Question 91: What is the duty which God requires of man?

Answer: The duty which God requires of man, is obedience to his revealed will.

Question 92: What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?

Answer: The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.

Question 93: What is the moral law?

Answer: The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.

Question 94: Is there any use of the moral law to man since the fall?

Answer: Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law; yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.

Question 95: Of what use is the moral law to all men?

Answer: The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.

Question 96: What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?

Answer: The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ; or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.

Question 97: What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?

Answer: Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them: How much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

While the Divines do not expressly say, in these questions and answers, that the moral Law is one and the same as given to Adam in the Garden and Israel at Sinai (in the Ten Commandments and its subsequent ceremonial and civil expressions), there is no contesting that this is what is logically implied in them, as well as in other places in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Shorter Catechism. So, what exactly is  being taught about the use of the moral Law in these seven questions?

First, you will notice that the Divines note that all men must receive God’s requirement for them by revelation. It is His “revealed will.” God must reveal to man what he requires of man.While the Law is written on the heart of man, as image bearer, it must be promulgated to man by special revelation. This was so, even in the Garden with Adam. God tested Adam’s obedience in the Covenant of Works, by means a special command which reflected all the other commands of the moral Law. Would it have been wrong for Adam to cut down the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, make and idol, and bow down to worship it? Would it have been wrong for Adam to have bowed down to the Tree and prayed to it in the name of God? Would it have been wrong for Adam to have skipped out on worship on the Sabbath, by sitting under the Tree and taking a nap all day? Would it have been wrong for Adam to have cut down the Tree and make a bat to kill Eve with? Would it have been wrong for Adam to steal the fruit of the Tree which God withheld from him? This should adequately explain the relationship between the one command given to Adam and the ten that were always binding for him and his posterity.

Second, God revealed this to our first father, Adam. We all were born under the headship of Adam and therefore were under the broken Covenant of Works by nature. But we were also born into God’s world. The demands of the Law, with their promises of blessings and cursing upon perfect and perpetual obedience or disobedience, remained in place. God would fulfill these demands, take the curse that we brought upon ourselves by our disobedience, and give the blessings promised for perfect obedience to  the law in the Person and work of Christ.

Third, the moral Law demands perfect and continual obedience. Even after the fall, God demands perfect obedience. Just as was the case prior to the fall, so after the fall, the demand for perfect and continual obedience is coupled with the promise of “life upon the fulfilling, and threatening [of] death upon the breach of it.” This is the case wherever the Law is found, whether it be in the Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden or the promulgation of it to the Covenant people at Sinai. The Divines expressly teach this as fundamental to the nature of the Law of God and the relationship between the moral Law and the all people. Of course, no fallen man can keep one precept of the Law, let alone keep it perfectly and perpetually. But that does not change the fact that God “directs and binds everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.”

Jesus Christ, the second Adam and true Israel, fulfills the Law perfectly for His people, takes their curse in His death on the cross, and receives the blessing of life for them by His own merit. This is why the Scriptures say that He was “born under the Law.” That is why the Redeemer was an Israelite.  This is why He became our “flesh and blood” brother. He took on a human nature, and put Himself in our precise relationship, to redeem us from the curse of the law. This is one eternally important reason why Israel received the Law in the Mosaic Covenant, with the associated typological promise of blessing and cursing. Christ, the antitype of Israel, takes the antitypical curse for the Covenant people and fulfills the righteous requirement of the Law to give them the antitypical (eternal) blessings by faith in Him.

Fourth, the Divines, make it clear that no man or woman–as physically descending from Adam by ordinary generation–can fulfill the Law of God for their justification. They proceed to explain that, even though no one can be justified by it, the Law is still useful in a special and common way for three groups.  First, the Law is useful for all men. Second, the Law is useful for the unregenerate (i.e.those who remain in their natural fallen condition). Third, the Law is useful for the regenerate (i.e. those who have been given a new nature by grace). Note that the Divines do not say that the law is useful for all men, then for those outside of the covenant community, and, third, for those within the covenant community.

