 version, known as a return to the roots version.

Anglican Sacraments

This section will be a bit confusing for a Presbyterian. The traditional number of sacraments is seven. However, it is recognized that Baptism and the Eucharist are the only two that were instituted by Jesus. The others have been downgraded in some Anglican provinces to sacramental rites. For completeness, those other five sacraments are Confession and Absolution, Holy Matrimony, Confirmation, Holy Orders (ordination) and Holy Unction (anointing of the sick.) Although I was actually taught differently with Evening Prayer substituting for Confirmation, the five I’ve listed here are straight from the 39 Articles and the definitive answer to the question.

There is a decided difference to how Anglicans view the sacraments. Starting with Baptism, let us cover the common ground. Paedobaptism is the rule and the reasoning is the same. It is offered to the children of saints. While the historical background for this practice is both Catholic and Reformed, the theology is not taught in the same manner as the heritage from which it came. It is simply said that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Because of the near miss of a concordat between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, it might be justly argued that the Episcopal position on Baptism more closely resembles Lutheran theology than covenant theology. In practice, this might be the case, but I wonder whether this is consistent through all of the provinces. Again, the issue of the Lutheran theology on Baptism that is troublesome is the apparent falling away from the Church that is seen from time to time and its implications to the sacrament.

The real difference, though, is seen in the Eucharist. The first, most obvious distinctive is the location of the altar. It is always the centerpiece of the church, whether raised at the East end of the church or raised in a more central position. This architecture speaks volumes as to the importance of the Eucharist in the life of the Anglican Church. You will not attend many Anglican services that do not involve the Eucharist, the notable exception being evening prayer. The Anglicans view both of the sacraments instituted by Jesus as necessary for salvation, and therefore the Eucharist holds an important position. Looking back on our scale of Roman Catholic to Baptist, the Anglicans are much closer to Rome than perhaps any other church of the Reformation. You will hear the phrase “real presence” here, but not with the same meaning as with the Roman Catholics. Transubstantiation is specifically condemned in the 39 articles, but there is a reliance upon “mystery” as an explanation for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is certainly much more than the pneumatic presence of which the Presbyterians speak. This is not just a memorial, this is a sacrament every bit as mystical and important as Baptism.

The next point is that the Eucharist is open to all baptized Christians. This has huge implications to the Presbyterian, as I have outlined previously, but this is just not the issue to the Anglican. The Eucharist is necessary and vital to their sanctification. The full theology of the service order will be explored later, including the role of the Eucharist and its climactic position in the service order. What is important here is that the Eucharist is open; therefore, there is a clear difference in theology at work.

In my discussions about these differences with a Presbyterian pastor, his remarks were that Anglicans sounded as if they were guilty of sacerdotalism. Sacerdotalism is the view that priests are given special spiritual authority to mediate between God and man. Firstly, one read of the 39 Articles will put this view to rest. There is explicit language that the authority of the bishop is in the office of bishop, not the man. Incidentally, we saw this recently in the retiring of Pope Benedict and his view of his current position. It was a refreshingly Biblical return for Rome. Secondly, there is no mediation in play here; there is the administration of a sacrament. The distinction is important. The priest is in the role of servant to his congregation, while each participant in the Eucharist communes directly with the elements and His real presence. Any Anglican clergy would dismiss this charge resolutely.

Anglican Service Order

I must spend a few moments on this subject because it sheds much light on the issue of sin and repentance from the Anglican perspective. The service is modeled on the ancient ritual handed down through our Roman Catholic antecedents. It must be stated from the outset that the economy of grace supported by Rome is not in any way followed by the Anglican Communion. Therefore, some of this will seem odd at first as there is a symmetry of action with Roman Catholicism. In fact, a Roman Catholic would find an Anglican service familiar to a degree. The whole service is modeled as a prayer, as worship is an extension of prayer. If you follow one of the acronyms of prayer such as ACTS, then you will recognize some of the pattern. The full measure of the service order, though, has much more depth and breadth.

The service begins by proclamation and invitation. We are announcing to God that we have come to His house to worship Him, and we invite Him to be present with us. There is an exhortation to the congregation to focus on the worship before them. This is followed by the either the Decalogue or the summary of the law. It must be said that the Reformed Anglicans do the full list far more frequently, usually monthly. Next, the service moves to the readings for the day. This is followed by the Sermon, as you would expect.

