I find it interesting that proponents of the New Perspective on Paul act as though their interpretation of “works of the law” is altogether new or different from anyone in history prior to Krister Stendahl or perhaps George Howard, when in reality, men like Jonathan Edwards, 250 years prior, anticipated the argument that Paul is doing something other than combating Jewish legalism when he uses the phrase “works of the law” in contrast with “faith in Christ.” Supporters of NPP have not sufficiently come to terms with the fact that Roman Catholic theologians of the Medieval church and during the days of the Reformers and Puritans raised the same interpretations so as to secure their “faith plus works” teaching on justification. Edwards wrote:

The apostle doesn’t only say that we aren’t justified by works of the law, but that we are not justified by works, using a general term; as in our text it is said, “unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him who justifieth,” etc. and in the sixth verse, “God imputeth righteousness without works.” And in ch. 11, v. 6,” And if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it is of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more work.” So Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith,…not of works.” By which, there is no reason in the world to understand the apostle [to mean] any other than works in general, as correlates of a reward, or good works, or works of virtue and righteousness. When the Apostle says we are justified or saved not by works, without any such term annexed as “the law,” or any other addition to limit the expression, what warrant have any to confine it to works of a particular law, or institution, excluding others? Are not observances of other Divine laws works, as well as of that?…To say the Apostle means one thing when he says we haven’t been justified by works, another when he says we haven’t been justified by works of the law, when we find the expressions mixed, and used in the same discourse, and when the Apostle is evidently upon the same argument, is very unreasonable; it is to dodge, and fly from Scripture, rather than to open and yield ourselves to its teachings.1

You can also find Sinclair Ferguson making the same observation in regard to Abraham not being justified by works (not ‘works of the law’) in Romans 4. You can listen to that talk here.

[1] Jonathan Edwards The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) vol. 19 p. 170-171.

When I was in seminary I was assigned to read John MacLeod’s Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History which proved to be one of the most important works I have read to this day. After begrudgingly dragging myself through four chapters of the names of Scottish towns I still cannot pronounce, I suddenly began to understand the immeasurable value of Macleod’s work. Theologians and pastors, many of whom have been long since forgotten, were mentioned together with major works and portions of their sermons or lectures. I began searching high and low for works by many of these men. The writings of John Mc’Laurin, MacEwen of Dundee, and Thomas Hallyburton have become favorites. But there was one preacher whose works I have not been able to find in print–Neil Macmichael of Dunfermline. In Macleod’s Scottish Theology he gives a brief section out of one of Macmichael’s sermons. Macleod wrote:

We recently interviewed Darryl Hart, adjunct Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary California, over at Christ the Center. We talked with him about J. Gresham Machen in relation to the modernist controversy, his interaction with colleagues, and his ministry in the church and academy. You can listen to this interview here. Dr. Hart has written several very helpful books. While he has written, or been a contributor for, many helpful books I would recommend those found here, here, here, here, and here. Other Christ the Center programs can be found here.

As I continue to make my way through John Carrick’s new volume, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, I am continually astounded at the Northampton pastor-theologian’s preaching skills. A particularly interesting chapter for me was the one on Edwards’ sermon delivery. Edwards has the reputation of reading his sermon manuscripts from the pulpit looking up from the sacred desk every once in awhile to gaze at the church bell rope! This is one of those myths that refuses to die, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, but it is a myth all the same. There may have been a point in time when Edwards did read his sermon manuscripts, but he outgrew that practice while serving as pastor in Northampton. Many scholars, who recognize the myth of boringly read sermons, attribute Edwards’ development to the visit of the great orator George Whitefield. Carrick notes that this may be confusing the occasion for Edwards moving away from the use of full manuscripts for its cause. It seems pretty clear to me, from Edwards’ own comments about what good preaching entails, that he was moving away from reading his sermons in the pulpit before the Whitefield visit. But one thing is clear, by the time he settled in Stockbridge, he was preaching from notes. We even have evidence that he preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” from an outline. And, contra Wilson Kimnach, this is, as Carrick indicates, no sure sign that lethargy had set in. It was, rather, a conscious recognition that preaching is an oral event. Edwards was always concerned that he reach the head and heart of his hearers at the moment of the preaching event.