As they begin to provide answers to the question, “Of what use is the moral Law…,” the Divines unfold their understanding of the uses in relation to various groups. Accordingly, the Law is useful to all men. This is some sense, a summary statement of the following two catechism questions. There is a general use of the Law that affects all men, whether unregenerate or regenerate.  “The moral law is of use to all men, to:

1) inform them of the holy nature and will of God,

2) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;

3) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,

4) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.

The Law is fundamentally pedagogical. It teaches men that God is holy, that they are not, and that they need Christ.

In question 96, the Divines ask, “What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?” The answer they give sounds very much like the second part of the previous question. They wrote, “the moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ; or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.”

Finally, in question 97 they ask, “What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?” Here, I think, is the place where so much confusion occurs. Many modern Reformed theologians, might answer this question (if worded a bit differently), by saying, “The moral law is of special use to the regenerate to be a rule of life to them, since they have been redeemed to obey,” This is certainly true in a qualified sense, but it is not the nuanced answer that the Divines give. They first preface it and then give a tripartite answer to the question. The qualifier is as theologically full and interesting as the tripartite answer:

[Preface] Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them:

1) How much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;

2) and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness,

3) and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

In the prefatory statement, the Divines connect the moral Law with the Covenant of Works. There is an undeniable relation between the Law and the Covenant of Works. The unregenerate are still under the moral Law as a Covenant of Works. There is no denying the fact that it is broken. There is no denying the fact that they cannot keep it to obtain the blessings promised for perfect obedience to it. But it is still in place. The moral Law given to Adam in Eden and Israel as Sinai, is one and the same Law. The statement of the Divines does not say that the Mosaic Covenant, in its entirety, is a republication of the Covenant of Works. But it does intimate that a relationship between the Moral Law and the Covenant of Works, and the Law given in the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant of Works exists, for the unregenerate–whether Israelites or otherwise. The regenerate are “delivered from the moral Law as a Covenant of Works.” It no longer remains a Covenant of Works for those who have been savingly united to Jesus Christ; but, it remains a Covenant of Works for unbelievers. They remain under the curse of the broken Covenant of Works as well, by their union with Adam. They also attempt to be justified by the Law. This is why the Pharisees and Scribes sought righteousness by their own attempts to keep the Law of God. There is a psychological and spiritual dimension to the relationship that the unregenerate sustain with regard to God’s Law. Because we are from Adam by nature, we, by nature, constantly seeking to obtain life in the way that Adam was called to obtain it prior to the fall. This is not God’s intention for us, after the fall. In fact, it is the greatest dishonor to Him when we try to bypass His grace with our works. But it is the way that we as self-righteous sinners respond to the moral demands of God place on Adam in Eden and Israel at Sinai.

The next important belief expressed in this prefatory statement is that believers are “neither justified nor condemned” by the moral law. Their obedience to the Law of God plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in their justification. Their disobedience to it plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in their condemnation. How can this be? It is because of the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone merits justification for His people. He alone takes the condemnation for all their lawlessness. He is a complete Savior who justifies His people perfectly, once and for all, by His finished work.

Perhaps the most striking thing about all three answers supplied in Larger Catechism questions 95-97 is that the moral law, in each of its uses, points men to the Person and work of Christ. This is something that is frequently overlooked by those who wish to so ardently stress the obedience that the third use of the Law calls for in the life of believers. The Divines are not so quick to move away from the finished work of Jesus on our behalf in their expositions of the various uses of the moral law. In all three catechism questions they return to Christ. The moral Law, “helps [bring all men] to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience” (Q. 95); is useful to “awaken the consciences  [of unregenerate] to flee from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ” (Q. 96); and  is useful for the regenerate to show them “how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good” (Q. 97). The Westminster Divines show that the Law drives us out of ourselves and back to Christ. They explain that the Law magnified the finished work of Jesus. We should not ever get beyond the finished work of Christ. Even in heaven the finished work of Christ is the theme of our songs and praises. It is the basis for our eternal life–not our obedience to the Law. By that law, we are neither justified nor condemned.

