Tradition in our Pews

“Bless this food to our bodies. Amen”

I grew up saying this prayer right before dinner. Luckily, punishment was mild if caught sneaking food before the prayer. That just meant you were the one who had to pray. (This is a lot of pressure when you’re a kid, but nevertheless, no real harm done.)

Millions probably say a similar type of prayer dinner. It’s tradition. It’s just what you do, right?  When I think about it, I pray that the greasy pizza is going to bless my body, but in reality, I know it really won’t. Less saturated fat please. So I guess I’m not really praying, just acting out what I’ve been taught.  And in this case, it’s harmless.  But what’s scary is that this same human pattern can get us into big trouble. Tradition for tradition’s sake.   It’s just the way things are done.  Being completely blinded to truth, honoring tradition instead of the Lord.

Jesus’ warnings of keeping empty traditions are very real in the gospels. Over the past two days, these scriptures keep finding me. So here they are….

“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men – the washing of the pictures and cups, and many other such things you do. All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:6-9

“Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” – Matt. 15:6

Yikes.

I’m fine with saying grace before dinner, but today I’m very aware of the ease of mistaking our traditions for “God’s will”, and missing out on God’s will all along.

I borrowed this story from a note written last week.  Here is another story. 

I was discussing forgiveness of sin with my Bible study group.  Have you noticed that in every service on every Sunday, there is a prayer of confession that is followed by an absolution by the priest?  This is done for a reason.  We need forgiveness of our sin and God provides it.  We live in a tension between being citizens of this age and the age to come, simultaneously sinners and transformed.  Because we are aware of this tension, we recognize our imperfections and continually repent throughout our Christian lives.

The first comment about this was that one person needed more forgiveness, from friends and other people, than he felt was offered through the absolution of the priest.  This part of the service was just not sufficient for him.  There had to be more than just a prayer and an absolution.

These two stories are very similar.  There is clearly a disconnection between rote responses and the theology behind them.  In the first story, the writer clearly recognizes the problem and equates the rote behavior with Law.  In the second story, the second man not only does not recognize the problem, but insists that there is no problem by running away from the issue to a human solution.  There have been several solutions to this disconnection problem proposed, and I would like to address two of them, the second being the model of what Paul always did in these situations. 

The first solution that is often proposed is that the rote practices are a part of the rabbinical law that was eliminated by Jesus.  Since we cannot ground the responses, they must not have any value any longer.  Before going in this direction, we should first discuss whether these types of rote responses are indeed the sort of behaviors referenced by Jesus in passages above or something else.  In the first example, the question is whether a prayer over dinner is Biblically correct in terms of the New Covenant.  In the second example, the question is whether a prayer of repentance that exists within the context of a service is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. 

The prayer at meals seems to be specifically authorized by Jesus at the last supper.  However, the writer makes a very good point.  Blessing the pizza is probably not what Jesus had in mind.  As you may recall, Jesus was more interested in our remembrance of Him than in whether or not our pizza had too much saturated fat.  So, we can say that the recognition of a problem was spot on, but perhaps the diagnosis was off the mark.  Is prayer at meal time a part of rabbinical law?  Clearly, the type and shadow of this behavior is the Seder meal at Passover as set out in Leviticus.  The question becomes one of whether Holy Communion is the fulfillment of that type and shadow and whether prayer over a meal is therefore Judaizing.  That is harsh criticism it would seem to me, but it is at least worthy of discussion.

In the second example, the issue is whether the confession of sin in the house of the Lord followed by the absolution administered by the priest or pastor as the worldly representative of Christ is sufficient to do what it says that it is doing.  The doctrine in this example is completely disconnected from the prayer.  The second man does not understand the doctrine behind the prayer and absolution, and therefore he cannot take solace in these events.  Is this doctrine a part of rabbinical law?  In this case, it would be very hard to argue that point.  Jesus was in the business of forgiving sin.  He authorized his apostles to do the same.  Subsequently, elders and others were given this calling.  The problem is not rabbinical law in this case, but a lack of understanding of the system that Jesus created.

