Gen. 17, law or gospel?

The Lutherans and the Reformed share, I believe, some common doctrines. Their doctrine of justification by faith is practically identical to the Reformed, though some would argue that there are differences in terms of whether justification precedes union or vice versa. Various Lutherans have addressed this issue and while I do not plan to get into the debate here you can check the following sources: J.T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 320, 381; F. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 2:410. That said, the basic forensic, double imputation, is a hallmark of both Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy.

IAO at the WA

Reading through Chad van Dixhoorn’s thesis a number of things stick out to me.  First, in terms of the Assembly itself, the main theological danger was not Roman Catholicism, but antinomianism.   Also clear is van Dixhoorn’s dependence upon a lot of Mark Garcia’s research, esp. as it relates to Calvin. For example, in footnote 247 on page 327 he writes:

Puritan Hymnody

So, what do you know of Puritan hymnody? Did the Puritans sing hymns? If so, what was the nature of the hymns they sang?

William Barton (1598–1678 ) was described as ‘a man of godly life, and able and orthodox in his ministry’. He composed a verse-translation of the Psalms was first published in 1644. He writes:

The Scots of late have put forth a Psalm-Book, most what Composed out of mine and Mr. Rous his, but it did not give full satisfaction, for somebody hath been at Charge to put forth a new Edition of mine, and printed some Thousands of mine, in Holland, as it is reported. But whether they were Printed there or no, I am in doubt, for I am sure that 1,500 of my Books were heretofore Printed by stealth in England and carried over into Ireland. (Barton, The Book of Psalms in Metre, 1691, sig. A5r)

Besides the book of Psalms, Barton printed the a number of spiritual songs arguing that ‘these Hymns are plainer than Psalms and more suitable to our condition.’

Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisia

Quiz time: Who knitted the Son of God to his human nature, making him one person with two natures? The Father? The Son? Or the Holy Spirit?

BTW, if anyone knows of a divine from the 16th or 17thC who answered “The Spirit”, please let me know. Just so you know, most of the Reformed orthodox argued that this privilege belonged to the Son. Of course, it gets all the more intricate when one considers the opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisia (hence, the Father is said to raise Christ, the Spirit is also said to raise Christ and Christ is said to raise himself). But, still, there is an eminency that belongs to certain persons of the Trinity in certain works.

I managed to discover that the never-to-be-sufficiently-praised, James Ussher, is one of those divines Goodwin mentioned who attributed the ‘knitting’ of the two natures to the Spirit. Ussher writes:

That blessed womb of hers was the Bride-chamber, wherein the holy Ghost did knit that indissoluble knot betwixt our humane nature and his Deity: the Son of God assuming into the unity of his person that which before he was not (The Incarnation of the Son of God, p. 5).

I came upon this as I researched Ussher’s doctrine of the Trinity. Remember, his Body of Divinity was a massive influence on the WCF/WSC/WLC; just ask Charles Hodge!

Dangers for Pastor-Scholars

Quite a few of you who read this blog are Pastor-scholars or you are aspiring to be.  It feels like everyone I talk to who attends Seminary wants to do post-grad scholarly work.  I know this may sound like the pot calling the kettle black, but I think you should only really consider academia if your Seminary professor/s suggest to you that they feel you would make a good scholar.  It’s not exactly the same as entering the ministry (i.e. internal-external call), but I think one ought to seriously consider the ‘external’ aspect to MA/PhD work.  Anyway, I wanted to list a number of the dangers (10) you will face as you try to do post-grad work while also pastoring.

The Atonement Debate

I have been following atonement debates rather closely in the last few years.  It’s obviously a very important discussion and I am thankful that penal substitution continues to be defended.  However, in defending penal substitution (PS), I think we have lost an important element of the nature of the atonement, that is, Christus Victor (CV).

