On the Contrast between the Promise and the Law

January 23, 2023 at 11:00 am (Hebrew Roots Movement, Justification, Mosaic Law, NT-Galatians)

posted by R. Fowler White

As a complement to the three recent posts on the Hebrew Roots Movement (here, here, and here), consider the following synopsis of Paul’s argument in Gal 3:1–5:1, where he expounds the contrast between the Promise and the Law, between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant. Put differently, in those chapters, the Apostle makes an inter-covenantal argument in which he contrasts Christ and the Law.

We might begin by asking, Why would Paul stress the Promise/Law contrast to the Galatian churches? I maintain that he does so because Paul’s opponents at Galatia (2:4) were teaching a heretical view of how to obtain justification and all the other eschatological blessings of Abraham. Specifically, contrary to the false brothers’ position, the Apostle insists that the Law is not the way to obtain those blessings, whether as an alternative to Christ (i.e., law-keeping without Christ) or as a supplement to Christ (i.e., law-keeping plus Christ). Christ is the only way, Christ alone is enough, to secure those blessings. To see how Paul’s argument unfolds, we will break it down section by section.

The “follies” at Galatia (Gal 3:1-9). The issue that Paul’s opponents had created in the Galatian churches can be reconstructed from several places in the letter. We’ll take as an example 3:1-9. There, Paul expresses his astonishment at the foolish Galatians. He lays bare their foolishness by highlighting the contrast between the way they had begun their Christian lives (3:3b) and the way they were now finishing their Christian lives (3:3c). They were at least seriously considering a way other than the one with which they had started (cf. you who want [or desire] to be under the Law, 4:21). The Galatians had begun their new lives under God’s promised blessing: it was by hearing with faith that He had provided them the Spirit and had worked miracles among them (3:2, 3, 5)! Misled by Paul’s opponents, however, the Galatians were, apparently, submitting to doing the works of the Law (3:3) and, as he will add later, to circumcision (5:2-3). The result of these choices was that they are now finishing under God’s threatened curse (3:10; 5:4; cf. Rom 2:25)! Evidently, the false brothers were luring the Galatians, if they had not already duped them, with a false gospel, a gospel different from that of the Apostle (1:6). So, Paul is required to refute that false gospel, and he does so by arguing both for and from the true gospel of Christ. To rebut the “follies” at Galatia, he takes the Galatians through the history of the Promise and the Law. From that history, he reminds them of several pertinent facts.

Redemptive history lesson #1: Before the Law came in (Gal 3:6-9). First, as summarized in 3:6-9, Paul shows the Galatians that, even before the Law came in, the way to obtain the eschatological blessings of Abraham—including justification (3:6, 8)—had not been by doing the works of the Law, but by hearing with faith. In fact, the way the Galatians were now seeking those blessings was contrary to the way in which God had credited righteousness to Abraham himself (3:6). Clearly, before the Law had been enacted, it had been by faith that God had justified Abraham. In addition, the way the Galatians were now seeking those blessings was also contrary to the way in which God had previously determined to credit those blessings to all among the nations who would be Abraham’s true heirs (3:7-9). Therefore, even before the Law came in, doing the works of the Law had not been the way to get the eschatological blessings that Abraham received.

Redemptive history lesson #2: What the Law itself testified (Gal 3:10-14). Second, Paul goes on to explain in 3:10-14 that the Law itself makes it abundantly clear that it is not those of the Law, but those of faith, who obtain eschatological blessings. The Law spells out this truth in its declarations about those who break it (3:10b): it curses each lawbreaker (3:10; cf. 3:13) and justifies no lawbreaker (3:11a; 2:16). In fact, the Law testifies that the curse of death falls on all who fail to keep it, while the blessing of life belongs only to him who does keep it (3:12b; cf. Rom 10:5). Consequently, the Law itself shows that its violators have no hope of justification, life, or any other eschatological blessings by their own doing of the works of the Law. Their only hope is by hearing with faith (3:11b), faith in the one Seed of Abraham, namely Christ, who would be justified by the Law and would become a curse to redeem all under the Law who believe (3:13). By so much, the Law establishes that it is not those of the Law, but those of faith, who obtain the eschatological blessings of Abraham.

Redemptive history lesson #3: After the Law was enacted (Gal 3:15-18). Third, going back in 3:15-18 to the Law’s enactment after the Promise, Paul insists that the Law neither annulled nor amended the Promise. Specifically, the Law’s introduction did nothing to change the means of securing Abraham’s eschatological blessings from faith to law-keeping. In addition, the parties to the Promise remained the same: Abraham and his seed, Christ—that is, Christ and those of faith blessed in Him (3:16, 29). Thus, even after the Law was enacted, the means of obtaining eschatological blessings was, as it always had been, by faith, not by law-keeping.

Redemptive history lesson #4: Why the Law then? (Gal 3:19-22). Fourth, if history shows that those of the Law have never been heirs of Abraham’s eschatological blessings, then the question arises, Why did God enact the Law (3:19-22)? According to Paul, God put it in place for a purpose different from that of the Promise (3:19b, 22), for a duration different from that of the Promise (3:19c), and by a procedure different from that of the Promise (3:19d-21).

