Steve Jeffery

Apologies for the glitch in the recent Forum talk on The State – the wrong talk somehow got uploaded to the server. The problem has now been fixed, and you can listen to the whole thing right here. (HT: BP)

If you think the following demands are reasonable, you can say so online at the Barnabas Fund.

We, the undersigned, call upon our government:

1. to recognise that Christians around the world currently face unprecedented levels of persecution and are one of the most persecuted groups in the world;

2. to put the plight of persecuted Christians, both individually and as communities, at the forefront of their relations with the countries concerned;

3. to promote freedom of religion for all, using diplomatic relations, bi-lateral ties, aid, and agreed international obligations on core human rights;

4. to promote justice for all and specifically to ensure that those who incite hatred or act violently against Christians are held accountable for their crimes.

Do you want to learn a little more about yourself?

Try filling this in for a week.

Introduction

We remain on the doctrine of sin and its effects in week 14 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, as we consider the effects of sin on the human will. After a brief detour into John Murray’s Imputation of Adam’s Sin, we’re back with Calvin’s Institutes, II.ii (1:255-289). Murray led us through a consideration of the imputation of Adam’s sin, guilt and corrupt nature to his posterity; Calvin now explores the effect of this inherited corruption on our capacity for good and evil, and in particular the tricky subject of Free Will.

We’ll try to achieve two things in this tutorial. First, as usual, we’ll work through the reading to seek to grasp what Calvin is saying. Second, we’ll step back slightly and try to get a fuller picture of what the Bible teaches about the relationship between human freedom, human sin, human moral responsibility, and God’s sovereignty. This will take us into the work of Jonathan Edwards, though you won’t need to read anything from his writings before the tutorial.

If you’re pressed for time, skip fairly quickly over sections 2-9 of Calvin, and omit the questions marked with a *.

Outline

• Discussion of Calvin, Institutes, II.ii.
• Broader discussion of human freedom, moral responsibility, divine sovereignty, etc.

Questions for reflection

i. “If God is sovereign, he can’t blame me for my sin.” Discuss.

ii. Can unbelievers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.

iii. Can believers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.

Study questions

1. What question does Calvin set out “to investigate more closely” (II.ii.1)?

2. What are “the perils that threaten man on both sides” (II.ii.1)? How does Calvin urge us to avoid them?

In II.ii.2-9 Calvin expounds the views of various philosophers and theologians on the subject of the human will. He discusses “the philosophers” such as Cicero, Plato and Aristotle (sections 2-3); the church fathers (section 4); Lombard (sections 5-7); Augustine (section 8); before summarising his view of them in section 9.

*3. What do “the philosophers” believe about human capacity for good and evil (II.ii.2-3)?

*4. What does Calvin think about the doctrine of the freedom of the will espoused by the Church Fathers (II.ii.4)?

*5. Lombard declares at the end of II.ii.6 that “we have free will, not in that we are equally capable of doing or thinking good and evil, but merely that we are freed from compulsion.” What does Calvin think of this statement (II.ii.7)? Do you share Calvin’s reservation here?

After a brief introduction to this part of the chapter at the start of II.ii.12, Calvin discusses in turn the effect of the fall on man’s “understanding” (II.ii.12-17) and spiritual discernment” (II.ii.18-21).

6. What effect, according to Calvin, has the fall had on humanity’s “natural gifts” and “supernatural gifts” (II.ii.12)? Do you agree with this distinction? What effect did the fall have on the will (II.ii.12)?

7. How does Calvin account for the competence of unbelievers in fields such as art and science (II.ii.14-16)? Do you agree? You might find it helpful to look also at section II.iii.3.

8. What does Calvin believe fallen human reason is able (and unable) to discern concerning what he calls “God’s Kingdom” and “spiritual insight” (II.ii.18-25)? Do you agree?

9. How does Calvin interpret Romans 2:14-15: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the works of the law, they are a law to themselves … and show that the work of the law is written on their hearts” (II.ii.22)? Do you agree with this interpretation?

Introduction

In recent weeks we’ve looked at the outworking of God’s plan of salvation in history (O. Palmer Robertson on Covenant Theology in The Christ of the Covenants) and the origin of God’s plan of salvation in eternity (John Calvin on the doctrine of election). We now bring these two topics together with an article by American theologian and Pastor John Barach entitled “Covenant and Election” (pp. 15-44 in The Federal Vision, ed. S. Wilkins and D. Garner [Monroe: Athanasius Press, 2004]).

This article helps us to think through the practical and pastoral relevance of the doctrine of election. In particular, it highlights some problems which (according to Barach) can arise from a common Reformed misunderstanding of the doctrine of election, and proposes what he regards as a more biblical alternative which avoids these problems.

It’s important to realise here that Barach is discussing an issue about which there is disagreement within the Reformed tradition. This is helpfully reflected in the gracious and measured tone of Barach’s article – a tone which of course should characterise all such discussions. At the same time, the pastoral issues at stake are potentially quite significant, and Barach’s article therefore rightly poses some challenging questions, which if we are wise we will want to engage with in a clear-headed and robust way.

Questions for reflection

i. What is “assurance of salvation”?

ii. Can assurance of salvation be experienced? If so, how?

iii. Does the doctrine of election have anything to do with assurance?

iv. Should a professing believer ever be excluded from the Lord’s Table? Why or why not?