Question 97 expresses what is commonly called the third use of the law (Tertius Usus Legis). The Divines certainly express the use of the law as binding the elect “to express the same [i.e. thankfulness to Christ for fulling the law and taking the curse of the law in their place] in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.” But they immediately make it the “rule of obedience” in their answer. They start with the Gospel. The Law continues to show believers their need for Christ. It is first, and foremost, useful for believers, to show them “how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;” secondly, “to provoke them to more thankfulness;” and finally “to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.” The obedience that the Law calls believers to render, should only be understood in relationship to the redemption that we have in Christ. It should only and ever be an “expression” of the thankfulness we are bound to give Christ for “fulfilling it and enduring the curse thereof in our stead.” If we miss this step, we will inevitable look to our performance in regard to the demands of the law, instead of looking to Christ.

]]> http://www.feedingonchrist.com/understanding-the-law-and-its-uses/feed/ 2 http://www.feedingonchrist.com/the-progressive-aloneness-of-jesus/ http://www.feedingonchrist.com/the-progressive-aloneness-of-jesus/#comments Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:41:12 +0000 Nicholas T. Batzig http://www.feedingonchrist.com/?p=2919 There is a striking progression in the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus, in which He is shown to be the One who alone can bear the wrath of God on behalf of His people. At the beginning of the Gospels He has multitudes surrounding Him. Then He narrows it down to the seventy. From that group He chooses twelve. Then He takes eleven into the Garden and pulls three aside with Him. Finally He is left alone to look into the cup that the Father has prepared for Him to drink to the full by Himself. Eric Alexander notes:

Isaiah foresaw this when he prophesied that Jesus would be “cut off from the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8). He was cut off in a two-fold sense. First, He was cut off from men by physical distance. This was a progressive attribute of the life of Jesus. He had the multitudes at the beginning. Out of the multitudes, he had the seventy, to whom He committed special tasks as He sent them out to by two. Within the group of seventy there was the Twelve, and then the three who went with Him into peculiarly important and sacred places. But in the supreme hour, when He faced the deepest of agonies, He was alone, cut off from man by His holiness. But He also was cut off by the sins that He was bearing—not His own, but ours. “He looked, and there was no man, neither any to regard him” (Isaiah 59). It was a cup of loneliness.1

1. Taken from “The Cup of Bitterness, the Cup of Blessing,” delivered by Rev. Eric Alexander at Keswick Convention.

Luke 15 contains three parables. In some ways, they are three parts of one larger parable–a single message about lost things being found, each episode told in a context of increased complexity and heightened tension.

Scene one describes a Shepherd who has lost one of his sheep. Sheep were, and are, valuable. But he has lost only one out of one hundred–one percent.

Scene two describes a woman who has lost a silver coin. The coin is valuable to her; perhaps it was saved for a rainy day. She has lost one coin out of ten–ten percent, a much higher percentage loss.

The third scene, however, is much more poignant. The father of two sons looses one of them. He has lost fifty percent of his sons, not a sheep or a coin–an unbearable loss.

Jesus was clearly building up to the main point. The scenes in the third parable are described in much greater legnth, with much greater complexity and depth of emotion. In addition, there are more characters in the third story–two sons and their father–each of whom express his thoughts and feelings about the situation.1

1. Sinclair Ferguson By Grace Alone (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2010) p. 15

We can also explain why the older theologians did not always clearly distinguish between the covenant of works and the Sinaitic covenant.  At Sinai it was not the ‘bare’ law that was given, but a reflection of the covenant of works revived, as it were, in the interests of the covenant of grace continued at Sinai.1

Karl Barth said that “back to,” is not a good slogan for dogmatics. All science must move forward. Problem is how to do it in a positive climate that rejects all metaphysical investigation. The rationalism in favor of innate ideas confuses the light of reason with revelation. We have potential to grow in knowledge (all of which is mediate) but the concepts themselves are not innate. Granted, argues Bavinck, things are grasped because they are apprehended only in God (Malebranche) and in the soul by recollection (Plato). Natural theology cannot equal ‘revealed’ religion (illumination/inspiration) because it’s a reflection of the work of God in creation: if it’s natural it cannot be the product of human reason. In that limited sense the world does not take us away from God but leads us to him.