The NT (and the Old) has a lot to say about both aspects of the atonement.  In fact, isn’t the very first promise (Gen. 3:15) a promise of victory?  Moreover, both PS and CV have important pastoral implications and the writer to the Hebrews seems to have in mind Christians who struggle with fear of death (CV) and guilt over sin (PS) when he speaks about Christ’s death:

Quiverpool

My team went out of the Champions League … posts will be slow for a while :(  Some in my congregation already think I love Liverpool too much.  Well, brethren, all I can say in my defense is that I did miss the Champions League victory against Milan in Istanbul because of a church meeting … but my heart was at the game, so I guess no reward for me!

What should we sing? Psalm 8 or Hebrews 2?

The arguments and counter-arguments that surround the issue of exclusive psalmody are well-known. I’m going to try and argue my case exegetically that we ought to sing outside of the Psalter. So, there are no “John Owen said this, and Calvin said that” arguments here! John Owen was wrong on a lot of things.

The topic of Exclusive Psalmody (EP) has surfaced both on this blog and in personal conversations with some friends. In this post I want to give a biblical-theological reason for why I find EP to be theologically and pastorally untenable. There’s a big part of me that does not enjoy criticizing EP because I believe that Psalm-singing is absolutely fundamental to the life of the church. However, I also believe that singing more than the 150 Psalms is more Christ-honouring and so this post will attempt to argue that point.

Possible Thesis Studies (17thC)

I’m going to post (and possibly add) some areas that, I believe, require further study in the area of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy and Puritanism. Feel free to add to this list. It’s amazing how many people “google” such phrases hoping to get an idea on what to study.

Christo-Pneumatology

I think it’s fair to say that the key to understanding Christology is by understanding Pneumatology and vice versa. It seems to me that there’s a great deal of confusion in the church today over the person and work of Christ. In the seventeenth century a number of prominent theologians developed what is called a “Spirit-Christology”; figures like Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. On Owen’s “Spirit-Christology”, see Alan Spence’s work, “Inspiration and Incarnation”. On Goodwin’s see below!

Are you a Suffenus?

Ne Mihi Suffenus essem - Not to be my own Suffenus

Not to flatter myself, and make a fool of myself by my conceit. Suffenus was an exceedingly incompetent poet, eloquent on the subject of other men’s faults and blind to his own. Hence arose the current proverb, and those who were foolishly pleased with themselves were called ‘Suffenuses’. Catullus in one of his epigrams:

“Duller is he than country dullness’ self,

Once he takes pen in hand, yet ne’er so happy

As when he scribbles verse; then is he all

Self-admiration and self-centered bliss.”

And again: “There’s Suffenus touch about us all.” Horace makes his Maevius very like Suffenus, blind to his own faults and bitterly attacking those of others: “I have excuses for myself, says Maevius.” - from Erasmus

John Owen uses the term “Suffenuses” to describe young theologians who think they know it all (a besetting sin of mine - and for no good reason - unfortunately).

He writes:

It has been the presumption of some, and especially of youths who profess to have dedicated themselves to this study but who have hardly gone further in evangelical studies than the reading of three or four volumes, to behave as if they alone were experts, and to consider that they are deserving of a glorious reputation among the great scholars. Such arrogance! Better it would be if such Suffenuses did not also go on to despise those who are truly endowed with the wisdom that they so foolishly boast of having attained to (emphasis mine). Theologoumena, Book VI, Ch. 1, p. 1. / Biblical Theology, 591.

Owen spends a good deal of his time in his excellent work, Theologoumena, warning students of theology of the many dangers that arise from the attainment of knowledge. He also has many good things to say about the whole task and purpose of theology.

A Christological Ordo Salutis

One of the questions ordinands or licentiates are asked at Presbytery is to explain the ordo salutis. I remember hearing a licentiate speak of union with Christ as a process and no one batted an eye. Incredible. He had heard my answer and, apparently, decided to take a different view! Often I will hear people explain the ordo without being sufficiently Christological. That is, it’s all about the logical order. Invariably, there’s always some variation; but, the important thing for examiners is that regeneration precedes faith (as long as you aren’t an Arminian, we’ll pass you) … I submit that examiners need to re-think the ordo and frame it with a decidedly Christological emphasis. Hence, the ordo becomes less self-centered and more Christ-centered.