Study questions

1. How, according to Barach, should we approach the subject of election (pp. 15-17)? What particular mistakes must we take care to avoid (pp. 15-17)?

For reflection: Do you notice here any echoes of Calvin’s approach to the doctrine of election (see Institutes, III.xxi. 1-4)?

2. What does Barach believe about the doctrine of predestination? (pp. 17-18)

3. “There are [Reformed] churches where perhaps twenty out of seven hundred partake of the Lord’s Supper” (p. 19). What flawed logic leads to this practice (p. 19)? What response does Barach make briefly on p. 19?

For reflection: How do you think you would feel if you, as a believer, were refused admission to the Lord’s Table (either at your church or elsewhere)?

Barach now summarises two views on the relationship between election and the covenant: (1) The Arminian view; and (2) What he calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”

Let’s look at the Arminian view first.

4. How does Barach summarise the Arminian position on election (pp. 19-20)?

*5. Read the following extract from Francis Turretin’s description of the Arminian doctrine of election:

“[The Arminians] attribute a certain causality to faith, so that God is moved by its foresight to choose this rather than that one … Moreover, they make a twofold decree of election: the first general, of saving believers; the second special, of saving individuals by name whom God foresaw would believe” (Turretin, Institutes, IV.xi.7; 1:356-357).

Does Barach agree with Turretin about the Arminian doctrine of election? If not, how do they differ?

Now let’s look at what Barach calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”

6. What is the other view of election and the covenant which is “more popular in our circles” (p. 20)?

7. “This view presents a number of pastoral problems” (p. 20). What are these problems (pp. 20-21)? What happens “if we hold this view consistently” (p. 21)?

For reflection: Do you agree with Barach that this view of election and the covenant will tend to produce the problems he describes?

Having outlined this second view of the relationship between covenant and election, Barach now proceeds to critique it, and to propose an alternative view.

8. What point does Barach seek to make from Hebrews 10 and John 15?

For reflection: Do you agree with this exegesis of Hebrews 10 and John 15?

9. What alternative view about “the relationship between covenant and election” does Barach propose (p. 23)? Who else (according to Barach) also held this view? (Barach also discusses the historical pedigree of this view on pp. 39-41.)

According to Barach, some who hold this view distinguish sharply between covenant and election (bottom of p. 23). However, he argues, “This isn’t the way Scripture speaks” (p. 24).

10. How, according to Barach, does Scripture use the language of God’s “chosen ones” and “elect ones” (pp. 24-26)? What texts does Barach mention in this context?

11. “The Old Testament election involved the whole body and it involved history. But that was the Old Testament. Election revealed in the New Testament is a different kind of election” (p. 27). How does Barach reply (pp. 27-31)?

For reflection: What do you think of Barach’s response? Do the following New Testament texts add anything to this discussion?

• 1 Corinthians 10
• Jude 5
• Romans 9-11, especially Romans 11:17-21

12. “We need to hold three things together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election” (p. 31). What are these three things (pp. 31-32)?

*13. What will happen “If we try to do our theologizing and our pastoring and our speaking to God’s people from the perspective of God’s eternal predestination” (p. 32) rather than from the perspective of the covenant (pp. 32-33)?

14. Barach discusses several possible descriptions of someone who is a member of God’s covenant people for a time but then falls away (p. 36)? What are these different descriptions? What are their strengths and weaknesses?

15. “If apostasy is a real danger, can we ever have assurance?” (p. 39). If so, how?

For reflection: Has Barach’s article changed the way you think about assurance of salvation? If so, how?

Introduction

Session 28 of the Guided Reading Course takes us back to Calvin’s Institutes (III.xxi-xiv; 2:920-987), where we’ll be looking at the doctrine of election.

This topic follows naturally from our previous sessions of the doctrine of salvation. So far we’ve looked at an overview of the Bible (Peter Leithart, A House for My Name), before looking in particular at how God’s relationship with his people has unfolded through history in a series of covenants (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants). Now we pull back the curtain of history, so to speak, and look into eternity, as we consider the fountainhead of all God’s blessings to his people – God’s eternal decree of election.

Calvin seems to use the terms “predestination” and “election” slightly differently here in the Institutes. “Predestination” refers to God’s eternal decree (i.e. decision) concerning every part of a person’s life. “Election” refers to God’s eternal decree concerning whether or not a person will be saved.

There’s quite a lot of reading in these four sections, so you probably won’t be able to finish it all in the time available. As ever, let the study questions guide you, and if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Outline of Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi-xxiv

III.xxi Introduction to the doctrine of election

III.xxi.1             Introduction

III.xxi.1-2         First wrong way of approaching the doctrine of election

III.xxi.3-4         Second wrong way of approaching the doctrine of election

III.xxi.5-7         Definitions

III.xxii Biblical evidence for the doctrine of election

III.xxiii Misunderstandings of, and objections to, the doctrine of election

III.xxiii.1           Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not

III.xxiii.2-5       Objection 1: Election is unjust

III.xxiii.6-9       Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man

III.xxiii.10-11   Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism

III.xxiii.12         Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness

III.xxiii.13-14   Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

III.xxiv.1-11 How God deals with the elect

III.xxiv.12-17 How God deals with the reprobate

Questions for reflection

i. Calvin describes the doctrine of election as “a baffling question” (III.xxi.1). Do you agree? Why?

ii. “The doctrine of election is very complicated and confusing. We shouldn’t teach it – especially not to young Christians.” Discuss.

iii. “If God chooses to save some people, that must mean that he chooses to damn everyone else.” Discuss.