Bavinck’s analysis is dense but his ability to navigate wildly competitive views of is profound. If God’s incomprehensibility without the Church leans towards pantheism; within the Church an overemphasis on contemplation assumes the highest value as authentic religious experience. For Bavinck the priority on the inner life leads to mysticism and withdrawal from the world. Yet when Christians perform theology they are rooted firmly in the understanding that God’s essence is unknowable and that all figures of speech borrowed from experience speaks to higher things (John of Damascus). Next week Bavinck begins his investigation into the names of God.

That being said, we need to beware of a cult of personality. While I am certainly not bothered when I hear a minister say something that he has obviously learned from another minister (this is inescapable if we are really in a constant posture of learning), I can hardly stand to listen to a minister copy the verbal intonations and manner of preaching of another minister. That sort of imitation is ineffective and counterproductive. Just as each of the biblical authors had specific personalities that God worked through in the inspiration of Scripture, so each minister of the Gospel has a particular personality that the Lord uses in the proclamation of His word.

On the other hand, I have noticed another trend in the 21st Century church. Young ministers are rushing headlong to read and listen to other living ministers. This is, again, a good thing. But it is an insufficient route of preparation for preaching. We have a vast reservoir of sermons and books from the history of the church. As technology advances, these resources advance as well.

Google Books has made hundreds of thousands of books in the Public Domain available for free download. Using the PCA Historical Society’s Sermon Archive, Spurgeon’s Commenting and Commentaries, and personal catalogs we can more efficiently look for sermons on a particular text. The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University has a very helpful sermon index as well.

All this would be incomplete without giving ourselves to the books written to help men think through the construction and delivery of sermons. While there are so many that are beneficial, I have personally found the following to be most profitable:

1. J.C. Ryle’s Simplicity in Preaching

2. Feed My Sheep

3. J.A. Alexander Thoughts on Preaching

4. Arturo Azurdia Spirit Empowered Preaching

5. Kent Hughes edited Preach the Word

6. Eric Alexander What is Biblical Preaching?

7. Edmund Clowney Preaching Christ in All the Scriptures

8. Edmund Clowney Preaching and Biblical Theology

9. Al Martin What’s Wrong With Preaching Today?

10. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Preaching and Preachers

11. John Carrick The Imperative of Preaching

12. Dennis Johnson Him We Proclaim

13. T. David Gordon Why Johnny Can’t Preach

14. Alexander Vinet Homiletics: or the Theory of Preaching

Jonathan Edwards wrote:

The end [goal] of the creation of God was to provide a spouse for His Son Jesus Christ that might enjoy Him and on whom He might pour forth His love. And the end of all things in providence are to make way for the exceeding expressions of Christ’s love to His spouse and for her exceeding close and intimate union with, and high and glorious enjoyment of Him and to bring this to pass. And therefore the last thing and the issue of all things is the marriage of the Lamb. And the wedding day is the last day, the day of judgment, or rather that will be the beginning of it. The wedding feast is eternal; and the love and joys, the songs, entertainments and glories of the wedding never will be ended. It will be an everlasting wedding day.

Jonathan Edwards, “Miscellany #702″ in “The Miscellanies”: Entries Nos. 501-832 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 18, ed. Ava Chamberlain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 298.

Hosea 2:14-20 – Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.   And there I will give her her vineyards and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.  And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.   And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me “My Husband,” and no longer will you call me “My Baal.”  For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more.  And I will make for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety.  And I will betroth you to me forever.  I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.   I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.

Isaiah 54:5-8 – For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.  For the LORD has called you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your God.  For a brief moment I deserted you, but with great compassion I will gather you.  In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,” says the LORD, your Redeemer.

2 Corinthians 11:2 – I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

Ephesians 5:31-32 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

Revelation 19:7 – Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready . . .

What a glorious day that will be! And you, member of the Bride of Christ, will be joined to the most wonderful, most loving, most beautiful, most satisfying, most glorious Spouse in more than all of 10 trillion universes! Come Lord Jesus! Come!

Then I took your sin, the calf which you had made, and burned it with fire and crushed it and ground it very small, until it was as fine as dust; and I threw its dust into the brook that descended from the mountain.