The Law’s purpose (Gal 3:19b, 22). As for its purpose, the Law was added to deal with transgressions as breaches that, if not handled properly, would jeopardize the fulfillment of the Promise, whether the transgressors were Gentiles from outside or Jews from inside (3:19b; cf. 2:18). Moreover, the Law was added to keep transgressors under its yoke and in its custody so that the Promise by faith in Christ might be given to those transgressors who believe (3:22). The Law, then, was not introduced as the way to obtain Abraham’s eschatological blessings, but as the way to handle transgressors, subjecting them to its temporary probationary custody and pedagogy.

The Law’s duration (Gal 3:19c). Regarding its duration, unlike the Promise, the Law was revocable and thus temporary in that it was in effect only until the Seed for whom the Promise was reserved should come (3:19c; 4:4). That Seed having arrived, the Law’s probationary tenure came to its proper end; by contrast, the Promise, being irrevocable, is alone in operation to convey eschatological blessings.

The Law’s ratification (Gal 3:19d-21). With respect to its ratification procedure, the Law was enacted through angels by a mediator, whereas the Promise was enacted by God alone (3:20). That is, the Promise was guaranteed with an oath by God who therein revealed Himself to be the Divine Surety of the Promise for Abraham and his heirs (Gen 15:7-17). That oath was, moreover, progressively revealed to be that of God the Father to God the Son, the Surety proper (Ps 110:4; Heb 7:20-22). Therefore, it is God alone, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (4:4-6), who is able to dispense the eschatological blessings of the Promise. The Law’s mediator, not being a party to the intratrinitarian pact, was not then and is not now able to dispense those blessings.

Redemptive history lesson #5: It is written. Lastly, as a kind of coup de grâce, Paul challenges the Galatians in 4:21–5:1 to hear once more what the Law itself says. He reminds them that it is written that Abraham had two sons by two different women (4:22). Both sons were circumcised, but only one was named Abraham’s heir. How was it that that one son was his heir? It was not according to circumcision or the Law, but according to the Promise. Ishmael, the disinherited son, was begotten of Abraham’s confidence in the flesh; Isaac, the heir, was begotten of his confidence in the Spirit. The mother of Ishmael was identified with the Law, the covenant that bears children into slavery and is linked to Jerusalem below, an earthly city of slaves. The mother of Isaac was identified with the Promise, the covenant that bears children according to the Promise and is linked to Jerusalem above, the heavenly city of the free.

Paul’s overall point reduces to this: if the Galatians hear the Law rightly, they will learn who are and who are not Abraham’s heirs. More than that, they will know to throw out any pseudo-evangelists who require circumcision and law-keeping. They will do so because the Law itself, rightly read, clarifies who Abraham’s heirs are and also prescribes the rejection of their persecutors, particularly false teachers. The Law, then, was never put in place to dispense the eschatological blessings of Abraham, and so it has never been the way to obtain them. As it was at that time, so it is now (4:29-31).

Leave a Comment

Love and Truth: Do We Sacrifice One for the Other? (2 John)

January 16, 2023 at 4:00 pm (2 John, Church, Heresy, Instructing the Body)

posted by R. Fowler White

In Scripture, Christians are called to devote themselves both to truth and to love. But can we pursue one without sacrificing the other? To get the bottom of this question, it helps us to reflect on John’s second letter. For our purposes here, we’ll understand the sender, the Elder, to be the Apostle John and the recipients, the elect lady and her children, to be a congregation and its members (as a whole and in its parts) or perhaps a mother church and the congregations born (planted) out of it.

The letter’s opening (2Jn 1-3) stands out for the way John describes the recipients’ relationship to himself and to others. First, he indicates how the recipients are related to him: whom I love in [the] truth. John most probably means that his love for them is not merely sincere, but is consistent with and required by God’s revealed truth. It is a love based in the truth they share. In fact, he will confirm this in 2Jn 7, 9. Second, he describes in a most striking way how the recipients are related to others: all who know the truth love the elect lady and her children in [the] truth. And why is this the case? He tells us: because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever (2Jn 2). In other words, they were bound in love because they were bound in truth. The love they shared was based in the truth they shared. After expressing his gratitude that these believers were living according to the truth despite opposition (2Jn 4), John takes up his exhortation in 2Jn 5-11.

John is careful to start off his appeal by establishing the link between truth and love. Basically, he says, “live your lives in keeping with love, just as y’all are living your lives in keeping with truth” (2Jn 5). Commitment to truth will bear fruit in commitment to love, and devotion to love will bear fruit in devotion to truth. Before moving on, John emphasizes, as he does elsewhere, that this duty to love is not new, novel, innovative, or even original with the Apostle himself. It’s the same obligation we’ve heard from the beginning. Whether we’re talking about the teaching of Jesus during His earthly ministry (Jn 13:34), the code of Moses at Sinai (Lev 19:18), or a duty binding even on Adam and his children (1Jn 3:11-12), our duty to love is a longstanding responsibility.

After John briefly reminds us of our duty to love, he states his reason for recalling that duty: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist  (2Jn 7). Adding to his portrait of the deceivers, he says in 2Jn 9 that every heretic goes too far, goes beyond the bounds of truth—the teaching of Christ—documented by His Apostles. False teachers are often heard quoting some new word from the Holy Spirit to take us beyond the Apostles’ eyewitness teaching. The Holy Spirit, however, does not take us beyond the teaching of the Apostles. He gives us light to accept and abide in the revelation He has given. It is for this reason that we’re to devote ourselves continually to the Apostles’ doctrine. It is also for this reason that serious Christians will learn from the history of doctrine: that dimension of church history is the locus of the Spirit’s work of illumination, telling us where the boundaries of orthodoxy have been historically. Certainly, only Scripture is the rule of Christian faith and practice, but the church’s historic confessions and creeds are a help to us. They guide us as we strive not to progress beyond the Apostles’ doctrine but to progress in it.