Study questions

1. Calvin believes that “we shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election” (III.xxi.1). Why?

For reflection: Do you agree with Calvin’s claim that only the doctrine of election can persuade us fully of God’s free mercy?

In the last part of III.xxi.1, Calvin mentions “two kinds of men,” whom he then discusses in the following sections:

III.xxi.1-2 The first kind of men

III.xxi.3-4 The second kind of men

2. According to Calvin, what mistakes do “the first kind of men” and “the second kind of men” make (III.xxi.1-4)? How does Calvin respond to each mistake?

For reflection: How might Calvin have answered the second “Question for Reflection,” above?

In III.xxi.5-7 Calvin defines the terms “predestination” / “election,” and “foreknowledge,” explaining the distinction between the election of the Israelite nation and the election of specific individuals.

3. How does Calvin define “foreknowledge” and “predestination” in III.xxi.5?

4. What biblical evidence does Calvin cite to support his definition of predestination in III.xxi.5?

5. What two “degrees” of election does Calvin discuss in section III.xxi.6-7? What are the similarities between them? What are the differences between them?

In III.xxii Calvin explains in more detail the doctrine he has summarised in the previous chapter. He begins by tackling an important misunderstandings of the doctrine of election.

6. What misunderstanding does Calvin describe in the first paragraph of III.xxii.1?

For reflection: Why do you think many people might be attracted to the misunderstand Calvin mentions?

7. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin cite in III.xxii.1-5 to support his position? Are you persuaded?

8. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin cite in III.xxii.7 to support his position? Are you persuaded?

*9. In III.xxii.8, Calvin cites Romans 9:14, “What then? Is there injustice with God?” Calvin notes that Paul does not respond with a certain argument at this point. What is this argument, and why is its omission significant?

*10. What is “the subtlety of Thomas [Aquinas]” (III.xxii.9)? How does Calvin respond?

In III.xxiii, Calvin responds to some misunderstandings of, and objections to, the doctrine of election. The chapter falls into the following sections:

III.xxiii.1              Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not

III.xxiii.2-5          Objection 1: Election is unjust

III.xxiii.6-9          Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man

III.xxiii.10-11      Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism

III.xxiii.12            Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness

III.xxiii.13-14      Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

11. Briefly explain each misunderstanding and objection in turn, and explain how Calvin responds in each case.

• III.xxiii.1              Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not
• III.xxiii.2-5          Objection 1: Election is unjust
• III.xxiii.6-9          Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man
• III.xxiii.10-11      Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism
• III.xxiii.12            Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness
• III.xxiii.13-14      Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

For reflection: How would Calvin respond to someone who said, “If God has predestined my sin, he can’t blame me for it.” (See objection 2, III.xxiii.6-9)

Unless you are a very fast reader you probably won’t have time to look at III.xxiv in much detail. However, here are some questions to guide your reading – either now or at some time in the future.

*12. Does Calvin think we can be sure of our election (III.xxiv.1-5)? If so, how?

For reflection: Do you find any problems with Calvin’s argument here?

*13. What biblical texts come to the forefront in Calvin’s discussion of the perseverance of the elect (III.xxiv.6-11)? Should any others have been mentioned?

*14. Why does Calvin take such trouble to distinguish two different senses of “election” in his discussion of Judas (III.xxiv.9)?

*15. What differences exist between God’s dealings with the elect and his dealings with the reprobate (III.xxiv.12-14)?

Introduction

In this session we’re continuing our study of the doctrine of original sin, looking at chapters 3 and 4 of John Murray’s book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. This will complete our overview of Reformed (and some other) positions on the subject. Alongside Murray, I’ve also included some questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i. You almost certainly won’t have time to read all this material, so please don’t try to. Instead, read whichever sections you feel most able and most inclined to. We’ll cover all the bases in the tutorial.

Murray’s book has been re-printed as the appendix to Justified in Christ (ed. K. Scott Oliphint; Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007). The page numbers are different from the original, but the section markers and chapter headings remain intact, so we’ll use them (rather than the page numbers) to guide us through the questions.

(Just a quick reminder: the term “impute” means “count,” or “reckon”. Therefore to say that sin is “imputed” to someone means that it is “counted” against them, or “reckoned” to stand against them.)

Here’s a reminder of what Murray has said so far.

• In chapter 1 (sections I and II), Murray outlines the crucial text (Romans 5:12-21), and summarises four different views of the phrase “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12). These views were (1) The Pelagian view (we imitate Adam’s sin); (2) The Roman Catholic view (non-culpable sinful state imputed, but no sinful act imputed); (3) Calvin’s view (culpable sinful state imputed, but no sinful act imputed); (4) The classical Protestant view (sinful state and sinful act imputed). Murray takes view (4).
• In chapter 2 (section III), Murray asks what kind of union between Adam and his descendants can account for the imputation of this sin. The two options are (1) Realist; (2) Federalist/representationist. Murray takes option (2).

