Pauline Narratives: Creation and Covenant

“The failure of human beings to be the truly image-bearing creatures God intended results, therefore, in corruption and death… humans were made to function in particular ways, with worship of the creator as the central feature, and those who turn away from that worship – that is, the whole human race, with a single exception – are thereby opting to seek life where it is not to be found, which is another way of saying that they are courting their own death and decay. This is to say, with the entire Jewish tradition, that the basic sin is idolatry, the worship of that which is not in fact the living creator God.” – N.T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective

More pointedly, I think, is that idolatry is a form of pride; we worship what we want to worship in spite of being created to worship only the Creator. If we dig deeper into what Wright is saying here I think we will strike a fundamental truth that Evangelicals don’t want to admit (and, in fact, flatly deny). Christianity isn’t a relationship, it’s a religion. Granted, it is a religion structured by and around relationship but it is a religion all the same. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s look at what else Wright is painting for us in this chapter. He wants to argue, in broad strokes, that one of the theological paradigms structuring Paul’s thought was working with a theology of creation and covenant from within a decidedly Jewish framework. Wright does this by appealing to three particular Pauline passages in the New Testament: Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Corinthians 15 and (dauntingly) Romans 1-11.

The first selection seems an obvious choice given the language of reconciliation through the Son. In Him all things are reconciled to God and the “all things” is not limited believers only, rather Paul includes creation itself among that which is reconciled by the Son’s redemptive work on the cross. Wright makes the connection between these verses and the Old Testament themes of covenant and creation; particularly he connects this passage to Psalm 19. In Colossians, Paul is “making more or less exactly the same point, by means of the poetic structure itself, as Psalm 19: the Creator God is also the redeeming, covenant God, and vice versa.” The implications of this are that the God who has promised to redeem Israel will also redeem that which was promised to Israel: the land. The redemption of creation itself intertwines with those promises made to Israel. Wright, here, points out that what Paul is doing in Colossians is bringing Jesus as the Messiah into the picture. He says that Jesus “is the point at which at which creation and covenant come together” in order that the “double divine purpose”, the redemption of both Israel and creation, might be fulfilled.

Wright then moves on to a more familiar (or at least famous) passage in 1 Corinthians 15. After some initial setup, Paul launches into his argument in verse 20. Where does he start? All the way back in Genesis with Adam. The old creation is death through fleshly Adam and the new creation is life through heavenly Jesus. There are hints of Psalm 8 here that are not unintentional, Paul is keeping right in line with his particular theme of covenant and creation. This is further evidenced in Paul’s discussion of the resurrection body in verses 35-49 where we see the language of Genesis 1 in full swing. Wright summarizes: “This is how the problem within the existing creation, namely sin and death, has been dealt with through the Messiah, more specifically through the way in which the Messiah has been the means of fulfilling the promises of a great victory through which evil would be overthrown… For the moment my point is that, like the Psalms or Daniel, Paul is going back to creation itself, to Genesis, and showing how God’s fulfillment of the covenant promises has established creation’s renewal.” It is important to note, here, the connection between Messiah and Apocalyptic as it will be the next narrative theme Wright engages. Paul contrasts the earthly with the heavenly but it is not an antagonistic contrast. Paul does not want to give the impression that creation will be remade, he wants to tell us that creation will be renewed. His eschatology is at odds with those eschatologies which posit a destroying and a remaking of the creation: as we will be changed from earthly to heavenly, so shall creation be changed.

The final passage Wright would point us to in order to establish creation and covenant as a narrative theme in the Pauline corpus is Romans 1-11. I will not (and Wright does not) attempt to dig around too deeply as it should suffice for the stated purpose to make a few observations. First, Paul opens this epistle with an argument about how creation is “a way of calling the human race to account for not recognizing God and giving him the praise and honor that were his due.” In this sin man has no excuse and suffers the consequences of his disobedience, “human beings have become corrupt; violence and hatred fills the world; and even those who think they are above such things are themselves in fact no better.” It is at this point that Israel would speak up: “God has called Israel to be the light to the nations, the teacher of the foolish, the guide to the blind. That is what the covenant was there for.” As Wright continues to say, however, Paul anticipates such an argument and points out that even Israel has become part of the problem. The crisis according to Wright, then, is how is God to be “faithful to the covenant and just in his dealings with the whole creation?” Paul’s answer comes in the form of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus not only fulfills the covenant which solves the problem of creation, but also He solves the problem of Israel’s failure in that covenant.

This is just the beginning of Wright’s wading into this section of Romans but I don’t want to continue in this post. I’m sure I’ve not done Wright justice here, but I think he has done a great job of establishing this particular narrative as crucial to understanding much of Paul’s thought. It is in this section of the book where Wright introduces his (controversial) understanding of “the faithful covenant justice of God” or the dikaiosyne theou. I will let him speak for himself in conclusion:

If there is one major result of this chapter in terms of current debates, it is that the ‘new perspective’ on the one hand, and its critics on the other, both need to come to terms with the integrated vision of human sin and redemption and Israel’s fall and restoration which characterizes Paul through and through, precisely because his controlling categories are creation and covenant. He is not simply assuming an implicit narrative about how individual sinners find a right relationship with a holy God (any more than he is simply assuming an implicit narrative about how Gentiles can have easy access to God’s people). In so far as he would be happy with the former way of stating matters at all, he would insist on framing it within the much larger question of how the creator God can be true to creation, how the covenant God can be true to the covenant, and how those things are not two, but one. And that is what the phrase dikaiosyne theou is all about.

And:

Let me put the point in a sequence of three propositions which Paul everywhere presupposes and frequently makes explicit in whole or in part.

(1) God made the covenant with Abraham as the means of dealing with evil within good creation, which meant dealing in particular with evil within human beings, God’s image-bearers. This I have already explained.

(2) The family of Abraham, who themselves share in the evil, as well as in the image-bearing vocation, of the rest of humanity, treated their vocation to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege. This was their own meta-sin, their own second-order form of idolatry, compounding the basic forms they already shared with the Gentiles. This further point is basic to Paul’s critique of Israel in such passages as Romans 2, 7 and 10 and Galatians 2, 3 and 4.

(3) When God fulfils the covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit, thereby revealing his faithful covenant justice and his ultimate purpose of new creation, this has the effect both of fulfilling the original covenant purpose (thus dealing with sin and procuring forgiveness) and of enabling Abraham’s family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it was always intended to be.

Hebrews 1-2:4 Questions

I've been leading a small group Bible study on Sunday evenings and we've been reading through the book of Hebrews. Since I'm a much better writer than I am a speaker, I thought I'd post the study here for a wider audience (though, perhaps my small group is larger than my reader base).

There are a few important things that need to be said about Hebrews before actually getting into the text itself. First, Hebrews was written with a Jewish-Christian congregation in mind. The Old Testament is quoted often and the author seems to take for granted a solid understanding of the context for those quotes and an understanding of Judaism in general on the part of his readers. Secondly, the letter is explicitly Christological (or Christo-centric). Except for the gospels, no other New Testament book digs deeper into the person and work of Jesus Christ. Lastly, this book is very covenantal. In Hebrews we are taught about Jesus’ relationship to both the Old and New Covenants (e.g. the priestly role that He plays) and we are taught about the relationship between the covenants themselves (e.g. the Old being a “shadow” and the New being the “reality”). All of these things need to be kept in mind when approaching Hebrews.

The first section of Hebrews that we studied was Hebrews 1-2:4. Here are the questions I asked:

1. What does it mean for God to have made the universe through Jesus? What are some of the implications of Jesus “sustaining all things” through the power of His word?

2. Is it significant that Jesus’ name is superior to the angels’ names? How so?

3. Why does the author quote so much from the OT? Read a few of the passages he quotes, are they clearly referring to Jesus? (Joshua 10:24; 2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 97:7; 102:15-27; 103:20; 104:4; Isaiah 51:6; 61:1, 3)

4. Is the question in verse 14 meant to be rhetorical? Why or why not?

5. What is “the word spoken through angels”?

Gas Too!

