The Three Covenants

"First, God established a Covenant of Works with Adam as federal head of mankind. In this covenant, eternal life was acquired by perfect obedience to God's commands. After the fall God established the Covenant of Grace as 'that particular form of the administration of salvation in which God, in Christ, gives himself as Mediator to the sinner who, in the way of the covenant, becomes the possession of God.' The foundation of the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Redemption or the Pactum Salutis, which is 'that arrangement in God's triune being, whereby the Father ordained the Son to be Mediator and demanded the fulfillment of all righteousness, with the promise of glory; and the Son freely gave himself thereto; while the Holy Spirit took on himself, to apply the work of salvation according to the will of the Father and the Son.'" - David Kranendonk & J.J. van der Schuit (Vital Balance, FRP, 2006).

Hermeneutics 101

Here are some basic points (in no particular order) to consider when interpreting Scripture:

1. Perspicuity - The Bible is simple and clear. Literate people can read and understand the Bible - esp. its general concepts and narratives. Obviously, there are some concepts that are above us (like the Trinity) which we can apprehend as comprising part of God's authoritative revelation; and there are some issues which may require research/study to discern (see, for instance, 2 Pet.3:16).

2. Analogy of Faith - Scripture interprets Scripture. Let the more clear passages interpret the less clear (esp. w/secondary doctrines).

3. Context - The word or phrase in its sentence; then in its paragraph or topical passage; then in its book (esp. audience); then in the context of the whole Bible.

4. Genre - Narrative, Poetry, History, Prophecy, Wisdom Literature, etc. Knowing which genre a passage falls into, helps us understand whether to, for instance, be aware of allegory, metaphors, literalness, typology, symbolism, etc.

5. Authorial Intent - A more difficult factor, but discoverable with the help of the other points listed here.

6. Setting - Including time, place, and audience, this consideration concentrates on the immediate intention and application of the Word.

7. Grammar - More technical, esp. for those working with the original languages. However, a simple part of grade school English regarding how sentences work, parts of speech, etc.

8. History - or Background. It helps to know a bit about the historical context of a passage (or Book), and sometimes even geography.

9. Presuppositions - Whether you actively pursue or unknowingly have, presuppositions are a significant consideration. Examine your worldview - the self-made, or learned from school, parents, peers, or catechism lens/filter through which you look at, categorize, judge, and act on the data of the world beyond your self - and you will find it affecting your interpretation of Scripture. If your worldview is deficient, correct it, make it biblical (through good shepherding, catechesis, Bible reading/study, and holy fellowship), and it will help you to understand the Bible better. Simple (basic) presuppositions like: God is the Creator, we are Creation, and all man is fallen and awaiting the wrath of a just God unless he finds a mediator (Christ) to redeem him, and God is true, etc. are fundamental concepts that inform our biblical interpretation; while systematic theology, the Creeds and Confessions form macro presuppositional grids with which we interpret Scripture.

10. Faith - This is a general category founded on the necessity of a person's faith (1 Cor.2:14, etc.). Regeneration is a prerequisite for proper biblical interpretation. The Holy Spirit must be indwelling a redeemed sinner to enable his sanctification and understanding (Eph.1:18, etc.). Then prayer is a means of Grace and a sure help in interpretation. Obedience to God, hiding His Word in our hearts, delighting in it and meditating on it are also beneficial considerations. Finally, Hearing the Word faithfully expounded is also a biblical means of Grace and sure help in interpreting Scripture.

Hope these are helpful, and that I didn't miss anything.

Young on Inspiration

This is part of an ongoing discussion on a Yahoo List

After discussing the foundation for biblical inspiration using just three texts – 2 Tim.3:16; 2 Pet.1:21; and Psalm 82:6 (as from Jesus in John 10:35) – E. J. Young, in his classic defense of inspiration Thy Word is Truth, goes on to discuss the woeful attitude of Christendom to the authority of the Bible (this in 1957).

He decries the Church’s willingness to let “the rationalism of the eighteenth century, the evolutionism and ‘higher’ criticism [the origin of the mythopoetic /allegorical reading hermeneutic, among others]* of the nineteenth century, and the ‘neo-orthodoxy’ and dialectical theology of the early twentieth century” distract us from the Bible’s own testimony to divine inspiration; and, causing us to trust the wisdom of man for interpretation and understanding rather than the revelation of God. To this, we could have added: the psychologizing influence of Freud, the experience-based authority of revivalistic movements, and the post-modern abandonment of truth in the latter half or the twentieth century.

Then Young exposes the fallacy of man’s wisdom determining Scriptural truths:

“And herein lies a disturbing question which must be raised. If we are not to regard the Bible as a trustworthy witness when it tells us what kind of book it is, and if we should listen to modern scholars rather than to the Bible, how do we know that the Bible is a trustworthy witness when it speaks to us about other matters also? Let us state this question as clearly as possible. The Bible, we say, is not to be relied upon when it tells us what kind of book it is [ie: the divinely inspired revelation of God]. But if it is not to be depended upon when it speaks of itself how do we know that it is to be trusted when it speaks about anything else? If it is so unreliable that we cannot accept its witness to itself, might it not be wise to reject all that it has told us about other matters as well?”

