Some thoughts on the age of the earth

The 2010 Ligonier National Conference just recently wrapped up and Ligonier Ministries has helpfully posted summaries of the different sessions (links provided below). Al Mohler gave a talk titled, “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?” In it he surveyed four major Christian views on the age of the earth: the 24-hour calendar day theory, the day-age theory, the framework theory, and the literary theory.

 

Mohler concludes that the literary theory ultimately rejects inerrancy and ought not to be accepted. He also argues that the framework theory does not properly take the sequential nature of Genesis 1:1-2:3 into account and also ought to be discarded. Mohler also discards the day-age view because he does not think it can account for the exegetical and theological issues related to the historicity of Adam and the Fall. This leads Mohler to take a 24-hour calendar day theory because of the exegetical and theological issues at stake in this debate.

 

This has been a heated topic in Christian circles for many years. I recently attended a conference on science and faith where during one panel several of the scientists and theologians involved confessed that a large part their time was usually spent answering questions about the age of the earth and those discussions almost always became confrontational. Views on creation have led to Old Testament Professors leaving both Westminster Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary in recent years.

 

A few years ago the PCA General Assembly commissioned a committee to study this issue and report back. This report was later adopted by the PCA as a guideline that Presbyteries may use if they wished for evaluating candidates for ordination. The committee looked at the following positions:

1. Calendar-Day – Argues that “day” in Genesis 1:1-2:3 refers to six literal 24-hour calendar days. 
2. Day-Age – “Day” refers to a period of indefinite time and the focus of the passage is on God’s creative activity but not a literal description of the time that creation took. 
3. Framework – Notes that there is a correlation between the spheres of nature created on days 1-3 and the inhabitants in days 4-6 (for example, seas on day 2 and the fish on day 5) and so this is a literary tool that Moses used to teach Israel about the Creator and to give them the divine pattern for work and rest but “day” is figurative in the passage. 
4. Analogical Days – Argues that the “days” are God’s work days and these are analogous but not identical to our calendar days so they refer to consecutive divine activity but not to a definite period of time. 
5. Other interpretations – The biggest one included here is theistic evolution.

The study committee concluded that all of the four major views could be harmonized with Scripture without compromising the essentials of our faith (notably theistic evolution is excluded here). They held that ministers must believe the following truths in order to be orthodox:

1. that Scripture is in the inerrant Word of God and is self-interpreting;
2. that Genesis 1-3 are fully historical;
3. that Adam and Eve were uniquely created as the first parents of the human race;
4. that Adam was the covenant head of the human race;
5. that the curse and resultant discord in the universe is a result of Adam’s first sin;
6. that the incomprehensible God has clearly revealed himself in nature;
7. and, that he revealed exactly what he intended.

I think that the above points are an excellent summary of an orthodox view of creation regardless of what position an individual takes on the age of the earth. I would highly recommend that everyone read the whole report because it is well written and covers these views pretty nicely.

 

Personally, while wanting to insist that we be careful not to major on the minors on debates within Christian circles, I take the calendar day position for epistemological reasons. Our fundamental premise is that we live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. So divine authority and corresponding revelation is our first presupposition in every area of human activity. I think the reason that this issue in particular becomes so controversial and difficult is because it seems to us that general revelation (the apparent age of the universe) and special revelation (that the universe was created in a week) seem to conflict with each other. I’ve had several good exchanges on this topic with a seminary friend of mine who takes a position somewhere between framework and analogical day. At one point he made the observation, “Natural and special revelation speak with one voice. YEC’s [young earth creationists] tend to suppress natural for special and OEC’s [old earth creationists] tend to suppress special for natural.”

 

This is a very helpful point even though he was intentionally making a generalization. The most important statement is that natural revelation and special revelation speak with one voice. Our God is not double-minded; saying one thing through the things that he has made and another in his inscripturated Word (see Psalm 19). Those who hold to a calendar-day view do tend to focus on God’s infallible and inerrant revelation in Scripture and so take the position that whenever there is an apparent (though not real) conflict between special and natural revelation that it means special revelation must carry the day. While this is certainly an understandable assumption these same arguments were used against Galileo when he dared to argue against a geocentric model for the universe. So we need to be careful in recognizing that while Scripture is infallible and inerrant our interpretations are not.

 

OEC’s do tend to elevate natural revelation above special revelation by taking the conclusions from scientific (and/or literary) observation and using them as hermeneutical tools for interpreting Genesis 1-3. Rightly this observes that, while Scripture has much to say that applies to scientific endeavors, the Bible is not a science textbook and Genesis 1-3 is not intended to be an exact scientific description of God’s creative activity. The sad consequence here has been that the edge between trying to harmonize what God reveals in nature and Scripture and falling into doubting or rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture can be very thin and we’ve seen a number of Old Testament scholars in Reformed circles who have crossed that line in recent years.

 

Ultimately I think what we need to do is take into account the presuppositions that scientists are forced to work with when we evaluate their conclusions. Science cannot speak to history but only to the present and probabilities for the future. When a scientist concludes that the universe appears to be millions or even billions of years old we have to recognize that they make that conclusion upon the assumption that the things have been relatively constant for that whole period. Yet this is an unfounded and unprovable assumption (if nothing else the flood alone is a disruption to the constant order of the universe or the points in the Old Testament where God caused the sun to hold still or go backwards). This is simply the oft-repeated objection that science cannot prove the past and ultimately we should doubt what science tries to tell us about history. Speaking to what happened in the past goes far beyond the bounds of the scientific endeavor.

 

Where I believe this leaves us is searching for a reliable account of how the world came to be. The only place we can find this is in Scripture as God is necessarily the only witness to creation. This means that our interpretation of the age of the earth needs to be an exegetical exercise. The burden of proof is upon OEC’s to show, not that Genesis 1-3 allows for a creation period of longer than a calendar week, but that it requires a creation period of longer than a calendar week. This is why our epistemological standpoint is so important on this issue. It is not that we doubt God’s revelation in nature but we have to recognize our own limitations in interpreting nature scientifically. I’m perfectly willing to grant that Genesis 1-3 may allow for the earth to be millions or billions of years old. However I don’t see anything in Genesis 1-3 that forces that conclusion and the only reason I can see to make it is on the basis of scientific observation about the age of the universe, which we have already shown to be unreliable.

 

For this reason I think it best to accept the natural reading of “day” in this passage. Now insisting upon this point does not make us, as one Old Testament scholar suggested in a moment of weakness, cultish in refusing to deal honestly with scientific inquiry. It is not that we hold to special revelation and then shut out eyes and plug our ears when faced with the appearance of age from natural revelation. Instead we ought to question the unbelieving presuppositions that are brought to the scientific endeavor and used to reach conclusions about the age of the universe apart from Scripture. This is an opening for the gospel, in testifying to the coherence of special revelation and natural revelation and in insisting that God’s revelation as a whole is only properly understood when we have a mindset and worldview that bows to his authority as the Creator and Lord.