“Refusing to admit narrative into this debate is therefore like refusing to put petrol in a car because you know that what you need to drive is tyres and a steering wheel.” – N.T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective

I like the way Wright writes. This is my first foray into his corpus and, so far, it has been delightful (of course, this quote comes from page 9, so we’ll see how he holds out). Paul was one of the books cited in the PCA Study report and, from the preface, this book looks to give a fairly concise summary of some of the issues involved in the FV/NPP controversy. It is “this debate” that Write is referring to in the quote above, well the NPP side of it for him at least. The title of the book is telling in a way because Wright wants to, I think (and I’ve read elsewhere in the blogosphere), separate him self, to a certain degree, from those who are participating in the new perspective(s) movement. Though he has contributed largely to it (again, as I’ve been told and as I’ve read elsewhere), it seems to be going in directions that he, perhaps, is not comfortable with.

As to the quote itself, this analogy seems quite an appropriate analysis of what’s going on with all of these reports coming out in the Reformed arena. I’ve always felt a certain affinity for narrative, perhaps due to my love of books/story in general (and all the videogames I’ve played) and my college years only bolstered my conviction that there’s a distinct lack of emphasis regarding narrative as far as systematic theology is concerned. It is likely why I consider myself an FV sympathizer; FV theology resonates with me on that narrative level where the formality of systematic theology and the practicality of biblical theology meet. And I don’t mean “meet” like when you meet new friends, I mean “meet” like accelerated nuclei. To go with Wright’s analogy here, many of the reports are concerned with the integrity of the steering wheel and the tires, which really is important. But most of the FV/NPP people are asking questions about gas, not about the tires and steering wheel (much less about the vehicle as a whole).

Jesus and Joseph

When I was teaching through the end of Genesis for Sunday school, I came across a parallel that I’d never noticed before. I don’t own a lot of commentaries (yet) so much of my research for teaching is done on the internet using my current theological structure to filter what’s “out there” accordingly. In case you’re like me and haven’t come across this parallel yet, well now you can see when Jesus taught His disciples that all of the Scriptures speak of Him, He wasn’t exaggerating. I’ll list here a few of the more striking parallels; you can find a longer list here or by doing a search for “Joseph Jesus parallel” on Google.

1. Joseph was thirty when Pharaoh made him second in command and Jesus was thirty when He began His ministry – Genesis 41:46; Luke 3:23

2. Joseph was falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife and Jesus was falsely accused by the chief priests (among others) – Genesis 39:13-18; Mark 14:55-64

3. Joseph was in prison with two criminals, one was saved the other was not. Jesus was crucified with two criminals, one was saved the other was not – Genesis 40:2-3, 20-22; Luke 23:33, 39-43 – what makes this particular parallel even more interesting is that the criminals with Joseph were a cupbearer and a baker, wine and bread correlating with the Lord’s Supper.

4. Joseph was “raised” three times: once out of the pit (Genesis 37:28) once to be the ruler of Egypt (Genesis 41:41) and once again when Jacob is told he is still alive (Genesis 45:26:28). Jesus was raised three times as well, once on the cross (John 19:17-18), once from the grave (Matthew 18:5-6) and once more into heaven itself (Acts 1:9).

5. Joseph saved his people from certain death (Genesis 41:55-42:1-2). Jesus saves His people from certain death (John 10:27-29).

If you check out the link above you’ll see many more parallels. The site I linked isn’t the best one, it was just the first one I clicked after I ran the Google search. It’s truly incredible that Moses, having no knowledge of Jesus whatsoever and writing well over a thousand years before Him, could construct such a close parallel. Divine inspiration? You bet.

35th General Assembly Adopted Recommendations

The 35th PCA General Assembly voted to adopt the recommendations of an interim committee's study report conducted on Federal Vision theology and the New Perspectives on Paul movement. The recommendations are as follows:

1. That the General Assembly commend to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.

2. That the General Assembly remind the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while "subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God," have been adopted by the PCA "as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice."

3. That the General Assembly recommend the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with out Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any difference in their views.

4. That the General Assembly remind the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty "to exercise care over those subject to their authority" and "to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church" (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

5. That the Ad Interim Study Commitee on NPP, AAT and FV be dismissed with thanks.

What exactly does this mean? Well, for one, it means if you aren't familiar with NPP and VF and you're a member/elder/pastor/deacon of a PCA church then, in theory, you soon will be informed. I've already skimmed through the 9 declarations in a previous post if you're interested in my "knee-jerk" opinion of them. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not well read on the topic (I haven't read any of N.T. Wright or Norman Shepherd or any books published in favor or in opposition to their views or FV views) but that doesn't mean I don't know anything and it certainly doesn't mean I can't give my opinion. So, my (current) thoughts for your consideration:

1. By adopting this recommendation the General Assembly has, in theory, ensured that congregations throughout the denomination will hear about the issues involved with the FV/NPP controversies. I presume there will be, in the near future, session and presbytery meetings to discuss the report and how to go about getting it out to their respective congregations. The report is general enough so that interested persons can pursue questions which have been left unanswered, and they should be encouraged to do so. Even though I do not believe the report is entirely (or even mostly) accurate, it is more than adequate for opening the doors of dialogue.

2. The stated purpose of the Study Report was "to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies... to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards... and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards." We have here two instances of the study committee members being made responsible for evaluating FV/NPP according to the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture." The first instance is by General Assembly's appointment and the second instance is by the committee's own request in this recommendation. Did the committee accomplish this? While they certainly believe they did (as per the final recommendation), I am not convinced. The Book of Church (BCO) 29-1 states:

An offense, the proper object of judicial process, is anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice. Nothing, therefore, ought to be considered by any court as an offense, or admitted as a matter of accusation, which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture.

Let's clear this up a bit, from WCF Chapter 33:

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladminstration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

A question, then, arises. What is the difference between saying that the WCF, church government, discipline and worship "are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice" and saying that "they [synods and councils] are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both"? In other words, is there a substantial difference between "in relation to faith and practice" and "the rule of faith and practice"? It seems to me that, as per this second recommendation (and the candor of the report itself), the study committee wants to use the Westminster Standards as the rule rather than as a help in matters of controversy. This is problematic, especially given WCF Chapter 1, sections 9 and 10:

IX. The infalible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

By adopting this recommendation the General Assembly is, in effect, on the verge of setting the study report and the BCO against the very confession it seeks to uphold, not to mention against Scripture itself. Another important question is also raised by bringing in this language of the BCO; namely, are we to consider this Study Report as a doccument which is accusing FV/NPP of error? If so then this is not merely a Study Report and the committee is skipping quite a few important steps in the process of drawing up charges even of "general" or "public" offense. While I do not believe this was the intent of the report, the response in the little section of blogdom that I keep track of indicates that quite a few view this report as basically an affirmation that FV/NPP advocates are outside the faith. The report itself does not go this far (and could not without violating proper procedure), however.

3. This recommendation is pretty straightforward and as far as the declarations go I would be hard-pressed to disagree with the conclusion that they are a "faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards." It also reasonable to recommend that ruling and teaching elders who disagree with the Standards make known their disagreement(s) to all appropriate parties. As far as my knowledge of FV goes, though, not many advocates will substantially disagree with the declarations. Even so, if I were an elder and an FV/NPP advocate, I would still let my session/presbytery know of my views.

4. By adopting this recommendation the General Assembly is to admonish sessions and presbyteries to be cautious of theological movements. Sessions and presbyteries are partly responsible for the spiritual well-being of their congregations and churches. I could nitpick and complain that the PCA is not "the Church" but "a Church" but I honestly don't think there are too many people in the PCA who believe that the PCA is the only place where the "elect" of God can be found.