A second solution, and a better solution in my mind, is to reconnect the action to the doctrine.  All imperatives absolutely must be grounded in the indicative, or they will only turn into Law, and Law only convicts when it is not grounded in the Gospel.  The second story bothers me far more, so let’s work it out in terms of the Law and Gospel distinction and see if we can try to reconnect the rote actions to the doctrine.

The purpose of worship is to glorify God.  I don’t’ think anyone will argue this point very much.  The issue becomes one of deciding on how to go about worship.  The doctrines that cause the components of a Eucharistic service and the order of those components come directly from the story of redemptive history as revealed in the Bible.  The doctrines line up and spell out what should happen and in what order.  The first doctrine that is important is that God is Holy.  We seem to take that for granted.  If you believe that God is the creator, regardless of how He did it, you have to believe that God is infinitely Holy as well.  The role of the creature is to worship the creator.  This was basically the only thing that was expected of Adam.  After the fall, God has to work out a rescue mission for His creatures.  His creatures have offended His infinitely just nature, and the only possible outcome is death.  This idea of original sin is so completely lost that it needs a bit more work in this brief outline.

I have already posted for your reading pleasure, Jonathon Edwards’ sermon on the Wrath of God, but I wanted to expound on the condition of sin.  We often think that our own individual sin is all that really matters.  We consider that Adam’s sin couldn’t possibly be imputed to us.  We don’t think it would be just.  Our idea of just may make some sense in a civil context, but the Bible is quite clear on what the condition of sin from Adam has done to man.  We are all dead in sin from the moment of our conception.  God knew we would be born and so we were even in sin before the moment of our parents’ conceptions.  Our situation is already dire.  This does not require that we actually do anything particularly horrible.  This situation requires a rescue, and God has that worked out already.

Next, God gives man the Law, in the form of the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments.  He spells out the types and shadows for a temple, a priesthood, a second type of sacrifice, and He establishes a royal lineage.  He gave prophets who tell of a coming King, a messiah who will be prophet, priest and king, all three in one.  Jesus comes into the world and becomes the perfect sacrifice, sufficient for the sin of the whole world.  But His sacrifice is only efficient for the sin of His chosen people.  This elect is not at first clear, but the prophets hint at the vastness of the number and that they will come from far off, presumably in both space and time.  He sends the second Paraclete, the Holy Spirit to round up His sheep.

Here is the key.  How does salvation work?  The answers to the parts of the Eucharist are given in the answers to salvation.  This is what we call the Gospel.  The Gospel is the Good News of the Salvation plan.  So, what is that plan?  Paul tells us that we are all evil and would never take the first step.  How, then, can we get started?  We don’t.  That is the key.  The Holy Spirit gives us the gift of belief.  Our first reaction to the touch of the Holy Spirit is to realize the Awesome Holiness of God.  The second reaction is to realize the depth of our despair due to sin.  Next, we repent our sin and receive absolution through Baptism.  Upon entering into the Covenant community, we hear the Word, we hear the Word preached, we receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  Notice that all of our steps to justification occur because the Holy Spirit enables us to do it.  We receive the gift of that ability to recognize our sin and ask forgiveness.  Then in sanctification, it is all about receiving again.  Be still, listen and receive.  Ps 46:10.

OK, now let’s go through a Eucharist.  The service begins with an invocation.  This is where we ask God to be present.  We, as a group of believers gathered together, call His name.  The manner of invocation is in the form of praise.  We are not demanding His presence.  We are in His house and we are praising His name.  Next, we confess our sins, and then receive absolution from the priest or pastor.  We then pray for the whole world.  Next, the Word is read to us.  Then the Word is preached to us.  Then we have the prayer of consecration.  Then we receive communion.  Then we are given a blessing and our marching orders for the week.

