Here’s the audio from Dan Cruver’s address at the Adoption & Orphan Weekend sponsored by Colonial Baptist Church, Cary, NC. The message given is only 31 minutes long.
God’s Story of Adoption (right click / choose “save target as” to download)
Dan Cruver Interviews Dr. Robert Peterson on Adoption
Posted: December 17, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Carolina Hope, Dan Cruver, Interviews, Robert Peterson, Theology 1 CommentCarolina Hope’s next interview of theologians is with Dr. Robert Peterson, professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. In addition to teaching on the seminary level, Dr. Peterson has extensive experience as a pastor, including church planting efforts, and has preached in Uganda and Peru on short-term mission trips. His pastoral experience is reflected in the practical emphases in his systematic theology classes. Dr. Peterson is the author of Adopted by God: From Wayward Sinners to Cherished Children. In it he considers the beauty of God’s grace through the lens of the wonderful doctrine of adoption. You can read the interview that Dan did with Dr. Peterson here.
Dan Cruver Interviews Dr. Timothy Trumper on Adoption: Part Three
Posted: December 13, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Carolina Hope, Dan Cruver, Theology, Timothy Trumper Leave a commentAs part of Carolina Hope’s adoption interview series, Dan Cruver is interviewing several theologians about the doctrine of spiritual adoption and its implications for earthly adoption. Dan believe that the practice of earthly adoption will be significantly enriched as we grow in our understanding of what it means to be adopted by God.
Because of the length and richness of Dr. Timothy Trumper’s answers, his interview will be posted in six parts (see Part 1 / Part 2). If you are interested in deepening your understanding of the doctrine of adoption significantly, you will want to take the necessary time to carefully read his answers. You can read part three of his interview here.
Dan Cruver Interviews Dr. Timothy Trumper on Adoption: Part Two
Posted: December 10, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Carolina Hope, Dan Cruver, Interviews, Theology, Timothy Trumper Leave a commentAs part of Carolina Hope’s adoption interview series, Dan Cruver is interviewing several theologians about the doctrine of spiritual adoption and its implications for earthly adoption. Dan believes that the practice of earthly adoption will be significantly enriched as we grow in our understanding of what it means to be adopted by God.
Because of the length Dr. Timothy Trumper’s answers, his interview will be posted in six parts (you can read part 1 here). If you are interested in deepening your understanding of the doctrine of adoption significantly, you will want to take the necessary time to carefully read his answers. Part Two can be read here.
Dan Cruver Interviews Dr. Timothy Trumper on Adoption: Part One
Posted: December 7, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Carolina Hope, Dan Cruver, Interviews, Theology, Timothy Trumper Leave a commentAs part of Carolina’s Hope’s adoption interview series, Dan Cruver is interviewing several theologians about the doctrine of spiritual adoption and its implications for earthly adoption. Dan believes that the practice of earthly adoption will be significantly enriched as the believer grows in understanding of what it means to be adopted by God.
Dan’s fourth interview on adoption and the theology of it is with Dr. Timothy Trumper (you can read the others here). Dr. Trumper is a native of Wales (UK). He was converted at the age of 15 and felt constrained to preach God’s Word while he was as a student of politics at the University of Wales. He then trained for the pastorate at the Free Church of Scotland College, Edinburgh (1989-1993).
While studying theology Dr. Trumper he was captivated by the doctrine of adoption (Eph. 1:5; Gal. 4:4-6; Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4). As a result, he enrolled in doctoral studies at New College, University of Edinburgh. It is there that he gave himself to a concentrated study on adoption. His dissertation is “An Historical Study of the Doctrine of Adoption in the Calvinistic Tradition” (Ph.D. thesis: University of Edinburgh, 2001). Dr. Trumper taught at Westminster Seminary from 1999-2003. He is presently Senior Minister at Seventh Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, MI. You can read the interview here.
Dan Curver Interviews Dr. Sam Storms on Adoption
Posted: December 5, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Carolina Hope, Dan Cruver, Interviews, Sam Storms, Theology Leave a commentCarolina Hope adoption agency has a series in which Dan Cruver is interviewing several theologians about the doctrine of spiritual adoption and its implications for earthly adoption. Dan believes that the practice of earthly adoption will be significantly enriched as we grow in our understanding of what it means to be adopted by God.
Carolina’s Hope’s thrid interview done with another theologian (you can read the first and second interviews here and here) is with Dr. Sam Storms, the founder of Enjoying God Ministries. Dan Cruver had thought about interviewing Dr. Storms about spiritual adoption after Dan’s Brother Steve Cruver reminded Dan that Dr. Same Storms had written about it in his book The Singing God: Discover the Joy of Being Enjoyed by God (Creation House, 1998). You can read the interview of Sam Storms here.
The Relevance of Buchanan’s Justification: Part Four
Posted: December 4, 2007 Filed under: Jerry Bridges, Justification, Reformation Heritage Books Leave a comment
Experiential
The final point of value in Buchanan’s Justification is the thorough-going, experiential warmth that pervades the book. This is something the NPP and even some of its critics lack. Yet, it is precisely the personal and experiential relevance of the doctrine of justification that makes it so extremely precious to God’s children. Their acceptance with God, their assuaged consciences, their hope of eternal life all depend on the proper construal of this doctrine. Buchanan simply excels in brings this gloriously to the fore. Again, allow one quotation to represent thousands of instances through the book:
Some vague opinion in regard to His [God’s] general mercy, or some undefined purpose to propitiate His favour by future repentance and amendment of life, before they are brought face to face with the awful realities of death, and judgment, and eternity, may suffice, in the meantime, as an answer to the accusing voice of conscience, and as an opiate to allay its forebodings and fears. But minds in this state never grapple with any of the real difficulties of the problem, and can scarcely be said to have the slightest apprehension of its true meaning. They overlook all the most momentous conditions which are involved in it, and on which its right solution depends. The Gospel of Christ alone has presented that problem in all its magnitude, and in its just proportions; and the Gospel of Christ alone has offered a solution of it, based on a full view of the Attributes of God, — of the unalterable requirements of His Law, — of the principles and ends of His Moral Government, –, and of the stat, character, and prospects of man, as a dying yet immortal being, chargeable with past guilt, and still depraved by inherent sin (406).