While Moses made the people drink the water into which the idol dust was thrown, he simply notes that the dust of the idol was thrown into the “brook that descended from the mountain.” This sets the stage for actions of the righteous Kings throughout Israel’s history. Each and every time that the Lord raised up a righteous King to deliver His people from their evil practices and enemies, they would remove the idols from the land in a manner similar to that of Moses. In the days of righteous King Asa we see this pattern:

Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did his father David. And he banished the perverted persons from the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. Also he removed Maachah his grandmother from being queen mother, because she had made an obscene image of Asherah. And Asa cut down her obscene image and burned it by the Brook Kidron. (1 Kings 15:11-13)

Perhaps the greatest reformer King in Israel’s history (our Lord Jesus excepted) was Josiah. His reforms were substantial, and are recorded in great detail in 2 Kings 23. Consider the way in which the brook Kidron is at the center of his removal of idols:

And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to bring out of the temple of the LORD all the articles that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel. Then he removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven.  And he brought out the wooden image from the house of the LORD, to the Brook Kidron outside Jerusalem, burned it at the Brook Kidron and ground it to ashes, and threw its ashes on the graves of the common people…The altars that were on the roof, the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, the king broke down and pulverized there, and threw their dust into the Brook Kidron. (2 Kings 23:4-6, 12)

When King Hezekiah came to power he made a point of cleansing all the impurity and corruptions that had been carried into the Temple. The priests who ministered there did as Moses and the righteous Kings had done before them:

Then the priests went into the inner part of the house of the LORD to cleanse it, and brought out all the debris that they found in the temple of the LORD to the court of the house of the LORD. And the Levites took it out and carried it to the Brook Kidron…Now many people, a very great assembly, gathered at Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the second month. ¹⁴ They arose and took away the altars that were in Jerusalem, and they took away all the incense altars and cast them into the Brook Kidron. (2 Chronicles 29:16; 30:13)

The pattern of crushing idols and idolatrous alters, and throwing them into the Brook Kidron, was symbolic. It represented how God would permanently remove idolatry from the lives of His people. When our Lord Jesus was heading to the cross to tear down our idols once and for all, He crossed over the Brook Kidron (John 18:1). Almost a thousand years before, righteous King David had crossed that brook with his men. He was being pursued by his betrayer, just as the Son of David was. (2 Kings 15:23). It might be thought fanciful to read a spiritual reality into the reference to the Brook Kidron, were it not for the fact that it is constantly said to be the place where the idol dust was poured out. Jesus Christ crushed the idols of His people underfoot when He went to the cross. It was there that the stronghold of idolatry was broken. Our idols may be more sophisticated gods of silver and golds, success and power, than the gods of ancient Israel, but they are no match for the King of Kings. By His death and resurrection He has reformed His church forever. By one offering of Himself He has forever perfected those who are being sanctified. Christ has “given Himself for us that He might purify for Himself His own special people zealous for good works.” Matthew Henry noted this in his comments on John 18:1. He wrote:

The godly kings of Judah had burnt and destroyed the idols they found at the brook Cedron; Asa, 2 Chronicles 15:16; Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 30:14; Josiah, 2 Kings 23:4,6. Into that brook the abominable things were cast. Christ, being now made sin for us, that he might abolish it and take it away, began his passion by the same brook.

There is really nothing special about the Brook Kidron. It is simply a  redemptive-historical marker of the destruction of idolatry. The destruction of idolatry is completely and utterly dependent upon the Person and work of Christ at Calvary. He is the supreme solution to our idolatrous attachments. Idolatry is, in its essence, “worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator.” In order to cure us of our evil attachments, the Creator created a body and soul for Himself so that He could die and save us from our sin. The incarnation is the solution to idolatry. If man’s greatest sin is worshiping the creature rather than the Creator, you see the wisdom of God most clearly in His becoming a creature (without ceasing to be Divine, of course) to help us in our weakness. We are now commanded to worship a Man–even the God-Man, Jesus Christ. It is interesting to note the way that the apostle John ends his first epistle. 1 John is really a discourse about the central importance of the doctrine of Christ–the two natures of Jesus Christ and His atoning death on the cross. It is an explanation of the abiding significance of the incarnation. At the end of the epistle John abruptly charges, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” The only way we can make sense of this abrupt conclusion is to read it in light of John’s emphasis on the incarnation. How are we to keep ourselves from idols? We must abide in the doctrine of the Son of God.