Other seminars from the 2010 Ligonier Conference:
Ed Stetzer - "The Brave New World of New Media"
Burk Parsons - "Taking Captive New Media for the Church"
Al Mohler - "The Hyper-Socialized Generation"
John MacArthur - "Why Did Jesus Have to Die?"
Michael Horton - "Is the Doctrine of Inerrancy Defensible?"
John MacArthur - "Does the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees Eliminate Human Will?"
R.C. Sproul - "What is Evil and What is its Origin?"
R.C. Sproul Jr. - "Why Do Christians Still Sin?"
Derek Thomas - "How Do We Know Which Interpretation Is Right?"
Steven Lawson - "Is the Bible Just Another Book?"
Alistair Begg - "Is the Exclusivity of Christ Unjust?"
Q&A Session
Burk Parsons - "Is Calvinism Good for the Church?"
Derek Thomas - "If God is Good How Could He Command Holy War?"
R.C. Sproul - "Can We Enjoy Heaven Knowing of Loved Ones in Hell?"

 

Michael Horton on the "Two Kingdoms"

Listeners to the White Horse Inn or those who read articles by many of the Professors with Dr. Horton at Westminster Seminary California have probably at least heard of Two Kingdoms theology. Most simply put, this position argues that we have to maintain a strict separation between the kingdom of Christ, realized in the church, and the kingdom of the state. David VanDrunen from WSC has a book coming out this winter on the subject and Jason Stellman, a PCA Pastor in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, recently wrote Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and Not Yet.

Mike Horton has recently published three blog post addressing what he sees as some common misconceptions about two kingdom theology:

• The "Two Kingdoms" doctrine is a distinctly Lutheran view
• The "Two Kingdoms" doctrine encourages individualistic and passive view of the church's role in culture today
• The "Two Kingdoms" doctrine denies the presence of Christ's kingdom today

I want to preface the following by noting that I do not subscribe to the two kingdoms doctrine. I do think that the latter two arguments that Horton addresses are strawmen. However I do find Two Kingdoms doctrine to be an overly simplistic attempt to set forth a doctrine of church and culture and I do think the criticism that modern articulations of it are a Lutheran doctrine are valid and that Horton does not adequately answer this in his post. We should clarify that even if it is a Lutheran doctrine that this is not a sufficient reason to reject it but rather that our concern is that it is not a biblically or confessionally consistent way to address the relationship between church and culture.

When we examine the historical underpinnings of this doctrine we first need to note that Calvin, while explicitly separating the spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction, does not go so far as to say that the spiritual kingdom is limited to the church. Instead he teaches that the civil jurisdiction has spiritual and religious duties imposed upon it by Christ as King. He writes that the state has the duty "to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church." (Institutes, 2:1487). Calvin goes on to say that civil government must “prevent idolatry, sacrilege against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against religion from arising and spreading among the people.” (Institutes, 2:1488) Further, Calvin explicitly gives the government the power to rightly establish religion. (Institutes, 2:1488) He states that the magistrate is charged “to promote religion, to maintain the worship of God, and to take care that sacred ordinances be observed with due reverence.” (Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 52) Calvin also argues that the civil government must be concerned with both tables of the Law and not only the second. He argued that it would be folly to suppose that God gave magistrates the authority to judge over earthly controversies but then forbade them from enforcing the pure worship of God who is the source of their authority. (Institutes, 2:1495) Ultimately Calvin places the same limitations on the civil government in establishing laws that he does on the church in directing the exercise of religion; that neither can go beyond Scripture (Institutes, 2:1156-7; 1488).

On this basis Calvin's separation of the civil jurisdiction and the spiritual kingdom differs radically from that of Luther and Melanchthon and also from more modern articulations. Neither Calvin nor his immediate spiritual descendents ever argued for a modern separation of church and state in Geneva (nor did Bullinger or his students in Zurich). In fact, Beza and Bullinger wrote a strongly worded condemnations of the English regicide of Charles II following the English Civil War and Beza's counsel to the French Reformers enduring persecution was that their resistance could only extend so far as obedience to the king required disobedience to God and that he did not argue for an armed rebellion (Doug Kelly's book, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World, is very good on this subject).

It should be noted that as Reformed and Calvinist political developed from Calvin that it did not do so in the same two kingdoms direction as Lutheran theology and that this can be seen on both sides of the Atlantic. In England and Scotland the Westminster Confession of Faith included a chapter regarding the duties of the civil magistrate to govern only in accordance with Scripture. In America the Presbyterians argued that, while church and state were separate, believers have the responsibility to enter the political sphere as representatives of the Prince of Peace. They insisted that civil government could only work with theistic principles and that this implies that while people should have freedom of religion that civil freedom only extends so far as what men have the moral right to do. In the Continental Reformed churches the influence of Abraham Kuyper and his ideas of antithesis and common grace led to a separation of church and state with the understanding that all spheres are under the rule of Christ.

Ultimately we have to find that the Reformed tradition does not give the state the liberal license that the modern articulation of the Two Kingdoms doctrine does. Instead, the Reformed tradition insists that Jesus Christ is King and that all authority on heaven and on earth has been given to him. This means that all individuals and institutions are called to submit to Christ's Lordship and that ultimately this is a gospel call. So the Reformed tradition teaches that this submission is not realized through a state establishment of religion but rather through equiping believers to put on the new man, not just in their church activities, but in every sphere of human activity and then to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks a reason for the hope that is within us, with meekness and fear.

It's worth closing by quoting R.L. Dabney's encouragement to Christians in the North and the South before the Civil War broke out. He writes:

But alas! how often do we go on Monday to the hustings, after having appeared on the Sabbath as servants of the Prince of Peace and brethren of all his servants, and in our political action forget that we are Christians? Here, then, is our first need, if we would save our country: that we shall carry out citizenship in the kingdom of heaven everywhere, and make it dominate over every public act. ("Christians, Pray for Your Country")

Calvin's Institutes and other Systematics works

Tom asked in a comment to the last post for a few notes on the various editions to Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I'm only going to reference the four editions available from the WTS Bookstore because anything else you can find either isn't in English or is probably too expensive to be worth looking at.

The main editions that are available are the Beveridge translation and the Battles translation edited by John McNeill. Both of these are good. The main differences are general readability and the Scripture references. The Battles version is a better English translation in that it's a lot easier to read. The language is closer to modern English and you can get through it very quickly. McNeill also provides some footnotes describing opponents that Calvin occasionally references. The main problem is in the Scripture references (more on that to follow).

The Beveridge translation is an older one and so it does not read as easily as the Battles one. The main advantage is that unlike McNeill/Battles, Beveridge did not add Scripture references into the text. When Calvin wrote his Institutes he intended for them to be read along with his Commentaries. When you see a Scripture reference in the Institutes it was meant to serve as a sort of footnote so that you couldthen turn to the Commentaries on that passage and see the exegesis that lies behind Calvin's systematic presentation of the teaching of Scripture. This really illustrates how strongly Calvin's work in systematic theology is tied to his Biblical exegesis and how that has been the Reformed tradition following in his footsteps. The problem with the McNeill/Battles edition is that they add references to the text but do not note which references are original and which are editing. This makes it more difficult to move back and forth between the Institutes and the Commentaries as Calvin intended.

The other editions available are the 1536 edition (this is the first edition that Calvin wrote) and the 1541 French edition (Calvin himself translated his work from Latin to French several times so that it would be available to laity). These editions are really mainly only of advantage to people who want to look at the development of Calvin's thought over about 20 years between the first and final editions. One of the truly interesting things about Calvin is that unlike Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Bullinger he never changed his mind about any significant doctrinal point. The major differences lie in the order of presentation and what he expanded upon over the years.