Preaching has been on my mind these last few weeks as I have had the privilege of filling pulpits of hard working pastors who have taken their well-earned vacations. Summers have always been busy preaching seasons for me, both as a licentiate and now as an ordained minister. I serve as the teacher of the congregation for an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in New Jersey and so my duties do not include regular weekly preaching. But one of the benefits of being a teacher is that I can help out others when they need pulpit supply. It has been my privilege to lift up Christ to various congregations these last few weeks. And my summer preaching run appears to be drawing to close with this Labor Day weekend. With Jeremiah, I cannot not preach Christ. There is a burning in my bones to make the gospel known.

I have been drawn to considering Jonathan Edwards’ sermon delivery practices as I wrestle with my own. I have been preaching on and off now since 1983, and fairly regularly since 1986. I am not in a position to gauge whether I have made any improvements in the intervening years. I hope and pray I have. Perhaps to be concerned with that question is inappropriate any way. One of the things I learned early in my own ministry in 1986 was that I had a tendency to read my sermons in the pulpit and I have read that voracious readers can have that problem. So I decided to attempt preaching from an outline. But since attending seminary I have returned to the full manuscript. Recently I was challenged by colleagues in the ministry to try preaching from notes once again. I began doing that last Lord’s Day and I must say that it allows for greater freedom and clarity of communication and engagement with the congregation. That is, after all, what preaching should be about. Preaching is the expounding of God’s Word, showing how Christ is the focal point of all revelation and driving it home to the hearts and minds of my hearers.

In the end, though, preaching is not about me or Jonathan Edwards or any other preacher. It is about setting forth the claims of the gospel in clear, forthright terms. Preaching is a matter of expounding the whole counsel of God with conviction and compassion. Preaching is one of the most demanding, challenging, frustrating, invigorating, and joyous endeavors. And I try to take advantage of preaching opportunities whenever I can, both in my home congregation and in other places when the call comes to me. Again, preaching is not about me at all. As I just was reminded last evening, one cannot step into the pulpit and be concerned to be a great orator and also preach Christ as a great savior! While I will always want to strive to improve and be better at proclaiming the gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ, a constant focus on Christ and him crucified is what the world needs to hear.

Many months ago I posted some recommendations on a few biblical theological works, hard to find but theologically superb. Because blog posts get lost in the mix, I thought I would re-post this one for readers. You can read the Biblical Theological Recommendation post here. You can find the other posts in the series Of Making Many Books There is No End here.

In a world full of needs and cares, lights and entertainment, and every imaginable activity under the sun there is a word in Scripture that is fitting for all Christians living in the Western world in the 21st Century. At the beginning of Deuteronomy 6 we find the starting place in understanding what is to be the focus and goal of our lives. Moses writes, “Jehovah our God, Jehovah is One. You shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength…” As revelation unfolds, and Jehovah reveals Himself more and more to His people we find, what I believe to be, allusions to this great declaration.

First, in Psalm 27, David declares, “One thing have desired, and that will I seek, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and inquire in His temple.” David plainly explains his life’s focus. The Lord told his people, through Jeremiah the prophet, “then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them (Jer. 32:39).”

But it is not until the New Testament that we see how this is worked out and fulfilled. Our Lord Jesus Christ, immediately after teaching His people to serve others in the same manner as the Samaritan who loved his enemy, was at the home of Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus. Martha was in the kitchen serving and Mary was sitting at the feet of Jesus. Martha was doing for Jesus. She seems to be exhibiting what Jesus had taught in the account of the Samaritan. But, she was frustrated that Mary was not helping her. “Master,” she said to Jesus, “tell my sister to help.” Mary was not helping to serve. But the response of Jesus is where our attention should fall. “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary and Mary has chosen that good part which will not be taken away.” Mary was sitting while Martha was serving. But Mary was “sitting at the feet of Jesus and hearing His words.” Mary understood that there was only One thing that was to be desires. She like David could say, “One thing I have desires…that I may see the beauty of the Lord and inquire in His temple.”