What follows is vitally important to our discussion. After the sermon, the Nicene Creed is recited. This is followed by the prayers for the whole church and any specific supplications of the congregation. Next, there is a corporate confession of sin. Anglicans have a preserved sacramental rite of personal confession as do the Roman Catholics, but Anglicans generally stick with the corporate prayer of confession. The instruction is to hold your personal sins in mind as this prayer is recited. The next step is crucial to the discussion. The priest or bishop delivers an absolution to the congregation. In Rome, there is penance attached to this step in accordance to their economy of grace. The Anglican view is that penance of that type is in error and a represents the main point of departure of the Reformation. The absolution is corporate and it is taken very seriously in a theological perspective.

After the peace and offertory, the Eucharist Prayer begins. This is led by priest and there is all of the ritual that you would expect from the Roman Catholics. There is usually the ringing of what are called Sanctus Bells at particular moments of the prayer to draw the attention of the congregation and emphasize that what is happening is solemn, mystical and special. The prayer has a solid overlay of good Calvinist doctrine that can be discussed at some point in the future. Finally, after the Great Thanksgiving, there is a post-communion prayer, benediction and exhortation.

As you can see, the placing of the confession and absolution directly before the Eucharist has a purpose that is akin to the reasoning behind the closed sacrament of the Presbyterians. We will certainly have to evaluate the validity of this absolution at some point in the discussion, and we will also need to understand why the Eucharist holds so much prominence in the theology.

What is clearly missing here is the issue of church discipline. While there are standards to which clergy are held (think of clergy as equivalent Biblically to Elder,) censure coming from the bishop if necessary, there is generally speaking counseling available, but no formal move to excommunicate. Again, this sounds a bit Lutheran, as while there is a door in, there is really no formal door out.  We fully recognize that people drift away from the Church, but I think that there is a lack of clarity as to whether these people fall from faith or if they rather did not have genuine faith from the start. I’ll be working through this critical point as we go.

This concludes my opening salvo. I will leave it to my friend to clarify where he feels it is necessary and to ask questions as needed. Then, when he is ready, we will progress to particular Biblical references and try to work through them in both systems.

--Troll--

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Opening salvo

This is hopefully the beginning post of a series. I will be linking you to another blog where the responses will take place. This is a dialogue. If I fail to answer your comments or questions immediately, it is because the quality of the other debater requires my concentration. Eventually, I will get back to you.

This started with the following comments that I will reproduce here as context for my opening remarks. 

“Definition of legalism: any attempt to use the moral law as a set of requirements by which a person can attain favor with God; or, for a Christian, any attempt to use the moral law as posing a threat to the believer or creating a system of punishment and rewards.

Definition of antinomianism ("no law") -- failure to recognize the moral law as a universally valid measure for human conduct before a holy God, by which measure we all fall short; or, for the Christian who has been delivered from condemnation, the failure to recognize the moral law as a guide for how we can show gratitude to God.

These two definitions attempt to make clear the proper and improper use of the law, which I consider an important subject badly mangled by many of the devout.”

Before embarking upon this trek, I will supply some background. My foil in this discussion is a good friend who is a Presbyterian (PCA) Elder. I am a former Episcopalian who is now returning to the Reformed Episcopal Church, a member organization in the Anglican Church of North America. We are both Calvinists. This is an important point from the outset as we will be having an in-house discussion between believing brothers in Christ. We hold the vast majority of theology and doctrine as common ground. Therefore, we will likely be making assumptions that not all of our readers will understand or support. You are forewarned and forearmed.

As a point of information, the Presbyterian position on the marks of the Church is that there are three: Word, Sacrament and Discipline. This series will be exploring this third point. Both sides have centuries of theologians lining up behind them, but we want to flesh out the argument as much to understand our own position better as to convince anyone. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that either of us will change our positions. We do not expect or even necessarily desire that outcome. Both of us will want to remain true to the positions of our respective traditions. I will be working from the ESV and I suspect that will be consistent with my foil, but we will know in the rebuttal if I am in error on this point.