Here and throughout the book, the godly will find justification not only a doctrine consonant with the Bible, vindicated throughout history, theologically integral, but also experientially vital.
Reformulations of the great doctrine of justification seem to require little ingenuity, whereas the defense of the doctrine obviously demands rigorous acumen. In Buchanan, we such an excellent specimen of this rare acumen. May God use this magisterial treatment of this crucial doctrine to expose the NPP for what it is and settle the current controversy in its disfavor.
The Relevance of Buchanan’s Justification: Part Three
Posted: November 30, 2007 Filed under: Book Review, Gerald Bilkes, Justification Leave a comment
Theological
Undoubtedly, the most significant contribution of Buchanan’s Justification, is his theological clarity, finesse, and comprehensiveness. His arguments are as relevant today in light of the NPP as they were in the 19th century. We saw above that the NPP has supplanted the forensic and judicial with the participationistic and transformative. Buchanan furnishes three arguments for why Scripture requires the forensic or judicial sense of the term justification and righteousness. He calls these the antithetic, correlative, and equivalent arguments (229-233).
What is more, Buchanan shows the inextricability of the doctrine of justification to the doctrine of God, his holiness and justice, the spirituality and inflexibility of the moral law, the grand and crucial doctrine of Christ’s satisfactory and propitiatory atonement, and the sovereignty of grace. Each one of these doctrines is worthy of careful treatment, and is connected to the others, and the doctrine of justification, so that if any falls, so do the others, especially, the doctrine of justification. Allow one quote from Buchanan to suffice:
If they [the Reformers] held that God’s justice requires the punishment of disobedience for the vindication of His law and the manifestation of His glory, — that men are universally chargeable with the guilt of original and actual sin, — that they are alike unwilling to be subject to God’s law, and unable to yield perfect obedience to it, — that for them and their salvation, the Son of God became incarnate, and acted as Mediator between God and man, — that He executed the office of a Priest in offering Himself up as a sacrifice for sin, –that His sufferings were strictly penal, and properly vicarious, — and that they were both appointed and accepted by God as sufficient to render it consistent with His justice to extend mercy to the guilt, and to grant a full and free remission of their sins, — then, holding these views, they could hardly fail to believe that Christ’s work is the meritorious procuring cause, and the only, but all-sufficient, ground of a sinner’s justification (164).
It is here that Buchanan shows the NPP for what it truly is. It requires a different view of God, a different view of the law, a different view of the atonement, and a different view of grace and faith. The interconnectedness of these Scriptural doctrines with the Reformed understanding of justification is so entire, that the smallest reformulation of justification entails a thoroughly altered view of religion.
The Relevance of Buchanan’s Justification: Part Two
Posted: November 29, 2007 Filed under: Book Review, Gerald Bilkes, Justification Leave a comment
Historical
Extremely illuminating is Buchanan’s treatment of the history of the doctrine of justification, specifically the corruption of the doctrine by Catholicism, Socinianism, Neo-nominianism, and other movements. Particularly since much of modern-day liberalism espouses a Socinianism Revivus, particularly on the person of Christ and the nature of his atonement, it is not surprising that the Socinian view of justification would prevail in our current setting. Buchanan defines the Socinian view of justification as “sinners obtain[ing] pardon and acceptance with God through His mere mercy, on the ground of their own repentance and reformation” (162). It is notable that the Socinians would maintain speech such as “justification by faith,” “by grace,” etc., while in the meantime redefining each to include man’s personal repentance and reformation.
Not only does Buchanan offer surveys of these views, but arguments against them as well. Therein lies a considerable portion of his current-day value. Since our age suffers from considerable historical amnesia, including and particularly in the area of theology, Buchanan’s treatment of the history of theological controversy is refreshing and illuminating.
Dan Cruver Interviews R. Scott Clark on Adoption
Posted: November 27, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Carolina Hope, Dan Cruver, Interviews Leave a commentAs part of Carolina Hope’s adoption interview series, Dan Cruver is interviewing several theologians about the doctrine of spiritual adoption and its implications for earthly adoption. Dan believes that the practice of earthly adoption will be significantly enriched as we grow in our understanding of what it means to be adopted by God. You can read the interview here.
The second interview with a theologian (you can read the first interview here) is with Dr. R. Scott Clark, Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1997. Dr. Clark has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson), and Concordia University (Irvine). He is also presently Associate Pastor of the Oceanside United Reformed Church, where he preaches and teaches regularly.
The Relevance of Buchanan’s Justification: Part One
Posted: November 21, 2007 Filed under: Book Review, Gerald Bilkes, Justification 1 Comment
The next four post will be given by Dr. Bilkes from Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There at PRTS he is the one of the assisant Professor’s in Old and New Testament as well as one of the Academic Deans. His Ph.D. is from Princeton Theological Seminary, and his dissertation was done on the Ezra-Nehemiah corpus. These next few post will be a review of the book by James Buchanan titled, “The Doctrine of Justification.” These next four post will be broken down into sections in how Buchanan deals with Justification biblically, theologically, historically and experientially.
Buchanan treats the biblical foundation for the doctrine of justification in two steps: first, as it is found in the Old Testament, and secondly, as it was formulated during the age of the Apostles in the controversy with the Judaizers. Buchanan offers a lucid treatment of the controversy, which is rather relevant given the current debates. He traces the connection between the Judaizing controversy and the doctrine of justification.
Buchanan shows how this controversy was understandable given the times and the shift from the old, ceremonial economy to the new, spiritual economy. This controversy raised the important point whether obedience of any kind, both to the ceremonial and the moral law, can be part and parcel of a sinner’s merit before God. It occasioned the apostles’ clear delineation of justification without works of any kind, whether ceremonial or moral. Buchanan shows how this is clear not only from the explicit teaching of the apostles, but also from the insinuations of their detractors. Their charge, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Rom 6:1), shows, in the words of Buchanan, “that the Justification of which he [Paul] spoke was not understood on either side to be Sanctification, or to depend at all on Sanctification as its ground, — for there could be no room for the objection, if Paul was supposed to teach that men are justified by their infused or inherent righteousness” (74-75). This and many similar points show us the abiding value of Buchanan’s astute biblical analysis.