Well, as the NT develops with the ministry of the apostles, we find a similar statement in the apostle Paul’s letter to the Philippians. In chapter 3, while explaining that we have no righteousness except the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul says, “One thing I do,forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:13-14).” While you seek to serve the Lord, do your work, care for your family and minister to the needs of the saints do you first take time to spend with Jehovah Jesus? When you see the needs in the church and call others to help meet them, do you remember that there is One thing necessary? When you consider your spiritual walk with Christ, and seek to overcome sin, do you do this coming to Him? May the life of Moses, David, Mary and Paul be an example to us as we walk on the one way that God has given us through His one and only Son Jesus Christ.

I have always loved the way Eric Alexander puts things. As I was preparing my sermon on Ephesians 2:4-7 I came across this statement in a sermon he delivered on Ephesians 2 at Urbana in 1984:

The New Testament ransacks the universe for comparisons that will be adequate to describe what has happened to us when we became God’s children. And the only two possible comparisons are the creation of the universe at the beginning and the resurrection of Jesus on the third day. So Paul says the same God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness has shone in our hearts. And the same God who raised the Lord Jesus from the grave and broke its bondage over Him has raised us in Jesus into newness of life.

This idea of ransacking the universe for comparisons is a striking way to explain the New Testament use of illustrations to describe regeneration. I remember once hearing Alexander say in a sermon, “This preaching of the Gospel which the apostle speaks of, this mighty act of God which he can only parallel in the creation of the world in the beginning, you get something of the sense of the majesty of the Gospel that the apostle is preaching: ‘The same God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of His glory in the face of Jesus Christ.’ Brethren, I tell you it is something when a man can only find a parallel in creation to what has happened in his own soul. And this is the majesty of the Gospel of God if he preaches it.”

You can read the article mentioned above on this page. You can listen to the sermon mentioned above here.

I recently happened across a critique of a prominent Pentecostal movement in America (due to the lamentable indoctrination of a good friend). In doing so, I discovered this very helpful magazine a group of British professors, pastors, and teachers had been publishing for a number of years. The purpose of the magazine was to raise awareness, in the Christian community, of false teaching and movements towards apostasy in the church today. I found the reviews by Neil Richardson to be exceptionally helpful. The last issue published in Vanguard Magazine was in 2007 and was an introduction to the work of Brian McLarin, one of the principle leaders in the emergent church movement. There was also a Oct 2004 issue dedicated to an examination of the teaching of Steve Chalke–the man who claimed that the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement was “cosmic child abuse.” You can find all the available issues online here. With the exception of their views on ethnic Israel in the New Covenant it seems that the Vanguard group has some valuable things to say.

It should not surprise us when Christian theologians actually agree with one another. This is especially so when both are understood to be Reformed. It is an interesting fact that Jonathan Edwards and Cornelius Van Til share a view of knowledge or understanding. Here is Van Til’s distinction between true and false knowledge:

The question of knowledge is an ethical question at the root. It is indeed possible to have theoretically correct knowledge about God without loving him. The devil illustrates this point. Yet what is meant by knowing God in Scripture is knowing and loving God: this is true knowledge of God: the other is false. (The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., p. 38-39)*

Jonathan Edwards, commenting on knowledge, says the following:

Natural men may obtain a large notional knowledge and understanding of the doctrines of divinity. They may be very well versed in theology, and may have read an abundance of books which treat of divinity with much learning and great strength of reason. They may very much excel ordinary Christians in this, may have a very clear head, and may be able nicely to distinguish and to penetrate narrowly into the criticisms of divine theorems…

He may have such knowledge that he may be able to dispute very artfully and cunningly about theological matters, and he may be able to stop the mouths of his opponents…