5. Nothing special here, I take it that this is standard fanfare for study report closings.

We find ourselves, now, back to the intial question: what does any of this mean for those of us just sitting out in the pew? Well, if you hold to any of the views set forth in the 9 declarations it means you are officially outside the bounds of the Westminster Standards and aren't likely to be ordained as a ruling or teaching elder, or even a deacon (perhaps depending on how "FV friendly" your particular church is). What does it mean beyond that? Any other actions over and above what the report says is a matter for each session/presbytery to decide. I don't see any immediate negative reprecussions coming from the adoption of these recommendations because it will take time for the individual sessions and presbyteries to "get the word out" as per the first recommendation. Those ruling and teaching elders (and I'd extend it to deacons too) within the PCA who adhere to any of the views contained in the declarations need make their sessions aware of the fact. Beyond these things the report is really rather innocuous for the FV/NPP advocate in the PCA pew. The PCA will still let you participate in communion and will even still baptize your children, no harm no foul.

I'm also interested in the long-term consequences of this study report so I'm currently going through it with a fine-toothed comb. I've got a few books on order from Amazon (Wilkins' The Federal Vision, Waters/Beisner's The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis, and N.T. Wright's Paul: In Fresh Perspective) which will, hopefully, let me dig into these issues a little more thoroughly. I know there's a few more books out there but my budget is somewhat limited since I've a child on the way (my wife is due in November) and am currently enrolled in a high deductible health plan. Wasn't expecting my wife to get pregnant this year, but that's a whole other story and I'm confident God will provide for our needs. Be on the lookout for more on the content of the study report itself in the near future. When the books arrive I'll try to interact with them here a little as well.

How Old Are We?

"The common theme [of 'primitivism'], however, was that the forms and practices that had developed over the ages within the church were not normative, nor even valuable. Instead they represented a process of corruption and degeneration in which the purity of primitive Christianity had been lost. Things like creeds and ceremonies were merely human inventions that had crusted over the gospel like barnacles on a ship, which must be scraped away so that authentic New Testament worship could be restored." - Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth

This sort of Evangelical mindset practically gives birth to a new kind of Church. It is a Church that has recently been born again, freed from its slavish traditions and dogmas in order that it might get at the Scriptures as those who were the original readers. "Nevermind the scholarship, creeds and councils," they say, "such things should not get in the way of believers and God's word!" or my personal favorite, "My Christianity is authentic because it comes straight from the Bible and only from the Bible." Pick up a copy of Pearcy's book if you want to know where your Evangelical Christianity really comes from, the last half of this book is fascinating and ecclesiologically depressing (in a good "learn from your mistakes" kind of way).

Christ Everywhere = Christ Nowhere

"What is sacrificed for the sake of this Christus praesens, as Calvin noticed long ago, is his specificity as a particular man. Christ everywhere really means Jesus of Nazareth nowhere. In the ascension he becomes [out of place] in the most literal sense: he is unnatural, absurd, for he has no place of his own. (Vague talk among modern theologians about 'a change of state, not of place' hardly alleviates that difficulty, however effective it may be in turning aside impolite inquiries as to Jesus' actual whereabouts.)" - Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia

I will qualify this quote by saying that Farrow is not arguing against the doctrine of the ascension, far from it. Rather, he is arguing against a particular interpretation of what it means for Jesus to be ascended. How often do we associate (or confuse, as it were) the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives with the presence of Christ? The reality of Jesus as a man should cause us to carefully consider how we understand Scripture's (namely Paul's) language of "Christ in you." As much as we talk about Christ's death and resurrection as a man, we often forget that He ascended as a man and remains a man even at the right hand of the Father. I'm looking foward to the rest of this book.

PCA and FV

The PCA has recently published a study report on "Federal Vision" (FV) and the "New Perspectives on Paul" (NPP) movements. The study committee was composed of 7 individuals: 4 teaching elders and 3 ruling elders. My wife and I were actually talking about this the night before we both found out that the PCA had published its study. The study could not be more timely, as far as I'm concerned. The NPP movement has been around for a couple decades now and FV has been around probably at least as long but has recently come to light because of the Auburn Avenue controversy that took place a few years ago (2002). I've taken some time to read through the report and I don't want to go through the whole thing here, but I do want to say a few things about the declarations at the end (section IV). Maybe I can demonstrate some of the vocabulary issues I mentioned in my last post. I will paste each of the declarations and follow each with my brief commentary.

-start-
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards. – FV doesn’t reject the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture. Instead, FV understands that both covenants are gracious. This is not the same thing as saying that both covenants are covenants of grace, though this is how the PCA seems to be interpreting FV. To argue that the covenant of works, had it been kept, could only have been kept by grace through faith is not to say that it is really a covenant of grace. I haven't read much about the NPP so I don't know if mono-covenantalism can be found there (though I suspect it can be given this declaration).

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – This one is a bit trickier. FV associates “visible church” with “covenant members” (by virtue of baptism) and, thus with “the elect” as the people of God. Care is taken, however, to maintain a difference between “the elect” as the body of Christ (who is the Elect One and in whom we have our identity with via baptism) and “the elected individual” as one who is chosen by God, is a member of the “invisible church” and, thus, will be saved. So in the former sense, one can lose his election (and, thus, salvation) by completely forsaking the visible church. If he is a member of the invisible church though, his forsaking of the visible church will be temporary as the salvation of the invisible church is guaranteed. This should not, in reality, be called “forsaking” on the part of the true believer; rather it’s sinful disobedience that needs to be corrected.

Here we begin to see the disparate views of the covenant between the PCA and the FV. From what I can gather, the FV is taking cues from the NPP on its sense of corporate application of the covenant. Because of this, the FV understanding of election is expanded to include the entire visible church within the body of Christ. They are arguing that the body of Christ as a whole is "the elect" and, thus, enjoys all the benefits of union with Christ (justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.). The Westminster Standards aren't diverse enough to allow for such an expanded understanding of election (or covenant, for that matter) and so FV only seems at odds with the Standards on this point. But because the PCA is bound to the Standards, it sees the expansion as a threat to doctrinal (and denominational) purity. I think there is a legitimate concern here, but if we are careful not to equivocate on some key terms then there could be agreement.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – FV advocates say that a separate imputation of Christ’s work to the individual is redundant if the individual is already in Christ. In other words, Christ's work becomes our work as a result of our union with Him. If Jesus is justified and we are in Jesus, then we also are justified and there is no need for a separate (and/or distinct) declaration of justification for the sake of the individual. Once again we find that emphasis on a corporate understanding of covenant coming out in contrast (but not in opposition to) an emphasis on the individual understanding. I think there are NPP advocates who deny that Jesus' work is imputed to us, but that is not something the FV has adopted from them.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – This is kind of the same thing as (3), just worded differently. Again, it's more applicable to NPP than FV.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – Ditto with (4)

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – Finally some good meat and, really, I think this is the heart of the whole issue (or very near to it). What does “covenantal union” mean? Do we say, or believe, that those who are members of the visible church are united to Christ? Further more, can a person be only partly united to Christ? As the preceding (to these declarations) analysis states, the WCF speaks of “union with Christ” in one sense: it is applicable only to those who are members of the invisible church, i.e. those whom God has chosen for salvation. The problem with this is that nobody knows who is in the invisible church; according to the WCF the invisible church can only be seen and known by God. So what we essentially have here is the WCF saying that (a) only members of the invisible church can be united with Christ and (b) only God knows who those members are. Okay, so where does that leave us who are in the visible church now? Can we know if we are united to Christ? It would seem that the WCF is teaching (according to the PCA’s interpretation of it, no less) that we can’t know if we are members of the invisible church or not. Tons and tons more could be written here, but I’m trying to keep this short.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – Here we see the failure of the PCA's position (and the failure of the WCF, I think) to make sense of “covenantal union” as it relates to the visible church. FV maintains that there’s a very real sense in which a member of the visible church, who is united to Christ by virtue of that membership, can lose the salvation he also has by virtue of being in that visible relationship (the PCA would say such an individual was never really saved to begin with, which is practically the same thing). This is part of what FV calls the “objectivity of the covenant,” if you break the covenant by being unfaithful then you reap the rewards of infidelity. Now, I think FV would make a distinction between type of salvation such a “covenant breaker” has in comparison with one who is a member of the invisible church (whose salvation is guaranteed). Actually, the distinction is made between the salvation we have corporately as the visible church and the salvation we have individually as members of the invisible church. The point being, I think, that warnings against apostasy aren't about mere hypothetical situations. The FV position makes very real the vine metaphor in John 15; those branches which are cut off the vine are cut off from union with Christ.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – More of the same.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards. – I haven’t ever gotten the impression that FV teaches we have to wait until death to find out if we’re saved. Nor have I gotten the impression that FV teaches we earn that salvation or gain it in some other way that isn't by faith alone. I suppose that this is more against some of the NPP conclusions than against FV.
-end-