Dan Cruver Interviews Dr. Dave Garner on Adoption
Posted: November 19, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Carolina Hope, Dan Cruver, Dave Garner, Interviews, Theology Leave a commentDr. Dave Garner is the Vice President for Alumni Relations & Educational Advancement at Westminster Theological Seminary. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on the doctrine of adoption. It’s entitled “Adoption in Christ” (Westminster Theological Seminary, 2002). Dr. Garner agreed to allow Dan Cruver to interview him about Scripture’s teaching on the theology of adoption and its implications for the earthly practice of adoption. The interview can be read here.
HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT: Part Six
Posted: November 16, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Theology Proper Leave a commentConclusion
God is there and He is not silent. The very existence of man presupposes God, and there is no escape from, and there is no chance of man being autonomous. The recent trend of heretics is nothing new. Ever since the Fall of mankind in Paradise Satan has been attacking man the same way. He gets them to question the truth of God and thereby exchange it for a lie.
God is known because He first revealed himself and if we are to know anything we must know it in the context in which God has revealed Himself. The theological idea that there are multiple truths is completely absurd. To say such a thing is the equivalent of saying there are multiple gods. In like manner, it is equally absurd for postmoderns to redefine Christ in the attempt make Him cool in a contemporary culture thereby raping Him of His divine nature. To do such a thing is nothing more than trying to redefine truth. It is like saying all A is not A.
The Word of God is like fire to the unregenerate and they will do anything to alleviate the suffocating effect of the law which looms over their heads. Those that are blessed submit to God and confess their sins then use the law to as a crutch to walk with. Other’s become resentful, and set out to redefine the truth of God’s Word. By doing so they inevitably minimize the effects of the Fall, and thus, strip the atonement of its value.
Man was created as an antecedent being and all of his knowledge is derived from God. Man is completely and utterly dependant upon God in every facet of his being. Thus, when man fell from Paradise he perverted the image of God and the Holy Spirit no longer resides in him outside of the effects of regeneration. This means that man is no longer able to discern the will of God though he is still endowed with his created capacities. So although man is a being with mental, volitional, and emotional capacities his only desire is to use those capacities to glorify man, not God. Thus, natural man desires the things of which he can never have outside of God. Man was created for a purpose and that purpose is to glorify God through the right use of his capacities. Outside of the redeeming blood of Christ breaking fallen, wretched sinners there is no hope for man. He will forever be miserable.
The whole idea of the seeker sensitive church movement is completely ridiculous. The only thing that nature man seeks is to glorify himself. This has become evident in the trends in worship as of late. It is hard to tell the difference between most churches and the Mall of America. Sound systems have all but replaced sound worship. Today it would seem as though more are concerned with conquering up emotions and having religious experiences, whatever that may be.
Thus, our times should weigh heavy on the hearts of believers. We should take no comfort in knowing many are digging their graves deeper and deeper every Sunday morning. Every generation is defined by the way in which they confront the heresy of their day. This is no time to be lackadaisical. Christ’s return is certain. We should go to bed every night wondering whether or not we have planted enough seed. Christ is truth and when truth is attacked so to is Christ.
Therefore, as Christians we should not only defend the truth of God but we should attack the strong holds of Satan in this world. This means we must be diligent to preach and teach the overwhelming weight of sin and the overwhelming glory of Christ. It is Christ alone who is our way unto salvation. It is Christ alone who is the truth. It is Christ alone who can give life, and it is Christ alone who can attest to Himself. Let us not make hast then in proclaiming the revealed Word of God.
HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT: Part Five
Posted: November 16, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Theology Proper Leave a commentApplication in Evangelism and Apologetics
Understanding the authority and self-revelatory character of God as well as understanding the effects of sin on man is absolutely critical with respect to the unregenerate. We know that God is there and He is not silent. Man is, because God first spoke. When man was sinless God the Son could speak directly to him and the indwelt presence of God the Holy Spirit could discern the Son’s revelation. Thus, we can see by this that God is and always has been self-revelatory, and self-discerning. Man cannot discern the things of God unless God enables him to.
When man fell into sin God the Holy Spirit left man thereby leaving man unto himself. Man can no longer discern the things of God because he no longer has a sinless character even though he is surrounded by God’s revelation in nature. God also no longer speaks directly to man, but speaks through the Holy Scriptures. Van Til writes, “Before the fall of Adam, man walked and talked with God in intimate fellowship. Then no Bible was required. Man was not alienated from God. No Christ was needed for man’s redemption. But shall we add that therefore no supernatural authoritative revelation was necessary for him? Shall we say that man could originally identify himself and the facts of the universe without supernatural thought communication on the part of his Creator? The answer must be in the negative.”[1]
The fall of man necessitates the need for the Scriptures, and it is the Scriptures which reveal God’s other forms of revelation through nature and the incarnation. It is the incarnation which gives us the Christ. Christ’s birth, death, burial and resurrection atones for the sins of those whom God the Father has drawn unto Himself. Thus, God the Father sent the Christ to atone for the sins of His elect. The atonement is then a moral atonement. Then God the Son sends God the Holy Spirit to illumine the inspired written revelation of God so that the elect may know God in an experiential way. Thus, redeemed man may know God with certainty because it is God who is revealing Himself.
Man cannot know God apart from the way in which God has chosen to reveal Himself. God’s revelation through nature and through the incarnation are revealed through the Scriptures. Thus, man is utterly dependent upon the Scriptures. The unregenerate are dead in their sins and trespasses and there is nothing they can do save themselves from their state of depravity. They need the perfect blood of Christ applied to their account in order to be made right before the judgment seat of God. The only way the atonement can be rightly understood is through God’s revelation which we have in the Scriptures. It is then the Holy Spirit which uses the Scriptures to illumine the heart and mind of the dead sinner to reveal to them the nature of God which cannot be understood apart for God. Therefore, God the Father’s calling, God the Son’s redeeming, and God the Holy Spirit revealing illumines the nature and character of God to the dead sinner giving him the desire to repent of their sins thereby restoring them to a proper knowledge of God. Thus, redeemed man can again will the will of God because man is no longer the final point of predication. Man has decreased and Christ has increased.