In the end you really can't go wrong with either Battles or Beveridge. Personally, I think that it is worth the money to have both the Institutes and the Commentaries if you have the option. You ought to be able to find a package with all of the Commentaries and the Beveridge edition together for no more than $120. I think that's a great bargain and worth the price. If that's too much money for what is budgeted towards books then the Battles edition is an easier read if all you have is the Institutes. Beveridge is still a lot cheaper but you'll find Battles to be better going. One other thing that I would recommend with any option is the recent Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis. This is an extremely helpful resource on Calvin's theology. While it shouldn't replace reading Calvin it can be used as a great supplement and many of the writers do reference the Commentaries and other writings in their essays.

As an aside to this, I wanted to point people to a recent post by Wes White, a PCA pastor. Pastor White recommends a few systematic theologies that are pretty foundational from all of the options out there. All of his recommendations are very good though I probably wouldn't put Hodge quite as high just because of how much Scottish Common Sense Realism affects his prolegomena [first things] (it is rather interesting that Hodge is word-for-word with Turretin almost everywhere but in the first volume). I would also say that if you only ever have one Reformed Systematic Theology then you want either Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics or Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology. If you can only get a one volume work then Van Genderen and Velema's Concise Reformed Dogmatics that is only recently available in English is probably your best bet. Finally, possibly in place of any of these (again, if you're limited if what you can get) I would recommend John Murray's Collected Writings. While Murray never wrote his own systematic theology (he worked from Hodge and Turretin at WTS) he covers nearly all of traditional categories in various essays and articles included here. I find Murray very lucid and you should enjoy his careful exegetical theology. Murray is also very sensitive to redemptive history, having been a student of Geerhardus Vos at Princeton.

Nevin vs. Hodge on the Lord's Supper

In the 19th there was a debate between John Williamson Nevin and Charles Hodge over the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The debate arose from a book that Dr. Nevin wrote called The Mystical Presence. Dr. Hodge reviewed the book and took issue with several of Nevin's conclusions. Keith Mathison with Ligonier Ministries has posted links to the primary sources on this debate. For what it's worth, I think that Nevin's book is one of the two best resources on this subject and that he was right on this question. This was written during a very tumultuous time in American history and in American Presbyterianism in particular. As Chair of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Hodge was involved in virtually every major theological debate of the period (and many political/social debates as well). When comparing Hodge's Systematic Theology on the Supper and Nevin's book there does not seem to be nearly as much disagreement as Hodge's review of Nevin's book suggests. I think that due to how busy he was Hodge did not take the time to carefully read and understand Nevin's work. Still, it is interesting to have access to all of this material and a good chance to deepen our understanding of what we believe about the sacrament.

Darryl Hart recently wrote a biography on Nevin for the American Reformed Biography series (the next volume to be published in this series will be on Charles Hodge) that I would recommend for trying to understand more of Nevin's theology and motivations.

Some great (free) Reformed Writings

Wes White, pastor of New Covenant Presbyterian Church in America in South Dakota, compiled a list of older Reformed books that are available online for free. Most of these works are from the Reformation and post-Reformation period but continue up to a few resources from the beginning of the 20th century. Many of these works are from French Hugeunot pastors or Scottish and English puritans. You can find some classic works on this list such as Thomas Boston's The Fourfold State of Man, Herman Witsius on the economy of the covenants, and most of John Owen's complete works. I highly recommend bookmarking this page and saving some favorites on Google books or saving/printing some of these works to read over. Some of the titles are still in the original languages and so require some knowledge of French, Latin, Dutch, or German but most of them are in English.

A Formal Introduction to the Transcendental Argument

A Formal Introduction to the Transcendental Argument
By Matthew Pickens

Some of you may already be familiar with formal logic (if not then this post should still make sense but I do think it worthwhile to do some basic introduction to logic work – any text book for an introductory college course should be sufficient although Gordon Clark, a Christian philosopher and theology in the 20th century, co-wrote a text book on logic that is pretty good). The purpose of this post is not to be a complete presentation of the transcendental argument but rather simply to give a brief introduction to it in formal terms.

So-called evidential apologists[1] like R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner tend to argue along the lines of inference or implication. So for example they would use the traditional theological proofs to show that God’s existence can be inferred from certain things in creation or that those things imply God’s existence. We’ll use the example of the teleological argument here. The teleological argument states that the appearance of design in the universe implies a designer. The common analogy used is that of a watch found on a beach. No one would assume that the watch came out of nowhere but would assume that there was a watchmaker. Formally the argument could be stated this way, where D is design and G is God’s existence:

D implies G
D
Therefore G[2]

When we turn to the transcendental argument we find that rather than dealing with implication we deal instead with presupposition. So where the above use of the teleological argument says that design implies God the transcendental argument would use this argument to say that either design or lack of design presupposes God. That means that we cannot say anything meaningful about the order or lack of order in the universe apart from God’s existence. Bas van Fraasen has helpfully defined presupposition in logic as “A presupposes B if and only if A is neither true nor false unless B is true.”[3] Formally this would be stated:

A presupposes B if and only if:
If A is true then B is true, or,
If A is false then B is true.

This helps us to see how the transcendental argument says much more than the evidential argument. The evidential argument presents design in the universe to the questioner and from there infers or implies the existence of God as the designer. The transcendental argument deals with either the questioner who sees design or the questioner who sees a lack of design in the universe. What it does is argue that in order to make a meaningful statement about the universe one must presuppose the existence of God (specifically the Triune absolute self-existence, self-referential, and self-revealing God of Christianity). So this would restate the transcendental argument like this:

D presupposes G
D
Therefore G

Or:

D presupposes G
~D
Therefore G[4]

Moving closer to application we have to ask what this means in terms of our apologetics and evangelism. Again, I’m going to be brief here though in a minute I’ll recommend a number of books on the subject for further investigation. As Christians, particularly those of us in a Presbyterian or Reformed tradition, we hold that the Triune God is the Creator of the entire world and is thus the sovereign covenant Lord of it and all its aspects. All things are in personal relationship to him. Therefore all things in this world presuppose the Triune God for both their existence and meaning. Cornelius Van Til phrased this in a number of different ways but here is one instance:

Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the directly Biblical field, archeology, or in general history, is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position. But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer’s philosophy of fact. A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that every fact is and must be such as proves the truth of the Christian theistic position.[5]

All of this is to say that all facts presuppose the Christian position. As God is the wholly sovereign Creator and Lord this is not only about the facts of what and how things are but also the facts of reasoning. Everything presupposes the existence of the Triune God. Refusing to acknowledge this is both irrational and sinful. So we see two things about the thinking of non-believers when it comes to argumentation. First we see anything they thinking about, the fact that they think at all, presupposes the Triune God. They cannot make a meaningful statement or even participate in the argument unless the Triune God is. Therefore for them to say anything about design, causality, morality, existence, knowledge, or anything at all relies upon the point that the Christian wishes to make. Second, the unbeliever suppresses the truth of this in unrighteousness and tries to fit the facts, which can only make sense in the Christian worldview, into their own autonomous thought structures. More than not making sense this is ultimately a sinful act that betrays their covenantal rebellion against God, not only in their deeds but in their thinking (Rom. 1:18ff; 1 Cor. 2:6ff; Prov. 1:7). Thus it is not fruitful to simply present facts as if unbelievers will understand them on the same basis as believers and reason to the same conclusions. Instead their entire worldview for interpreting those facts and understanding them must be challenged. Van Til expresses it this way:

To speak of man’s relation to God as being covenantal at every point is merely to say that man deals with the personal God everywhere. Every manipulation of any created fact is, as long as man is not a sinner, a covenant affirming activity. Every manipulation of any fact, as soon as man is a sinner, is a covenant-breaking activity.[6]

Moving very briefly into application this has some enormous implications for how we do apologetics. It means that the so-called evidential apologetics as outlined above are insufficient for combating unbelief. The first expression of the teleological argument is not sensitive to the fact that after Adam’s fall all of humanity is in sinful rebellion against the creating and covenanting God. Unbelievers may freely accept the validity, perhaps even the soundness, of the argument while continuing in unbelief by asserting a designer of some sort but not the Triune God of Christianity. Only the transcendental method attacks unbelief at the deepest levels by acknowledging that all men are either covenant-breakers in Adam or covenant-keepers in Christ. There is no third option. The job of the apologist and the evangelist is not to meet the unbeliever as if they were a neutral seeker who merely weighed the evidences but instead to engage him and expose the sin of suppressing innate knowledge of God.

In terms of methods the best way to do this is what Van Til and others have called the “for the sake of the argument” approach. The apologist should adapt the unbeliever’s presuppositions for a brief time to show that under those conditions it is impossible to say anything meaningful about the subject at hand. They should then invite the unbeliever to think about Christian presuppositions “for the sake of the argument” to show how all of reality is understandable only within the Christian worldview. It would be beyond the course of this essay to discuss this in detail here but there are several introductory books on Reformed apologetics that would help to show application of these principles (and many other biblical principles) in the course of a simple apologetic or evangelistic encounter.

• Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction by John Frame - I think that this is probably the best introduction to Reformed apologetics simply because Frame is such a clear writer and thinker. I've found this book to be excellent and helpful both in understanding Reformed apologetics and also in applying them.
• The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith by Scott Oliphint - I hope to post a full review of this book soon but I think that this is a great book introducing Reformed apologetics as it shows how that apologetic is not driven by philosophy but by the consistent application of Scripture's teaching to the realm of apologetics and evangelism. Oliphint does not spend as much time on application as Frame does but I think that these two books (or possibly this and the next recommendation) can be used in concert to great benefit.
• Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion by William Edgar - I have only recently started reading some books by Dr. Edgar though I have read a number of essays and articles that he's written. To be honest I just got this book myself and have not finished it though I am very impressed so far. I think that this fits very well with the two books above. This book, like Professor Frame's, deals not just with apologetic principles but with the specific application of them in persuading an unbeliever. Again, I think that it fits very nicely with Dr. Oliphint's work to give a wholesome approach to apologetics.
• Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith by Greg Bahnsen - This book is more complex and advanced than the others but it is excellent. Dr. Bahnsen was a fantastic apologist who engaged in a number of public debates with notable unbelievers (not only atheists but also agnostics and proponents of false religions). This is an extraordinarily comprehensive and helpful book for it's length (less than 300 pages). I would still recommend working through one or two of the above before getting at this but if you wouldn't be thrown off too badly by starting here either as Bahnsen was an able communicator even on some difficult topics.
• Christian Apologetics (Second Edition) by Cornelius Van Til and edited by William Edgar - One of my desires is to see more Christians, both pastors and lay people, read more of Van Til's works. Van Til provided a great service to the church in helping to rearticulate a fully confessional and Reformed apologetic that was faithful to Scripture and serious in its application. I will admit that Van Til was not a very skilled writer and is often very difficult to understand. That is why this book is at the bottom of this list. I would really like to see people read at least two of the above before tackling this one (and this is a topic where I would be happy to interact with you over e-mail as you read through any of these books). I think that you would be very rewarded by doing so. P&R Publishing reprinting several of Van Til's works with editorial comments from Scott Oliphint and William Edgar is a great blessing for the church. These comments help to explain certain emphases and terms in Van Til's writing that he simply assumes the reader understands. This is a short and relatively cheap book so it shouldn't be hard to get and read through once quickly for overview and again more slowly for comprehension. I do think that this is probably the best entry point into his writings.

[1] I say “so-called” as often the term “evidential” is used as if presuppositional and transcendental apologetics did not make use of evidences. This is clearly not true to anyone familiar with the discussion. “Classical” is also often used to imply that the apologetic put forth by Sproul, Gerstner, Lindsley, and others is the way that the church has always done apologetics. This is also not true as the work of Robert Muller shows. These terms are useful as they point to a certain type of apologetics as opposed to the presuppositional and transcendental supported here but the implications often drawn from them are false.
[2] It should be noted that all of the formal articulations of arguments in this brief essay are very much abbreviated and simplified.
[3] Cited in “Van Til and the Transcendental Argument” by Don Collett in Reason and Revelation: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics ed. by K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007), 269.
[4] Here it should be noted that this line or argumentation is based upon the modus ponens. The modus tollens could not be simply applied here as the negation of G would not imply the negation of D. Instead it would say that we could not conclude anything about D at all but would say that D is neither true nor false.
[5] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1967), 199.
[6] Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1972), 69-70.

Calvin Questions

I just saw that it's been a week since I've posted something on here. Apologies for that. With the break in Sunday School I don't have quite as much that I feel like I need to get up here. I am working on an essay on Robert Lewis Dabney (as promised) and I will be putting that up in a series of posts in a few days when I finish.

For now I wanted to put something up responding to two of the really interesting questions that I remembered from the Q&A session with Dr. Griffith at the Calvin Conference this past weekend. First, one person asked a question relating to Calvin's millennial views (and eschatological views more broadly). Dr. Griffith pointed out that this really was not a topic during Calvin's time as it is now. Carrying this a bit farther we should emphasize that the American and English focus on millennial viewpoints is rather unique. Well through the second half of the 20th century this simply was not a question for Reformed believers on the continent. Even today it is simply assumed that Dutch, German, and French Reformed believers have an amillennial viewpoint (though it is not usually called that since there isn't much of an opposing view that they need to argue against) unless they go out of their way to distance themselves from that perspective.

Instead the millennial debate really began with the work of Joseph Mede (an early 17th century professor of divinity at Cambridge). Mede advocated a literal thousand year reign of Christ that would proceed the second coming. Without going into the details of his eschatology this was the first serious articulation of historic premillennialism (very different from dispensational premillennialism as we find in the Left Behind novels) that was later picked up by students of Mede and also by men like Jonathan Edwards. Many of the Westminster divines were historic premillennialists (the rest were amillennialists with a few exceptions). Postmillennialism, in its present form, did not really appear in any real strength until the 20th century in America (though there are some figures who at least appear to advocate eschatological views similar to modern postmillennialism they are not identical) as closely tied to the theonomy movement.

This helps to emphasize the danger of different millennial viewpoints trying to claim Calvin as teaching a particular option in the above debate. This simply was not a question for Calvin (nor for his students and successors such as Theodore Beza and Francis Turretin). Similarly it was not a question for Herman Bavinck at the beginning of the 20th century. So Calvin did not write in language that was sensitive to this debate and did not temper his statements to acknowledge these different views. We can make some educated assumptions about where he may have landed based on other things he taught about eschatology but we cannot ascribe a definite position to him. For more on this general topic however I would recommend going over to the Reformed Forum and searching for "Jeff Jue." They conducted a discussion forum with Dr. Jue (church history at WTS) on the eschatological views of the Westminster Assembly. It's a little over an hour long but very good and informative. Dr. Jue's dissertation is available on google books but it is a dissertation and so is tough reading since it is written at a high academic level.