This sets the stage for the next chapter, in which Murray addresses the following questions:

• In chapter 3 (section IV), Murray asks how the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants. He considers two options: (1) Mediate imputation; (2) Immediate imputation. These terms are explained by Murray, and also in the text below.
• In chapter 4 (section V), Murray considers the character of our involvement in Adam’s sin. This is a complex chapter, and is not especially relevant for our purposes, so we won’t spend much time on it.

This material is some of the most complex we have yet encountered. It’s very worthwhile, but please don’t worry if you find it a bit baffling – just do what you can, and skip the questions marked with a * if you’re pressed for time.

I’ve also included some questions on the relevant chapter in Calvin’s Institutes (II.i). This is considerably easier than the final section of Murray; you might like to spend your time looking at Calvin instead. Whatever you spend your time reading, we’ll have plenty of opportunity in the tutorial to gather together the various loose ends.

Here, building on the partial outline from last week, is a full outline of the contents of Murray’s book:

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

Section II: The meaning of “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

Section III: The nature of the solidarity between Adam and his descendants

(1) The Realist view

(2) The Representative (i.e. Federalist) view.

Chapter 3

Section IV: The mode of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants

(1) Mediate imputation

(2) Immediate imputation

Chapter 4

Section V: The character of our involvement in Adam’s sin

Study Questions on Murray, Imputation, chs 3-4

Chapter 3 (section IV)

Chapter 3 is divided into two parts: (1) Mediate imputation; (2) Immediate imputation. Here’s a quick definition of these terms:

The doctrine of mediate imputation states that the sin of Adam is not imputed directly to his posterity; instead, Adam’s corrupt and sinful nature is imputed directly, and Adam’s sin is imputed as a consequence of the imputation of Adam’s corrupt nature. The imputation of Adam’s sin is thus mediated through the imputation of his corrupt nature.

The doctrine of immediate imputation states that the sin of Adam is imputed directly to his posterity, and that we inherit Adam’s corrupt nature as a consequence of the imputation of his first sin. The imputation of Adam’s sin is thus immediate – it is not mediated through the imputation of his corrupt nature.

More detailed explanations are found early in this chapter of Murray, to which we now turn. Questions 1 to 10 focus on the first part of the chapter; questions 11 and 12 focus on the second.

1. What was Placaeus accused of believing by the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France in 1644-45?

2. Murray helpfully explains what Placaeus actually believed: “In a word his position was…” what?

For reflection: How do you think Placaeus would have felt when he received news of the decrees of the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France?

After a brief discussion of some of the debates that took place at the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France, Murray proceeds to outline the views of some other theologians whose views in some (though not necessarily all) respects resembled the doctrine of mediate imputation. We’ll look particularly at Samuel Hopkins, Nathanael Emmons, Timothy Dwight and Nathaniel W. Taylor, before turning our attention to the altogether more sophisticated and subtle theology of Jonathan Edwards.

3. What did Samuel Hopkins believe about the imputation of Adam’s sin?

For reflection: Why might Hopkins’s position seem attractive?

4. What is wrong with Hopkins’s position? Why can Hopkins’s view “scarcely be classified with the other exponents of mediate imputation”?

5. What underlying conviction do Nathanael Emmons and Timothy Dwight share?

*6. What “two explicit denials” were made by Nathaniel W. Taylor? What did Taylor affirm? What problems could you identify with Taylor’s position?

We turn now to Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of original sin. Here it gets a little complicated. Try to follow the threads as well as you can, but don’t despair if you feel a dull headache coming on. The tutorial will relieve the pain. In fact, if you’re pressed for time (or feeling slightly cross-eyed) then I suggest you skip straight on to question 11.

*7. What did Charles Hodge and William Cunningham think Jonathan Edwards believed? What did B. B. Warfield think Edwards believed?

*8. What does Edwards’s position have in common with a doctrine of immediate imputation? How did he differ from Hopkins?

*9. What does Edwards mean when he rejects the idea of “double guilt”?

*10. Why does Edwards’s belief that “The evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent” not imply a doctrine of mediate imputation?

For reflection: How might Edwards rebut the claim that the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants is unjust?

We turn now to the second part of section IV, the doctrine of immediate imputation.

11. What arguments does Murray set forth in favour of the doctrine of immediate imputation?

*12. Does the fourth of Murray’s arguments in favour of immediate imputation challenge Jonathan Edwards’s position?

Chapter 4 (section V)

This final chapter is technical, and is not so significant for our purposes as the previous three. Don’t spend to much time on it – any questions, bring them to the tutorial

*13. What is the question under discussion in this section? How does it follow logically from the flow of the argument so far?

*14. What did Charles Hodge believe is imputed to Adam’s descendants? What is the problem with this view?

*16. What do you make of Murray’s attempts to answer the question posed in this section?

Study Questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i

17. Calvin says we may “divide the knowledge that man ought to have of himself” into two parts (II.i.3). What are these two parts? What are the goals of these two aspects of self-knowledge?

Section 4 is a description of the sin of Adam.

18. Why, in Calvin’s view, was Adam “denied the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (II.i.4)? What do you make of Calvin’s description of Adam’s sin in the second half of II.i.4?