]]> http://www.feedingonchrist.com/crushing-idols-the-brook-kidron-and-the-cross-of-christ/feed/ 5 http://www.feedingonchrist.com/herman-bavinck%e2%80%99s-reformed-dogmatics-where-there%e2%80%99s-a-will/ http://www.feedingonchrist.com/herman-bavinck%e2%80%99s-reformed-dogmatics-where-there%e2%80%99s-a-will/#comments Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:22:30 +0000 Joel Heflin http://www.feedingonchrist.com/?p=2908 Last week Bavinck led us onto the negative path to knowing God. Even in the modern age, John Lloyd has humorously noted that we can’t see anything that matters. We know little about the world and we know even less about God. In Bavinck’s day the doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility tended to agnosticism (Hegel) or a theology equal to anthropology (Fichte). What is gained by the ‘recovery’ of God’s incomprehensibility? Peace that passes understanding? Inexpressible joy? Bavinck can’t wait to find out.

Theology since scholasticism lost the impact of God’s incomprehensibility. Philosophy took it up especially in the thinking of Kant and Hegel. For Kant, God’s being is lost in the critique of pure reason because, “the soul, the world, and God cannot be objectively demonstrated.” Attributing intellect and will to God is “practical knowledge” but adds nothing to the volume of human science. Hegel attempted to strip the concept of God from all sense-related forms but ran aground in the claim that, “a sense-related representation could never be overcome in the idea of God and therefore (Hegel) ended up in atheism.” Atheism usually retreats to agnosticism, says Bavinck, because Hegel reasoned that “our God-consciousness is nothing other than God’s self-consciousness. God exists to the extent that he is known by us.” Man, the measure of all things infinite. So what’s the solution?

Bavinck suggests that negative predicates (“God is unknowable, beyond comprehension, etc.) carry real weight but they “prove too much.” The world is, after all, knowable and positive predicates of God’s character and personality are grounded in revelation. Can Christians ascribe to God a personality and maintain that he is absolute? Bavinck says yes, “Our knowledge does not limit God because 1. It is grounded in him, 2. Can only exist through him,” and if absoluteness of God’s being (according to pantheism/rationalism) precludes all limitation, “it is equally wrong (for rationalism) to call him absolute, unity, good, and essential being.” God’s self-consciousness is as deep and rich as his being, meaning that his self-consciousness is not dependent on non-being or the competent grasp of finite beings to maintain existence. Mystery is not the same as ‘self-contradiction.’

The trick here is to illustrate what Bavinck is saying without using an unhelpful analogy. Suppose that agnosticism is saying, ‘Look. You theologians are giving God a personality which you can’t do anymore than you can give a personality to gravity or math.’ But [Reformed] theology is not ascribing personality to God in the same way personality is applied socially to other humans. We are not looking at God’s personality the same way we look at and admire a good actor who’s played the hero, the villain, and the comic relief. It’s like saying God has to be famous to exist. But this would mean God’s celebrity has to fit the mold of celebrity culture which drags God down to the level of finite being. The tension here between faith and rationalism is very important because it’s about redirecting the love of the creature to the love of God. Next week Bavinck tackles the problem of innate ideas and the faint notions of greater things.

Hear These Words (Acts 2:14-39) from Nicholas T. Batzig

The second book is by Westminster Seminary California professor David VanDrunen and is entitled Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms:  A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought and is obtainable here.  Dr. VanDrunen seeks to explore the historical use of the two ideas within Reformed theology:  natural law and two kingdoms.  There is no doubt that both doctrines found a place within early stages of development in Reformed theological circles.  So how do the doctrines function?  If the idea of natural law is not merely a Roman Catholic or Enlightenment doctrine, how was the doctrine formulated and understood within Reformed circles?  What accounts for its falling out of favor with Reformed theologians?  The same kind of questions could be asked of the two kingdoms doctrine.  Is it not the quintessential Lutheran doctrine that undermines sovereign Lordship of Christ over all his creation?  Perhaps, perhaps not.