The other question that struck me was closely related as it asked what the relationship was between Calvin and Calvinism. I thought that Dr. Griffith's answer was very helpful in saying that there are certain aspects of Calvinism (or more broadly the Reformed faith) that are not clearly articulated in Calvin though his name is on them. Still this reflects the development of theology and new debates that have arisen since then. Much of this is related to the claims of Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and the other neo-orthodox (also known as dialectic) theologians who tried to drive a dividing wedge between Calvin and the Protestant/Reformed Scholastics on the issues of predestination and definite atonement. For anyone who was curious I wanted to link to a few books that are focused on this exact topic:

• Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins by Richard Muller - Much of Richard Muller's work has been specifically directed to answer this charge that there is a vast gulf between Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and especially Calvin and the Scholastics who followed like Theodore Beza, Peter de Vermigli, Francis Turretin, and others. This book is focused on those issues brought up by neo-orthodoxy. This is a very educational book on Predestination and Christology and I think that you would find it very helpful even if you aren't wondering about the relationship of Calvin and Calvinism.
• Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics by Richard Muller - This is far deeper and more comprehensive than most people need to go on this subject but since it is a $200 set available for $80 I wanted to make people aware of it. Muller contends that 16th and 17th century Reformed thought is badly misrepresented in the church and so he presents the writings and teachings of the Scholastics on a number of topics but centrally theological prolegomena (first things), Scripture, theology proper, and the Trinity.
• Protestant Scholasticism: Essay in Reassessment edited by Carl Trueman and Scott Clark - This is an anthology of essays all focused on the topic of Calvin and the Calvinists. A good book but written on an academic level where I think that the first book on this list will be more helpful.

Perseverance of the Saints pt. 2

It took several more days than I anticipated but here is a brief analysis of the second half of the Fifth Head of Doctrine from the Canons of Dort. Again this head of doctrine addresses the perseverance of the saints.

Article 8. So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God's undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.

Building on what they said before, the Synod affirms that perseverance of the saints is ultimately not the work of the saints, though they do work in it, but is the work of God. As a divine operation its success cannot be in doubt. God never fails in his endeavors. Left to our own strength and merit we would undoubtedly be lost yet according to the power and will of God as the merit of Christ is applied to our account we can never lose the gift of the Holy Spirit and the promise of eternal salvation.

Article 9. Concerning this preservation of those chosen to salvation and concerning the perseverance of true believers in faith, believers themselves can and do become assured in accordance with the measure of their faith, by which they firmly believe that they are and always will remain true and living members of the church, and that they have the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Therefore our assurance does not flow from looking to ourselves. As Calvin said, we when look at ourselves we only see damnable sin. Instead assurance of God's love is a saving grace that God gives to those he gives the gift of saving faith. So our confidence of belonging in the church and of eternal salvation is because we know that God who began a good work in us will be faithful to complete it.

Article 10. Accordingly, this assurance does not derive from some private revelation beyond or outside the Word, but from faith in the promises of God which he has very plentifully revealed in his Word for our comfort, from the testimony of the Holy Spirit testifying with our spirit that we are God's children and heirs (Rom. 8:16-17), and finally from a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works. And if God's chosen ones in this world did not have this well-founded comfort that the victory will be theirs and this reliable guarantee of eternal glory, they would be of all people most miserable.

Therefore we know that assurance of faith does not come from a private revelation that is given to us but is only found in the promise of God that are contained in Scripture and the Holy Spirit's work that makes the Word of God living and active in the people of God. So again we do not look to ourselves for assurance but we look to God's promises in his Word and then to the signs of saving faith described in that Word, particularly the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit and the external manifestation of the good works that we are created in Christ to do (Eph. 2:10).

Article 11. Meanwhile, Scripture testifies that believers have to contend in this life with various doubts of the flesh and that under severe temptation they do not always experience this full assurance of faith and certainty of perseverance. But God, the Father of all comfort, does not let them be tempted beyond what they can bear, but with the temptation he also provides a way out (1 Cor. 10:13), and by the Holy Spirit revives in them the assurance of their perseverance.

The Synod does not wish to discourage believers unbiblically and so they do state that even mature believers in this life will have to deal with doubts and will question their assurance in times of temptation. At the same time, the sure and certain promise in the Word is that God will not allow his elect to be tempted to the point where they would possibly fall away eternally but will renew them again to repentance and give them a new and greater certainty of faith.

Article 12. This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in crossbearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.

Because this assurance does not stem from ourselves but from God it does not serve as a source of boasting in ourselves or in our own work but rather causes us to humble ourselves and to rejoice in the Holy Spirit. It is ultimately as we reflect on the work of God in us to preserve us in our perseverance that we do persevere in good works to the glory of God.

Article 13. Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.

Here the Synod has careful words for those today who would try to use the doctrine of perseverance of the saints as an excuse for lawlessness (saying, "once saved, always saved"). This doctrine does not excuse sin and disobedience. Instead it places them in the proper context of a new relationship with God. The relationship is not one of wrath but now we are a part of the household of God. It behooves us as beloved children of God to live in a manner that is worthy of our calling and thus to seek to honor, please, and glorify our heavenly Father in our conduct and behavior.

Article 14. And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.

This grace of the perseverance of the saints is accomplished through the same means that the gospel is first delivered to us. It is through the means of grace, meaning the Word and sacraments, that the gospel promising eternal salvation to all who believe in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins is delivered to us.

Article 15. This teaching about the perseverance of true believers and saints, and about their assurance of it--a teaching which God has very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers--is something which the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack. The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen.

The Synod closes in doxology. It is not believers but those outside who mock this doctrine. The church receives it as the gracious promise of the Bridegroom who died to purify her from all sins so that at the last day he might receive her unto himself in glory and thus rejoices and loves her Christ all the more while longing for that day.

A belated Happy New Year

I should have put this up yesterday but I never really got around to sitting down at the computer so it got pushed back to being a day late. Happy New Year to all and here are a few late things on it.

First, if you don't already have a plan to read through the Bible in a year then you should check out these ESV Bible Reading Plans. There are ten options on there to choose from and you're only one day behind so far so easy to get going. Andrea and I are going to try to do the plan that is listed in the ESV Study and Literary Study Bibles (though I'm horrible at keeping up with these things). This plan has a selection from the Psalms and Wisdom Literature, the Pentateuch and Historical books, Chronicles and the Prophets, and the Gospels and Epistles for every day. It is designed to read through the Psalms, Isaiah, Luke, and Romans twice during the year in their entirety. If you choose this then not only is it already in the back of those Bibles but this .pdf is designed to be cut into four bookmarks that you place in your Bible to keep your place. Justin Taylor also has directions for how to get any of these plans as a podcast that you can download through iTunes. Don't forget the plans out to read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion in a year as well (see posts lower down).