Though he can talk as well and as rationally as most about the gloriousness of God, yet he loves him not half so well as some other things. And what is the reason? It must be because he does not discern this gloriousness of God, how well soever he can talk of it. It must be that there is a certain knowledge of God’s excellency he has not. Though he thinks he knows a great deal of divinity, yet some Christian, that he looks upon as ignorant in comparison of himself, has a great deal better apprehension of God’s loveliness than he; it is plain to a demonstration, because the Christian apprehends him better. (“A Spiritual Understanding Denied to the Unregenerate” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 14, pp. 72-76)

It is important that we not misunderstand Edwards here. He is not knocking notional or speculative knowledge. He is simply distinguishing between speculative and spiritual understanding. One can have speculative knowledge without having spiritual understanding, but one cannot have a spiritual understanding without speculative knowledge. Edwards is essentially making the same distinction as Van Til.

*Dr. K. Scott Oliphint offers this very helpful comment on p. 39n31:

There is perhaps no greater controversy surrounding Van Til’s thought than the question of knowledge. These qualifications, then, become important in discussions of his epistemology and apologetic. Without doing justice to the entire debate, we should note the following:

(1) Van Til sees the question of knowledge as “an ethical question at root.” It is such because included in it is one’s relationship to God. It is not simply, therefore, that one can have true knowledge if one assents to a particular true proposition. The context of that assent is as important as the assent itself. This is an apologetic point that is often overlooked, especially in philosophical discussions of knowledge.

(2) Van Til does admit that it is possible, and he would even say that it is the case, that one can have theoretically correct knowledge about God, or anything else, without loving God. However, because “knowledge is an ethical question at the root” theoretical knowledge falls far short of what it means, biblically, to know God(and by implication, to know anything else).

(3) When Van Til says, “What is meant by knowing God in Scripture…,” he does not mean to say that the only way Scripture uses “knowledge of God” includes “knowing and loving” God. Van Til says in numerous places that unbelievers know God truly. He means to say only that knowledge in its fullest sense in Scripture includes loving God as well.

(4) The last clause, “the other [knowledge] is false,” is, admittedly, a confusing way to speak. False knowledge can be a difficult thing to grasp. However, if ones sees knowledge “as an ethical question at root,” then “false knowledge” would be knowledge that is theoretically correct-that is, it assents to a true proposition and ascribes the right properties to a given thing-but it is false in that the context for such is rebellion against God, who not only gives the knowledge but alone can provide for an accurate account of it.

This explanation, I believe, brings Van Til and Edwards closer together.

In the excellent new volume of previously unpublished essays by Herman Bavinck, Essays on Religion, Science and Society, the Dutch theologian offers an analysis of the various views of Christ and Society in the Netherlands in the latter part of the 19th Century–an analysis that is just as relevant today as it was over a century ago. In his essay “Christian Principles and Social Relationships” Bavinck sets down what he believes to be several inadequate expressions of relations between Jesus and society:

Christianity, they say, is born from the social needs of the time, just as later Calvinism’s doctrine of predestination issued from an uncertainty about economic conditions at the beginning of the sixteenth century. After all, [they say] all spiritual ideas and powers in state and church, religion and society, science and art are caused ultimately and fundamentally by social conditions in the manner in which material goods are produced and distributed. Social conditions in the days in which Jesus was born were very distressing. They aroused in His soul a deep concern and a great measure of compassion. The gospel that he came to bring was therefore a Gospel for the poor. In those days, sin and misery, just like today, were the result of the way in which society was organized. It is the law that makes sinners. Mammon creates thieves. Marriage causes adultery. Persuaded of this, Jesus wanted to return to nature, away from artificial society. Instead of justice and law, government and force, humans need love and liberty. Jesus was the first socialist and anarchist.

Or, if this proposition seems exaggerated, Jesus was nevertheless a man of the people and for the people. He always spoke in defense of the poor and against the wealthy. He always derided the rich and mighty yet looked with compassion on all who were wretched. The battle of His life was against the patricians, the profiteers, the priests; and in the battle He perished.