What does this then mean for evangelism and apologetics?[2] Those who have had the blood of Christ applied to them, and the Holy Spirit remain in them are obligated to will the will of God by proclaiming His revelation through the incarnation (birth, death, burial, and resurrection) of the Christ. This can only be done through the Scriptures because only God can reveal and attest to Himself. Thus, it is God and God alone that can save lost sinners.
Why then share the Word at all? Because God works through means and redeemed man is the means whereby God has chosen to work thus re-instating man to his position as steward of creation. Because he has been enabled by God he is able to do God’s work. It is then the responsibility of the redeemed to share the Word with all men not knowing whom God has called and whom He hasn’t. It is regenerate man’s responsibility to plant the seed, but it is God the Holy Spirit who will germinate that seed. Thus, the work of creation and re-creation are entirely dependent upon the triune character of a self-sufficient God who is there and is not silent.
HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT: Part Four
Posted: November 15, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Theology Proper Leave a commentThe Effects of Sin
When God created man he was created in a state of creaturely perfection. This does not mean that man had exhaustive knowledge. Man was created perfect in God’s good creation, but this does not imply an unchangeable creation. If man used his capacities properly he would grow in creaturely perfection by willing God’s will with joy and spontaneity. Thus, man had an ability to grow in his capacities the more he grew in knowledge of God. As long as man was without sin he would be able to grow throughout eternity because God is eternal and inexhaustible in His Being.
Unfortunately, our first parents did not remain sinless. Sin is an act of disobedience against God. Thus, we can say that the Fall of man was an ethical fall. But we can also say that the Fall was an epistemological fall. Van Til writes, “In paradise, Eve went to as many as possible of those who were reputed to have knowledge. God and Satan both had a reputation for knowledge. Apparently God did not think well of Satan’s knowledge and Satan did not think well of God’s knowledge but each thought well of his own knowledge. So Eve had to weigh these reputations. It was for her a question as to, How do we know?”[1]
In deciding to commit the sin act Van Til points out that Eve answered two epistemological question: What do we know and How do we know:
We should observe particularly that in doing what she did Eve did not really avoid the question of What do we know? She gave by implication a very definite answer to that question. She made a negation with respect to God’s Being. She denied God’s Being as ultimate being. She affirmed therewith in effect that all being is essential on one level. At the same time she also gave a definite answer to the question How do we know? She said we know independently of God. She said that God’s authority was to be tested by herself. Thus she came to take the place of ultimate authority. She was no doubt going to test God’s authority by experience and reflection upon experience. Yet it would be she, herself, who should be the final authority.[2]
We know that our Lord is Truth. We also know that sin is an open defiance to the Truth. Therefore it stands that sin is non-truth. It is perverted, distorted and twisted truth. Again, Van Til points out, “Sin will reveal itself in the field of knowledge in the fact that man makes himself the ultimate court of appeal in the matter of all interpretation. He will refuse to recognize God’s authority.”[3]
Adam was appointed as the first representative of mankind. When he sinned he cursed the human race. All of his progeny are now born in a state of sin. Does this mean that man changed upon the first sin? Yes and no. Man did not change in the metaphysical sense. When he sinned he still had his being. Man did not go from man to non-man. So in the metaphysical sense man did not change.
The Fall did, however, change man’s disposition. Man was created to will the will of God. Adam made the choice to will his own will, or to make himself the final point of predication. Therefore, all of Adam’s progeny also seek to make themselves the final point of predication. Thus, man can be said to be dead in his sins because natural man has no desire to will the will of God. In fact, he hates God, and desires to be free from God. Natural man has been struggling to establish his autonomy ever sense the Fall suppressing the truth of God for a lie. Van Til writes of natural man:
His inability to see the facts as they are and to reason about them as he ought to reason about them is, at bottom, a matter of sin. He has the God-centered ability of reasoning within him. He is made in the image of God. God’s revelation is before him and within him. He is in his own constitution a manifestation of the revelation and therefore of the requirement of God. God made a covenant with him through Adam (Rom. 5:12). He is therefore now, in Adam, a covenant-breaker. He is also against God and therefore against the revelation of God (Rom. 8:6-8). This revelation of God constantly and inescapably reminds him of his creatural responsibility. As a sinner he has, in Adam, declared himself autonomous.[4]
Fallen man now seeks to use his created capacities for himself. Hence, total depravity does not mean that man is as bad as he could be. It simply means that the effects of the Fall are comprehensive upon man, every aspect of man was affected. There is no capacity that was given to man that exists in a vacuum. His intellect as well as his will are directed towards self. Thus, man left unto himself does not have the desire or will to save himself because he does not believe he needs to be saved.
If this was the end of God’s interactions with man the end for man would be pretty bleak indeed. But, thankfully, our great King and Savior has not left us without hope, and it is this hope that drives the Christian onward. It is also this hope that is the foundation for evangelism and apologetics.
HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT: Part Three
Posted: November 14, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Theology Proper Leave a commentAs Cornelius Van Til brilliantly pointed out all knowledge is derivative. Thus, in order for man to know anything it necessitates God. Without God man must have exhaustive knowledge within himself. Van Til goes on to write, “If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependant upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality. Then he will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality, he has no true knowledge of anything at all. Either man knows everything or he knows nothing.”[1]
In order to truly understand what has been said thus far we must go back to the time of man’s creation. The very first words in the Book of Life are, “In the beginning God” (Gen. 1:1), and the New Testament counterpart, “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). “In the beginning God,” this means that God is self-determinative. “He has no non-being over against himself in terms of which he needs or can to any extent interpret himself. He is omniscient. He is omniscient because of what he is as a self-sufficient Being. On the other hand we must add that the nature of God’s being requires complete exhaustive self-consciousness. God’s Being is coterminous with his self-consciousness.”[2]
The Westminster Confession of Faith 2:2 tells us, “God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.”