Second, January 1 was the 71st anniversary of when the Lord called J. Gresham Machen to glory. Machen was the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary and a crucial figure in the foundation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He was a stallwart defender of biblical Christianity against the errors and heresies of theological liberalism. He died of pneumonia while preaching and helping to build up several young OPC churches in the Dakotas. His last recorded words were a telegram that he sent to his younger colleague at WTS, John Murray, "[I am] so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it." I highly recommend Stephen Nichols book, J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought, as a short biography of Machen and also a summary of his most important writings. You should certainly read Christianity and Liberalism, listed as one of the top 100 books of the Millenium by World Magazine and the Top 100 of the 20th century by Christianity Today, and the subsequent What Is Faith? (Christianity and Liberalism is also available to read online)

Finally, I wanted to put a quick survey of the Fifth Head of Doctrine from the Canons of Dort on the perseverance of the saints and true assurance of salvation. This will be in two parts so only the first seven articles are here. I find Dort very helpful here as the Synod carefully shows that from the perspective of man our assurance is tied to perseverance but from the divine perspective perseverance is assured as God preserves.

Article 1. Those people whom God according to his purpose calls into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he also sets free from the reign and slavery of sin, though in this life not entirely from the flesh and from the body of sin.

In transitioning from the articulation of regeneration and effectual calling to perseverance the Synod first holds that the regenerate are free from the slavery to sin though they are not entirely free from indwelling sin. So believers continue to sin as long as they are in this body of sin in death even though in their inner man they have been raised to new life in Christ.

Article 2. Hence daily sins of weakness arise, and blemishes cling to even the best works of God's people, giving them continual cause to humble themselves before God, to flee for refuge to Christ crucified, to put the flesh to death more and more by the Spirit of supplication and by holy exercises of godliness, and to strain toward the goal of perfection, until they are freed from this body of death and reign with the Lamb of God in heaven.

Therefore the Synod holds that even our best works are blemished by indwelling sin. This requires us to constantly repent of our sins and to turn from them to God and to plead again only the merit of Christ's atoning death. On the basis of Christ's perfect finished work believers still know that they are justified before God. Thus we find that is it justification by grace alone through faith alone and in Christ alone that is the key to perseverance. Michael Horton says that it is only if we are justified by faith that our works are justified. Believers persevere in good works as the regenerate and justified people of God because they know that the perfection of those works is not what justifies them but it rather the feeble offering of sons and daughters to a gracious and loving Father who receives those works done for his glory as they are done by us in Christ.

Article 3. Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this grace if left to their own resources. But God is faithful, mercifully strengthening them in the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end.

Having placed the believer in the paradox of being renewed in the image of Christ in the inner man even while the body decays because of sin and death the Synod states that indwelling sin would prohibit the believer from persevering according to their own resources. So perseverance by the believer is the work of God who continues to build his elect up in the grace given to them in regeneration and preserves them in that grace to the end. Thus we see how it is from our perspective that it is perseverance and from God's it is preservation unto perseverance.

Article 4. Although that power of God strengthening and preserving true believers in grace is more than a match for the flesh, yet those converted are not always so activated and motivated by God that in certain specific actions they cannot by their own fault depart from the leading of grace, be led astray by the desires of the flesh, and give in to them. For this reason they must constantly watch and pray that they may not be led into temptations. When they fail to do this, not only can they be carried away by the flesh, the world, and Satan into sins, even serious and outrageous ones, but also by God's just permission they sometimes are so carried away--witness the sad cases, described in Scripture, of David, Peter, and other saints falling into sins.

This article helps to guard against perfectionism. Though God does perfectly preserve believers in perseverance this does not mean that believers are made incapable of committing sins, even horrible sins. Like all that occurs this is by the good counsel of God that they are permitted to fall away into these sins.

Article 5. By such monstrous sins, however, they greatly offend God, deserve the sentence of death, grieve the Holy Spirit, suspend the exercise of faith, severely wound the conscience, and sometimes lose the awareness of grace for a time--until, after they have returned to the way by genuine repentance, God's fatherly face again shines upon them.

Furthermore, sins committed by believers are not different in character than those committed by unbelievers. All sin is offensive to God and deserves his wrath and curse (see Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 83). Because of this believers who fall into grevious sin can lose some or all of their sense of the assurance of their salvation until they again return to the promise of God in Scripture and come again in repentance of their sin. This returning to repentance is not a second salvation, that was accomplished one time in their conversion, but it does lead to the renewal of their sense of assurance as they again sense and experience God's fatherly blessings.

Article 6. For God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election does not take his Holy Spirit from his own completely, even when they fall grievously. Neither does he let them fall down so far that they forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification, or commit the sin which leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit), and plunge themselves, entirely forsaken by him, into eternal ruin.

The reason that we know this is not a second salvation is because God has given his Holy Spirit to regenerate believers and he does not ever take it away from them. Even when in their sin they grieve the Holy Spirit of God they remain still united to Christ and saved in him and thereby safe from eternal condemnation.

Article 7. For, in the first place, God preserves in those saints when they fall his imperishable seed from which they have been born again, lest it perish or be dislodged. Secondly, by his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectively renews them to repentance so that they have a heartfelt and godly sorrow for the sins they have committed; seek and obtain, through faith and with a contrite heart, forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator; experience again the grace of a reconciled God; through faith adore his mercies; and from then on more eagerly work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

In showing how this relationship is perserved the Synod argues that God first keeps believers from ever committing an impardonable sin. All of their sins, past and future, are paid for by Christ on the cross. Thus the work of the Spirit to unite us to Christ's person and work secures our eternal salvation. Second, because the Spirit remains in us and works in us even when we fall into sin he will renew us again to repentance. We will have true grief and hatred of sin and will turn from it to God with full pursuit of new obedience (see WSC Q&A 86). Therefore in these two points we see that perseverance is wholly the work of God but in that work he causes us to work also.

Canons of Dort - 3rd and 4th Heads of Doctrine - 2

Here is part two of yesterday's analysis of the 3rd and 4th heads of doctrine in the Canons of Dort.

Article 10. The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to man, as though one distinguishes himself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity he chose his own in Christ, so within time he effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son, in order that they may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into this marvelous light, and may boast not in themselves, but in the Lord, as apostolic words frequently testify in Scripture.

Having established that all responsibility for rejecting the gospel is attributed to human sin and that sinful men are incapable of coming to salvation on their own the Synod turns to ask how is it that sinners can be converted to the gospel. Because of human depravity the credit for those who do come to embrace the gospel must not go to them but must go entirely to God who effectively calls those whom he has elected from all eternity so that all righteous response to the gospel on man's part is the work of God and they must boast only in him.

Article 11. Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.

So we hold that those who do come to saving faith in Christ do so because God providentially causes them to hear the gospel preached and works in them to cause them to respond. The way he does this is by making those who are dead alive in Christ. He makes sinful men into new men with new desires and new works. So what God makes new cannot help but to produce new fruit.

Article 12. And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man's power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.

This work of God within us is what the Scriptures call regeneration or God's making us alive. This does not happen through the outward proclamation of the gospel or by human works of apologetics. Regeneration is not our work; it is the work of the Spirit. This work of making the dead alive is equivalent to God's work of creation. Bringing life out of death is the same as bringing the things that are out of nothing. So the will of new creatures is motivated by the things of God because it is the restored and renewed creation of God that is not marred by the sin of the old.

Article 13. In this life believers cannot fully understand the way this work occurs; meanwhile, they rest content with knowing and experiencing that by this grace of God they do believe with the heart and love their Savior.