Concerning our working definition of Legalism

It appears to me that the conclusion above sets the framework for the definitions. These definitions are designed in terms of their use within the church, both good and bad. I think I would start by expanding the definition and bringing light on various aspects that warrant consideration. The Law can be defined by the Ten Commandments with the addition of general revelation. There is a side issue of Levitical or rabbinical law that needs to be discussed, so that it can be set aside. Here is how this was defined from the first discussion that I am quoting.

“[T]he law is the moral duty that God requires of people, as revealed generally in conscience and summarized in the 10 commandments. Jesus summarized the moral law as requiring us to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.”

This definition works well for me, so that we understand that rabbinical law is excluded from the discussion. This follows from basic covenant theology and both sides will agree on this point. I will begin with a general definition of legalism and build to the more specific. Legalism is strict and literal adherence to a legal system. There is an implication of extreme compliance to the point that goes to beyond the purpose of the law. In Biblical context, the Pharisees were legalists in terms of both moral law and rabbinical law. Since Jesus was obviously at odds with that group as his primary foil throughout the Gospels, what did he say about legalism?

Any discussion about Jesus and the law must begin with the Sermon on the Mount particularly Matthew 5:17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” One can easily take the verses that follow out of context and arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is proposing an extreme form of legalism. Actually, He is pointing out the futility of keeping the law for man at that point in history. He is trying to get men to understand that they are in a hopeless situation under the law without some sort of help or rescue. Both of us will agree on this point.

Turning a moment to the Rich Young Ruler, an excellent example of a legalist, in Matthew 19:16-26, we see Jesus suggest that the key to salvation is to obey the moral law. The young man completely misses the point of the instruction, so Jesus throws yet more law at him until he capitulates. So much attention, particularly in suburban America, is given to verse 23, that it is often missed that verse 26 is closely related to it. The point of this story is that obedience to the law for salvation is impossible for man alone. Again, there will be agreement on this point.

Martin Luther described the three uses of the law, which bears repeating in this space, though I have written on the topic in the past. There is the civil use of the law, which is as a force to restrain sin. This is in the context of general revelation or natural law. There is the pedagogical use of the law, which shows people their sin and points to mercy and grace outside of themselves. This is the use for confrontation and refutation of sin for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ. Finally, there is the normative use of the law, which is the use of the law for saints as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good. The problem arises when the pedagogical use of the law is attempted on saints. This is how legalism begins. When the doctrines of grace are not understood, there is an innate tendency to return to the law. This expectation that the law provides any role in salvation is misguided. Once again, I do not anticipate any issues here.

Concerning our working definition of antinomianism

This definition is very good as it makes specific mention of our gratitude. The problem with the antinomian is that he does not appreciate the overwhelming nature of the gift of mercy and grace through Christ’s earthly ministry, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Often, people want to skip to the good stuff and miss the foundation of why Christ was necessary. This is true of the antinomian. Anyone who fully understands the depth of despair associated with sin, particularly the condition of sin and its implications for salvation, and then is taught the doctrines of grace, this person will not fail to be grateful to Jesus for His condescension to become human, his sacrifice and triumph over death, and finally his ascension and role as mediator and advocate. There are no antinomians who understand this formula. This begs the question as to whether an antinomian is a true believer. I would argue against their faith being genuine. This seems to be consistent with the text and doctrinal teaching from both sides of this debate.

Marks of the Church

By now, you are asking, where is the debate? Here is the debate finally: what are the marks of the church? As I’ve said above, the Presbyterian answer is that there are three.

• 1.       The preaching of the Word, correctly and continuously.
• 2.       The keeping of the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
• 3.       Church discipline.

What is meant by each of these? The preaching of the Word means something very different than the typical “message” many of us hear on Sundays. We are given a steady diet of topical preaching. This phrase refers to preaching through a book of the Bible from beginning to end, and keeping a proper perspective on the relationship between law and gospel. The Reformed notion of the role of preaching is a very high order of importance. It is through the preaching of the Word that the gospel is first heard. The Holy Spirit acts to reveal the truth of the gospel and transform the hearts of the believers. This is a sacred and important task, not just the teaching of some moral checklist each week. The preaching of the Word is active and is the means through which the Holy Spirit moves in regeneration. You will have no argument here from me.