Though God in His triune perfection derives nothing from outside of Himself and finds all perfection within Himself it pleased Him to create by His eternal power and wisdom all things. On the sixth day of God’s creative acts He created man as a separate and distinct creature. The Westminster Confession of Faith (4:2) goes on to concisely say, “After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.”
Man being created in the image of God is an antecedent being. This means that God is man’s necessary antecedent. God not only created, but also sustains life for man. Thus, man has his existence because God exists, and because of this man is completely and utterly dependant upon God for his existence.
Man’s created functional purpose is to will the will of God over all of God’s creation with joy and spontaneity. Man was created as a steward, a vicegerent. Given this, man must know the will of his King in order to rule adequately and will His will. Thus, man was given several capacities upon his creation. These capacities include man’s mental, volitional, and emotional abilities. There are multiple aspects to man being created in the image of God which could be covered, but for purposes of this paper I will be brief.
Because man bears God’s image God is able to reveal Himself to man and man is in turn able to discern this revelation through his created capacities. The question then arises, how can man know God if God is incomprehensible? Even if man was given certain capacities to discern God’s revealing of Himself man is still finite. So, how is it possible for the finite to know the infinite? John Frame addresses this question as follows, “So God is knowable and known, and yet mysterious, wondrous, and incomprehensible. How can God be both knowable and incomprehensible? Like the problems discussed earlier – divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and the problem of evil – the biblical writers don’t treat this as a problem. Indeed, most believers have no trouble rejoicing in what God has revealed of himself, while worshipping in awe and wonder.”[3] Frame goes on to conclude, “We should think of God’s incomprehensibility, then, not as a ‘wholly otherness,’ but as the result of transcendence in the biblical sense: God has control and authority over creaturely knowledge. So his thoughts are not our thoughts, and his mystery permeates our knowledge. This kind of incomprehensibility does not compromise God’s knowability. Rather, God’s incomprehensible nature becomes immanent in his revelation of himself.”[4]
So, although God is incomprehensible man can still know God. This does not mean that man knows God comprehensibly, but it does mean that man knows God truly. Cornelius Van Til writes, “God alone knows himself and all things of the created universe exhaustively. He has revealed himself to man. But he did not reveal himself exhaustively to man. Neither the created universe nor the Bible exhaustively reveals God to man. Nor has man the capacity to receive such as exhaustive revelation. God reveals himself to man according to his ability to receive revelation. All revelation is anthropomorphic.”[5]
Given man’s created capacities and the absence of sin God was able to speak to man directly. Thus, God’s act of speaking, creating, and blessing are all one and the same. As soon as man came into existence he was utterly dependant upon very word that came from his Father’s mouth. Man was not born with a tabula rosa. Never at any point in man’s existence has he been autonomous. There was never a point when man was to use his capacities to discern truth for himself. Rather, his capacities were given to discern God’s revelation of Himself (truth). Therefore, the only place man can find meaning and right use of his capacities is when he wills the wills of God, and he cannot will the will of God unless he knows what that will is. Francis A. Schaeffer writes, “All the way back to the Greeks, we have for 2,000 years the cleverest men who have ever lived trying to find a way to have meaning and certainty of knowledge; but man, beginning with himself with no other knowledge outside of himself, has totally failed.”[6]
If man has been trying to find meaning and certainty of knowledge, but has never found it we should then ask the question, why? We know that God is perfect within Himself and is incomprehensible to man though man can truly know Him. Given that God must be perfect, and that man is to will God’s will after Him, we must then conclude that meaning and certainty of knowledge can only be found when man wills God’s will. Thus, when there is no meaning and uncertainty we must then conclude that we are not willing God’s will.
HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT: Part Two
Posted: November 14, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Theology Proper Leave a commentHe is There and He is Not Silent: Self-Revelatory Character of God
Obviously, the title for this paper and for this section come from the late great Francis A. Schaeffer’s book bearing the same title. In this wonderful work Schaeffer came up with the title in response to the philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s work. Wittgenstein basically said, “you have propositions of natural science. This is all that can be said; it is all that you can put into language. This is the limit of language and the limit of logic. ‘Downstairs’ we can speak, but all that can be spoken is the mathematical propositions of natural science. Language is limited to the ‘downstairs’ of reason, and that ends up with mathematical formulations.”[1]
Wittgenstein saw no meaning in life. He said that there is only silence. So although man desperately needs values, ethics, and meaning he can never understand nor obtain such things. All he is left with is nothing, only silence. This thought led Wittgenstein into linguistic analysis which in many ways he helped to popularize, but as Schaeffer aptly points out, “Although it [linguistic analysis] defines words using reason, finally language leads to neither value nor facts. Language leads to language, and that is all. It is not only the certainty or values that is gone, but the certainty of knowing.”[2]
In order to combat the lostness and emptiness of the silence that natural man sees in God’s good creation Schaeffer declared that God is there and He is not silent. Schaeffer was a prophet, and a titan before his time, and his cry to fallen man is needed even more so today. Thus, my goal here is to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before me (though only briefly), and proclaim that God is here and He is not silent.
The fact that God is there and He is not silent is not only the reason for man’s existence, but it the reason man can find meaning in that existence. Francis Schaeffer explains:
Evangelicals often make a mistake today. Without knowing it, they slip over into a weak position. They thank God in their prayers for the revelation we have of God in Christ. This is good as far as it goes, and it is wonderful that we do have a factual revelation of God in Christ. But I hear very little thanks from the lips of evangelicals today for the propositional revelation in verbalized form which we have in the Scriptures. He must indeed not only be there, but He must have spoken. And He must have spoken in a way which is more than simply a quarry for emotional, upper-story experiences. We need prepositional facts. We need to know who He is, and what His character is, because His character is the law of the universe. He has told us what His character is, and this becomes our moral law, our moral standard. It is not arbitrary, for it is fixed in God Himself, in what has always been. It is the very opposite of what is revelativistic. It is either this, morals are not morals.[3]
So we can see that ontology and ethics are inextricably linked, but so too are they both inextricably linked to epistemology. Herein lies the distinction between the Protestant doctrine and all others. The distinction lies in the fact that the Protestant concept of God necessarily stands over and above man. Cornelius Van Til writes:
The Protestant doctrine of God requires that it be made foundational to everything else as principle of explanation. If God is self-sufficient, he alone is self-explanatory. And if he alone is self-explanatory, then he must be the final reference point in all human predication. He is then like the sun from which all lights on earth derive their power of illumination. You do not use a candle in order to search for the sun. The idea of a candle is derived from the sun. So the very idea of any fact in the universe is that it is derivative. God has created it. It cannot have come into existence by itself, or by chance. God himself is the source of all possibility, and, therefore, of all space-time factuality.[4]
HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT: Part One
Posted: November 12, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Theology Proper Leave a commentIntroduction
In John 14:6 our Lord and Savor Jesus Christ responds to His beloved disciple, Thomas who asked the Lord, “how can we know the way?” Jesus responds by saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Only the One that is God could make such a claim. Christ alone is the way unto salvation, Christ alone is the truth, Christ alone has life, and it is Christ alone that can attest to Himself. O’ how these words of our Lord need to be heard and experienced in this day and age.