Notice then that to lay the groundwork for the believers’ proper attitude toward heretics and their heresy, the Elder has deftly linked love and truth. He insists that genuine Christian love will discriminate against those who oppose the truth. Indeed, authentic Christian love means protecting ourselves and others against deception by false teachers. John reminds us that just as adherents to Christian truth know that love matters, so devotees to Christian love know that truth matters. Therefore, the Elder tells the elect lady and her children—congregations of Christ’s church—to watch themselves (2Jn 8), maintaining their composure as they work firmly but patiently with those who oppose God’s revealed will (cf. 2Tim 2:24-26). Such vigilance, John says, is particularly necessary for a congregation because to allow heretics or heresies to go unopposed puts the fruitfulness of that congregation’s own ministry in jeopardy. In fact, John says more: he highlights what a congregation should never do in response to a false teacher: do not receive him into your house (i.e., your house church) or give him any greeting (2Jn 10). To get John’s point here, we need to bear in mind a few critical features of hospitality in the biblical world: it wasn’t about inviting someone into our home for coffee or even a meal.

One feature of ancient hospitality is that it was commanded by God (e.g., Heb 13:2) and was directed toward traveling strangers (e.g., Gen 18:1-8). Remarkably, our hospitality, particularly toward itinerants such as the Apostles, will be one criterion of our judgment by the Son of Man, the King (Matt 25:31-46). Second, hospitality sent a message to those who saw it practiced: it announced that Christians who hosted itinerants were sponsoring them and affirming their standing as Christians to outsiders. In fact, part of hospitality was to welcome itinerants, a greeting that amounted to recognizing their good standing as Christians (cf. 2Jn 11). In short, Christians showing hospitality to itinerants was an act of shared Christian love.

With that background in mind, John is quick and emphatic to add here that hospitality to itinerant strangers is never to be indifferent to truth. His point to the elect lady and her children, then, is clear enough: “Don’t show hospitality to known false teachers or their disciples. To do so would be to give them a platform to promote their heresies and thus to become complicit in their evil deeds.”

So, says the Elder, let those entrusted with the ‘ministry of the keys’  in Christ’s church (cf. Matt 16:19) be careful to protect those in their charge. Just as they examine prospective members and officers of a congregation, so let them also examine itinerants such as missionaries and guest speakers. Let them also carefully counsel individual families on their response to itinerant heretics lest their homes become a snare of the devil. Why do this? Because Christians are devoted both to love and to truth. In other words, authentic Christian love means always protecting ourselves and others against false teachers and their teachings.

1 Comment

Hebrew Roots Movement, Part 3

December 30, 2022 at 11:46 am (Hebrew Roots Movement, Heresy, Hermeneutics, Law, Mosaic Law)

The law of God is at the heart of the HRM and the debates surrounding it. The traditional understanding of God’s law is that there are three parts of the law and three uses of the law. Reformed understanding would also include three main principles for understanding the Ten Commandments (though I will not go through those principles in this post). As far as I can tell, the HRM rejects all or most of these distinctions.

The three parts of the law are the moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral law is the Ten Commandments. The civil laws are those laws given to Israel as a political entity for the Old Testament time. They were given to Israel for the time when they were in the land (Deuteronomy 5-6, note the recurring phrase “in the land”). They taught the Israelites about holiness, being distinct from the rest of the world. they included laws such as not sowing the land with two different kinds of seeds, or weaving cloth with two different kinds of thread. The dietary laws are also usually reckoned to be in this category. The ceremonial law is the sacrificial system, the worship laws, the feasts and festivals. Of course, there has always been some debate about whether a particular law belongs in one or the other of these three basic categories. However, the vast majority of the church has held to this distinction for most of its history.

The HRM believes the church invented this distinction without any biblical basis whatsoever. The HRM erases category distinctions between sets of laws, thus (at least potentially) putting the law of two different kinds of threads on the same footing as “Do not murder.” Jesus says, in Matthew 23:23 that there are weightier and less weighty matters of the law. Tithing mint and cumin is less weighty than justice and mercy. He says none of them should be neglected by the Pharisees, but the Pharisees lacked a sense of proportion. For a far larger and exegetical position defending the biblical position of the three parts of the law, see this excellent tome.

The three uses of the law are equally important in this discussion. The first use of the law, the pedagogical use, is outlined in Galatians 3:19ff. In this use, the law shows people how badly they fail to measure up to the law’s demands. What goes along with that is the equally important truth that the law shows us how perfectly Jesus Christ did measure up to the law’s demands. In this use, the gospel is set in contrast (not opposition) to the law. As Michael Horton would put it, the law says “Do this;” the gospel says “done.” Now, of course, there needs to be nuance applied to Horton’s statement, as he himself does. The nuance is quite adequately found in the other uses of the law.