Having interjected all this, I still am not willing to side with the FV position, at least not 100% (in other words, I still consider myself a good PCA presbyterian). If nothing else, it seems to me that this debate should serve to spark a desire to revise the Standards themselves. I don’t mean to imply that they should be revised to incorporate FV teachings either; they should be revised because (a) they're 500 years old, (b) the tradition has gone through many and varied theological and philosophical eras, and (c) it should be written up to date considering the change in definition of various theological and biblical terms and concepts that has come with the intermediate scholarship. Don't get me wrong here, I'm a huge fan and supporter of the Standards. I was born and raised within the PCA, graduated from the PCA's college, frequently teach Sunday school at a PCA church and currently am leading a Bible study group of fellow PCA members. So I suggest a revision of the Standards not as an outside (or inside) critic, but as someone who wants to see domestic violence cease amongst those who would call themselves Reformed. This is something I believe a good revision of the Standards could help to accomplish.

The Auburn Avenue Controversy

I've linked a letter by David Bahnsen (Greg Bahnsen's son) to the title of this entry in which I agree with his assessment of the "problem" that has given rise to this controversy. My entry here won't be as long as his letter but I will, essentially, be saying the same thing. I will preface my position by qualifying that I have not read any of the published books flowing from this controversy; either in support of Federal Vision theology (also called Auburn Avenue theology, for obvious reasons) or in support of the Traditional Reformed position's critque of Federal Vision theology. I will be using "FV" to refer to the Federal Vision position and "TR" to refer to the Traditional Reformed position. In formulating a balanced opinion on the Auburn Avenue controversy I've found in necessary to start at the beginning. What caused this thing in the first place? What is this controversy about? My current understanding is as follows.

A long time ago (January of 2002) in a galaxy far far away (Monroe, Louisiana), a PCA church held a pastor's conference. The title of the conference was "The Federal Vision" and its theme(s) revolved around various aspects of covenant theology, particularly focusing on how the covenant can/should be viewed objectively in the life of the church. Seems innocuous enough, doesn't it? Nothing out of the ordinary for a PCA pastor's conference, right? Several months (in June) after the conclusion of this conference the RPCUS issued, or sanctioned, a resolution which called for the repentance of those who spoke at the conference: namely Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach and Steve Wilkins (Wilkins is the pastor of AAPC, the hosting church). The resolution concluded with an ominous "May God have mercy on their souls" seeming to imply that these men were to be considered heretics lest they repent. A couple of weeks later Wilson's church responded and another week later Schlissel's church responded. Since then it has become quite the ruckus.

As I've already mentioned, I have not read or listened to any of the materials that were presented/given at this conference. My experience with the controversy has come via being a proponent of the TR view, reading TR and FV material online (including Wilkins's examination), participating, witnessing, and lurking in blog (start from the bottom if you visit this link) discussions, visiting official church websites and talking with various people about individual aspects of FV. Not having much experience with the polemics involved with this controvesry (from either side) affords me, I think, a unique perspective. Since I learned about FV I've been an avid reader of Doug Wilson's blog (linked above), as he is generally considered to be spearheading the movement. I've even had the pleasure of sitting down with him and talking about some of the issues tied up in this controversy.

So, just what are the issues anyway? I think it's hard to pin down specific issues because of how organic FV is; what I mean is, when talking about a particular issue, say justification, the FV and the TR are pulling from very similiar yet differently nuanced systems. Because of this there is a vocabulary barrier that needs to be overcome, or at least acknowledged, before true discussion about specific points of contention can be fruitful. The main issue is how FV understands (or interprets) the practical implications of "covenantal union," also known as union in/to Christ. The particular issues include the efficacy of baptism (i.e. what baptism does/means for the one baptized), justification as it pertains to union in Christ, the distinction between the visible and invisible church, and covenantal apostasy. As you can tell, it would difficult to speak about one of these issues without relating, or relying on, all of them in some form or fashion.

Now that we know what the cause of the controversy is and what the controversy is about, I feel like I can share my opinion safely. First, the way this controversy came about is regrettable, lamentable, disgraceful and unscriptural. For an entire denomination, of Reformed Christians no less, to draw up such a resolution as the RPCUS has drawn up without even so much as contacting the individuals involved is flat out wrong. I don't mean wrong in the sense of incorrect either, I mean sinfully wrong as in they should be asking for forgiveness if they haven't already. It takes a special kind of pride and a lack of brotherly love to pull something like this off. Where there is controversy and confusion there should have been dialogue and attempted understanding. I am convinced that this would not be a controversy at all had proper procedure been followed, or at least it wouldn't be so bloated of a controversy.

Secondly, while it is true that the issues invovled are not nominal, it is equally true that (and obvious) that the advocates of FV are Christians. The desciptor "heretic" should not be thrown around lightly, nor should it be used of someone who is a Christian even though he may be wrong on certain points of a systematic theology; the gospel truth is a bit more flexible and forgiving, so should we be. Having said this, it is important that these issues get talked about. Our credo isn't "ecclesia semper reformanda est" for nothing and I, for one, say that FV needs to be given a little more careful consideration. I realize that books have been written, but I've also seen these books reviewed by Wilson (who, I think, knows what he believes better than his critics know what he believes) and I'm not certain that scholars on the TR side of things are getting it. As I mentioned earlier, I believe vocabulary barriers are one of the major contributing factors.

From what I can tell, FV is mostly an expansion over and above what TR already teaches. FV advocates take few exceptions to the Westminster Standards, fully embrace the doctrines of grace (at least from what I've seen), and have a strong desire to live worthy of the calling they have received as followers of Christ. What's not Reformed about that? TR should be working with FV to win more souls for the kingdom, as brothers and as fellow Christian soldiers. While I may not agree with what FV teaches, I do believe they preach the true gospel. We would do well to remember the words of our Savior, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."

A Perspective Bit on Baptism

Since I'm a good PCA presbyterian I'm not going to bother actually constructing an argument that justifies infant baptism. There are already plenty of decent (and lengthy) books and a host of articles online which can establish baptism's continuity with circumcision understood within the context of an individual becoming a member of each respective covenant. As a good example, you can read Meredith Kline's take in his two part article. What I want to do here is assume the validity of infant baptism and briefly dig deeper into its covenantal ramifications while at the same time undermining the credo-baptist view.

A lot of confusion surrounding this matter can be cleared up by making a distinction between being a member of the covenant (Old or New) and being a believing, or what some people might call a "true", member of that covenant. This distinction is important because Paul explicitly teaches us that not all who are in Israel are of Israel; the same would also be true of the Church:

Rom. 9:3-8 [NASB] - For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

What amounts to a practical parallell to this passage appears in the Sermon on the Mount when those who come to Jesus crying "Lord, Lord" are denied because Jesus claims to never have known them. Certainly Jesus knew all about them and that knowledge is what actually prompts His remark. We also find the apostle John expressing a similar thought in his first epistle (1 John 2:17-19). We can see from passages such as these that there can be Christians and Israelites who aren't really Christians or Israelites (i.e. who aren't saved). The problem is that those of us on the more conservative side of evangelicalism ascribe a very strict and specific meaning to the descriptor "Christian." Namely, we understand the term to be equal with "believer" and/or "one who is saved." Under such a definition it would be impossible for a Christian to be a non-believer or unsaved. If we understand "Christian" to refer to a member of the Church or to a member of the covenant family then it is quite possible for a Christian to be a non-believer and unsaved; in fact, most of America is Christian in this sense.