19. What does Calvin think is meant by the phrase “original sin” (II.i.5, 6, 8)? How does his view differ from other Reformed position outlined by John Murray in The Imputation of Adam’s Sin? Having read Murray, do you think he represents Calvin accurately?

20. What are the “two things” that Calvin is at pains to clarify in the second part of II.i.8?

21. How much does Calvin say about the mode of transmission of sin from one generation to the next (II.i.7)? Do you find his explanation satisfactory?

22. How does Calvin respond to the objection that God has created us sinful (II.i.10-11)? In what sense is our sinful nature “natural” (II.i.11)?

Introduction

In the previous session we considered the creation of man. In session 12 we move on, following the biblical logic, to consider the fall of man and the doctrine of original sin. In this and the following session, we’ll be looking at John Murray’s book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin.

Murray’s book has been re-printed as the appendix to Justified in Christ (ed. K. Scott Oliphint; Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007). The page numbers are different from the original, but the section markers and chapter headings remain intact, so we’ll use them (rather than the page numbers) to guide us through the questions.

A couple of portions of Murray’s book are rather complex, so I’ve provided some explanation to help you find your way through them. Some of the questions relate to these sections, and I encourage you to have a crack at if you’re able to. But don’t worry if you run out of time or if you find them too hard to understand – that’s what the tutorial is for.

To help you get a feel for the shape of Murray’s book, I’ve included a brief outline below. The notes interspersed among the questions are also designed to help you keep track of the argument of the book.

At some point you might also want to read Calvin, Institutes, II.i (1:241-255). This is quite a short section, and is quite easy to get through, especially once you’ve had the orientation from Murray. The key parts are sections 4 to 8.

As ever, omit the questions marked with a * if you’re short of time.

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, chs 1-2

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

Section II: The meaning of “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

Section III: The nature of the solidarity between Adam and his descendants

(1) The Realist view

(2) The Representative (i.e. Federalist) view.

Questions for reflection

i. How do you react emotionally and intellectually to the idea that unbelievers are condemned because of the sin of Adam? How do you think unbelievers would tend to feel about this?

ii. How do you react emotionally and intellectually to the idea that the unrighteous are justified through faith in Christ?

Study questions

Chapter 1 (Introduction; sections I and II)

The first couple of pages are an introduction to the subject.

1. Can you explain the “ancient conception” that underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 5?

For reflection: How prevalent do you think this “ancient conception” in the modern world? Can you think of any examples?

Section I is very short, and contains some brief comments on the crucial text, Romans 5:12-21. It paves the way for section II, entitled “The Sin Contemplated,” in which Murray explores several different interpretations of the relevant passage.

2. What does Murray regard as “the crux of the question”?

Before you go any further, spend a few minutes reading Romans 5:12-21 at least twice through. Unless you have memorised it (actually, that’s not a bad idea) you will be wasting your time from this point on if you’ve not recently read the biblical text that Murray is going to be talking about.

In the rest of chapter 1 (section II), Murray outlines and critiques four views of the crucial clause “in that all sinned” in Romans 5:12: (1) the Pelagian view; (2) the Roman Catholic view; (3) Calvin’s interpretation; and (4) the Classical Protestant interpretation. (Note the helpful numbering in the subsections.)

[Notice in passing that this is an example of significant variation within the Reformed tradition on an important theological issue. The Reformed tradition is far from uniform.]

3. What is the Pelagian view?

4. According to Murray, what is wrong with the Pelagian view? Which of Murray’s counter-arguments do you find most compelling?

5. According to the Council of Trent (the “official teaching of the Romish church”), what do Roman Catholics believe is transmitted to Adam’s descendants? What is not transmitted?

6. What is wrong with this view? (NB “Concupiscence” means “sinful desire”.)

*For reflection: Can you think of any biblical texts that explicitly disprove the Roman Catholic view that concupiscence (sinful desire) is “not itself truly and properly sin”?

7. In what respect(s) is Calvin’s view similar to the Roman Catholic view? How does his view differ?

Having outlined the views of Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, and Calvin, Murray turns to his own position, which he calls “The Classical Protestant Interpretation.” He first sets out three considerations that the correct interpretation must account for.

8. According to Murray, what three “considerations” of Paul’s argument are accounted for in “the Classical Protestant Interpretation”?

9. Do you agree with Murray’s understanding of the text here?

10. What, according to Murray, is “the only solution” (final paragraph of the chapter) that can make sense of these exegetical considerations?

Chapter 2 (section III)

Having reached the conclusion at the end of chapter 1 that “there must be some kind of solidarity existing between the ‘one’ [Adam] and the ‘all’ [Adam’s descendants],” Murray proceeds in chapter 2 to consider the nature of this solidarity. He discusses the two options in turn:

(1) The Realist view (which Murray tends to call the “realistic” view);

(2) The Representative view (sometimes called the “federalist” view, or just “federalism”).

Let’s take them one at a time, beginning with the Realist view.

11. How does Murray summarise the “Realistic” view of the imputation of Adam’s sin? What do you think of this position?

The next few pages are a bit complicated. Let me give you a helping hand.