Did you notice how the service mirrors the initial sequence of transformation?  Then, the parts of sanctification are spelled out clearly in the service.  The service has been thoughtfully laid out as a renewal of our faith and an opportunity to receive God’s grace.  Our part is to show up and receive.  God is the divine waiter who serves His Grace to us.  He gives us everything that is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.  And this is the point I would make to the second man in the second story.  God’s Grace is sufficient even for you.  My question is why you would believe that it is not sufficient for you.  There is really a limited range of possibilities.  You might not understand the faith yet.  You might understand, but not believe.  No man can give you this belief; that is the power of the Holy Spirit.

One final issue, how did we get into this situation?  The blame must fall squarely on the shoulders of our priests and pastors.  If catechesis still exists in some churches, it is the last and only time lay people are taught this sort of thing.  There is an assumption that we know the doctrine and that we know the role of each part of the service.  Clearly, this assumption is faulty.   The solution to this problem is catechesis.  We need to be taught the doctrine that makes up the faith and we need to be taught the reasons for the words that we recite.  We need a return to the Reformation.  Luther told Pope Leo that there had been many calls for reformation before him and many would come after him.  But the Catholic Church would remember Luther, because while the other calls for reformation were all about morals and deeds, Luther was about reforming doctrines and understanding creeds.  When what is lost is the understanding of doctrines and the importance of the creeds, what type of reformation do we really need today?

What did Paul say to the church in Rome?  I know you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Corinth?  I know that you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Galatia?  I know that you are having problems, and this particular problem makes me furious, so let's talk about doctrine.  To Philippi, to Ephesus, to Thessalonia?  I know you are having some problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  That was Paul's solution.  I think it would work well here and now.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 4

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 4 | The BioLogos Forum

The meat of the topic is finally upon us. But in true hyperblogging style, this is still not the last post of the series. I'll try to keep it quiet for one more round.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 3

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 3 | The BioLogos Forum

It is clear that this guy intends to go on for at least one more post after this one. I'm biting my tongue, and a hole is developing. I'll try to wait for the last post.

--Ogre--

Building Blocks: Trinity: word study

I was speaking with my priest and friend about the Trinity last week, and the issue of the third person of the Trinity became the topic. (Yes, such conversations do happen in the real world, and yes, this really did happen.) And so, he says that I should look up the word perichoresis, a concept that he feels describes the Biblical view of the church of the Trinity.  The concept of the Trinity is Biblical, is confirmed by the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in the third century, so that all Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Reformed will agree with the concept.  Perichoresis is developed more fully in the early eighth century, in an attempt to better describe the interactions of the persons of the Trinity with each other.  Of course, there will be the theological children of Kant, Kierkegaard, Finney and Wesley with which to contend, but the historical church at least can get behind this doctrine.  And so, I looked it up.

Perichoresis is a word that describes the relationship between the three parts of the Trinity.  If we start from its opposite, that is much easier to understand, and then turn that on its head, we will get to this concept.  We need first to define some terms.  The first term is ousias, which is Greek and means natural essence.  In Jesus we have a person who is of two essences, both fully human and fully God.  This concept of two essences in one person is called hypostatic union.  Another related term is co-inherence, where two essences coinhere in the one person of Christ.

Now, for the reverse, if there is one essence called God, then He exists as three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The word perichoresis is literally a cleaving together, so that the three are cleaved together as one.  Since each is of the same substance or same essence as the other two, they would be expected to act in concordance with each other, which is what scripture suggests.

John 17 starts to unfold this relationship of the Father and Son for us in Jesus’ prayer for His elect.  21 …that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.  In this passage, we have the Father and Son in each other, and Jesus prays to incorporate His elect into this relationship. 