Bavinck on the Pactum Salutis

Here’s my proposal for my essay on Herman Bavinck.  Note that the centrality of the pactum salutis is not peculiar only to the 17thC, but finds expression in the thought of Bavinck in the 19thC (it’s basically present in the 16thC onward! Warfield essentially takes the same view of Bavinck concerning the relationship of the pactum salutis to Christology.

If anyone comes across some secondary literature on Bavinck and his Christology or Covenant theology, please let me know. I’ve removed some of the content footnotes because they get tedious.

Christ’s Descent into Hell

One of the more interesting debates at the Westminster Assembly centered on the descent clause in the Apostles Creed. Prior to the Reformation, the church had, for the most part, held that Christ descended into Hades (sheol [Heb.], infero [Lat.]). His body remained in the grave, but his soul travelled to the place of the dead where he ‘preached to the saints in prison’ (1 Peter 3:18ff.). William Perkins did argue, however, that the descensus was not a fundamental tenet of faith in the writing of the early church fathers.

A Few Goodwin Quotes

“Jesus Christ was the greatest and the best believer that ever lived” - this is a key quote that gives us insight into Goodwin’s Christology!

“Regeneration is but partial in the very best saints” - like Calvin, Goodwin views regeneration as incorporating sanctification. Reminds me of Samuel Davies’ comment that “our sanctification is more imagined that real”. How true!

“Our greatest sins are those of the mind” - Goodwin’s vanity of thoughts is one of the most penetrating treatises on sin in all of Christian literature.

“God had only one Son, and He made Him a Minister” - all you aspiring academics out there, read this and stop aiming for the ivory towers!

A Bad Thesis

Can I make a suggestion on how to write a bad thesis? First, you need a thesis statement. This, of course, is a good way to begin writing either a good thesis or a bad one. Not many get to this point. In fact, they just collate a lot of information and their thesis is purely descriptive. There is no “argument” so to speak. Sometimes they’ll realize that and then go back and force a “thesis”, but it’s generally too late (and obvious).

“We”, “I”, or leave it out?

I’m off to Toronto tomorrow for a few days to discuss my thesis with one of my supervisors, Michael Haykin. Last time we met we discussed the use of subjective personal pronouns (e.g. “We”, “I”, etc.).  In writing a thesis Dr. Haykin encourage me to leave them out altogether.  In various books/theses, I note that some authors write: “We have shown in the last chapter” or “I have shown in the last chapter” or “the last chapter has shown”.  So, when a writer uses “We”, who is he/she referring to? I’ve left out the use of personal pronouns. What do you do? And why?

Lane Keister discussed the use of footnotes versus endnotes at GreenBaggins. I really do not like endnotes and I’m quite miffed that Michael Horton used endnotes in his thesis on Goodwin.  It is painful having to constantly turn the pages to check his references.

Mede, Bridge, and the dawn of the Millennium

It’s amazing how eschatology continues to fascinate, even Puritan eschatology.  Besides Goodwin’s fancies, there were a number of other Puritan theologians who had interesting ways of arriving at dates that (coincidentally) were especially significant in the seventeenth century.  I wonder if some of the modern-day prophets (Lindsey, van Impe, LaHaye, etc.) have read the Puritans and the dangers of date-setting?

For Mede, the year 1666 is the expiration of popery. This date is arrived at by looking at “666″ as the time of the beast’s ending. This is added to the “1000″ years in Rev. 20. The expiration date is, therefore, 1666 years after Christ. Based on Rev. 13:5 the 42 months of the beast’s rule is equivalent 1260 days (cf. Rev. 12:6). Mede then subtracts 1260 from 1666 and comes to 406 A.D. Hence, Pope Innocent, who assumed the papacy in 401, begins the rise of the beast .

Seventeenth-Century Eschatology

Goodwin, below, makes Jack van Impe look like Greg Beale … okay, not that bad, but ….

Eternal Justification at the Westminster Assembly

The revision of the 39 Articles was a complicated affair.  While it is true that Gataker wanted a definition of justification that would extend the gap between Protestants and Catholics, it is also equally true that the rising influence of antinomianism was at the heart of the debate on justification.