This plays out in the allegorical debate as: if we say that parts of the Bible are untrue – merely allegorical – and that they have no bearing on our faith, how do we determine what is and isn’t allegorical?, and what is required for our faith?, never mind what the Bible says about itself (we are basically bypassing the Bible’s knowledge of itself!).

Young continues:

“We listen to the Bible when it told us of the existence of the one living and true God. The Bible, however, we now learn, is not a trustworthy character witness. It has deceived us when it told us about its own inspiration. Possibly, after all, it was also wrong when it spoke about God! Possibly God, if there be a God, is quite different from the God we have learned to know from the pages of what we in our naiveté thought was a Holy Book.”

Can you see the slippery slope that modernism places us on? This has been the tale of all who turn from Scripture’s own requirements for interpretation.

“Furthermore, what about Jesus Christ and that wondrous work of redemption He wrought for us upon the Cross of Calvary? Is it a reliable account that we have in the Bible? Has the great burden of our guilt really been removed, and are we living in a right relation with the Holy God, or have we been relying upon an account that is not trustworthy? If this Book is not reliable when it tells us what kind of a Book it is, how then can we possibly trust it when it speaks to us of other matters? If the Bible is not a trustworthy witness of its own character, we have no assurance that our Christian faith is founded upon the truth. We are left in the darkness of ignorance and despair.”

Can you see the logic? If the Bible is not a true and faithful witness of its own inspiration and authority, we are crazy to rely upon it for our knowledge of Christ Jesus, Salvation, and Truth… period!

* Someone has registered a dispute with this clause, pointing out that Augustine had used an allegorical method betimes. Here, in part, is my edited response:

True, for the allegorical part, alone, and in and of itself. As I have said elsewhere, Origen, for example (c.185-254 AD),was notorious for his allegorical mis-interpretations.

However, for the various attacks on the Bible from Higher Criticism - mythological reading, the Graf-Welhausen JEDP theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch, the literary dissection of the OT, the submission of the Genesis Creation account to Ancient Near Eastern mythologies, the two Isaiah's theory, etc. - which lead to the phenomena of modernism in American theology and the new bent for allegorical interpretations of much of the "harder to believe" or "harder to reconcile with science" portions of Holy Scripture are relevant to the new hermeneutic of which some appear to take part.
But this is not new. Theologians like Schliermacher and Barth have led Evangelicalism away from the authority and sufficiency of Scripture by their theories (eg: that the Bible contains the Word of God, rather than is the Word of God).

Origins of the Baptists, Pt.1: The Anabaptists

"The great reformers - Luther, Zwingli, Calvin - had tremendous regard for the living tradition of the historic church. They moved cautiously for they had no urge to unchurch themselves. They hesitated to abandon the principle of the territorial church - parish or national. As they saw it, the existing church was indeed the true church, but it had fallen on evil days and into unworthy hands. Therefore, they sought to bring about a spiritual renewal from within. The Anabaptists, however, set out to discard the territorial church pattern with the gospel. Their objective was not to introduce something new but to restore something old. “Restitution” was their slogan, a restitution of the early church. From the Anabaptist point of view, the difference between the Reformers and themselves was the difference between reform and restitution.” – Earl D. Radmacher, The Nature of the Church (Western Baptist Press, 1972), p.55.

“The important point to emphasize is that the real issue here was not the act of baptism, but rather a bitter and irreducible struggle between two mutually exclusive concepts of the church. Zwingli was finally committed to the state church; and the continuance of the parish system and cantonal denominational division was implied. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, were out to restore apostolic Christianity. Baptism became important because it was the most obvious dividing line between the two systems, and because it afforded the authorities an excuse for suppressing the radicals by force.” – Franklin H. Littell, The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism (Macmillan, 1964), p.14.

Several Comments:

1 – The first author is a Baptist, and sympathetic with the so-called Free Church Movement, of which the Anabaptists were Reformation-era representatives. The second author was a Methodist.

2 – In most of Europe, during this era, society was “Christian.” The Church and the state had a far different relationship than what we can imagine today. Therefore, the state wielded the sword for the Church, and the Church legitimized the state. Everyone was considered a “Christian.”

2 – The magisterial Reformation, of which the “great reformers” were part and parcel of, was concerned with the reformation of the existing church. This has several implications:

a) They saw some continuity between the Church they were a part of and that which the Apostles had laid the foundation of.

b) Several aspects of the existing Church were either approved of or temporarily approved of – paedo-baptism being an example of the former, and church organization, esp. relative to secular government, being an example of the latter.

3 – The Anabaptists, not being concerned with fixing (as they saw it) the Church, were:

a) partaking of the recurrent mythology of the New Testament Church,[1]

b) radical (in that they wanted to scratch the existing Church, and start all over again),

c) basing their ecclesiology on who was “saved” (ie: only professing adult members made up the true church and must be baptized as their proof/profession of faith).