It should be noted here that the arguments for infant and cred0-baptistm are both made from silence as far as the recorded baptisms in Scripture are concerned; you can actually make both arguments from the passage in Romans 9. Proponents of credo-baptism will argue that every instance of baptism found in the New Testament is always of new believers. That is, baptism is given as a sign of the New Covenant only after one has made a conscious decision to become part of the covenant family. The backside of this is that the children of believers should not be considered part of the covenant family until they become believers themselves. Though credo-baptists disagree, this aspect of credo-baptism is the logical conclusion that follows from their understanding of baptism.

It is not, however, the picture that the New Testament presents when we consider the words of Christ Himself while rebuking His disciples: "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matt. 19:14). To say that some of the children being brought before Jesus were not infants or babes is to make an argument from silence; but so is asserting that there must have been infants and babes. I think many Greek scholars would argue that there most likely would have been infants and babes present. The point is that here is a clear example of believers trying to deny children access to the Bread of Life and, consequently, being rebuked by that very Bread who has said "let them come" (here is also the heart of the paedocommunion argument but that's another story for another time).

The problem I have with the credo-baptist view is that they seem to understand baptism as a sign and seal of the Holy Spirit in the individual. So what happens when one of these adults ends up going the path of rebellion and never repents? Was the seal of baptism ineffective? Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what credo-baptism really is, but if it is supposed to be an outward symbol/type of an inward reality then this creates problems with other aspects of what the Scriptures teach concerning salvation. What we have, then, with credo-baptism is Christians (i.e. one's who are supposed to be saved) falling away from their faith and into final condemnation; but Paul says that God is faithful and He will finish the work He begins (1 Cor. 1:4-8; Phil. 1:6).

From here it is easy to see 1) baptism isn't required for gaining salvation and certainly doesn't guarantee one salvation; thus there is no reason not to baptise infants in this regard. And 2) the outward sign of baptism is just that, outward. There's no promise made in relationship to this outward sign that obligates God to save the one who is baptised. What is often confused here is equating water baptism with Water baptism. Water is often associated with the Holy Spirit in the New Testament; just as real water gives life, so the Spirit of God gives life. Jesus is the fountainhead of that living water and He promised that anyone who partakes of the water He gives would never thirst.

Proponents of credo-baptism place a great amount of emphasis on the pre-requisite of faith for the administering of baptism, but they also won't allow the faith of the parents to be a "stand-in" for their children until the children make a conscious/unconcious decision one way or the other. They say that the passages in Acts where baptism is for households do not necessarily imply that infants were included amongst those households. Of course, it doesn't say infants aren't included either and it seems extraordinarily unlikely that all of the households coming into the body of Christ at that time would be free of infants. There is also the matter of early church practice; the first written record of infant baptism being found in the writings of Origen a scant century after the last book of the Bible was written (less than a century if you say Revelation was written c. 90 A.D.). It is probable that the tradition of infant baptism came about as a result of baptising whole households, some of which would have invariably contained infants; in other words, it was unavoidable.

So we come full circle: what, exactly, does baptism mean for an infant since it is safe to say it can't/doesn't mean anything to an infant? It seems to me that if we're going to maintain any sort of continuity between circumcision and baptism then, at the very least, we must consider who is supposed to participate. The Old Testament is quite plain and clear that all males, regardless of age, were to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14). Even if you weren't a Jew you were required to be circumcised in order to be considered a member of the covenant. It is also clear that infants were not excluded (vs. 12). Two things are fascinating about this: 1) the most obvious: females were not (and could not be) included. The women did not receive any kind of sign or mark of membership that showed they were included in the covenant. Women were actually members by virtue of being under the headship of a man (Father, husband, uncle, etc). 2) Faith was not required of anyone else in the household before they were to receive circumcision. There's no "age of accountability" to be met in order to be circumcised. If you're born or adopted into the family of God then you receive the sign of membership whether you are capable of understanding the significance of it or not.

We see baptism working in a similar manner in the New Testament. Because it is instituted as the sign of the New Covenant, the sign is for all those who were already considered God's covenant people, for those families as they become covenant members and for families as they grow in the covenant. John was baptizing people in the Jordan and who's to say infants weren't present? Like the baptizing of families recorded in Acts, is it really feasible that absolutely no infants or small children were participating? I can imagine the conversation Peter has with the fathers of those households: "Okay guys, now that you've accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, I'm going to baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as per His final instructions to us. I will baptize you and your family; but not your babies or your children under 12..." Now, imagine Peter is talking to Jews, who were given the original mark of God before they ever had any conception or recognition of it's meaning. Do you think they would take kindly to Pete's method of bringing them into this new and supposedly better covenant? He would essentially be telling them that their children aren't God's children and are, therefore, to be exluded from the covenant family until they decide to join on their own.

The closest thing resembling a sound argument against this view is the credo-baptist's contention that baptism doesn't have any bearing on whether or not one is a member of the covenant. A child born to believers is a member of the covenant by virtue of being born to believing parents. This, however, introduces a completely foreign idea into the theology of covenants, especially when we consider the continuity issue. In the Old Covenant, being born into a Jewish family had nothing to do with being or not being an Israelite. If you weren't circumcised or a female under the authority of one who was circumcised then you were not an Israelite. Of course, we find out in the New Testament that even if you did meet the physical requirements it doesn't necessarily mean you are an Israelite (Romans 9 above).

The point is, as an outward sign of covenant membership, circumcision and baptism serve the same purpose. It is not unlike the relationship between Passover and the Lord's Supper; Passover was a celebration of promises kept and of promises to be delivered and the Lord's Supper is a celebration of promises fulfilled and promises to be fulfilled. As celebratory meals they serve the same purpose, i.e. to remind God's people of His promises to them. Does this mean there is no significant difference between the two? Certainly not! The same is true with baptism and circumcision; there are differences between the two, but not so much as to exclude certain elements of continuity. What this means is that the cred0-baptist view doesn't have any ground to stand upon when taking covenant signs as a whole. Baptism, as an outward sign of covenant membership, should be administered to all who are members of that covenant, including the infants of believing parents.

When Christianity Begs

"We forget that we are Christians, which means we are to confess the lordship of Jesus Christ over every aspect of life. For some mysterious reason, we have settled for the lordship of Christ over some precincts of heaven, but everything else belongs to Time Warner or Ted Turner. We have made our peace with our situation. But at least the prodigal son had the good sense to be revolted when the pig food was starting to look good to him -- we in contrast take our hunger as an indication that we will soon be accepted into the best porcine circles, over there on the other side of the pen. We wait patiently for our place at the trough... er, table. We do not cast our pearls before swine; we cast ourselves." - Douglas Wilson (emphasis mine)

Why is it that Christianity in America is trying to emulate her surounding secular society? I understand, from an evangelist's point, that Christians need to be integrated into their culture (not something difficult to do in the States) but why integrate through immitation? Paul said that to the Jews he became like a Jew and to the Gentiles he became like a Gentile, but this "becoming like" on the part of Paul was not in the form of immitation and assimilation; he was not a cultural sponge. No, Paul understood that his citizenship was in the Heavenly kingdom and this is what enabled him to be all things to all men. The goal is salvation from the culture of the world to the culture of heaven.

Why Not Everyone?

I've never really given much weight to the theological concept of universalism, but that may be because until recently I wasn't aware that it could be nuanced in such a way as to almost seem Scripturally plausible. I know that there have been "big name" theologians I advocating universalism in some form or fashion since the early Church Fathers, but again I never bothered to pay close attention to it or its historical development. Naturally, I blame my Calvinism for the oversight since given Calvinism, and its notions of the elect and the reprobate, universalism just doesn't come up in discussion very often. Christian universalism comes in several flavors but I wish to focus on one in particular: Evangelical or Trinitarian Universalism (TU from now on).

Whether you lean towards a dispensational view of Scripture or a covenantal view of Scripture, you can still find yourself embracing TU. Why? Because it's theologically flexible enough to fit both hermeneutical models. The core elements of TU are deceptively straightforward making them easy to adopt uncritically. First and foremost, TU teaches that God is love. Love isn't just the primary attribute of God, rather God is fundamentally (read ontologically) love; the essence of God is love, the I AM is love. This is not to say that love trumps other characteristics of God (i.e., justice, holiness, etc.) but it is to argue that these characteristics flow out of who and what He is, namely love. The relationship within the Trinity itself perfectly displays the truth that God is love. Second, TU teaches that man's reconciliation to God is through the work of Jesus in His life, death, resurrection and ascension. Because Jesus is fully man and fully God, and because through Him all things were created, it stands to reason that through His work all things (which includes all human beings) will be reconciled. That is, all things participate in His death and resurrection because He is, in some form or fashion, tied together with all things.