This is not the only perversion of Christianity that Bavinck points out as being a threat in the Netherlands. The form of Christianity that says Jesus has no influence over culture was thriving at the same time. He writes:

Over against these proponents of a social and socialistic Christianity are others who believe the very opposite: that the Christian religion has nothing to do with society and the state , and that it has no message for either. Jesus was a religious genius, to be sure, and answered to a high moral ideal, but the interests of society did not concern Him in the least, nor did He have anything to do with the state, just as He was totally indifferent to all of culture. Religion and morality are on the one side, and society, state and culture are on the other; each live in their own lives and follow their own course. Religion’s place is in the heart, the inner chamber, the church; but politics and the economy go their own way and, as such, have nothing to do with religion.

After considering a Scriptural and redemptive-historical perspective on these issues Bavinck concludes:

So that everything may revive and may become again what it ought to be and can be, the Gospel tests all things–all circumstances and relationships–against the will of God, just as in the days of Moses and the prophets, of Christ and the apostles. It considers everything from a moral point of view, from the angle in which all those circumstances and relationships are connected with moral principles that God has instituted for all of life. Precisely because the Gospel only opposes sin, it opposes it only and everywhere in the heart and in the head, in the eye and in the hand, in family and in society, in science and art, in government and subjects, in rich and poor, for all sin is unrighteousness, trespassing of God’s law, and corruption of nature. But by liberating all social circumstances and relationships from sin, the Gospel tries to restore them all according to the will of God and make them fulfill their own nature.

Within the next few weeks, the last volume of the Yale University Press’ The Works of Jonathan Edwards will finally be published. Begun in 1957 under the general editorship of Perry Miller, the series has taken a full 51 years to reach completion. Even with this volume, however, not all of the material produced by Edwards will find its way into print.

Vol. 26 (which is really the 27th volume because the “Blank Bible” was so large it took up two huge tomes and was designated vol. 24a and 24b), which is edited by Peter Thuesen, includes, inter alia, Edwards’ reading catalog. This is a fascinating list of books Edwards wanted to obtain. Despite what you might think, there actually are interesting questions that arise in the interpretation of a book list. Does a line through a title indicate that Edwards obtained the book? Does it indicate he actually read it? These are questions worth pondering as we wrestle with the intellectual influences on Edwards outside the Bible itself.

Many of you will be put off by the mere cost of this volume and its companions in the Yale set. Each volume sells for about $100.00 US. However, I would suggest that you might save on eye damage by reading this edition as over against other sets where the print is so small you need nuclear powered magnification so you do not go blind. Not to mention the psychological wear and tear that comes from never turning a page! Just note, these are volumes usually reserved for those who are serious about Edwards studies.

As I already noted, not everything the New England theologian-philosopher-pastor-missionary wrote will find its way into this letterpress edition of Edwards’ works. However you can find all of his writings at the website of the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University. Or rather, I should say, you will find there a work in progress. Keep your eyes on that site as it expands to include even more material. The letterpress edition of Edwards’ works will be limited to 26 volumes, but the website will be growing by leaps and bounds.

Jonathan Edwards is worth reading as he was a profound thinker who endeavored to bring all glory to the Triune God of Scripture. Edwards is always worth reading.

Culture is the “artificial, secondary environment” which man superimposes on the natural. It comprises language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values. 1

The key to understanding the relevance of the Gospel in the midst of various cultures is the fact that cultures themselves are “secondary, artificial environments.” So what is the primary, natural environment of men? It seems that this is where the Bible’s self-witness to man as the imago Dei, but now fallen, dead in sins, without God, and needing nothing less than resurrection from the dead, is the environment in which all men find themselves. The “culture” of man–if I may use the term as applied to the natural environment of man–is the culture of living in God’s world, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, and needing redemption. If this is how we understand what under girds every “culture” (to use the word in its secondary, sociological sense) then the Gospel is always relevant regardless of what we think we need to do with it in order to make it relevant. All of this is not to say that we do not need to be sensitive to the “cultural” differences that exist among our neighbors. We do not want to unnecessarily offend our neighbor in our attempt to bring the Gospel to them. But the reality is that the Gospel, as the Gospel, will offend until God chooses to make it the message of life to life unto those who will be saved.