The keeping of the sacraments is a topic that will certainly cause some discussion. First, it is important to define the two sacraments from a Presbyterian perspective, and then discuss the implications of each. Baptism is viewed from a covenant context, paedobaptism is the norm. This is not an exclusion of adult believer’s baptism, but an inclusion of the children of saints into the covenant community. This is Biblically consistent with the Jewish example. However, while the Lutheran believes that baptism delivers what it promises, the Presbyterian still expects the individual to come to a full knowledge of the love and mercy of Jesus, and to believe in the salvation promised in the Gospel. This means that there is a possibility that some Baptized people may not be among the saints. But this is not problematic or inconsistent. There are Jews who are members of the covenant community, but who did not receive salvation, notably Judas Iscariot. What is interesting here is that there is an acceptance of this fact, and yet a reticence to administer the next sacrament to all covenant members. 

The Lord’s Supper can be viewed in several ways, and rather than listing them all, let us look at the spectrum and see where the Presbyterians fall. On one end, there is Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation. This means that the elements actually mystically transform their substance from mere bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ. There is a “real presence” of Christ in the elements. This is a key point of divergence in the Reformation, and one that both sides in our debate will not condone. The other end of the spectrum is a mere memorial. This is the Baptist view on this sacrament, and it is probably a stretch to call the Lord’s Supper a sacrament at all in that context. It is reduced to nothing more than a prayer over food. The Presbyterian view is that first of all, it is a remembrance, but of the death and sacrifice of our Lord. It is akin to a funeral in some respects. But the real telling point here is that the Lord’s Table is placed below the pulpit. This architectural anomaly sheds light on the relative importance of the sacraments to the correct preaching of the Word. Rather than the Roman Catholic understanding of a real presence, the Presbyterian view is of a pneumatic presence, one that stresses the work of the Holy Spirit. I will leave this to others to define this distinction better. What is most interesting to this discussion, however, is that the Presbyterian sacrament is a closed sacrament. This means that it is only open to saints in good standing with the church. The issue here is unrepented sin. The worry is that a person with unrepented sin who takes the elements eats and drinks condemnation upon himself. The closed sacrament is explained as a protection of the person from blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and thus eternal damnation. Notice the vast difference between the covenant theology applications to each sacrament. Baptism is offered to children with no knowledge of their eventual lives, and yet the Lord’s Supper can be withheld from church members who have a particular issue with sin. 

This brings us finally to the third mark of the church, church discipline.

“I would say that church discipline is not an attempt to bring a believer under the condemnation of the law. Rather, it is a warning to someone who refuses to acknowledge and repent of sin that they need to repent, and that a refusal to agree with God about their sin may indicate that they are not in the faith. It is not the fact of sin, but the refusal of repentance, that brings about discipline.”

This definition is completely in line with the discussion above. Notice that there seems to be an implied ability of a person to fall from grace. This is a point of consistency that will have to be addressed later in the discussion. In addition, a full description of the Presbyterian system of church discipline will be required. In the next installment, I will lay out that system and then begin my presentation of the Anglican perspective. 
 

– Troll –

Concerning Genesis 6

The first eight verses of Genesis 6 were referred to me for exegesis yesterday, and I thought that the handling of these verses warranted immediate attention. The questions that were raised concern the various translations and interpretations of two phrases in particular: sons of God and the Nephilim. 

The single most important point in beginning this discussion is to recognize its position in the narrative and its purpose to the story. Genesis 6 is best known for the beginning of the Noah narrative. Therefore, to justify the flood, we must first understand the problem to which God was reacting. God has set out an instruction to man to multiply and fill the earth. This is the context of the preceding chapters and is summarized again in verse 1. The accompanying quality of man that must not be forgotten is that he has filled the earth with increasing wickedness. So, who then are these sons of God? 

Three interpretations are offered historically for this phrase. The first is based upon the use of this phrase in Job, known as being the oldest text in the Bible. In Job 1:6, the idea of fallen angels is implied by the inclusion of Satan among them. However, the Job passage is not used in this context at all. The phrase sons of God is meant to imply a heavenly court and the sons of God are heavenly kings. (Since God exists outside of his creation, and therefore outside of time, it is not completely without logic to extrapolate these kings to include the Apostles, but this isn’t necessary for the discussion.) What is important is that the conversation of the sons of God draws the attention of Satan onto Job. It is clear from Job 1 that Satan was not numbered among the sons of God, but that he was there also. 