TU doesn't deny the existence of hell and the reality of God's judgment against sin, rather it sees them as abiding only for as long as it takes for the receiving individual to realize the error of his ways. In this sense it is not unlike the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, except that in the RC view purgatory is for those who die in God's grace but who have not yet been purified enough for entrance into heaven. Under the TU view, there's no purgatory but hell functions in a similar roll for all non-believers. The non-believer receives judgment and punishment in hell until he decides to accept the grace and mercy offered in the gospel, which he will eventually do. This is a very brief and basic sketch of TU; you can find a more detailed outline and articles for further research on Wikipedia's entry. My intent is not to interact with TU comprehensively, but concisely on its main points of (1) God is love and (2) the reconciliation of all things, including all humans, is brought about by the work of Jesus.

To say that God is love ontologically and/or essentially seems to really miss the bigger picture. God is just. God is holy. God is righteous. God is word. God is creator. God is almighty. God is truth. God is. Given the Bible, is it possible to say that God is love and that all of these other "God is" statements merely flow from God being love? It seems clear from the creation account and from how God reveals Himself to Moses that God is, first and foremost, existence. Genesis 1:1-3 teach us primarily that God exists (v. 1) has, or is, a Spirit (v. 2) and speaks (v. 3). Now, these three verses teach much more once we dig into the implications of each, but it begs the question to argue that God's existence, His Spirit and His language are a result of His being love. When Moses finally comes along we are first told, by God Himself, what He is to be called: YHWH (Yahweh). God tells Moses "This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:15). While YHWH can be translated several different ways, the same meaning carries through each of them, namely that God is because He is. We learn here that God doesn't just exist, but that He is existence.

Now, none of this is contradictory to the notion that God is love. It is important to note that we are saying something much more profound and substantial when we affirm that "God is" than we are when we affirm that "Love is." In the phrase "God is love" the "is" cannot be a verbal representation of the mathematical concept of equality; to say "God is love" is not to say that "God = Love." The reason for this is because if we substitute "Love" for "God" we begin making love an idol. Let me try an experiment with the notion of equality: Love is God. Justice is God. Holiness is God. Righeousness is God. Doing this we begin sounding like the Pharisees. There are cases where this equality works: Creator is God. Word is God. Almighty is God. And even the above cases work to a certain extent when we understand that "Love is God" does not mean "Love = God" (or that "God is just" does not mean "Justice is God", etc.). This may seem nit-picky but its a vital point in the TU discussion.

On the TU account of man's reconciliation, all men are eventually brought into heaven. Why? Because God is Love (that is, according to TU, God = Love) and, as such, He will not allow any of His creation/creatures to be eternally tormented. A God that is love would not punish temporal shortcomings (sin) with eternal judgment. The Biblical passages certainly are persuasive too (emphasis mine):

Luke 3:4-6 - As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. And all mankind will see God's salvation.'

John 1:6-7, 29 - There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him [Jesus] all men might believe... The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Romans 5:18 - Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Romans 11:32 - For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy and them all.

1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 - All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Ephesians 1:9-10 - And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

Colossians 1:17-20 - He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Timothy 4:9-10 - This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

This phenomenon, TU maintains, is not limited only to the New Testament. We find numerous passages in the Old Testament speaking of how God will bring all nations and all people to Himself. I certainly won't deny that these passages exist but I'm not going to list them here; if you're interested, a google search will net you all the proof-texts you could want. The problem is not with the Scriptural support for TU, or any other view that is theologically suspect for that matter. I can come up with an equal (actually greater) number of proof-texts which are contrary to the ones above; contrary in as much as a universalist approach is concernd at least. Again I won't list them because a google search here will also net you all the texts you could want. So what is the problem? The problem is in how these passages fit into the framework of Biblical theology as a whole.

We've already seen that God is not love in the sense that TU requires for universal reconciliation. Orthodox Christianity teaches of the second coming and of the final judgment Christ brings upon His return. We find in these eschatological passages that there are two types of people. Jesus uses sheep (His disciples) and goats (the worldly) in the Olivet discorse, Paul uses righteous and wicked, John uses light and darkness, Peter uses chosen and (by implication) not-chosen. This is actually a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible: Eve and the Serpent, Cain and Able (or Seth), Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh, Israel and the Gentiles, the Church and the world. Even in Revelation we find the divide between those written in the book of Life and those not. We find that the final resurrection at the throne of judgment (which is also supposedly final) is of some unto everlasting life and others unto the second death. In what sense is this judgment final if it is possible for those participating in the second death to be saved at some point in the future? TU wreaks some interesting havoc on biblical eschatology.

TU also seems to undermine the very purpose of the Church. What pressing need is there of believers to go and make disciples if everyone will eventually gain entrance into heaven anyway? This question is sometimes leveled at those who believe in predestination but predestinarians have a plausible answer. As a Calvinist I believe in the sharp distinction between the elect and the non-elect. I also believe that none of the elect shall perish and that all of the non-elect will perish. However, this is not tantamount to fatalism because I believe that God brings salvation to His elect through the work of the Holy Spirit and the spreading of the word by those who are believers. Hypothetically, if believers did not share the gospel and God did not proclaim His majesty through creation, then the elect would meet the same end as the non-elect. As Paul says, "How shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear if there is no preacher?" (Rom. 10:14). This is irrelevant on the TU model because in the end Jesus Himself preaches the word to those in Hell and it's only a matter of time before they come around. In other words, TU is closer kin to fatalism than Calvinistic predestination. There's no sense of urgency under the TU model that presses the Church to be vigilant in seeking opportunities to spread the gospel.

Lastly, and perhaps most seriously, TU underestimates the depth of sin. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man comes immediately to mind. Not because we seem to find in this passage an argument for the existence of hell and the impossibility of crossing the chasm from hell to heaven, but because of Abraham's words at the end of the story:

Luke 16:27-31 - "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Sin so deeply corrupts the non-believer that even if someone rises from the dead (viz. Jesus) they will not be convinced. Where does this leave TU? No amount of wishing or hoping from me (or any believer) can weaken or loosen the chains of sin. Of course, this is by no means a comprehensive engagement with TU; much more could be written. I just wanted to write a few things, maybe as a starting point for further discussion. I see these few words as the begining or opening of a dialogue should one be so inclined to participate. Universalism can appeal to us (and I know it does to me) on a very dangerous level that can foster a false hope. Nevertheless, let God be true, and every man a liar.

Refridgerator Poetry

This is a poem I constructed with those magnetic word packs that my wife has on the 'fridge. I haven't really figured out what it means yet, but it was fun to put together.

You whisper blood days as life falls on me
Crushing the moon of a sad summer man
When sleeping in no sweet eternity
What do I say to you, love
Soar to the luscious forest above
For I am frantic only by beauty
Sing, my girl, the symphony of love
But how will she have me
One repulsive gift
A diamond

I know I wrote it quite a while before we were actually engaged so I'm guessing it is a reflection upon my unconcious loathing of the cultural "obligation" to purchase shiny cut stones in order to get married. A loathing brought about, of course, by the very obvious fact that my bank account was about as padded as a gym floor. Other than this, it's a simple composition inspired merely by the words available on the refridgerator door.

Jesus is the Vine

John 15:1-11 - "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete." (NIV)

Another wonderful metaphor from the lips of the Savior. I am currently leading a small group through a Bible study based on this passage so I thought I'd write up a quick tidbit. In this passage, Jesus teaches us about Himself, about His Father and about us. Namely He teaches that (1) He and the Father are to be distinguished from each other, (2) that they both are working to grow the good branches and dispose of the bad, and (3) what good branches and bad branches look like.