In questions like these readers need to distinguish the historical question from the theological question (this is not to argue for neutral history, but to not allow one’s theology to dictate what a particular historical person said or did not say).  We need to first ascertain just what given theologians held before we can make theological assessments or evaluations.  When a sound historical assessment of sources has been made we may have to reevaluate long and dearly held assumptions.  But we cannot and ought not to assume we can make theological evaluations until we have done our homework.  After all, the Reformed faith did not begin in the 19th or 20th century and it is not immediately obvious that later developments are necessarily improvements to earlier formulations.  Later developments may be improvements or they may be regressions or simply misunderstandings of previous theological formulations.  At the end of the day, readers do not have to agree with these authors, but they will need to give them serious consideration.

Romans 1:4-7 And was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ should be boasted in as He is the Son of God – a divine member of the Trinity. No one has, or ever can use this term except Christ, because of the fact that He alone is the living Son of God. And this must be boasted in so that His supremacy is made even more glorious.

The Son’s relation to the Father is presented with the term “Son of God” to declare that the perfect revelation of the Father is now forever given to mankind. Jesus Christ is titled the Son of God in the sense that He is one of the members of the Trinity. This claim was made on the occasion of His baptism in Mark 1:11, “And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased,’” and by the angel Gabriel announcing in Luke 1:35, “‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy– the Son of God.’” This title showed that Jesus Christ was the actual Son of the Trinity and the actual Son of God. Jesus used this to teach His disciples the fact that talking to the Son of God was the same as talking to the Father.

The believer must see that how they view and know Jesus Christ as the actual Son of God is of great importance. It is helpful to see Paul’s theology of this doctrine and its centrality to his preaching and teaching to the churches. From the moment of Paul’s salvation, Paul knew that it was the Son of God who called him. We see constantly that this Son of God was central to his salvation. In Galatians 1:15-16 Paul says, “But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone.” This understanding was not only central to his salvation, but also to his preaching as seen in Acts 9:20, “And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God’” and in 2 Corinthians 1:19, “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes.” Paul saw the importance of keeping Christ as the Son of God the absolute truth in salvation and in teaching through the Word.

The believer must see that the Son of God claims to be what the title says – the very Son of God. In Christ’s oneness, and in His equality, He can claim to be the Son with authority. The believer can boast in knowing that what Christ claimed about Himself was true: that He Himself is the way, the truth, and the life. The believer can boast that they serve a Christ who is in tune with, and always knowing, the Father perfectly. This is important to the believer because often times they feel distant from the Father. But knowing that this Son of God constantly and perfectly intercedes, helps to bring light to knowledge of – and communion with – the Father. The believer must boast that Jesus Christ is the living Son of God because only when the believer sees and knows the truth that lies in Him for salvation, can they be fully satisfied in Him. This is done in boasting in Jesus Christ and who He is – and not the believer’s self. Of even further importance in this very title is that it sent Jesus Christ to the cross, paying for the believer’s sin. This title is what Christ was accused of being wrong about; but because of it – He was indeed the Son of God – He provided a way for man to come to God.

The greatest dangers to theology are words and a devaluation of mystery. If theology becomes an exercise of rhetoric or replaces its objective vision (revelation) for the subjective impression (positivism) theology degenerates into anthropology (Fichte). The evolutionary theory in Bavinck’s day, for example, held that YHWH was a Hittite mountain God adopted by the Hebrews and localized on Mt. Sinai. But God is represented as the Creator (Gen. 2:4b) and “descends” from heaven at the scene of Babel (Gen. 11:5, 7) and “accompanies” Abraham and Jacob on their journeys. Point is, concludes Bavinck, that Old Testament revelation is preparatory, external in nature, “it does indeed furnish true and reliable knowledge of God, but not a knowledge that exhaustively corresponds to his being.” Signs of his presence are darkness (Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11; 5:22; 1 Kg. 8:12; 2 Chron. 6:1) possibly to show that natural light does not represent his brilliance.

Who is lost in the cloud of unknowing? From Plotinus to Erigena negative expressions of God’s being are more accurate though less satisfying. Scholasticism expressed God’s attributes in great detail but lost incomprehensibility in the shuffle. The Lutheran and Reformed, says Bavinck, lost sight of the significance of the doctrine yet the Remonstrant/Socinian wing did much worse, “Eternal life, they maintained [Rationalism/Socinianism] does not consist of knowing God but in doing his will.” Who God is becomes unimportant.