[1] D.A. Carson Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008) p. 11

In a day when we have the privilege of listening to any preacher in the world at the push of a button I find it interesting to know who some of the best preachers in the church listen to. In this video John Piper answers the question, “Who do you listen to?” I think the answer he gives is interesting for two reasons. First, both ministers he mentions are highly doctrinal preachers. Second, both men, he explains, were highly serious men. Listen for yourself:

A few weeks ago I preached a sermon on Ephesians 1:7-10. The end of verse 10 says that Jesus came to reconcile all things in Heaven and on Earth. The really astonishing thing about this statement is the great difference between sinless, pure, and spotless Heaven and fallen, corrupt, defiled Earth. Everything in Heaven is holy and without corruption, everything on Earth is evil and corrupted. But in Christ, these seemingly irreconcilable spheres are reconciled. Jesus Christ, by His blood redeems a people for Himself. But He also redeems creation (the non-elect excepted) by that blood. One day Heaven will meet Earth and the saints will dwell with Christ in Heaven and on the New Earth. In an attempt to illustrate the seeming impossibility of this kind of reconciliation I made reference to a commercial I had seen the week before–a commercial presented by a group that claimed to be able to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable groups in this life. While the groups in this video will most likely never be reconciled, the things in Heaven and the things on Earth (which are antithetical) will be on account of the death of Christ. Watch and commercial below and see what you think.

Stephen J. Nichols has written a book that every professing Christian living in America should read. Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of Christ is a masterful work tracing the cultural representations of Jesus in American history. Whether it was Jonathan Edwards, Johnny Cash, or the Jesus People, Jesus of Nazareth has been subject to a broad spectrum of representation. Nichols book is a scholarly, historically detailed and analytical work that leaves the reader wanting to know the real Jesus Christ. In some respects, this work is similar to Mark Driscoll’s Vintage Jesus. Nichols, however, takes the cultural analysis to a new level showing the cause and effect implications of cultural representations (or misrepresentations) of the Savior of the world in America.

Below you will also find a video of Derek Thomas interviewing Stephen Nichols about this book:

Harry S. Stout, in the preface to The Works of Jonathan Edwards vol. 22, explained that very early in his ministry Edwards began to be driven by a desire to subject theology to the history of the world. This of course culminated in Edwards masterpiece History of the Work of Redemption. As Stout traced the history of Edwards writings and correspondence in regard to this matter he provided a quote from History of the Work of Redemption in which Edwards acknowledges the method of subjecting theology to its historical outworking. What interested me most was the fact that Edwards rooted all of the eternal decree in the covenant of Redemption. Some Reformed theologians will not admit a Covenant of Redemption distinct from the Covenant of Grace. I suggest that such individuals read the following quote in light of their understanding of the eternal aspect of the Covenant of Grace. Edwards wrote:

This work of redemption is so much the greatest of all the works of God, that all other works are to be looked upon as either part of it, or appendages to it, or are some way reducible to it. And so, all the decrees of God do some way or other belong to that eternal covenant of redemption that was between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world; every decree of God is some way or other reducible to that covenant. And seeing this work of redemption is so great a work, hence we need not wonder that so much is made of it in Scripture, and that ‘tis so much insisted on in the histories, and prophecies, and songs of the Bible, for the work of redemption is the great subject of the whole Bible. In its doctrines, its promises, its types, its songs, its histories, and its prophecies.1

While I find this statement attractive on many levels I am not sure that I agree that all the decrees of God are rooted in the Covenant of Redemption. Keep in mind that many theologians speak, not of the decrees of God, but of the decree–since there is no time in the eternal counsel. The Covenant of Redemption itself must have been decreed. So, unless we are willing to say that there was one decree (or one part of the decree) superior to all other decrees (or other parts of the decree), we cannot fully follow Edwards here.