Moving to Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission, we are to go forth and Baptize in the name of the Trinity.  Jesus uses the phrase “in the name of” which is an Old Testament phrase that invokes God.  By listing all three together, Jesus is saying that all three parts of the Trinity are God.  In the same way that the Old Testament views God as a single person, the fullness of the Trinity is revealed by Jesus in the New Covenant.  The name of God is a big deal to Old Testament Jews.  Jesus invokes this name of God concept to include Himself and the Holy Spirit.  This would have been just incredible to hear for the first time as first century Jews.

What does Jesus say about this third part of the Trinity?  Let’s go again to John 16.  Jesus must leave so that the third person of the Trinity can come.  And when He comes, His role will be to convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.  Why would this be the concern of the Holy Spirit?  The answer is the theme of the whole Bible.  God is concerned with the reconciliation of man to Himself.  God is a just God whose just wrath for our sin must be satisfied; therefore, He has to send a part of Himself to fulfill the Law and be the perfect sacrifice.  Finally, He has to send another part of Himself to make sure we understand what has just happened on our behalf and gather those elect to Himself. 

Therefore, the word perichoresis describes the relationship of the Father and the Son as an intertwining and cleaving together of their persons with the Holy Spirit enveloping both, infusing both and interacting with both, because the Holy Spirit is of the same essence as both.

One last word to discuss today is paraclete.  Paraclete is another Greek word that is used in reference to the Trinity.  John is the one who uses the term, both in his Gospel and in his epistles.  Starting from Chapter 14 of his Gospel, we learn that the paraclete is the Holy Spirit.  The ESV translation is Helper.  Next in Chapter 15, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, who bears witness about Jesus.  Next in Chapter 16, once again, the Holy Spirit is both the Helper and the Spirit of Truth.  What is interesting at this point is a look at 1 John 2:1, in which John implies that Jesus was the first paraclete and now the Holy Spirit is the second from John 14:16 again, the difference is that now the paraclete is the Advocate.  Acts 1:5,8 talk about Witnessing to Jesus, while Acts 2:38 brings up an interesting point that I will come back and examine at the end.

So, the Paraclete is the Advocate, the Helper, Spirit of Truth, who bears witness about Jesus.  The Paraclete is both Jesus and the Holy Spirit, about whom the intertwining of references concerning judgment persist into John’s Revelations.  Jesus is our only Mediator and Advocate.  And He sends the Holy Spirit to witness about Himself.  The Paraclete is then God, the generous and merciful God who has provided the solution to our eternal damnation through Himself in His three persons.

And finally, what is this “gift of the Holy Spirit” that Luke records Peter dispensing, based upon faith?  Let’s break down that theologically dense passage.  Peter’s words as translated in the ESV are: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” This is the theology of Peter as clearly stated as it gets.  The first part is repentance.  We must turn away from our sin.  We know that this is not possible without the Helper, but Peter weaves this into the passage at the end.  The next part is to be baptized in the name of Jesus.  The reason to be baptized is to receive forgiveness of your sins.  How this is done is in the name of Jesus.  Jews knew that only God forgives sin; therefore, Peter is publically committing blasphemy in the eyes of the Pharisees.  Something must have happened to turn this once coward into such a bold proclaimer of Jesus. 

The next part is that such persons who repent and are baptized will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  There are at least two levels of looking at this phrase.  The gift might be something that the Holy Spirit gives these people such as the ability to do the first two parts, or it might be the indwelling of the Holy Spirit itself as the seal of this belief.  I would argue that it is both and I think scripture supports this view.

In the second sentence, Peter talks about the Promise.  This is referring to the promise of God to Abraham.  It is a direct reference that would have not gone missing to his Jewish audience.  What is different is how Peter will interpret the phrase “all who are far off” in just a few chapters hence.  Everyone whom the Lord calls to Himself is a lot larger group than the Apostles originally realized.  Peter and Paul are the ones who figure this out.  James confirms it.