(1) Vine and Gardener

This is pretty straightforward, Jesus is the Vine and the Father is the Gardener. The metaphor beautifully illustrates the relationship between Father and Son as the vine does not sustain itself apart from the gardener and the garndener isn't a gardener if there is no vine to tend. It also gets at the intimacy of their relationship as the gardener cares for the vine (by pruning and cutting) and the vine produces branches with fruit accordingly. We want to be careful, here, not to take the metaphor beyond it's means. Because Jesus describes Himself as the Vine and His Father as the Gardener, this does not mean that Jesus is less than the Father as a real vine is less than its gardener. It is equally true that Jesus is a not a created being as a real vine is a part of creation. Whence the Holy Spirit in this metaphor? It is quite possible that Jesus does not explicitly include the presence of the Holy Spirit in this passage because He had just finished describing the Spirit's role as a Counselor. The Spirit would fit into this metaphor implicitly, then, by being the pruning shears used by the Gardener and by being the life-giving substance that flows from the Vine into the branches.

(2) Good Branches, Bad Branches

How do you know whether you're a good branch or a bad branch? This question was raised during the small group meeting on Sunday (we were focusing on v. 2) and I offered the following take. First, and foremost, the particulars of your relationship with God are between you and God. I am in no place to question whether or not you are a Christian, especially if you've been breaking bread with me at the Lord's table; God is the final judge of your heart. However, we are called to hold one another accountable and this can be used as sort of a litmus test. If you are a Christian then your life will look a certain way as you continue to bear the fruit of genuine salvation. When you cease to bear fruit your brothers and sisters will (hopefully) call you out and set you straight. This is what the pruning process looks like: you sin, God cuts the sin out and you grow stronger. Bad branches come in just as wide a variety as good branches but, like good branches, they have common characteristics (another sort of litmus test). They don't find their identity in the vine and some even try to grow fruit apart from it. These Christians are motivated primarily by self and they are stubbornly against reproach and being held accountable. They are comfortable living in sin and guilt does not drive them to repentance and when it does they are still reluctant (rather than relieved).

(3) The Gardener Gardening and the Vine Vining

Here is where we start digging into the metaphor a bit deeper. The Father as Gardener tends the Vine by either pruning the branches that are producing fruit or by cutting off those branches that don't produce fruit. The purpose of pruning a vine's branches is so that those branches will grow stronger and produce a greater yield come harvest time. Keep in mind that this is something the gardener does to the branches based on his own judgment and assessment of the branch's condition. The branch is either producing fruit or it's not and the pruning shears are utilized respectively. Likewise, the vine continues to grow and produce branches; it gives life and support to those branches that produce fruit and to those branches which are grafted on where non-producing branches were cut off.

An interesting quandary is brought up by this passage. We know that ultimately there are only two kinds of people: saved and unsaved. It would be easy to make the analogy of "saved = Christian" while "unsaved = non-Christian" but we see in this passage (and others) that this is not the case. From passages like these we get the distinction between what is called the "visible" Church and the "invisible" Church. So, the term "Christian" refers to anyone who is a member of the visible Church regardless of whether they are also members of the invisible Church. Let's translate this over to the vine metaphor for a bit more clarity. Jesus is the Vine (the visible/invisible Church and the branches are Christians (members of the visible/invisible Church) . The Father, then, is the one who either prunes those abiding in the Vine and producing fruit (Christians that are members of the visible and invisible Church) or He cuts off those not abiding and not producing fruit (Christians that are are members of the visible Church only). Much more can be discussed here but I'm trying to keep this brief; suffice it to say that this doesn't change the truth of there only being two kinds of people. Rather, this view enables a more nuanced understanding of the term "Christian" from within a covenantal framework.

An Embodied View of Time

"Try to think about time without any of the metaphors we have discussed. Try to think about time without motion and space--without a landscape you move over and without objects or substances moving toward you or away from you. Try to think about time without thinking about whether it will run out or if you can budget it or are wasting it... What, after all, would time be without flow, without time going by, without the future approaching? What would time be if there were no lengths of time? Would we still be experiencing time if time could not creep or fly by us? Would time still be time for us if we could not waste it or budget it?" - George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Philosophy in the Flesh

I am sympathetic to the authors' view that the majority of our understanding of truth comes from conceptual metaphors. Indeed, it is my contention that such a view fits harmoniously well with an Incarnational approach to epistemology (and philosophy in general) in which the Word becoming Flesh is the paradigmatic metaphor for understanding truth, for grasping truth. We tend to think of metaphor as an embelishment of language from which truth must be extracted; nothing could be further from the, ah, truth. A brief look at how we understand time is enough to demonstrate the validity of metaphor as a clear venue for the expression of truth.

In the English language the structure for our understanding (and experience) of time occurs within the context of what the authors identify as the "Time Orientation" metaphor. In this schema the observer is the marker for the present, everything in front of the marker/observer is the future and anything behind the marker/observer is the past. This is why we can make sense of sentences like "Let's put the past behind us" and "I look forward to our date on Friday." The Time Orientation metaphor reflects our everyday use of the concept of time. Even our words about the past and future are oriented in this manner: "yesterday" is past because it refers to the day behind (or before) today and "tomorrow" is future because it refers to the day in front of (or after) today. There are other metaphors that work in conjunction with this one and that help shed more light on our conception of time.

The authors note, "The Time Orientation metaphor has a spatial source domain, but it says nothing about motion." What they mean by saying the Time Orientation metaphor has a spatial source domain is that the metaphor functions within the context of location relative to the observer. The observer is present (here/now) and the future is in front (spatial relation) of the observer and the past is in back (spatial relation) of the observer, thus time is spatially oriented with the observer. But is the observer stationary or or moving, and does this affect the metaphor? If we view the observer as stationary then we get the Moving Time metaphor and if we view the observer as moving then we get the Moving Observer metaphor. Both of these schemas contain the orientation metaphor and both are used frequently in framing our understanding of time.

"There is a lone, stationary observer facing in a fixed direction. There is an indefinitely long sequence of objects moving past the observer from front to back. The moving objects are conceptualized as having fronts in their direction of motion." This is the Moving Time metaphor in which the observer is stationary and time moves from the future toward the past (or toward the observer). It accounts for sentences like "Time flies [passes quickly] when you're having fun" and "Valentine's Day will be here [will arrive] soon." In these examples we seen the role of the orientation metaphor as well. The observer is still the marker for the present and the future are those events/times moving towards the marker and the past are those events/times which move away from the marker. It is important to note that the events/times have a front-back orientation like the observer does and that this orientation, like the obeserver's, is fixed. Events/times are always moving towards us from the future and away from us as they pass.

The Moving Observer metaphor is a role reversal of the Moving Time metaphor so that time is stationary and the observer is moving. To further clarify, "Here the observer, instead of being fixed in one location, is moving. Each location in the observer's path is a time. The observer's location is the present." This metaphor accounts for sentences like "We've already been through the month of January" and "The deadline for entry is coming up soon." The Time Orientation metaphor remains our spatial reference and on this schema it is the observer's progression forward that constitutes the passage of time. From this metaphor we get conceptions of closeness and farness relative to events. Because the events are stationary and we are moving towards (or away) from them, our perception of them is constantly changing. I've been married for less than a year, so my wedding is an event/time that is relatively close in proximity to my location in the presnt. But in ten years I will have moved farther away from it and this metaphor provides the conceptual basis for my interpretation of the perceived chronological distance.

Why do we experience and interpret time with these various metaphors? The authors explain, "The answer is that these metaphors arise from our most common everyday embodied experience of functioning in the world." In other words, we are involved in "motion-situations"(i.e. situations that involve movement in relation to ourselves where we are moving towards/away from an object or an object is moving towards/away from us) which are then mapped onto our conception of time. What's fascinating about the variant metaphors above (Moving Observer, Moving Time) is that they are actually inconsistent with each other. An example sentence is given, "Let's move the meeting ahead a week.":

In the Moving Time metaphor, the times are moving. If the meeting had been scheduled for some future time and that time is facing forward toward the present, then moving the meeting ahead means to move it ahead of the time at which it is scheduled, namely, closer to the present. By contrast, In the Moving Observer metaphor, the observer is moving and facing toward the future. If the meeting has been scheduled for a future time, then moving the meeting ahead means moving the meeting ahead of where the observer will be at that time, namely, farther into the future.