4 – Today, and indeed throughout history, the struggle to define the elect (professing, adult, baptized: Donatists, Anabaptists, etc., in this case) and return to a primitive Christianity has shaped the structure and make-up of the Church, and contributed to the proliferation of churches and denominations.

At this early stage of the Reformation (1523-25 with Grebel, et.al.), the Anabaptist was still a sect defining itself among many other sects which were also appearing. The uproar in Europe, precipitated by Luther and dependant on the new media of printing, was only exacerbated by the arrival of what is termed the Radical Reformation. It has proven useful to study the radicals as made up of three streams:

“This threefold scheme of Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and Rationalist, is now widely adopted by historians …” – Nick R. Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, Part Three: Renaissance and Reformation (Grace Publications, 2004), p.254.

God willing, we will try to examine these three arms of the Radical Reformation in the near future.

---

[1] More on this myth later, DV.

Pink on Mans Impotence, Pt.3: Responsibility & Opposition

In which Pink discusses both the difficulty both in presentation and reception of teaching/understanding this doctrine, and mans natural vehemence to it.

Not only does the appalling ignorance of our generation cause the servant of God to labour under a heavy handicap when seeking to present the scriptural account of mans total inability for good; he is also placed at a serious disadvantage by virtue of the marked distastefulness of this truth. The subject of his moral impotence is far from being a pleasing one to the natural man. He wants to be told that all he needs to do is exert himself, that salvation within the power of his will, that he is the determiner of his own destiny. Pride, with its strong dislike of being a debtor to the sovereign grace of God, rises up against it. Self-esteem, with its rabid repugnance of anything which lays the creature in the dust, hotly resents what is so humiliating.Consequently, this truth is either openly rejected or, if seemingly received, is turned to a wrong use.

Here Pink intimates that due to both a modern deficiency in the background (mostly, Scriptural) knowledge of common Evangelicals (at least, 50 years ago, and we must readily admit that the situation has only deteriorated since then), and the sin nature of both unregenerate and professing Christians, that the doctrine of Mans Impotence is both rejected and abused.

Moreover, when it is insisted on that mans bondage to sin is both voluntary and culpable, that the guilt for his inability to turn to God or to do anything pleasing in His sight lies at his own door, that his spiritual impotence consists in nothing but the depravity of his own heart and his inveterate enmity against God, then the hatefulness of this doctrine is speedily demonstrated. While men are allowed to think that their spiritual helplessness is involuntary rather than willful, innocent rather than criminal, something to be pitied ratherthan blamed, they may receive this truth with a measure of toleration; but let them be told that they themselves have forged the shackles which hold them in captivity to sin, that God counts them responsible for the corruption of their hearts, and that their incapability of being holy constitutes the very essence of their guilt, and loud will be their outcries against such a flesh-withering truth.

When man is confronted with his sin nature, and its implications his impotence to do any good, or reach out to God Pink says his true colours begin to show: his fundamental enmity with God. The longer he labours under the delusion of self-worth, self-will, and self-action, the more obvious is his Spiritual impotence.

However repellent this truth may be, it must not be withheld from men. The minister of Christ is not sent forth to please or entertain his congregation, but to declare the counsel of God, and not merely those parts of it which may meet with their approval and acceptance, but "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). If he deliberately omits that which raises their ire, he betrays his trust. Once he starts whittling down his divinely given commission there will be no end to the process, for one class will murmur against this portion of the truth and another against that. The servant of God has nothing to do with the response which is made to his preaching; his business is to deliver the Word of God in its unadulterated purity and leave the results to the One who has called him. And he may be assured at the outset that unless many in his congregation are seriously disturbed by his message, he has failed to deliver it in its clarity.

Here, Pink reminds us that God requires that the whole counsel of Scripture including this man-belittling doctrine of impotence - must be fed to men, if a minister is to faithfully carry out his duties. We must remember that the Gospel is both offensive (to the lost) and (ultimately) a sweet savour (2Cor.2:15,16) to those who are enlightened (Eph.1:18) to their condition and rely wholly upon His Grace.

Submitted with (minimal) comment or review*

Top CDs on My Play-list: 2008

· Alan Parsons Project Tales of Mystery and Imagination (1975)
· Angela Hewitt Bach: The English Suites(2003)
· Brasstronaut Old World Lies (2008)
· Buxtehude Organ Music, Vol.1: Volker Ellenberger (2001)
· Carolyn Arends Under The gaze (2004)
· Feist Let It Die (2004)
· Feist The Reminder (2007)
· Jewel Goodbye Alice in Wonderland (2006)
· Jewel This Way (2001)
· JoelJacob Wedding EP (2007)
· Neal Morse Its Not Too Late (2002)
· Sheryl Crow Detours (2008)
· Swirling Eddies the midget, the speck & the molecule (2007)

*Jewel's Goodbye Alice in Wonderland was/is my favourite, Neal Morse's came in a close second.

Global Cooling!

Over the past year records (and anecdotal evidence) indicate that we have been cooling rather than warming. Everybody go out and buy a copy of State of Fear, and quit falling for the left-lib, eco-freak crowd. Here is the latest interesting article.