Murray clarifies that representation does not deny the realist view that “Adam is the natural head as well as the representative head of the race”; they simply insist that this natural union alone is insufficient to account for the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity. Moreover, representation agrees with realism that “the human nature which became corrupt in Adam is propagate to the members of the race”; they simply disagree that this human nature is “an entity that is specifically and numerically one.”

OK – can you feel a dull headache coming on? Don’t worry. Murray’s aim here is to identify more clearly the difference between the realistic and representative positions more precisely. Here goes:

Realists believe that there was in Adam a “thing” that was corrupted when he sinned, and this thing is “human nature,” and this human nature is transmitted to all Adam’s descendants, and this transmission gives rise to the unity between Adam and his posterity which is the sole explanation for the imputation of Adam’s sin.

Representationists (i.e. Federalists) believe that the unity between Adam and his posterity  is constituted in another way, namely by a divine decree according to which Adam is established as a “representative” head (or “federal” head) of the whole human race. This, federalists believe, is the sole basis of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his offspring.

All clear? If not, go back a couple of paragraphs and try again. If so, let’s have a crack at the next question:

*12. What does Murray call “the crux of the question” in the debate between realism and representationalism?

Murray then briefly discusses Calvin’s view (Calvin’s emphasis on the transmission of a corrupt nature does not imply that he was a realist) and Augustine’s view (it’s not certain that he was a realist either). If you have time, look at the following two questions.

*13. How would Murray respond if a realist claimed support from Calvin?

*14. What support could a realist claim from Augustine?

Next, Murray discusses the views of the realist W. G. T. Shedd, who raised some objections against the realist view.

*15. Why does Shedd think that “it is unreasonable to regard representative union of Adam and posterity as a proper basis for the imputation of Adam’s sin”?

*For reflection: What do you feel about the objection Shedd raises here?

Finally, at the end of the “Realist view” sub-section, Murray identified four problems with realism, numbered (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).

*16. What four problems with realism does Murray identify? Are you convinced?

Murray turns now to the second major subsection in the chapter: an explanation and defence of the Representative view.

17. What aspects of the realist view does the representative view not deny?

18. What biblical data, which cannot be accounted for by realism, is the representative view able to explain?

19. What conclusion does Murray draw at the end of chapter 2?

Introduction

In session 27 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re looking at the final two chapters of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). In this session we’re looking at the Davidic Covenant (ch 12) and the New Covenant (ch 13).

You’ll recall from the previous sessions that covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture.

As ever, if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. What is the “New Covenant”?

ii. Is the New Covenant breakable?

iii. What are the major differences between the New Covenant and previous covenants?

iv. What do you understand by the phrase “S/son of God”?

Study questions

We begin with chapter 12, looking at the Davidic Covenant, which Robertson calls “The Covenant of the Kingdom.” After a brief introduction, (pp. 229-230), Robertson makes some comments on the Davidic enthronement narrative in 2 Samuel 7 (pp. 230-234). He then addresses some distinctive features of the Davidic covenant (pp. 234-252) before looking at the historical outworking of the Davidic Covenant in the history of the Old Testament (pp. 252-269).

First, a quick look at the introduction (pp. 229-230).

1. “In the Davidic covenant God’s purposes … reach their climactic stage of realization so far as the Old Testament is concerned” (p. 229). What evidence does Robertson give to support this claim (pp. 229-230)?

For reflection: Why is it significant that there is a man on Israel’s throne at the “climactic stage” of God’s OT covenants with Israel? (Hint: Consider Genesis 1:26-28)

Now let’s look at the Davidic enthronement narrative in 2 Samuel 7 (pp. 230-234).

2. In preparation for the inauguration of the Davidic covenant, David “took Jerusalem from the Jebusites” (p. 230). Bearing in mind Genesis 3:15, Exodus 3:17 and Joshua 15:63, why might this be significant?

3. Explain the “interconnection between dynasty and dwelling-place” (p. 232).

For reflection: Why is the construction of a permanent dwelling-place for Israel’s God significant in the light of Genesis 12:1-3?

4. What does “son of God” mean in the context of the Davidic covenant (pp. 233-234)?

5. What Old Testament evidence does Robertson mention which points toward a “divine Messiah” (p. 234)?

Robertson now considers a series of distinctive features of the Davidic covenant (pp. 234-252).

6. Robertson describes Israel’s King as a “covenant mediator” (p. 235). What sorts of things does the King do in this capacity (p. 235)?

For reflection: What light does this connection between “Kingdom” and “Covenant” shed on the summary of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 1:14-15?

On pp. 243-252, Robertson considers the question of whether the Davidic Covenant is “conditional or unconditional” (pp. 244). Some such as R. E. Clements see the Davidic covenant as an outworking of the promise to Abraham (pp. 244-245); others such as M. Tsevat see a connection between the Davidic and Mosaic covenants (pp. 245-246). Robertson proposes another perspective which (unlike those just mentioned) does not involve alleging contradictions (Tsevat) or misrepresentations (Clements) inGRC-27a Scripture.

Robertson addresses the conditionality/unconditionality question in stages – first, considering the people of Israel corporately (pp. 246-247); second, considering individual participating in the covenant (p. 247).

7. “Is it certain that God’s purposes to establish a kingdom for himself among redeemed sinners shall be realized?” (p. 246). Why?