Next week we will look at Bavinck’s analysis of God’s incomprehensibility in the shift from theology to philosophy.

2. The blood of this covenant is the blood of Christ himself, so called in answer to the blood of the beasts, which was offered and sprinkled in the confirmation of the old covenant; whence it is by Moses called the blood of the covenant, Exod. xxiv. 8; Heb. ix. 20. See that place and the exposition. And it is called the blood of this covenant, because, as it was a sacrifice to God, it confirmed the covenant, and as it was to be sprinkled, it procured and communicated all the grace and mercy of the covenant, to them who are taken into the bond of it.

3. But the principal inquiry is, how God is said to bring Christ from the dead through the blood of the covenant, the shedding whereof was the means of, and the way of his entrance to death. Now the mind of the Holy Ghost herein will appear in the ensuing considerations.

1st. By the blood of Christ, as it was the blood of the covenant, the whole will of God, as to what he intended in all the institutions and sacrifices of the law, was accomplished and fulfilled. See ch. x. 5—9. And hereby an end was put to the old covenant, with all its services and promises.

2dly. Hereby was atonement made for sin, the church was sanctified or dedicated to God, the law was fulfilled, the threatenings of death executed, eternal redemption obtained, the promises of the new covenant confirmed, and by one offering they who were sanctified, are perfected for ever.

3dly. Hereon, not only way was made for the dispensation of grace, but all grace, mercy, peace, and glory was purchased for the church, and in the purpose of God was necessarily to ensue. Now the head and well-spring of the whole dispensation of grace, lies in the bringing Christ again from the dead. That is the beginning of all grace to the church ; the greatest and first instance of it, and the cause of all that doth ensue. The whole dispensation of grace, I say, began in, anil depends on the resurrection of Christ from the dead, which could not have been, had not the things before mentioned been effected and accomplished, by the blood of the covenant. Without them he must have continued in the state, and under the power of death. Had not the will of God been satisfied, atonement made for sin, the church sanctified, the law accomplished, and the threatenings satisfied, Christ could not have been brought again from the dead. It was therefore hereby that he was so, in that way was made for it to the glory of God. The death of Christ, if he had not risen, would not have completed our redemption ; we should have been yet in our sins. For evidence would have been given that atonement was not made. The bare resurrection of Christ, or the bringing him from the dead, would not have saved us; for so any other man may be raised by the power of God. But the bringing again of Christ from the dead, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, is that which gives assurance of the complete redemption and salvation of the church. Many expositors have filled this place with conjectures to no purpose, none of them so much as looking towards the mind of the Holy Ghost in the words. That which we learn from them is,

Obs. VII. That the bringing back of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Shepherd of the sheep, from the state of the dead, through the blood of the covenant, is the great pledge and assurance of peace with God, or the effecting of that peace, which the God of peace had designed for the church.

Obs. VIII. The reduction of Christ from the dead, by the God of peace, is the spring and foundation of all dispensations, and communications of grace to the church, or of all the effects of the atonement, and purchase made by his blood.—For he was so brought again as the Shepherd of the sheep, to the exercise of his entire office towards the church. For hereon followed his exaltation, and the glorious exercise of his kingly power in its behalf, with all the benefits which ensue thereon, Acts v, 30, 31; Rom. xiv. 9; Phil. ii. 8—11; Rev. i. 17, 18, and the completing of his prophetical office by sending of his Holy Spirit to abide always with the church for its instruction, Acts ii. 33, and the discharge of what remains of his priestly office in his intercession, Heb. vii. 25, 26, and his ministering in the sanctuary to make the services of the church acceptable to God, Heb. viii. 2; Rev. viii. 4. These are the springs of the administration of all mercy and grace to the church, and they all follow on his reduction from the dead, as the Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the covenant.

Obs. IX. All legal sacrifices issued in blood and death, there was no recovery of any of them from that state. There was no solemn pledge of their success. But their weakness was supplied by their frequent repetition.

When Jesus Comes to Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13) from Nicholas T. Batzig

Audio