The second use of the law is to restrain evil in the world, the civil use of the law. Romans 1-2 provide the foundation for this understanding of the law. The moral law is written on every person’s conscience. There is no particular need to dwell on this use of the law, as it probably would not be controversial among HRM proponents.

The third use of the law is as a guide to the Christian life. HRM proponents would probably agree partially. Reformed folk believe that the law is not to be obeyed to obtain or retain God’s saving favor. God’s fatherly pleasure is distinct, of course. Obeying the moral law is our thanksgiving and gratitude to God for the salvation He has given us as a free gift. In the video linked in the last post, Anne Elliott says that she circumcised her boy on the eighth day. Apparently, she has not properly understood Galatians 5:1-6. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything. If one accepts circumcision, then he is obligated to keep the entire law. This is the state of having fallen away from grace (towards works!). This is being severed from Christ. This is one of the main reasons I call the HRM heresy: it is the exact same heresy as Paul was fighting in the letter to Galatians. Next up, I will start exegeting individual texts that are at issue, grouping them around dietary laws, the feasts, circumcision, and show how the HRM twists Scripture to fit its grid, even while they accuse the church of doing so.

2 Comments

Hebrew Roots Movement, Part 2

December 29, 2022 at 10:27 am (Hebrew Roots Movement, Heresy, Hermeneutics)

Up next is hermeneutics, or how people interpret the Bible. It is not certain that there is any one particular method that holds true for all HRM proponents. What does appear to be common among HRM proponents, however, is the initially plausible-sounding cry “Put aside all lenses and biases and interpret the Scripture as if reading it for the first time.” This has much in common with many other hermeneutical approaches. There is a grain of truth here, in that biases can distort our picture of the biblical text. They don’t always do that, however. The naivete of the approach can be made quite plain by a few simple points: 1. Is it actually possible to lay aside all bias? You see, what “Put aside all lenses and biases and interpret the Scripture as if reading it for the first time” actually means, practically speaking, is “ignore anything and everything the church has said about Scripture for two thousand years.” Don’t expect the Holy Spirit to have given gifts of teaching to the church over that period. Far better to believe that the gates of Hell have actually prevailed against the church, and for most of its history. 2. Therefore, saying “lay aside all bias” actually puts in place a far more insidious bias that always goes unacknowledged and unchallenged: the church is always wrong. As Ken Ham often says, “The question is not whether you’re biased, but whether the bias that you’re biased with is the right bias to be biased with in the first place.” Everyone has a bias in the sense that they have a point of view. Or, to adapt Ligon Duncan’s statement on confessions of faith, everyone has a bias, but some simply won’t tell you what it is. Those who have creeds and confessions can simply point you to them, and say, “This is what we believe Scripture says as a whole, and therefore any interpretation which contradicts what we believe Scripture as a whole to be saying will not be countenanced.”

If a person desires to go with the whole “lay aside all bias and lenses” thing, what they usually do is introduce a new lens without telling you that they are doing so. Take the example of Lex Meyer, for example. Lex is the founder of Unlearn. He says in a video (his talk starts around the 30:30 mark) that we need to take off all the lenses that distort our understanding of Scripture and focus only on what Scripture itself says. His website is “Unlearn the lies.” Unfortunately for him, he then proceeds to introduce a grid for interpreting Scripture that is the Medieval quadriga! This is as churchly biased as it gets, ironically enough. He just doesn’t like modern churchly interpretation, but is quite willing to go back to the allegorical ways of the Medieval church. It is not surprising to me that this surfaced in the HRM, as the Medieval quadriga pretty much allows the reader to make the Scripture say anything he wants it to say.

If this is not the right way to go about things (and it is not!), then what is the right way? Firstly, we have to recognize that Scripture itself tells us that there is a pattern of sound teaching (2 Timothy 1:13-14), a faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). It is right and proper, therefore, to summarize that teaching in creeds and confessions. What some have helpfully called a hermeneutical spiral then begins to form: we form a grid that is always correctable, but which also forms a boundary beyond which lies heresy. This is not only informed by Scripture, but also informs our reading of Scripture. Up next, the biblical understanding of the law of God as contrasted with HRM.

2 Comments

Hebrew Roots Movement, Part 1

December 28, 2022 at 1:03 pm (Hebrew Roots Movement, Hermeneutics)

The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) has not only been around a while, but it has gained steam. There are many blogs, video conferences, and even now a seminary to train pastors in the HRM. Why has this movement gained so much headway? In part, I think it is because the church has failed to preach the true gospel, and has transitioned to moral therapeutic deism. Also, with the rise of progressivism, Christians believe that there needs to be something in place to stem the tide. They think to find that in obedience to Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws. To build on R. Scott Clark’s categories for a moment, it is a quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC). It comes from a desire to live by sight and not by faith, especially in opposition to the shifting sands of progressivism. I dare say many HRM proponents would not agree with this assessment of the situation. They just want to be obedient. Of course, in desiring to answer these points of the HRM, we must be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The moral law of the 10 Commandments still applies today, not in order to obtain or keep salvation, but as our expression of gratitude for the salvation we have received.