The strength of this statement above, as I see it, is the fact that Edwards subjects all revelation to the Covenant of Redemption. That in itself is the grounds of what we now call Biblical Theology. The thing that drove Edwards to conclude that all the decrees of God were rooted in the Covenant of Redemption is the fact that creation served as a stage on which the redemption of men would occur. Anyone who has studied the flood accounts and the Noahic Covenant, will recognize at once how it is that the earth was the sphere in which redemption took place. When God gave Noah the re-creation mandate, He established the Covenant of Grace with him and with every living thing that was in the ark. The rainbow became a sign to God that He would never destroy the earth with a flood as He had done. Why, it should be asked, is this important? Well, God was promising to preserve the sphere in which He would bring about redemption. The placement of the law against manslaughter also, in my mind, establishes this principle. Why would the Lord make a law against shedding blood in this place? One reason seems to be for the preservation of mankind until the redemption of the purchased possession. The restraint of evil would insure the preservation of many.

The most important element of Edwards statement is the way in which he includes all parts of Scripture in relation to the Covenant. Rooting it in the eternal counsel of God Edwards says, “And seeing this work of redemption is so great a work, hence we need not wonder that so much is made of it in Scripture, and that ‘tis so much insisted on in the histories, and prophecies, and songs of the Bible, for the work of redemption is the great subject of the whole Bible. In its doctrines, its promises, its types, its songs, its histories, and its prophecies.” What stood out most to me was the fact that Edwards referred to the “songs” of the Bible. Since I began working on a covenantal approach to the Song of Songs, I have found no one, in the history of the church, that comes closer to the correct biblico-theological interpretation of the Song than Edwards. It is on account of his subjecting the work of the Redemption, and the redemptive revelation, most consistently to the Covenant of Redemption that he understands that the songs of Scripture are songs of Redemption.

[1] Works of Jonathan Edwards, 9, A History of the Work of Redemption (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989) 513-14.

As I am continuing to make my way through Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed I see that he has finally interacted with what I call the old line or old guard Reformed. On pages 108-114 there is discussion of the relationship of the resurgence in Calvinistic oriented evangelicalism and the historic Reformed denominations. I am disappointed in the almost contemptuous or dismissive attitude Collin takes to those within historic Reformed denominations and institutions.

It’s a new day in Calvinism when Baptists and charismatics have become chief spokesmen. Until the last few decades, Calvinism would have connoted sixteenth- and seventeenth century statements such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. Most evangelicals would have associated Reformed theology with Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of Calvin College and the Christian Reformed Church. Or they thought about Philadelphia, home of Westminster Theological Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Now the momentum has shifted to evangelicals who affirm Calvinist soteriology but not neccesarily the broader Reformed tradition of covenant theology, including infant baptism. (109)

I have a few thoughts and these piggyback off of my comments from my post a few days ago about whether Jonathan Edwards could be considered Reformed. If there is a spectrum that extends from what I will call the broader Calvinistic oriented evangelicalism to the historic Reformed faith, Edwards is somewhere closer to the historic Reformed faith than the Calvinistic oriented evangelicalism Collin Hansen chronicles for us in this book. For instance, Edwards, for all his support of the revivals of the First Awakening, was a cessationist. No matter how hard one tries, that is a fact one can’t deny. Edwards also baptized babies. Yes it is true he wondered about this because of his view that God’s attributes had to be displayed in his creation and he found it hard to understand how God’s glory and mercy could be displayed in the life of an infant. However, he baptized infants all the same. And Edwards was a strong advocate of covenant theology as a whole. Unfortunately people (including many learned scholars) have been misled by Perry Miller’s scholarship. Perry Miller misunderstood covenant theology and so he misunderstood Jonathan Edwards. But Edwards has his own unique eccentricities. He, as great as he is, is not the sum and substance of historic Reformed confessionalism.