We live in a time when questioning truth is commonplace. Not wanting to offend anyone, and with great desire to remain politically correct many have become the lapdogs of Satan. It has always been Satan’s desire to destroy the Church, and he has always been most successful when he strikes from within. Thus, the same holds to be true in our time. Hence today, heretics such as Brian McLaren[1] find mainstream success in an evangelical community seeking to destroy doctrine and throw off the rigors of a time long past. Amongst God’s elect, there will also be the reprobate that spring up from within seeking to betray our Lord and His bride with a holy kiss.
The attack on truth is nothing new. As a matter of fact, it is as old as time. The attack on truth is nothing more than an attack on God Himself. We know very little about the angelic fall and it does us no good to romanticize, or indulge our fantasies. We do know, however, that Satan was a beautiful and magnificent creature who was full of wisdom and perfect in beauty (Ezek. 28:12). We also know that on account of his beauty he corrupted his wisdom (Ezek. 28:17).
Satan rebelled against God because he distorted the truth, and had a perverted view of reality. Unfortunately, sin is only comfortable with company and he not only cursed himself but also, many angels, and the race of man through his corruption. There is no truth in Satan, he is the father of lies, and when he lies he speaks his native tongue (John 8:44).
Though Satan is a roaring lion who desires to devour man made in the image of God, he rarely attacks man in such abrupt ways. He comes to man with a smile on his face and armed with one question he asks over and over again, “did God really say?” His objective is always the same, to get man to question the supreme authority of God. Did God really say, gives man the interpretive rights over God’s revelation, thus, perverting the Creator/creature distinction. Hence, man left unto himself changes the truth of God for a lie and worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator who is forever praised (Rom. 1:25).
How do I know, and how do I know that I know are key questions that Christians must be prepared to answer. My objective in this paper, then, will be epistemological in nature. Thus, it seems to be a logical starting point to begin where God began, that is, with Himself.
[1] In his book, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth That Could Change Everything, Brian D. McLaren writes, “Many people don’t realize that the Christian religion – in its Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Pentecostal forms – is the largest, richest, and most powerful religion in the world. If the Christian religion “misunderestimates” the message of Jesus – if it doesn’t know or believe the truth about Jesus and his message – the whole world will suffer from Christian ignorance, confusion, or delusion. But if it discovers, understands, believes, and lives Jesus’ message – if it becomes increasingly faithful to the reality of what Jesus taught in word and example – then everyone could benefit: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, everyone. In an age of global terrorism and rising religious conflict, it’s significant to note that all Muslims regard Jesus as a great prophet, that many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine, that many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people, and that Jesus himself was a Jew, and without understanding his Jewishness, one doesn’t understand Jesus. A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue – and it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue. This reappraisal of Jesus’ message may be the only project capable of saving a number of religions, including Christianity, from the number of threats, from being coopted by consumerism or nationalism to the rise of potentially violent fundamentalism in their own ranks.” Brian D. McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth That Could Change Everything, (Nashville: W. Publishing Group, 2006), 7-8. McLaren and many others do not openly deny the Christ, they just completely redefine who He is in a way that fits their needs and agenda thus masquerading a lie as the truth.
Lip Sync 2005 at Baptist Bible College: Return to Sender
Posted: November 10, 2007 Filed under: Just for Fun 2 CommentsI was going through some of my old flies and cleaning out papers, writings, projects, video’s that once were funny, and pictures that don’t mean half as much as they did four and five years ago. When going through things I came across this uncalled for stunt that I had played a part of, in which Shane Miller talked me into doing for a event at my undergrad. So, therefore, take it for what it is worth and laugh all you want cause I can promise you will never see this again.
God’s Story of Adoption
Posted: November 8, 2007 Filed under: Adoption, Dan Cruver Leave a commentThe Gospel Must be Boasted: Audio
Posted: November 3, 2007 Filed under: Preaching/Speaking, The Gospel 5 CommentsI apologize for giving the wrong text at the beginning of the message. The text is, 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 and not 30-33 in which i state at the beginning of the message. Sorry!
The Gospel Must Be Boasted
Posted: November 2, 2007 Filed under: Preaching/Speaking 1 Comment
The Gospel Must be Boasted
Let me invite you to turn in your Bible to One Corinthians 1:30-31. We will start reading at verse 18.
KJV 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
This is the Word of God . . . .
I. Introduction- The city of Corinth at this time was great in power and extremely important for it was the political capital of Greece. It had become the chief city of Greece in authority, wealth, brilliance, literature, arts, and luxury, and its geography was incredible. Being near three seas, it had become the center of trade; and with trade, brought much money for the city. With money came many recreations– namely athletics–and the ability to build, most notably the temple of Aphrodite, the centerpiece of Corinth. Not only was the culture of Corinth corrupt, but corruption had begun to seep into the church. The church of Corinth filled itself with vanity, sexuality, self-wanting desires, and pleasures of the wrong kind. The church was using the Lord’s Supper for a common meal, and had begun to allow women to speak in the church publically. The mindset of the culture crept into the church of Corinth and they wanted to have some type of feeling, or experience so they began to use tongues without regard to its order or its edification. Then due to the philosophy of its culture, some of them denied the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and changed the base of the gospel. I believe that the problem in Corinth, and namely, the church of Corinth, was that they boasted in themselves. They found their pleasure in what they themselves had done. They found their glory in what they had accomplished. Paul tells them fourteen different times throughout his letter to this church, to boast in Christ, and not themselves.[1] The city of Corinth seems very similar to America. The problem in Corinth is the same problem that exists in America. Corinth did not find its contentment in Christ, and what He had done, but in the pleasurable desires of their city. Corinth did not glory or boast in God, but found delight in what they had, what they had made, and what they were capable of doing. I tell you today, that this is what is wrong with our culture and our churches.