Previous treatments of the subject on this blog have been somewhat piece-meal, though there are some excellent contributions (especially those by Reed). See here, here, here, and here. I would encourage readers to go back through those, as they are helpful. Today I want to address one particular issue, the name of Jesus. HRM proponents almost always call Him “Jeshua.” They believe that when the NT became Greek (they think it was originally written in Hebrew), that Hellenism took over and distorted the message of the NT. While there have been a fair number of scholars who have believed the NT was originally written in Aramaic (read Isaiah 36-39 to see that Aramaic and Hebrew are not the same language, despite being about half cognate), very few reputable NT scholars of which I am aware believe the NT was originally written in Hebrew. For one thing, there are absolutely zero Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament that have any antiquity, whereas we have Greek manuscripts that date to the second century A.D.

One of the main problems here for the HRM on this point is Pentecost. At the very least, the Cretans of Acts 2:11 would have spoken Greek. The Holy Spirit didn’t have any problems with translating the gospel into all of these languages. Why would Greek only be the problematic language? It was the lingua franca of the day. HRM proponents use many languages today. Why are modern languages any better than the supposedly devilish Greek language? Iesous is a direct transliteration of “Yeshua.” The two names mean exactly the same thing: “The Lord saves.” Matthew 1:21 explicitly ties Jesus’ Greek name with the salvation God brings. One thing the HRM proponents have never done is explain how the meaning of the Hebrew name and Greek name is supposedly so vastly different that it is somehow almost heretical to call Jesus “Iesous.” I am thinking James Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language has escaped their attention. If Pentecost proves that the gospel may and should be translated into all languages, then Greek cannot be the exception. I don’t believe for one second, incidentally, that the New Testament was originally written in anything other than Greek.

Most importantly for this point, there is no biblical text whatsoever that would even support the idea that Hebrew is a holier language than Greek. They cannot argue this from Scripture. Instead, they base everything off a highly questionable assumption that the NT was written originally in Hebrew, even though there is next to no evidence for it.

They typically argue that the disciples could not possibly have known Greek. This is almost universally rejected in the scholarly world today. For example, Karen Jobes’s excellent commentary on 1 Peter shows how Greek was the original language of writing the letter, and by someone for whom Greek was a second language (she measures Semitic interference). If Greek was the lingua franca, why would anyone make the preposterous claim that the disciples (and Jesus, for that matter!) could not possibly have known the language? Yet many HRM proponents make that precise claim.

Why is this important? Is calling Jesus “Yeshua” really all that bad? Of course it isn’t bad at all, in and of itself. Modern Hebrew speakers call Jesus “Yeshua.” It is all the baggage that comes with it in the HRM movement that introduces the problems. HRM proponents want to make the OT more important than the NT. This is part and parcel of their claim that Jesus really doesn’t change anything with regard to OT law. The fact is simple: believing that Jesus’ name cannot be translated from one language to another is pure superstition. There is no difference in meaning AT ALL between “Yeshua,” “Iesous,” and “Jesus.” They all mean “Yahweh saves.”

Speaking on a more personal note, most HRM proponents I have come into contact with tend to look down their noses at people who say “Jesus,” because they are somehow being less holy by translating the name. This is part of the larger attempt to make people feel like they are missing out on something if they do not obey the entire OT law. Galatians and Hebrews would beg to differ, despite the exegetical gymnastics the HRM tries to pull to make those texts say something different than what they actually say. Up next is hermeneutics.

2 Comments

Canons of Dort First Head, ROE 2 and the FV

March 1, 2020 at 1:15 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)

I haven’t posted anything on the FV in quite a while. Although the hubbub is nowhere near what it used to be, the FV is still alive and well, with many proponents still teaching in NAPARC churches. While reminding people of this fact may not be pleasant, it is important to remember that we must still keep watch and maintain vigilance against false teaching in our churches, not to mention seeking to exercise real church discipline on them.

I hadn’t read through the Canons of Dort in quite a while, and I was reading Robert Godfrey’s outstanding contribution on the Canons of Dort, when this rejection of error (hence ROE in the title of the post) grabbed my attention as describing one of the key errors of the FV. This is Godfrey’s translation of the ROE:

The Synod rejects the error of those who teach:

“The election of God to eternal life is of several kinds. One is general and indefinite and another is particular and definite. Further, the particular and definite one either is incomplete, revocable, nondecisive, or conditional, or is complete, irrevocable, decisive, or absolute.” Also, “one election is to faith, and another to salvation, so that election can be to justifying faith, and another to salvation, so that election can be to justifying faith without being a decisive election to salvation.”

This teaching is an invention of the human understanding devised outside the Scriptures. It corrupts the doctrine of election, and destroys the golden chain of salvation: “Those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; those whom He justified, He also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Notice, in this ROE, the following points. 1. Election can be of two main kinds, according to the Arminians: general and indefinite, or particular and definite. 2. The latter kind (particular and definite) can be further subdivided into two sub-categories: incomplete, revocable, nondecisive, conditional; or complete, irrevocable, decisive, and absolute. The response of Dort is that it destroys the golden chain of Romans 8.