And I was interested to see that Hansen commented on Darryl G. Hart’s criticisms of Jonathan Edwards (and these have been and will be echoed by R. Scott Clark and others). I am not convinced completely by Hart and Clark, however some of their concerns are valid. I am not convinced, as I noted in my post on Edwards, that one has to choose between doctrine and life. That is an unfortunate bifurcation that arose within Reformed circles as a response to the First Awakening. And I note that Hansen interacted with Michael Horton as well. Historically, the supporters of the First Awakening appear to be non-confessional or anti-confessional. Edwards himself, as I noted in the comments section of my post on him, fares not better on this score. Confessions are healthy and necessary. I am always suspicious of an anti-confessional Christian because I want to know what he or she is trying to hide.

My point in this post (and you may be wondering if I have one!) is that the name Reformed has a history behind it. It stands, historically, for that theology that stems from the Reformed side of the Reformation. That theology, as Richard Muller has pointed out, involves John Calvin’s input, but also the input of many others. And this theology was codified on many occasions in the early years of the Reformation, but I would argue this codification reached its Zenith in the period of high Scholasticism (not, mind you, a dirty word!) when the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards were formulated. I believe these documents clearly express and display the system of doctrine that is Scripture. Does that mean I don’t distinguish between the confessions and Scripture? Not at all. But it does mean, as a minister in a historically Reformed denomination, that I have gone on public record as affirming that the Westminster Standards are the clearest expression of Scripture. Does that make them infallible or unchangeable? Not at all. But the process to change them is purposefully slow and hard. After all, we do not want our subordinate doctrinal standard to change with every shift of wind.

So as a matter of honesty and integrity I think we must reserve the term Reformed for this expression of Christianity. Even Collin Hansen sees this in a sort of left-handed way in the comments I cited above. I have no desire to slight my Calvinistically oriented evangelical brothers and sisters whom our Lord seems to be blessing. But we in the historically Reformed churches are also experiencing the Lord’s blessing as well. I am not impressed with numbers. Of course numerical snobbery works both ways. A denomination or congregation that is small is not necessarily blessed by God. Neither is it necessarily condemned. And so a large denomination or congregation is not necessarily blessed or cursed either. To assess the spiritual health of a church one must know many other things besides its size. What is the nature of its theology and teaching? What is the vitality of its life? These count. But lets have honesty in the use of the term Reformed. Lets not degrade the name as the word evangelical has been degraded.

Those of us in the historically Reformed tradition hold to what we hold to and live the way we live as Christians because we believe that the confessions we embrace teach the truth and inculcate a lifestyle consistent with that confession and profession of faith. That means we affirm some things and deny others. I have no desire to belittle a brother and sister in Christ. However, I cannot affirm X without at the same time denying not-X. In other words, if I think covenant theology is the most biblical expression of the theology of the Bible (and I do), that means any departures from that theology will be looked upon with concern. Why settle for second best? I happen to practice infant baptism because I think it is biblical, not because I am hanging on to a vestige of Roman Catholicism or medieval tradition. And I happen to think that the word or revelatory gifts of the Spirit, which were given for the initial establishment of the church, are no longer operative in the church today, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says. Does that mean my Reformed Baptist friends are not Christian? Not at all. Does that mean my more charismatically inclined Calvinistically oriented evangelical brothers and sisters are insignificant? May it never be! But lets be honest. As excited as I am to read about the growth of Calvinisitically oriented evangelicalism, I am more excited about full-strength, full-throttle Reformed confessionalism of a historic stripe. Now, in all fairness, Collin Hansen does interact with Ligon Duncan, who I think represents this perspective. And I think that I can also learn from my Calvinsitically oriented evangelical brothers and sisters. But I am left with one single question.

Why not come on over to the historic Reformed faith and denominations, like the OPC, PCA, and URC and embrace a full-blooded Reformed theology and life? I would be thrilled to welcome you.