And so in summary, the Trinity is a central doctrine of the church.  Our God is of one essence in three persons, all inseparable and yet distinct.  Their roles are clearly different, and yet they overlap somewhat in their unfolding the drama of redemptive history for us.  The Bible is the story of the greatest rescue mission of all time.  It is the story in which we are saved from eternal damnation.  The writers, producers, actors and directors are all the persons of the Trinity.  The audience is humanity.  But some of the audience will receive a back stage pass to meet and greet the company of hosts in heaven.

--Troll--

First blog milestone

I thought I would hit 100 posts before I got to 1000 page views.  This will not be the case.  The implication as to readership is interesting.  First, people are following the links, which increases page count.  Secondly, the readership has expanded on particular topics outside of the original expectation.  As this first milestone is reached with this post, I thought I would review my stated goals and self critique based upon feedback that I have received.

I stated in the first post, that I wanted to be presenting reformed positions and arguments.  I think that I have been faithful to that position.  In the discussions that have been generated off blog, there seems to have been a loss of touch with this mission statement by those whose would argue a point.  If you do not agree with a position, declaring the reformed position wrong is not particularly helpful.  What has been my hope is that by laying out the scriptural grounding of each position, there might be some understanding of why I would find the reformation thinkers appealing and correct.  Some discussions have been rather good, while others have been rather regrettable.

Therefore, as I head into the second quarter, I wanted to restate the goals of the blog and invite more direct discussion.  The topics in progress are Building blocks, which is a very broad topic into which many other topics will be nested, the five points of Calvinism, which is nearly concluded, the Heretics, which has two more rather key pieces to produce, and the BioLogos series on Calvinism and Genesis 1-2.  Topics that will be started in the near future are the Five Solas of the Reformation, and walks through the reformed documents, confessions and doctrines, looking at what being Protestant used to mean.

Finally, thanks to those who have read these pieces, and thanks to those who send emails and comment.  Ogre, Troll and I have enjoyed the first thousand looks under the bridge and we promise not to bite for the next thousand…maybe….

--Troll and Ogre--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Perseverance of the Saints

Our fifth point of Calvinism for discussion is the Perseverance of the saints.  This is a doctrine that means that once a person is truly saved, they are God’s forever.  This doctrine begs a few questions.  First, what is the function of Baptism?  Next, when does justification occur?  How do you know that you are one of the elect?  What happens when a person turns away from God?  Was that person truly saved?  What if he was already Baptized?  These are all tough questions, but they need answers.

Baptism is the sacrament through which a person enters into covenant relationship with God.  This is the same as signing a contract.  You have no access to the benefits of the contract if you didn’t sign it.  The issues next become who has access to a contract for signing and what happens when a person breaks the contract?  Justification occurs when the elect person is Baptized, infant or adult, but Baptism does not confer justification.  You know that you are one of the elect, really, if you care about the answer to that question.  The reprobate probably doesn’t care about that question.  But that’s just a flippant answer.  The answer is that the elect believe in Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross as testified in Scripture.  The elect attempts to live in obedience to His will and struggles with sin, repents of this sin and receives Grace regularly by hearing the preached Word and receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

What about the person who is Baptized, but who is actually reprobate and turns from God?  Clearly this will happen.  Why is Baptism not 100% effective while the atonement was 100% effective?  The answer is simple.  Man will baptize whoever will receive the sacrament; but man does not know the movings of the Holy Spirit.  It is clearly possible that many will be baptized and not receive the Holy Spirit.  This leads to a dangerous place that Pentecostalism has clearly exploited, and that is the issue of the fruits of the spirit.

In this Calvinist model, it is important to understand the distinctions of category.  We have defined two types of reprobate and one type of Christian.  There is the reprobate who is never Baptized and also the one who is baptized, but never really believes.  The Pentecostal describes two types of reprobate and two types of Christian, because Pentecostals are Arminian on their best day and Pelagian on their worst.  The Holy Spirit does something different for the Pentecostal than reveal the truth of the Gospel concerning Christ Jesus.  The decision to be Christian for the Pentecostal is a self contribution, one that can be retracted at a later date.  The Holy Spirit is involved in other things besides the gathering of Christ’s elect to Him and the revelation of the truth of the Gospel to those elect.  This something extra that they argue is contributed by the Holy Spirit stratifies the Christian community into carnal and higher Christians, a demarcation that has no Biblical support.