My observation is a simple one, and though I have noticed this, I seriously doubt I am the first one to notice it, but noticing it has changed my perception of the FV a bit on its doctrine of election. I used to think that the FV was Calvinistic when it came to the decretally elect, and Arminian when it came to the non-elect covenant members (NECM’s). However, from this ROE, I can see clearly that, on this point, the FV is actually pure Arminianism without any admixture of Calvinism at all. The reason for this shift in my thinking is that Arminianism also held to these two different versions of election. The Arminian may not have put it in quite the same way as modern FV’ers would have. The modern FV’er would say that one is covenantal, and the other is decretal (though some FV’ers would deny decretal election entirely and say that all in the church are only covenantally elected). However, the Arminian formulation is so close to the FV one that the same objection applies to both. Perhaps this is due, too, to the misperception of Arminianism many people have. Many people think that the true Arminian has no doctrine of election. They do have a doctrine of election. However, that election is based on foreseen faith, so it is a different version of election than Calvinists have. It is my understanding that, on the point of decretal election, some FV’ers would repudiate the idea that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith. However, that point is different from the point I am making about the two different versions of election.

6 Comments

A Warning to Bible Commentators

August 8, 2019 at 9:11 am (Heresy)

I came across this in a recent Bible commentary on Ezekiel (commenting on chapter 32:1-16), by Nancy Bowen, and I almost threw up when I read it (some moderate apology is necessary for even posting this, but the warning needs to be there):

As for YHWH, we ought not exonerate, much less extol, such divine violence. Like Job, we should bring God to trial for crimes against humanity. Preservation of divine “sovereignty” comes at a terrible cost of suffering and death. If God is a warrior, then God’s hands are bloody (p. 200).

Honestly, why do some Bible commentators think they can get away with saying stuff like this, just because they have Ph.D. next to their names? Have they never read C.S. Lewis’s “God in the Dock” essay? Have they never read Romans 9? The tragic irony of such blasphemy is that Nancy Bowen winds up committing the very same mistake that Pharaoh of Egypt commits in Ezekiel 32. He thought of himself as a lion, but he was more of a crocodile. Her self-assessment is that she is in a position to judge God Almighty and find Him wanting. The hubris of this quotation is absolutely breath-taking! She thinks of herself as judge, but she will find that she is a defendant.

Bible commentators often think that they can say whatever they want, and no repercussions will ever come their way. This is not true. I hope and pray (for Nancy Bowen, as well as others like her), that they will realize their sin before it is too late, and turn in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ.

7 Comments

Having and Eating Your Cake

August 6, 2019 at 6:26 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy, Uncategorized)

I started reading Godfrey’s historical, systematic, and pastoral treatment of the Canons of Dort today. It is a treasure, and I highly recommend it to all. I came across this reminder of how the Remonstrants responded to the calling of the Synod:


The Arminians objected sharply to the calling of the synod, insisting that it would be unfair, indeed a kangaroo court. They stated that a synod composed of their theological opponents could not fairly or objectively judge the theological issues in dispute. The Calvinist majority in the church responded that since they were simply upholding the standing doctrine of the church against the Arminian innovations, they were abundantly able to judge rightly (21-22).

This reminded me of the FV objections to the makeup of the PCA committee on the FV. But the objection is completely disingenuous. It is an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it, too. Both the Arminians and the FV advocates hold that they are simply teaching what Scripture and the confessions of the church teach. But if that is the case, then why did they label those of a different opinion “opponents”? They can’t be opponents if everyone is teaching the same Scripture and the same confessions.

The FV advocates, in particular, then tended to claim that it was a different paradigm, and that critics needed to get inside the paradigm in order to understand it. Well, if that is true, then it couldn’t be the paradigm of the Westminster Standards or 3FU, could it?

The point is simple: either the paradigm is the same, in which case no opposition exists (and therefore the innovators should have no objection to being judged by their peers), or the paradigm is different in which case the innovators have already proven the critics’ case that the new paradigm is non-confessional. The Remonstrants and the FV advocates both tried to have their cake and eat it as well. It was therefore a highly disingenuous move.

9 Comments

Hilary of Poitiers on Justification

October 25, 2017 at 12:19 pm (Early Church Fathers, Justification, Roman Catholicism)

Hilary of Poitiers was a French bishop of the fourth century. It is disputed by Roman Catholics and Protestants as to what Hilary taught regarding justification. The most relevant passage comes from his commentary on Matthew chapter 8, paragraph 6. Here is the translation in The Fathers of the Church series (the passage under consideration is the healing of the paralytic and the forgiveness of his sins):

A pattern of the truth is followed in these events, even as an image of the future is fulfilled in the words. It disturbed the scribes that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that he forgave sin, for which the Law was not able to grant absolution, since faith alone justifies. When the Lord discerned the murmuring of the scribes, he said that it was easy for the Son of Man to forgive sins on earth. For truly no one is able to forgive sins except God alone. He who forgave, therefore, is God because no one can forgive except God. For the Word of God which abides in that Man offers to a man healing, and there was no difficulty for him to do and speak since it is given to him to perform everything that he said he would do.

The particular sentence under dispute is obviously the one that mentions that faith alone justifies. In Latin, the sentence runs “Et remissum est ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat; fides enim sola justificat” (from Migne PL volume 9, column 961). The author of The Thoughts of Francis Turretin blog has a lengthy article on Hilary, including a very brief mention of this passage, arguing that the passage is in itself clear. However, Matt1618 has a lengthy argument against a “Protestant” understanding of the passage. We will assess Matt1618’s argument carefully.