More importantly, this notion of fallen angels does not speak to an evil of man that would justify the flood. This element is critical for our notion of a just God. If the Christian notion of justification is the cornerstone principle of understanding of Christ’s mission, then the premise of a just God is equally important as the rationale for that cornerstone. 

Mark 12:25 is a second problem for this interpretation as Mark suggests that angels in heaven are not sexual beings. The actual passage states that angels do not marry nor are given in marriage, but this is yet another Biblical reference to the role of marriage in procreation. The implication is clear: immortal creatures such as angels to not procreate, particularly not with creation, i.e. humans. Matthew 24:38 and Luke 17:27 both refer back to this verse (Genesis 6:2) by saying that in those days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. Jesus is speaking, and the antecedent for the pronoun they does not in any way imply anyone other than man on earth. 

Two alternate interpretations are either tyrannical human judges or kings versus followers of God from the male descendants of Seth. The first of these two explanations is helped again by the same Job passage we addressed above. The phrase “sons of…” is an idiomatic Hebrew expression that means a group of men who are led by a figurehead known as the “father.” Similarly, the word “satan” means an adversary of that group, not necessarily the proper name Satan. In the Job passage, there is similarity to the Genesis 3 narrative and compelling reason to use the proper name Satan in that place. So, to follow this analogy into Genesis 6, a group of tyrannical human judges or kings who took daughters for themselves in a violent manner or outside of marriage would be contrary to God’s purpose of procreation and therefore sinful. 
The major problem with this explanation is that it is contrary to the grammar of the passage, at least at first glance. We have in Genesis 6:2 the sons of God and the daughters of man. This would imply that the sons of God were the righteous ones, while the daughters of man were the sinful lot. Any union between the two would, consequently, be sinful and taint the sons of God with sin. The elephant in the room is Jesus who most frequently uses the title “Son of Man” for himself. 

Nonetheless, the above logic yields the third interpretation that the sons of God are the male descendants of Seth, who are a Godly line, with the daughters of man being the female descendants of Lamech, a quite ungodly line, who are possibly demon possessed. What is important context to all three of these interpretations is what is laid out in Genesis 6:5-8. Man is described as wicked, while there is a remnant of righteousness in Noah. We are not told whether there are others who are also blameless in their generation only that Noah is. We are told that God intends to blot out all of the flesh on the earth and start over with Noah’s line. We know that subsequently the line of Noah fails to remain faithful and righteous. This makes clear that the problem of man is the condition of sin, which remains in the flesh. It is to this condition of sin that God is reacting. God must certainly know that His action (the flood) will have no lasting consequence on this condition, and yet we are given a demonstration of the wrath of God toward sin. The purpose of this flood must therefore be to graphically demonstrate man’s offense to God with sin, as the lessons of Eden are lost from the consciousness of man.  

The phrase Nephilim has inspired equal supernatural subversion of the text. The Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible used the word “giants” in this place. This is the start of the problem. This phrase also appears in Numbers 13:33, where the Greek translation has imbued itself into the modern thought stream. In Numbers, these Nephilim are attributed with great stature or height. And yet this is not the Greek notion of “giant” that permeates some interpretations. The Greek understanding of giants was a race that was not human and akin to the gods. This Greek overlay on the Hebrew hides the truth of the matter. The Nephilim were a group living in Canaan at the time, a group mighty warriors. This could be an expression of fear from the Israelites of these Canaanites. The Hebrew word itself means the “fallen ones,” a phrase and translation that has much greater cohesion with this passage. Reading into Genesis from Numbers the stature of this people is fraught with peril as the meaning here is much better suited by the original Hebrew meaning of the word. The fallen ones is much more consistent with the context of the whole passage. 

In summary, the purpose of this passage is to demonstrate the rampant wickedness of man on the earth, not to imply supernatural beings meddling in human affairs. We are quite good at mucking things up ourselves without any help due to our fallen natures. We are given a picture of the state of man to which God will ultimately react in vengeance and wrath. Without the notion of justice to give moral foundation to the story, God can appear capricious to man. However, what is laid out in Genesis 6 is more than adequate justification for God’s wrath, the true vision of what God’s wrath means for fallen man.