Therefore, back to the Calvinism model, when a person is baptized but falls away from Christ after however many years, it is clear that the Holy Spirit did not give that person belief.  It is therefore possible to have a person attend church every week for their whole life and not ever receive the gift of belief from the Holy Spirit.  It is likewise possible for a person to be Baptized and believe in the truth of the scripture without attending a church since their Baptism.  This violates the scriptural mandate for the life of the believer to remain in community with other believers, but it is still possible.  The main issue here is that once the Holy Spirit has revealed the truth of the scripture to a person, God will not lose that person.  The truth will persevere in that person regardless.  That person remains a believer even if they appear to wander away from church for a time.  The Holy Spirit will gather them back to Christ before their death or the Last Day, whichever comes first.  That is the meaning of the perseverance of the saints.

The fruit of the spirit, then, is that a person cares about his sin and understands his imperfections while trying to obey the simplified mandate of the Law as given by Jesus: Love God and Love your neighber, as if that were easy.  The reprobate has no regard for his sin.  This does not mean that a believer is without sin, quite the contrary.  This means that a believer has great concern over his failure to be obedient to Christ.  This is not to say, in the mind of a Calvinist, that there is a fear over the loss of salvation over sin.  On the contrary, salvation is assured by his justification through the blood of Jesus.  But in his sanctification, as he struggles throughout life with the fact that his body, mind and soul are still currently under the curse of Adam, he recognizes that he falls short of the standard and repents of these sins and the condition of sin regularly and receives absolution for this sin.  This turning away from sin requires constant support and encouragement.  We receive Grace from the hearing of the Word and the Sacrament, but this is after repentance.  This is a minidrama of salvation that occurs regularly, to renew us in the Grace and Love of God.

One final question that is often asked is what happens if a believer dies with unconfessed sin in his life.  If a Calvinist is asked this question, there is a slam dunk easy answer.  Of course he will die with unconfessed sin.  We will die in the condition of sin.  It is unavoidable.  If our salvation was dependent upon our own perfection, we would be totally without hope.  Fortunately, this is not a problem.  Due to the propitiating, vicarious, penal sacrifice of Jesus, known as the Atonement, our Advocate Christ Jesus imputes His perfection to us and our sinfulness is imputed to Him.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit who gives us this belief, seals the deal on our salvation.  In this way, through the righteousness given to us through the blood of Jesus, we may approach judgment with confidence and certainty.  This is not the sin of arrogance.  The sin of arrogance is the sin of self righteousness.  Our righteousness is in the blood of Christ.  That is how we saints may persevere.

--Troll--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Irresistible Grace

Our fourth point of Calvinism for discussion is Irresistible Grace.  The essence of this point is that Grace is more powerful than free will.  To truly flesh out this topic, we will need to look at the condition of man, the state of the heart, the condition of free will, the definition of Grace and the power of the Holy Spirit to give this Grace to His elect.

As we continue developing the five points, let’s look at the picture of the first three points once again.  We have God looking out from eternity over mankind and seeing a vast graveyard of death.  Jesus comes and becomes a shining light.  The Holy Spirit comes and transforms a host of elect into belief.  This elect is justified by the atonement of Jesus, but only the elect.  Now, we come to the issue of how we respond to the Holy Spirit.