In this article the Synod references John 3. Jesus tells Nicodemus that the Spirit's work of new birth is a mysterious one that cannot be explained just like how the wind blows where it will and no one can see why it blows one way and not another. So God's people cannot explain why God chooses to regenerate one and not another or even entirely how the new birth happens but they can be confident on the basis of the effects of the Spirit's work that it has taken place.

Article 14. In this way, therefore, faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for man to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on man, breathed and infused into him. Nor is it a gift in the sense that God bestows only the potential to believe, but then awaits assent--the act of believing--from man's choice; rather, it is a gift in the sense that he who works both willing and acting and, indeed, works all things in all people produces in man both the will to believe and the belief itself.

On this basis we see that faith is not of men but is of God. The very faith that embraces the gospel does not belong naturally to man but is the Spiritual work of God within man. Faith is not something given to man for him to choose what to place it in but faith is given that embraces Christ as he is offered in the gospel. Regeneration makes men both willing and able to believe so that they cannot, will not, and would not do otherwise.

Article 15. God does not owe this grace to anyone. For what could God owe to one who has nothing to give that can be paid back? Indeed, what could God owe to one who has nothing of his own to give but sin and falsehood? Therefore the person who receives this grace owes and gives eternal thanks to God alone; the person who does not receive it either does not care at all about these spiritual things and is satisfied with himself in his condition, or else in self-assurance foolishly boasts about having something which he lacks. Furthermore, following the example of the apostles, we are to think and to speak in the most favorable way about those who outwardly profess their faith and better their lives, for the inner chambers of the heart are unknown to us. But for others who have not yet been called, we are to pray to the God who calls things that do not exist as though they did. In no way, however, are we to pride ourselves as better than they, as though we had distinguished ourselves from them.

The Synod goes on to argue that God does not owe the grace of regeneration to any man. Because of sin we cannot ever purchase anything from God. Instead we have to recognize that if we are regenerate then we have nothing to boast in and no one to praise except for Jesus Christ. Furthermore, because regeneration is the work of God we find that we are not able to judge whether or not an other is a true or false believer. Instead God alone judges the heart and so we can only pray for them and speak favorably of them when they do profess faith. Finally, we cannot claim to be in anyway better than the unregenerate for anything within ourselves because that work belongs to God alone and does not spring from anything within us.

Article 16. However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and--in a manner at once pleasing and powerful--bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.

The Synod now wants to clarify what does not happen when God works his grace of regeneration. Sin did not completely abolish human will be instead made it depraved and opposed to God. Similarly regeneration does not abolish the human will but instead makes it holy and restores human will in the image of God. So new men are obedient in the Spirit and it is in that obedience that they have true freedom of their wills. Therefore it is the gracious work of the Spirit which not only renews the creation but also guarantees its consummation and continual perfection as wills are restored to a higher state than even Adam possessed as he was made holy and good.

Article 17. Just as the almighty work of God by which he brings forth and sustains our natural life does not rule out but requires the use of means, by which God, according to his infinite wisdom and goodness, has wished to exercise his power, so also the aforementioned supernatural work of God by which he regenerates us in no way rules out or cancels the use of the gospel, which God in his great wisdom has appointed to be the seed of regeneration and the food of the soul. For this reason, the apostles and the teachers who followed them taught the people in a godly manner about this grace of God, to give him the glory and to humble all pride, and yet did not neglect meanwhile to keep the people, by means of the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the administration of the Word, the sacraments, and discipline. So even today it is out of the question that the teachers or those taught in the church should presume to test God by separating what he in his good pleasure has wished to be closely joined together. For grace is bestowed through admonitions, and the more readily we perform our duty, the more lustrous the benefit of God working in us usually is and the better his work advances. To him alone, both for the means and for their saving fruit and effectiveness, all glory is owed forever. Amen.

Further clarifying how this work of regeneration occurs the Synod teaches that just as God uses means in sustaining our natural lives (such as food, rain, sunshine, etc.) he also uses means in ushering us into the new Spiritual life. These outward means are the preaching of the gospel. Therefore the Synod concludes that this understanding of God's effectual call and his irresistible grace does not make the preaching of the gospel and the outward call superflous or unnecessary. Instead the usefulness of the outward call is confirmed in God's work. It is because he has ordained and appointed the means of grace in the preaching of the word, the adminstration of the sacraments, and the use of discipline in the church that he brings men to salvation. Thus though salvation is God's work alone he still sees fit to bestow the grace of his gospel through outward admonitions to repent and believe the gospel. It is true that saving faith is the means through which God saves us. Yet as that saving faith is the gift of God we must recognize that all of the praise and glory of salvation goes to God alone.

Canons of Dort - 3rd and 4th Heads of Doctrine - 1

I wanted to follow up on my earlier post that surveyed the Second Head of Doctrine in the Canons of Dort in light of the doctrine of definite atonement. These two heads of doctrine survey human corruption, conversion to the gospel, and the way that one moves from one to the other. In other words the Synod of Dort addresses what we today call total depravity and irresistible grace in this section. This is just a very brief survey of what our confession says on this topic.

Article 1. Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil's instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.

Here the Synod simply affirms their belief that creation as completed by God at the end of the sixth day was "very good" just as Scripture tells us. With that we can say that man as created was both holy and good. So the fall and consequent depravity of man cannot be blamed on the Creator for any deficiency in his creation but instead is attributed wholly to man who sinned out of his own free will and brought the estate of sin and misery upon himself.

Article 2. Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God's just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants-- except for Christ alone--not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature.

In the second article we read that all of Adam's descendents were infected with the same depravity that Adam brought upon himself in his original sin. The Westminster Standards also affirm this by saying that the covenant made with Adam was made with him for him and all his descendents so that all mankind sinned in him and fell with him. So through the one sin of Adam we see that sin, condemnation, and death spread to all men. So men are not totally depraved on the basis of their own sins but rather because of their solidarity with Adam in his original sin and their own sins are the outworking of that depravity.

Article 3. Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

On this basis the Synod concludes that no one is able to save his or her self. All are born in sin and so cannot work any good or righteousness that will justify them to God apart from the saving work of the Holy Spirit. Even more, no one can even truly bend their will toward the righteousness that God requires so long as they are dead in their sins.

Article 4. There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.

This is balanced by an understanding of common grace. The Synod reminds us that Scripture teaches that it is not true on this basis that people have no knowledge of God or his moral demands (Ps. 19; Rom. 1:18ff.). Yet God's common grace in his general revelatory activity is not sufficient to bring depraved people who are dead in their sins to salvation. Instead in their depravity sinful men distort the truth of that revelation and confirm their condemnation before God.

Article 5. In this respect, what is true of the light of nature is true also of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses specifically to the Jews. For man cannot obtain saving grace through the Decalogue, because, although it does expose the magnitude of his sin and increasingly convict him of his guilt, yet it does not offer a remedy or enable him to escape from his misery, and, indeed, weakened as it is by the flesh, leaves the offender under the curse.

Here the Canons teach that though God's revelatory activity goes beyond nature to the special revelation of his law in the Decalogue even that is not sufficient to save sinful man. The law does more than nature in that it exposes the depth of our depravity and does even more to convict us as guilty before God but it does not give us the remedy to our dead estate and so leaves us under God's curse.