-Troll-

Disconnect?

I received this message this morning. Please bear with me as I set up my reply.

The dream was brief but this is what I believe the Lord wants me to tell you.
In your recent past there has been a disconnect about something the Lord may have spoken to you, [Troll.]  He has sent people to you but when they arrive you are not hearing them or recognizing the need/assignment because of the disconnect.  I believe you are called to be a bell ringer,a la John Knox and that [your wife] is somehow involved as well; that this bell ringing will be done in public, not just in study.  Possibly opening your home?
I would suggest praying into this message and seeing if something's missing.
Hope this is confirming with you, if any questions please let me know!

Before my reformed friends start snarking at this, remember that many people have an unshakeable belief in the continuation of certain spiritual gifts. We must begin with the paradigm that cessationism is wrong, and even the more preferred model of gifts centering around moments of specific divine intervention (Christ’s earthly ministry, for example) must be suspended for a moment. This conversation is within the world of continuation, and let’s hold to that paradigm for now. My response may then be in kind with this particular piece of advice. 

In what about my recent past has there been any disconnect? Let’s focus on some life events of mine for a moment. I felt very strongly that the church was sick and much of what passes for teaching is as Biblical as, well, any typical Sunday “message” from a host of tele-evangelists. I discussed this with a variety of priests, pastors and friends from a large cross section of the American Christian landscape, from Roman Catholic to Pentecostal, from Lutheran to Episcopal, from Baptist to Presbyterian. The resounding retort that I received from all was to do something about it. But first and foremost, and this is important, I should go get trained. It cannot be other than a God moment that three different priests and pastors suggested the same seminary with no foreknowledge of what the others had said. When the right change of job that enabled me to attend seminary suddenly arises at the same time, how can it be said that I did not listen to God and my belief in this effectual calling when I retired from the clinical practice of medicine, took this job and matriculated at Fuller Theological Seminary?

So, if not these people, who I know well and trust, whom I believe are Godly men despite my theological differences with them, then who? To whom have I failed to listen? I have been faithful to this mission and I am continuing forward on this path even now.

For the next part, the issue rises of being a bell ringer of the sort as John Knox. Knox was an uncompromising man if there ever was one. He spent as much of his time serving the English throne in jail as not due to his unwillingness to compromise on doctrinal issues. While I hope that I have not been wished to be incarcerated under penalty of death, it is still a compliment of sorts to be compared thusly. 

But it must be stated plainly that I while I might be the most theologically reformed and consistent person in this room of friends, that does not mean that I am yet qualified to beat any drums or ring any bells in public, anything more public than a blog that has limited readership and justifiably limited authority. The act of preaching and teaching is the primary tool by which the gospel is spread. The public arena for this action, the pulpit, requires a particular education and training. Any who seek to skip a step and teach prior to attaining this training would do well to heed Paul’s warnings to teachers. The world is full of false gospels, some coming unfortunately from the pulpits of our churches. I have remained on task and on assignment to combat this problem. But, I will not go out of step. 

When and if my wife is involved in my future ministry, she will graciously defer to me as she does now in medical matters. It is amazing that so many believe that because she is married to a physician, and even was a first assistant to a surgeon, that she is as knowledgeable of medicine as the physician. That is very unfair to her, and not entirely wise on the part of the person asking her medical advice. Similarly, the wife of a priest or pastor is also not the theological or doctrinal expert. Nor is she the back door to the ear of the priest or pastor for complaints. This is as unfair and unwise as it was to the physician’s wife. My wife will be supportive and helpful in every way that she can be when the time comes, I’m sure.

As to the opening of my home, if this is an invitation for me to host a Bible study, where we actually read and discuss the Bible, then I’ve been open to this idea for quite some time with no takers, at least none who are willing to commit to the course. I would love to plow through Romans with people who are willing to read and learn. That group, alas, has not yet presented itself to me.

As to prayer, I will say only this. I use the acronym ACTS for prayer as I find it sets the priorities in order. I have stated many times that I feel that supplications are not my strong suit as I have already received Christ and what more could I ask to receive beyond that? There is no room in my prayer for anything as mundane as this topic. God has spoken loudly to me through the actions, words and circumstances that I have experienced. There is no disconnect today or at any time in the last two years of this journey.

-Troll-

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 –