A helpful paradigm to remember as we work through this is that if we are reprobate, we have no one to blame but ourselves; but if we are elect, we have no one to whom to give credit but the Holy Spirit.  Free will is a concept that we embrace and are reluctant to relinquish.  It is important to understand from the outset that Calvinism does NOT deny free will.  Calvinism deals with free will acting vertically, not horizontally.  What this means is that this present world is fallen in Adam.  Therefore, all things in it are fallen in Adam.  Within this system, we may make choices based upon our fallen perceptions of this fallen world.  No one is denying that humans make decisions.  The problem is that our hearts are fallen.  Deep down we are evil.  We cannot choose God, we don’t even see it as an option.

The Gospel is foreign to man, it is external to man, it is contrary to what man would contrive on his own, it is offensive to man.  In short, the Gospel is not of this world; therefore, man would never consider it an option, let alone choose it.  This is what free will can accomplish: nothing in terms of the Gospel.  The Holy Spirit is sent to the elect to allow them to receive the Gospel and believe the truth of it.  This act of Grace, moderated by the Holy Spirit, is a gift.  There is no action in receiving it.  We are not seeking it, we are not even reaching out for it.  This Grace comes upon us and we are powerless to stop it.  We are powerless to stop it because it is external to our experience and foreign to anything we can encounter in this world in this present age.  This is what irresistible grace means, that we cannot prevent Grace from having its effect on us.  If we are among the elect, the Holy Spirit will find us.  Events will move in such a way that we come in contact with the Gospel.  We will hear the Gospel and eventually we will believe the Gospel.  That is Grace, and it is irresistible.

In this topic and the last, I have not spent much time quoting passages.  That is because as controversial as these topics may be, the last topic, Perseverance of the Saints, will contain by necessity all of the passages that weigh upon this discussion.  Your indulgence is appreciated.

--Troll--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 2

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

Following my own advice, I will try to reframe from commenting on this until he is finished, but at this point it might be appropriate to interject some comments.

First, while he is clearly reading about Calvin on the one hand, his interjection of his own opinion into his narrative at times comes across as a representation of Calvin when it is his own opinion. This is rather confusing and perhaps it was intentionally misleading. We will have to see as he develops his arguments next week.

Second, it is also clear that the author lacks reformed categories. This is problematic when discussing other systems. For instance, when a Roman Catholic talks to a Reformed theologian about justification, there has to be a clarification of the semantics and typology in regards to Grace. The Roman Catholic describes justification in terms of events that are broader and with different nomenclature than the Reformed theologian. Both sides have to understand how the other uses the word justification in order to make sense of the interaction. Similarly, the author here appears to lack this understanding of Calvin's categories.

Third, this whole series has to be viewed in light of the agenda of the website. It must be remembered that framework is not even presented by BioLogos as a creation interpretation. His treatment of genre in the second piece fails to make the key claim that there are more genres present in the Old Testament than just historical and allegorical types.

Therefore, it is becoming clear how this line of logic will fall short. Nonetheless, I will allow the argument to conclude before my final word on this topic.

--Ogre--

My Advocate

A man is sitting in a holding cell at a court, awaiting his arraignment and trial.  Another man is brought into the cell and sits next to the first man.  Both of them are looking pretty confident and care free.

The first man says to the second, “You are looking good, happy, even.  Are you innocent?”

“Absolutely.  They say the innocent have nothing to fear.”

The first man chuckles a moment, to which the second man says, “Why do you laugh?  Are you innocent?”

“Absolutely not!”

“Then why are you chuckling and acting so unconcerned?”

“I have a great attorney.”

“Really?  Who is it?”

“That’s Him over there.”

“Dude, that’s the judge!”

“I know!  Great attorney, isn’t He!”

--Ogre--

National Apostasy by John Keble

Today’s saint from our homily was John Keble, whose sermon on the relationship between the church and the state in 1833 is honored to this day by the Church of England.  Here is a link to an online version of that sermon.  The lessons and the saint are not strongly related today so we will deal with them separately.