Article 6. What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God accomplishes by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the Word or the ministry of reconciliation. This is the gospel about the Messiah, through which it has pleased God to save believers, in both the Old and the New Testament.

Therefore we know that since the revelation in nature and the law are not sufficient to rescue us from our depraved condition we need still further revelation in the gospel. It is the in the gospel, through the work of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace, that God gives the good news of Christ wherein God has placed the promise of salvation.

Article 7. In the Old Testament, God revealed this secret of his will to a small number; in the New Testament (now without any distinction between peoples) he discloses it to a large number. The reason for this difference must not be ascribed to the greater worth of one nation over another, or to a better use of the light of nature, but to the free good pleasure and undeserved love of God. Therefore, those who receive so much grace, beyond and in spite of all they deserve, ought to acknowledge it with humble and thankful hearts; on the other hand, with the apostle they ought to adore (but certainly not inquisitively search into) the severity and justice of God's judgments on the others, who do not receive this grace.

Now the Synod begins to ask how the gospel has been revealed. During the Old Testament period God only revealed this to the people of Israel but now he discloses it to all tribes, tongues, and nations through the apostolic ministry. When one hears the gospel and another does not this does not mean that the one has greater value than the other but rather only speaks of God's free and electing love and his sovereign choice to reveal himself to whom he wills.

Article 8. Nevertheless, all who are called through the gospel are called seriously. For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him. Seriously he also promises rest for their souls and eternal life to all who come to him and believe.

At the same time the Synod affirms the free and universal offer of the gospel. All who hear the message of the gospel are seriously and honestly called to respond in faith and repentance. The promise of salvation in the gospel to those who respond is a true and not a deceitful promise.

Article 9. The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life's cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

Thus the Synod states that all responsibility for destruction because of rejecting the gospel lies with men and not with God. The gospel contains all of the promises of God and the power to fulfill those promises. So those who refuse the gospel are responsible for their own destruction. The seed is good it is the soil that is bad.

Since there are too many headings to address in one post there will be a follow up with Articles 10-17 tomorrow.

Company through Calvin's Institutes

Anyone who's read here at all has probably caught onto the fact that I think that all believers ought to read John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Now there's a new opportunity to do so. The normal contributors over at the Reformation21 blog will be blogging through the Institutes starting in January with daily posts on their reading. This is a great chance to simply read through Calvin in small chunks and also have some outstanding theologians commenting on the sections and giving insights into Calvin's ideas and theology.

The bloggers who should be helping out on this include Derek Thomas (Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson and Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS Jackson), Iain Campbell (A Scottish Presbyterian Pastor), Ligon Duncan (Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson and Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at RTS Jackson), Sinclair Ferguson (PCA Pastor and Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at WTS), and Paul Helm (A Calvinist Theologian in England).

If you don't already have a copy of the Institutes then you can pick them up from Monergism Books at the link above. You can also read online (or download them as a .pdf file) from CCEL but they do not have the MacNeill/Battles edition available that way. That edition is certainly the easiest to read in the English.

Canons of Dort - Second Head of Doctrine

As we continue to think about the doctrine of definite atonement I thought that it would be helpful to post the articles of faith from the Second Main Head of Doctrine in the Canons of Dort along with a very brief commentary on them. This is the Head of Doctrine where the Synod addressed the Arminian claim of universal atonement. Please see the below post of Sunday School reading for books and articles that explain why we believe in a definite atonement.

Article 1: God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. His justice requires (as he has revealed himself in the Word) that the sins we have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both temporal and eternal punishments, of soul as well as body. We cannot escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God's justice.

The first article points us back to the doctrine of God. Because he is not made up of a bunch of independent attributes we have to remember that his attributes define one another. His mercy is a loving and just mercy. His justice is a righteous and holy justice. He cannot compromised who he is or act contrary to his nature. So as we stand before him as sinners in Adam we stand guilty and condemned to eternal punishment by God's righteous judgment.

Article 2: Since, however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God's anger, God in his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and a curse for us, in our place, on the cross, in order that he might give satisfaction for us.

The problem is that we can never offer anything to God that would fully satisfy his righteous and just anger that burns against us sinners. Left to ourselves our destination is an eternal suffering from the pains of hell. Yet we find that as God is also merciful he has given us his Son who became a curse for us and offered a perfect satisfaction of God's just wrath. Those who are covered by Christ's atoning death no longer need to fear punishment for their sins.

Article 3: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

The Synod reminds us that God's death is the only sacrifice sufficient to satisfy God's justice. We cannot choose to offer satisfaction by Christ's death or by something else. We cannot even choose to offer satisfaction by Christ's death and or along with something else. Christ's death alone is the satisfaction for sins and his death has such great value and worth that is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 4: This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.

The reason that we know that Christ's death has such a high value as was described in Article 3 is because of who we know and confess Jesus to be. He is the only true and perfect man who is without sin. Of all men who have ever lived Jesus is the only one who never sinned and never deserved to suffer God's wrath. At the same time he is the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal God in his own right. So his death has an infinite value as he alone could bear the entirety of God's wrath for our sins.

Article 5: Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

In this article the Synod affirms the promise of the gospel. We know that anyone who does believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. Roger Nicole said that in the whole history of humankind there has not been a single person who has come to Christ earnestly seeking salvation in him that was turned away. The promise of Almighty God, who cannot lie and in whom there is no shadow of turning, is that all who believe will be saved. Therefore we believe and hold that the gospel must be preached to all people without any discrimination as all are called to believe and repent.

Article 6: However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

The universal call does not mean that we believe in universal salvation. There are many who do not obey God's summons in the gospel to believe in the Lord Jesus and repent of their sins. The Synod affirms that the problem is not that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient but rather than they perish because of their own unbelief and refusal to obey the call of the gospel. The sin and punishment of sinners does not take away from the infinite value of Christ's atonement.

Article 7: But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ's death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God's grace--which he owes to no one--given to them in Christ from eternity.

Here the Synod reaffirms that salvation is a monergistic (one worker) activity. God does not work with those who believe to save them. God effectively saves those who believe. Sinners cannot rightly force God to save them. They can only be saved by him according to the means of salvation that he has revealed in his word. The ones God saves are only the ones that he has chosen in Christ from all eternity (see the First Main Head of Doctrine).

Article 8: For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Here we see the key to the doctrine of definite atonement. Because all those who believe are saved and only those who are chosen believe we must hold that the saving effectiveness of Christ's death, which is a real satisfation of God's justice, efficiently saves and only saves the elect. Again, there is nothing aside from Christ's death that they may plead before the judgment seat of God. The Synod says that Christ's death effectively redeems all those who the Father has given to Christ. Those who are redeemed are certainly cleansed. Those cleansed are preserved. Those preserved are glorified. Christ's death is an efficient and efficacious salvific work. Those for whom he died are saved.

Article 9: This plan, arising out of God's eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ's blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and--here and in all eternity--praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.

Again the Synod affirms that Christ's death is the effective salvation for all of God's elect. Throughout history everyone who is saved is saved by Christ dying for them. All the powers of hell may assault them but God powerfully works his purposes in his elect. So therefore all of God's people, both in Old Testament and New Testament times, belong to the church of Christ that he has redeemed with his precious blood.

If you'd like a print version of the Canons of Dort then you can find it in this book; along with the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Ecumenical Creeds. You can read the Canons of Dort online here.