8. Does the certainty of God’s purposes guarantee “individual participation in the blessings of the covenant” (p. 247)?

Robertson turns next to the historical outworking of the Davidic Covenant (pp. 252-269). Among other things, this section highlights the connection between Israel’s King and God’s covenant with Israel (see especially p. 267). This section is well worth reading, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it in detail during the tutorial.

In the final chapter Robertson turns to the New Covenant, focussing much of his attention on the important prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34. You might like to read this text in its context before continuing.

9. Robertson identifies “several major motifs … which relate essentially to the new covenant concept” (p. 247) in Jeremiah 31 and related passages. What are these motifs (pp. 274-278)?

10. The “concept of newness [in the New Covenant] implies a break with the past” (p. 280). According to Robertson, what particular covenantal administration(s) is/are left behind (pp. 280-281)? Do you agree?

11. “Yet the newness of the new covenant must not stand in absolute contradiction to the previous covenants. A factor of continuity must be recognized” (p. 281). What aspects of continuity does Robertson identify (pp. 281-286)? Do you agree?

12. Why does Jeremiah emphasise the forgiveness of sins available under the New Covenant (p. 283)?

13. What is wrong with R. K. Harrison’s claim that the New Covenant manifested “personal, as opposed to corporate, spirituality” (p. 286)?

14. How does Robertson relieve “the tension between individuality and corporateness in the new covenant” (pp. 287-290)?

15. How does Robertson explain Jeremiah’s apparent insistence that under the New Covenant there will be no need for teachers (pp. 293-296)? Do you agree?

Judges 17-21 comes after Judges 16, and you might therefore think that the events described there (Micah and his idols and so on) happened after the death of Samson, which is described at the end of Judges 16.

Not so.

According to Judges 20:28, the ark of God was at that time attended by a guy called Phinehas, the son of Eleazar. This is almost certainly the same Phinehas named in Numbers 25 – the one who put a stop to the plague caused by the Israelites’ idolatry with Midian during their wilderness wanderings. This Phinehas was apparently born after the exodus from Egypt, otherwise he’d have died in the wilderness like all of the generation that left Egypt apart from Joshua and Caleb. This means that he must have been somewhere between about 20 and 40 years old start of the conquest (no older, otherwise he’d have died in the wilderness with all the rest of that generation except Joshua and Caleb; not much younger, otherwise it’s hard to imagine him picking up a spear and skewering Zimri and his Midianite mistress with it). Assuming he lived no more than 120 years (Gen 6:3), the events described in Judges 17-21 must have taken place in the first 100 or so years (at most) after the start of the conquest.

Consequently, Judges 17-21 does not describe the result of the Judges’ rule, but its cause. They describe the kind of ungodliness within Israel that precipitated the decline during the first couple of generations after the conquest. When you read in the early chapters that “the Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD” (e.g. Judges 3:12; 4:1) this is what they were getting up to.

This kind of thoughtful analysis is just one of the many reasons why Don Carson is such a blessing to the church, and one of the many reasons why he will be remembered when the impact of other – perhaps noisier – men has faded.

Here’s one particularly striking extract:

“We must not equate courage with success, or even youth with success … I have spent too much time in places like Japan, or in parts of the Muslim world, where courage is not measured on the world stage, where a single convert is reckoned a mighty trophy of grace. I am grateful beyond words for the multiplication of churches in Acts 29, but I am no less grateful for Baptist ministers like my Dad, men who labored very hard and saw very little fruit for decades in French Canada, many of whom went to prison … Just as the widow who gave her mite may be reckoned to have given more than many multi-millionaires, so, I suspect, some ministers in Japan, or Yorkshire, will receive greater praise on that last day than those who served faithfully in a corner of the world where there was more fruit.”

Here are a few thoughts from yesterday’s interactive session in Forum on the subject of The State.

What should the government do?

Romans 13:1-7 1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.

Questions

1. Who must “be subject to the governing authorities” (v. 1)?

2. Where does the government’s authority come from (v. 1)?

3. The government is “the servant of God” to do… what (v. 4)?

4. How should the government’s work be paid for (v. 6)?

Answers

1. Everyone must obey the government, because…

2. … the government’s authority comes from God.

3. The government must serve God – it can’t do whatever it wants; rather, it exists to carry out God’s wrath against wrongdoers.

• Internal wrongdoers (criminals within the country)
• External wrongdoers (military invaders from outside the country)

4. Everyone must pay for the government’s work through taxation.

A (partial) list of UK government departments

Draw a circle around any of these departments which might conceivably be necessary for the government to carry out its God-given task of carrying out “God’s wrath against evildoers” (i.e. punishing criminals, defending the nation).

• Her Majesty’s Treasury
• The Charity Commission
• The Crown Prosecution Service
• The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
• The Department for Culture, Media and Sport
• The Department for Education
• The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• The Department for International Development
• The Department for Transport
• The Department for Work and Pensions
• The Department of Energy and Climate Change
• The Department of Health
• The Food Standards Agency
• The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• The Forestry Commission
• The Government Equalities Office
• The Home Office
• The Ministry of Defence
• The Ministry of Justice
• The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills
• The Office of Fair Trading
• The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
• The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
• The Office of Rail Regulation
• The Ordnance Survey
• The Serious Fraud Office
• The Water Services Regulation Authority

Speaker: Steve Jeffery

The fifth in a series of interactive sessions in Forum on the subject of Authority and Responsibility. The handout is available here.