The sermon by Keble needs to be put in historical context, denominational and doctrinal context and redemptive historical context.  First, the year 1833 is important from the perspective of the relationship between the monarchy and parliament as well as the Church of England and government.  This was very much a transition period in English government with a further loss of power of the monarchy to Parliament causing a concomitant loss of influence of the Church.  In fact, there was a good deal of secular and even atheistic backlash against the Church.  Second, this is the Church of England which is a Sacerdotal model, believing that priests act as mediators between God and the laity, so that some of the categories for consideration are different.  Whether or not a true two kingdom doctrine existed in early nineteenth century England is beyond my ability to check.  If the current evidence is to be believed, the answer is no, but that is not fair given the doctrinal erosion of the last 60 years.  Finally, this is pre-1948 by a century.  The Holocaust and the post-War establishment of a Jewish state were not even dreamed of being possible considerations by the most premillennial theologian of that day.  Therefore, the specific arguments that are made concerning the treatment of the Old Testament, while interesting, may not reflect current tensions, nor truly reformed categories.

Having said that, after bemoaning the decay not only of the civic moral standard, but also of the doctrinal sophistication of the laity, Keble poses two questions.  First, he asks if a theocracy is necessarily desirable.  This is an interesting question considering all of the historical issues and the title of the sermon.  But a question that bears a look.  Using reformed categories, this is a very simple discussion.  In a two kingdom model with Christians being members in both kingdoms, it is clear that government, being in the Present Age, the Kingdom of this world, is not subject to the Laws of God, but rather to the laws of man.  This in no way lessens the Christian’s obligation to participate in this realm, bringing to bear any and all principles he holds dear, including Christian ethics, such as they are.  It is important, though, to have both a clear Law and Gospel distinction and a two kingdom model with its categories before determining how to impose Law in civic decision making.  Still, as an institution, there is no particular interest of the church in the affairs of state, except in specific issues in which the Law is clearly at question.  There is a great danger for the church being draw into pietistic missions that can run contrary to the Great Commission, which is the true mission of the church.  The Oxford movement seems to have been grounded in this distinction, whether or not the reformed categories existed within the movement.

Secondly, he asks how an individual placed in a position of civic responsibility who is also a Christian should behave in issues where civic interest are in conflict with Law.  Again, this seems to be a discussion greatly helped by the reformed categories and the two kingdom model.  The number of potential conflicts is greatly reduced after sifting through much of the pietistic baggage and reevaluating in light of Law and Gospel distinction, Christian liberty and the reformed categories of justification and sanctification.  In issues that still seem to present a dilemma to the Christian, Keble encourages Englishmen to stick to their principles, regardless of the odds.  I would maintain that no issue of this present age in terms of civic righteousness is sufficient to sacrifice a belief based on the knowledge of Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross as revealed by scripture.

The relationship between the Episcopal Church USA and the federal government is well documented.  However, it has been a great violation of two kingdom thinking that allowed this to persevere.  The mission of the church has nothing to do with the national government of any nation, including Israel.  The theocracy known as Israel was destroyed utterly in 70 A.D.  The current state of Israel is a geopolitical entity created by man, not by an edict of God, and is not in any Covenant relationship with God.  The juxtaposition of the US flag and the cross in many Episcopal churches is a clear intrusion of this present age in the one place where the Age to Come is supposed to be most visibly intruding into this present Age.  This is man intruding into God’s space, God’s sovereign ground.  Whether symbolically, or in terms of actual corporate influence, this situation should be remedied and viewed as anathema.

Totally switching gears, the messages for today are listed on this website for your perusal.  It is an interesting group of readings.  This is clearly one of those lists that we get because it is almost always Lent for this feast.  All of the passages are Law passages.  Surprisingly, it is the Psalter that gives the best glimpse of redemptive history of the lot.  The Matthew passage stops too soon and Romans 12 without Romans 1-11 is similarly Law without being anchored by the indicatives.  I’ve railed on about his Law-Gospel distinction plenty of times, so I will let it go for tonight.

--Ogre--