Propositional Statement (#, Noun, Application, action)
Today, let us consider two areas of the gospel in which one must boast. Now, I do not believe these to be the only areas of the Gospel to be boasted. I just believe that these are the two main areas in which the context of our text is keying in on, or trying to get across. So even though there is hundreds, thousand and maybe infinite areas of the Gospel in which you are to boast in, I am only talking about these two, in our text. So when I titled this message, the Gospel must be boasted, it didn’t mean I was going to give you every reason in boasting in the Gospel. That is why we have 66 books and not one or two verses in which I am going to bring to the table, on why the Gospel must be boasted. So therefore our areas are;
*First man must not boast in any of his wisdom. For the wisdom of God has brought you to him, not to boast in anything but Him.
*Secondly, a man must not boast in his work. For there is no work in which you can do that will bring you to the wisdom of God. The work of Christ is what has brought you to the wisdom of God.
II. Instructional Point- Boast in the wisdom of God. The wisdom of God is greater than any wisdom man has, can, and will be. God’s wisdom is so great, so satisfying, and so enjoyable that you should not boast in any wisdom but God’s wisdom.
A. Illustration- What does the Bible gives us?
I would like to look at our text, mainly verses 30 and 31, but in the light of its given context starting in verse 18. I believe verses 18-30 give the biblical reason for the biblical principle found in verse 31. “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord,” Paul knows that there is nothing to boast in of himself. That is why he is quoting from the Old Testament here.[2] Paul is not bringing new ideas or new principles to the table, but he is reminding God’s people of the principle that they were made for,[3] that is to Glory in God! Let us quickly look at what he says in the preceding verses.
In verse 19, Paul is once again quoting from the Old Testament, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise”.[4] Look at verse 20: “Hath not God made the foolish the wisdom of the world?” Verse 21 says, and “the world by wisdom knew not God.” The wisdom of man does not know the cross, and it cannot comprehend the cross without the knowledge of God. And verse 22, “the Jews required a sign,” and “the Greeks see after wisdom.” The Jews wanted power, the Greeks wanted knowledge, and no one wanted God!
B. Application- What does this mean?
Look at our culture today. We have businesses bigger than ever before, we have buildings bigger than ever before, we have nicer cars, bigger houses, bigger wallets, and bigger toys; we have it all! And what does America want you to do? They want you to buy into this lie of pride, or boasting in yourself, of glorifying yourself. Now, I am not saying that if you have big houses and nice cars that this is wrong, but if you seek the things this world has to offer more than the wisdom of God, you have fallen into idolatry. Think about this: the world admires your birth and your name. If your parents are well known, you are too. If your social status is good and if you have many friends, people will like you and consider you an intelligent being. You should be proud of yourself! If you have financial success, you are rich. If you can make money, everyone likes you. Many people value man’s authority and power. If you are the type of person that can get things accomplished and it always seems that you come out on top, then it is quite possible you will have many friends. Then some look at popularity. If you are pretty, you look good, you sound good, you wear the right things, you dress the right way, or you make the right movies, you can make the headlines of national news by getting a DUI, Your a role model now for America! So often, we buy the lies of this world. We think we need a new car, a new house, a new suit, even a new Bible. How many times do we start looking everywhere else in this world for our own personal desires? How often do we begin to search for treasures on this earth? It seems to me, that the problem in Corinth is no different from that of America. We glory in ourselves; we look for our own wants; we desire what this world has to offer. In addition, many times, we seek the wisdom of this world and not God’s wisdom. Paul reminds Corinth, and reminds us, that we must boast only in the Lord.
C. Interaction- What would that look like?
Look with me at verse 25. “The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” How foolish it would be of us to boast in ourselves. Man’s wisdom does not and never will, find God, nor will it ever begin to compare with God’s wisdom. The 63-volume set of Charles Spurgeon’s sermons just begin to explore the foolishness of God. Luther’s works in 54 volumes just barely start to touch the edges of the foolishness of God. Calvin’s institutes and his 22 volume set of commentaries is only a grain of sand in the vast amount of shores upon this earth in describing the wisdom of God. The 23-volume set of John Owens, the 12 volumes of Thomas Goodwin, and the 12 volumes of Thomas Boston together are only but a hint of the wisdom of God. Every commentary, every systematic theology volume, every dictionary, every encyclopedia, and every book ever written is but a drop of water in the vast oceans of the Lord’s knowledge and depth. Compared to the Lord’s wisdom, man’s knowledge is foolishness. And this is what Paul told the people of Corinth: boast in this Wisdom. This is the reason why you are made: to know the wisdom of God. The foolish, weak, despised, and lowly are made to boast in God alone. You were made by God to give Him glory. You are to boast in the wisdom of God, and it should be your utmost desire for God, not you, to be made known. Man must boast in God’s wisdom, for God’s glory. This brings me to my second point.
III. Instructional Point- Boast in the work of Christ. The work of Christ is greater than any work that man has, can, or ever will be. Christ crucified is so beautiful, so marvelous, and so astonishing that it allows you to boast in Him. This is a hard concept to grasp. Christ died so that you could boast in God, boast in Christ, and the cross. Christ died so that you might boast in the gospel.
A. Illustration- What does the Bible gives us?
Follow with me while I read verse 30, “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” Your wisdom, your righteousness, your sanctification, and the only reason you can one day be redeemed and spend eternity with God, is a result of Christ’s work. For those of you who know the gospel, your whole life centers on Christ’s work accomplished on the cross. For those of you that may be sitting here today and have not heard or given up yourselves to the work of Christ on the cross, I tell you listen now, listen to the Savior, the Son of Man, Jesus Christ and recognize that what He has done gives hope to those who are lost.