To put it briefly, Matt1618 argues from what Hilary does not say in order to import a whole lot of Roman Catholic theology into the silences. Observe case number one: Matt1618 says, “Here it is apparent St. Hilary is speaking about initial justification.” I would answer “yes and no.” I would agree that Hilary is talking about a moment in time. I would disagree that Hilary implies a process that starts with initial justification. Hilary does not mention any kind of process at all. Instead, he is simply contrasting what the Law can do versus what faith can do. Faith justifies, and the Law cannot.

Case number two: Matt1618 says, “He does not mean or say that once one is justified, one cannot lose that justification through sin as Calvin or Luther would say.” In Matt1618’s eagerness to prevent anachronistic readings of Hilary, he neglects to mention that, although Hilary does not speak of an unlosable justification, that does not imply that Hilary is speaking about a losable justification. It is an argument from silence on Matt1618’s part. Hilary doesn’t address the question of whether justification is losable here at all. In the context following (paragraph 7), Hilary does speak of irrevocable gifts like resurrection, and a state wherein “sickness and sorrow will affect our bodies no more.” But he nowhere in the context mentions a losable justification, whether by words or ideas.

Case number three: Matt1618 says, “Of course, just as in other fathers, St. Hilary has faith explicitly linked to baptism so the reference to faith here does not mean that justification is without baptism.” Excuse me, but where does Hilary explicitly link justification to baptism? In the entirety of chapter 8 of the commentary, neither the word “baptism” nor the idea of baptism appear. The closest we get is “deep waters” in section 4. However, since Hilary is there talking about “a desire for the world instigated by demonic forces,” this is hardly applicable to baptism. At this point I am wondering if Matt1618 and I are reading the same text.

Case number four: Matt1618 says, “Nor does he say that following initial justification that sacraments or works are not necessary to maintain that state of justification.” Again an argument from what Hilary does not say. Hilary doesn’t here say that the sacraments or works are necessary to maintain such a state of justification, either. Again, he simply doesn’t address the question. He is not, in this passage, interested in the maintenance of the state of being justified, but rather the mechanism by which we become justified, and that is by faith alone.

Case number five: Matt1618 says, “He just spells out here that the law without faith, in and of itself does not justify, something any Catholic would hold to.” This is precisely what Hilary does NOT say. Hilary is saying that the Law is unable to grant absolution (the forgiveness of sins), since faith alone (i.e., without the Law) justifies. In order for Matt1618 to be correct, Hilary would have had to say something like this: “The law without faith is powerless, but the law with faith can justify.” This is almost, though not quite, the opposite of what Hilary actually said. Hilary said that the Law is not involved in justification from our side. Only faith justifies.

Case number six: Matt1618 then adduces passages from Hilary’s On the Trinity and later in the Matthew commentary, none of which are talking about justification. The passage from 9.5 from Hilary’s work on the Trinity is talking about the importance of good works (which no Protestant but an antinomian would deny). If Matt1618’s interpretation is correct, then Protestants ignore the place of good works entirely. This is manifestly an incorrect interpretation of Protestantism. But it is obvious that Hilary is not talking about justification, but about the behavior of the justified.

Section 18.8 of the Matthew commentary is talking about the power of the keys, not justification. That there should be “a tremendous fear” is certainly the goal of what Hilary writes in this section. That Hilary is talking about justification is not clear at all. He is talking about the ability of the church to make assessments about the spiritual state of a member of the church.

It becomes clear, then, in the course of this investigation, that Hilary taught that a person is justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. While his theology was not as developed on this point as the Reformers would be, it is not difficult to see the continuity of Hilary’s statement here with the Reformers’ teaching on justification.

3 Comments

1 Clement 32 and Justification

October 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm (Heresy, Justification, Roman Catholicism)

I was reading Thomas Schreiner’s recent book Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification, and he referenced this chapter of 1 Clement as a proof that at least some of the early church fathers believed in justification by faith alone. He doesn’t fall prey to the anachronistic fallacy of thinking that Clement’s doctrine was as clear on this point as the Reformers, but more that it was in line with what the Reformers would later say. This chapter is disputed in its meaning between Protestants and Catholics. I will put both an English translation and the original Greek here, and then discuss it in dialogue with Protestant and Catholic interpretations.

English: 1 Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. 2 For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” 3 All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. 4 And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Greek: 1 Ἐάν τις καθ᾿ ἓν ἕκαστον εἰλικρινῶς κατανοήσῃ, ἐπιγνώσεται μεγαλεῖα τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δεδομένων δωρεῶν. 2 ἐξ αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευῖται πάντες οἱ λειτουργοῦντες τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ἐξ αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡγούμενοι κατὰ τὸν Ἰούδαν· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ σκῆπτρα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐν μικρᾷ δόξῃ ὑπάρχουσιν, ὡς ἐπαγγειλαμένου τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 3 πάντες οὖν ἐδοξάσθησαν καὶ ἐμεγαλύνθησαν οὐ δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν ἢ τῆς δικαιοπραγίας ἧς κατειργάσαντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ. 4 καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν, διὰ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κληθέντες, οὐ δι᾿ ἑαυτῶν δικαιούμεθα, οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας ἢ συνέσεως ἢ εὐσεβείας ἢ ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως, δι᾿ ἧς πάντας τοὺς ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν· ᾧ ἔστω ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.

Protestant interpretations include Ingolfsland, Turretin Fan, and my own previous post. For Roman Catholic treatments, look at Bryan Cross, Taylor Marshall, and Matt1618. This will be enough to get on with.