Another example they use is the come of "Christmas is coming" and the come of "We're coming up on Christmas." Even though the same word is used, our interpretation of it is shaped by the respective time metaphors. This is true of our experience as well. Some people experience the coming of Christmas; they wait for it, anticipate it and are eager for it's arrival. On the other hand, some people experience the going-to of Christmas; they can't wait for it, they make plans about where they will be on it and they are excited about passing the days until they arrive at it. Even though these two metaphoric schemas are incompatible with one another, it doesn't prevent us from using them consistently and coherently. They are both true and provide true ways of understanding the place of time in our everyday lives. Now, go back up and try the thought experiment I quoted at the beginning of the post. Still think metaphor has no place in discussions about truth and knowledge? I didn't even present the other metaphors we use for time: Time-as-Substance, Space-Time, Time-as-Resource, and Time-as-Money. As the authors might greet you, welcome to the practical implications and implimentation of a philosophy in the flesh.

The Cognitive Unconscious

"Consider, for example, all that is going on below the level of conscious awareness when you are in a conversation. Here is only a small part of what you are doing, second by second:

Acessing memories relevant to what is being said
Comprehending a stream of sound as being language, dividing it into distinctive phonetic features and segments, identifying phonemes, and grouping them into morphemes
Assigning a structure to the sentence in accord with the vast number of grammatical constructions in your native language
Picking out words and giving them meanings appropriate to context
Making semantic and pragmatic sense of the sentences as a whole
Framing what is said in terms relevant to the discussion
Peforming inferences relevant to what is being discussed
Constructing mental images where relevant and inspecting them
Filling in gaps in the discourse
Noticing and interpreting your interlocutor's body language
Anticipating where the conversation is going
Planning what to say in response

Cognitive scientists have shown experimentally that to understand even the simplest utterance, we must perform these and other incredibly complex forms of thought automatically and without noticeable effort below the level of consiousness. It is not merely that we occasionally do not notice these processes; rather, they are inaccessible to consious awareness and control." - George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Philosophy in the Flesh

I can agree with Lakoff and Johnson that the majority of our thought processes occur below the level of conscious awareness. And I don't mean things like breathing and heartbeating, those activities don't [normally] have anything to do with thought at all (it's autonomic nervous function). How many of those things in the list above are we conciously aware of during a discussion with someone? It doesn't even have to be a discussion, these processes take place during everyday conversing as well. There are a few items in the list that are suspect (e.g. I am usually consciously aware of planning responses) but, for the most part, these activities along with countless others are being accomplished automatically. It is these neural happenings that cognitive scientists are dubbing the cognitive unconcious (CU hereafter).

The CU is largely shaped by our interactions with the external world. For example, physical environments give rise to spatial-relation concepts which provide a basis for conceptual metaphors that, in turn, affect how we interpret our experience of reality. The same is true of socio-cultural environments. From the moment we emerge as infants our brains begin the process of encoding our neural networks with the CU (it actually starts before exiting the womb, but I'm not much into developmental psychology). This is why it seems that children have an innate ability to acquire language and moral concepts. They learn early on that certain vocalizations result in particular responses and this continual process develops into what becomes their native language. They learn early on that up means good and down means bad, that close is warm and intimate, and far is cold and impersonal. I'm sure you can see other conceptual metaphors forming just from these few examples, and this is only one part of the CU's activity. Since this is a blog entry and not an academic journal submission, I don't feel the need to explain this in much more detail at this time. Needless to say, coming to terms with the CU can bring a new bag of philosophy toys to play with when talking about what it means to know something. I'll interact with this in more detail in future posts as I work throught Lakoff and Johnson's book.

A Perspective on Free Will

This is a re-edited post that I wrote almost two years ago on my other blog.

Two points to start:

1. Just because you have conflicting desires doesn't mean that the strongest desire doesn't ultimately win out. After all you do make choices and, retrospection not withstanding, the choice you make is the choice which comports with your strongest desire at the moment of decision. This is incontrovertible for if the other desire(s) had been stronger (i.e. more pursuasive, appealing, contextually/situationally relevant, etc.) then it/they would have been chosen. If you choose option "C" out of "A", "B" or "C" then clearly option "C" was the most affective choice of the three. Now, option "C" might not have been the best decision, but how often is it that we actually choose the best option of those before us? Rarely is it the case in which there are no choices; an example would be if you were pushed out of a plane then you have no choice but to fall down. However, I would probably want to avoid, with previous choices, getting into a situation in which it would be possible for this to occur.

2. A factor that Christian libertarian free will advocates always seem to neglect including in the discussion about free will: sin. Sin taints and influences our will, our motives, to such an extent that we can do nothing but sin outside of our actions nestled within faith in Christ. What libertarians neglect to consider in the example of Adam and Eve is the sinful influence of the serpent. Take the serpent, who is twisting God's word, out of the picture and humanity's parents have no vested interest in the forbidden fruit. They want to argue that Adam fell by freely choosing a natural, good desire for a good thing over a stronger natural desire for a better thing, but I'm not entirely certain how choosing to disobey God is a "natural, good desire." From the Scriptures it seems clear that both Adam and Eve were deceived into making their decision. The deception is this: having the knowledge of good and evil is better than not having such knowledge, which is patently false in their case as per God's word to them.

Conclusion: Since the fall, the actualization of libertarian free will is an impossibility outside the redemptive work of Christ. Inside this work the effects of sin are still strong and practical freedom will not be realized until after the Second Coming. Pre-fall Adam and Eve had this type of free will and were deceived by the crafty serpent into believing that the benefits of eating the forbidden fruit were better than not eating it, i.e. their desire for the fruit had been altered from a state of prohibited to acceptable on account of the serpent's lies. Their motivations, their wills, towards eating/not eating the fruit were adversely affected. Their choice, however, was still in accordance with that which they most strongly desired at the moment of decision. What's fascinating here is that they had no idea what they were about to do was wrong. It wasn't until after the fact that they realized they'd done wrong. They knew that God said "don't eat" but God did't tell them why; He just gave them a warning about how they would surely die the day they ate of it. Death as a negative characteristic of nature was a concept wholly unknown to them. Then one day the serpent comes waltzing about and convinces them that God would surely not kill them if they ate the fruit. Their desire, in this instance, changed from wanting to obey God to wanting to become like God. The latter desire was the strongest on account of the serpent's clever rhetoric and so they ate.

We can look at another, classic, example. Someone holds a gun to your head in a dark alley and says "give me your wallet or I'll kill you." You have choices to make, a seemingly infinite pool of options to choose from depending on numerous external and internal factors: give him your wallet, give him your life, try to run, scream, try to disarm him, spray him with mace if you have it. Those are just a few general options (there is also many different ways to specifically go about accomplishing each of those options). What do you do? Well, whatever you end up doing will be in accordance with your strongest desire at the moment of choice, again irrespective of restrospection. Now there's lots of things that go into shaping what that strongest desire will be (a la the serpent influencing Eve and Eve influencing Adam) but the end result will always be the same.

Free will in this sense, then, is the ability to choose from a variety of "competing" desires within the framework of any given set of physical and spiritual circumstances. It is not the ability to choose whatever one desires irrespective of those circumstances, nor is it characterized by the ability to choose otherwise than what one does choose. It is also important to note that our responsibility for our actions is not founded upon our freedom, rather it is founded upon the righteousness of God. This is evidenced by the fact that non-believers are held responsible for disobeying in spite of not having the ability to obey. That is to say, their free will does not anywhere include the desire to obey God and, thus, it is not amongst those competing desires from which they can choose; nevertheless, they are responsible for their disobedience.In effect, this view of free will eliminates the problem of sovereignty and responsibility. Free will is understood within the confines of physical (i.e. laws of nature, material circumstances, etc.) and spiritual (effect of sin, influence of the Holy Spirit, etc.) limitation while sovereignty remains largely as it has been tradtionally understood.