The sluggard does not lack ambition. He has no shortage of ideas, plans, and desires; it’s just not matched by hard work. He might start something, but he’ll never finish it. He go out hunting, catch animal, bring it home, but he won’t get round to cooking it; he’ll justt leave it to rot in his front garden. He won’t plough his field in the autumn; he’ll be worn out by the effort of harvest. But then he’ll be surprised (yes, it’s always a surprise) when the following summer he has nothing to eat. You should be careful when you’re walking past his house – falling roof-tiles and collapsing walls are all too frequent. If he ever gets a job, he’s an absolute pain in the neck to his boss: “Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is a sluggard to the one who sends him.” His life becomes like a hedge of thorns – he’s taken the path of short-term ease so often that his affairs are in utter chaos, and eventually it’s almost impossible to sort out the mess. Finally (unless he has inherited wealth) he’ll end his life with nothing – once again, to his immense surprise, “poverty will come upon him like a robber.” (Proverbs 6:6-11; 10:26; 13:4; 15:19; 19:24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30; 26:13-16.)

At times this comic figure will make you laugh. And of course it’s a caricature – there’s no one in the world quite like this. But in most of us we’ll find some of these traits, if we look hard enough. And look we must, because the Sluggard is, in the end, a figure of tragedy. He’s pitiful, sad, pathetic.

Four characteristics of the Sluggard from Proverbs 26:13-16:

1. Sluggards make excuses (v. 13)
2. Sluggards rarely start a job (v. 14)
3. Sluggards never finish a job (v. 15)
4. Sluggards won’t listen (v. 16)

Listen here.

Preacher: Steve Jeffery

v16 The vexation of a fool ['ewil] is known at once, but the prudent ['arum] ignores [koseh] an insult.

v17 Whoever speaks the truth ['emunah] gives honest evidence, but a false [shekar] witness utters deceit.

v22  Lying [shekar] lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully ['emunah] are his delight.

v23 A prudent ['arum] man conceals [koseh] knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly ['ewil].

The word order of ‘arum and koseh is reversed in the Hebrew text of v. 16, so that the chiasm looks like this:

fool ['ewil]

ignores [koseh]

prudent ['arum]

truth ['emunah]

false [shekar]

Lying [shekar]

faithfully ['emunah]

prudent ['arum]

conceals [koseh]

folly ['ewil]

With thanks to Bruce Waltke, Proverbs (NICOT), p. 533.

According to some well-read friends of mine (thanks TR, GW, BN, GV, BA, AS), some books, articles and other resources making a case for exclusive unaccompanied psalmody include the following:

• “Purity of Worship,” in Hold Fast Your Confession: Studies in Church Principles, ed. Donald Macleod (Edinburgh, Knox Press)
• The Free Church of Scotland
• Brian Schwertley,”A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody”
• G. I. Williamson, “The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God”
• John Murray, “Minority Report of the Committee on Song in the Public Worship of God Submitted to the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church”
• exclusivepsalmody.com
• W. I. Wishart, The Psalms the Divinely Authorized and Exclusive Manual of Praise
• Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion

This is not a view I hold. But I know some folks who do, and it’s as well to know what they’re likely to have been reading.

This year’s John Owen Centre Conference takes place on 10-11 September 2012 at London Theological Seminary. Bookings are now open.

Here’s an outline of the topics and speakers:

Adam in the OT (David Green)

Adam in the NT (Lane Tipton)

Adam in systematic theology (Lane Tipton)

Adam in covenant theology (Garry Williams)

Adam and original sin (Steve Jeffery)

Preaching Adam to Adam’s race (Michael McClenahan)

Preacher: Steve Jeffery

Here’s a surprising cluster of texts, in which the Bible either implicitly or explictly commends lying or deception. Taken from (and very helpfully explained by) John Frame in his Doctrine of the Christian Life, pp. 834-840.

Exodus 1:15-21 The Israelite midwives lied to Pharaoh

Joshua 2; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25 Rahab hid the spies and lied to the Jericho troops

Judges 4:18 Jael deceived Sisera

1 Samuel 16:1-5 Samuel deceived Saul about the purpose of his mission

1 Samuel 19:12-17 Michal deceived and lied to Saul’s messengers, saying that David was ill

1 Samuel 20:6 David tells Jonathan to lie to Saul

1 Samuel 21:13 David deceived Achich King of Gath into believing he is mad

1 Samuel 27:10 David lied to Achish about his raids

2 Samuel 5:22-25 David and his troops deceived the Philistines in battle

2 Samuel 14:34 David urged Hushai the Archite to deceive Absalom

2 Samuel 17:19-20 A woman deceived and lied to Absalom’s men

1 Kings 22:19-23 God sent a lying spirit to Ahab

2 Kings 6:14-20 Elijah misled the Syrian troops

Jeremiah 38:24-28 Jeremiah lied to the officials

Luke 24:28 Jesus misled his disciples by acting as if he was going farther

2 Thessalonians 2:11 God sends a powerful delusion so that his enemies will believe a lie