What must first be done is to clear away misconceptions of Protestant and Catholic positions alike in order to arrive at the real issue. For instance, Marshall argues that Protestants have misunderstood the Catholic position for a long time:

The Council of Trent, like Pope Saint Clement confirm that works do not merit the grace of justification. Many Protestants misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches. As Trent decreed, the justified “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ” by means of “faith co-operating with good works,” to use the phrase of the Council and that of Saint James. Catholics do not earn the initial grace of justification.

It might very well be true to say that Protestants have misunderstood Catholics on the initial point of what Catholics describe as the process of justification. What Catholics believe is that the grace of God infuses the beginning of righteousness into a person, which infusion is by grace, not by works. Then, throughout life, assisted by the sacraments (in which grace is received), believers co-operate with the grace of God by their works (which come from God-infused virtues). Justification is thus a process that occurs throughout life, and is not complete in this life, though it has its beginning in baptism. To put it in a linear fashion: God’s infusing grace at baptism resulting in the beginning of a believer’s own God-given righteousness->conversion->believer’s cooperation with grace by good works and by use of the sacraments->death->purgatory (for most)->final judgment justification.

Protestants, of course, do not believe that justification is a process, but a one-time act or declaration, based not on infused righteousness, but on imputed righteousness. That righteousness is then not ours but Christ’s. It is not delayed until judgment, but rather the judgment is brought forward in time to the point of initial faith. The transfer of our sin to Christ and His righteousness to us happens outside us, not inside us, as RC’s believe with their view of infused righteousness.

What then, do the Catholics say about this passage in Clement, positively speaking? Putting together Matt’s, Taylor’s, and Bryan’s arguments, we come up with something like this. 1. Clement is speaking about being transferred from death to life, from being in the first Adam to being in the second Adam, and this transfer does not occur by means of our works, but by faith (Cross); 2. The faith in view is a faith informed by love (from Galatians 6 and Romans 5:5, Cross). 3. Clement is not speaking of justification by faith alone, but it is evident that we are justified by our works from chapter 30 of the letter (Marshall and Matt1618). 4. As quoted above, the initial grace of the justification process is not merited by our works; 5. Working on one’s own power is not sufficient for justification (Matt1618). 6. The works that contribute to our justification are done by God’s grace (Matt1618).

It is to be noted here that an issue arises that also arose in my debates with Doug Wilson on faith’s aliveness. Protestants believe that faith alone justifies, and that the aliveness of faith, while present even at the moment of justification, is not directly relevant to the question of justification. In other words, faith does not justify because it is alive. This would make faith’s aliveness into a ground for justification. Rather, faith justifies because of the Person on Whom that faith rests. Christ’s person and work is the ground of our justification. This leads us to a serious caricature of the Protestant position that Catholics hold. Catholics seem to believe (this seems evident particularly in Cross’s treatment) that because Protestants do not believe that our love for God plays any part in our justification, that therefore Protestants must believe in justification by a dead faith. The faith that justifies is alive, but does not justify because it is alive. It justifies because of its connection to the One Who justifies us. This leads, though, directly to a counter misinterpretation of Catholics by Protestants, who fail to make the distinction that Catholics make between virtue and works. Cross puts it this way:

Protestant theology tends not to give conceptual space to agape as a virtue, seeing it only as a work. Scott Clark, for example, denies that faith and agape are virtues. And that tends to lead to a misunderstanding on the part of Protestants, who think that when Catholics talk about faith-informed-by-agape, it means faith accompanied by works. If it meant that, then we could have no confidence that baptized babies who die before reaching an age in which they can do any works, could be saved. But, we believe that at baptism, the virtues of faith, hope, and agape are infused into the soul by the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the infant is justified at that very moment, because he now has faith-informed-by-agape, even though has not yet done a single good work.

In other words, for RC’s, virtue can be infused and received without any works being present, and that therefore the justification of a baby, while still by an infusion of grace, consists of an infusion of faith informed by virtue, specifically faith, hope, and love. The difficulty with this formulation becomes obvious when we compare this version of “virtue” with faith itself. If faith without works is dead, then how can virtue without works be alive? Cross seems to be allowing for a situation where a virtue can be present without any manifestation of it whatsoever.

So now the question remains: what does Clement mean? Does 1 Clement 30:3 (the operative phrase is “being justified by works and not by words”) control somehow our understanding of 32? Ingolfsland argues that it does not, and that Clement is simply speaking in the manner of James:

As we have seen, however, this phrase is part of a longer train of thought that can be traced back to First Clement 26:1 where Clement is talking about holiness that is the result of “good faith.” Clement is not speaking of people who need to be saved but to those who are already “his own portion” (1 Clem. 29:1; 30:1). Clement is arguing that those who already belong to the Lord should be careful to do good works. It is in this context that Clement must be understood when he continues, “keeping ourselves from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words” (1 Clem. 30:3).

As might be guessed, I find Ingolfsland’s argument more convincing than Taylor’s and Matt1618’s, because Ingolfsland understands 30:3 in its own context (both immediate and larger), whereas Marshall and Matt1618 do not make the attempt to argue what 30:3 means in its immediate and larger context. I commend Ingolfsland’s entire article on the question as a well-argued paper that indirectly answers the RC arguments.

7 Comments

« Older entries