B. Application- What does this mean?
One might stop and ask here, “What do you mean when you say that we should boast in “Christ’s work?” What I mean is that Christ died on a cross for His own glorification. Christ died in order that He might be boasted in. Moreover, He does this through you. How are you doing church? Are you boasting in the fact that the death of Christ is why, is how, and is where you can enjoy the wisdom of God? The denial of Christ was for your satisfaction in God. The mocking was for your ability to boast in the wisdom of God. The beating, the whipping, the spit, the beard plucking, the torment by the Roman soldiers, was for your righteousness before God. The wood He carried to His death, the nails driven into His hands, the sponge, the sword driven into the side of Him, was for your sanctification. Most importantly, I must tell you that His resurrection was for your redemption, and one day because of the work of Christ you will see God in all His glory, boasting in Him forever, and ever, and ever!
C. Interaction- What would that look like?
When you truly see the work of Christ, you will boast in God. He paid for all of your sins. He took on all of your condemnation, and in perfect righteousness, He purchased your eternal life. This is why you can come to God and bring Him praise. This is how you can wake up in the morning and live for God. This is why you can worship God. Christ died so that you can boast in God and only Him. Christ died for you, so that you can become dead to yourselves, and dead to this world. As a believer, you will get little satisfaction in finding happiness in yourself. Yet you will receive an overflowing amount of joy and satisfaction in Him alone. Nevertheless, I must add, only when you are truly satisfied with the work of Christ, can you boast in the Lord. You were made to find your desires in Christ; you were made to find your pleasure, your happiness, your enjoyment, your bliss, your enthusiasm, zeal, and passions in Christ alone. Exalt Christ among everything else; rejoice and boast in Christ above everything else.
IV. Conclusion- Today in America we have many churches that have bought into the idols of this world. We even have churches that have bought into this day’s philosophy and denied the doctrines of the cross, like penal substitutionary atonement, a literal hell, and original sin. I believe the most disheartening is postmodern churches that deny the truth of the Word of God. Churches have fallen into this dream called “America.” They let pride run its course and we are left with nothing but men seeking their own pleasures, their own desires, and their own pride. Paul could have told Corinth to boast in anything, the philosophy of its age, the culture of its time, its pride its lust, its worldly conformity and Paul says, “He that Boast, Boast in the Lord, He that glorith, let him glory in the Lord.” Believers today, I call you to boast in the work of Christ and the wisdom of God. May it never be said of us that we did not find our satisfaction, our identity, our wisdom, and our work in the Lord! The wisdom of God is far better than anything this world offers. It is better than any pleasure you can image that is short term on this earth. The work of Christ is our hope to enjoying the wisdom of God. It is nothing we have to do, Christ work has paved a way that which we can find all of our desires, all of our pleasures, and all good enjoyment in the wisdom of God. Dear friends must I remind you, it is the wisdom of God that allowed the work of Christ to pay your death penalty, so that you could enjoy Him! Let us all boast in that wisdom and in that work! Amen.
Autonomous Man?: Part Four
Posted: November 2, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Anthropology Leave a commentConclusion
So, is man an autonomous creature who evolved over billions of years with no purpose, no plan, and no meaning? Though introductory anthropology students are force fed this horrible filth year after year it is becoming ever more clear that the cries of the Reformation are just as relevant today as they were in the past.
If man is to find any meaning in a fallen, postmodern world that seeks to sap the intellect out of all thought he must first begin and end with Christ. Thus, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Soli Deo Gloria must ooze from the very marrow of our bones. It is God and God alone who will be glorified. Any system of thought which seeks to bolster in man abilities making God a celestial helper at best not only is a representation of the absurdity of the fallen mind, but is a worldview that has no place in the Kingdom of God.
The autonomy of man is at the very core of our noetic structure and unless the almighty hand of God changes that disposition in the heart of man by the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel man is doomed. Jesus told his disciples in Matt. 16:24-26, “If anyone desires to come after Me, Let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Knowing that the souls of men are on the line and that they can only be saved through faith by grace and that that faith can only be obtained through the indwelt presence of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word it thus becomes an imperative to preach the Word of God. In a culture consumed with comfort and pleasure it needs to be made known that there is no comfort and pleasure to be obtained outside of the glorious riches of Jesus Christ. Any such attempt is just momentary pain alleviation.
Man was created for one purpose and one purpose alone and that is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. As a result of sin man is unable to do this and he now only seeks self-glorification. Thus man’s endless pursuit for autonomy only leads him deeper into a pit of despair. Thus fallen man doesn’t need a celestial helper, rather he needs a glorious Savior. It is only through Christ that we can have life, but we must first seek to lose ourselves. Any system which fails to heed this point is not only misguided it is damned.
May Christ be proclaimed. Soli Deo Gloria!
Autonomous Man?: Part Three
Posted: November 2, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Anthropology Leave a commentAutonomous Man
Man was created in a state of creaturely perfection. Man was not created with a tabula rosa. Man was created physically and ethically mature, with knowledge in his mind, righteousness in his will and holiness in his heart. Goodness, then consists of moral perfection in harmony with all of Gods laws (Lev. 19:2; Deut. 6:5; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Eph. 5:1; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).[1] Though man was created perfect he was not created infinite. He was endowed with certain capacities to which he could use to will the will of God as vicegerent of earth. As man used these capacities in right relation to their created function (to glorify God) with joy and spontaneity he would grow in his understanding and knowledge of his perfect Creator.
Being appointed as vicegerent, Adam represented not only himself but the earth, his bride and all their progeny. When Adam sinned in the first act of disobedience against God he cursed all that was under his lordship. As a result, all of the earth now groans in pain (Rom. 8:21-22), and all of Adam’s offspring are born into a complete state of depravity before God (Rom. 3:9-20) so although they know the truth of God they suppress it for a lie (Rom. 1:21).
When Adam sinned the Holy Spirit left him. He was no longer perfect and was no longer able to commune with God. All of his progeny are now born without the Spirit upon them and as such they no longer bare the image of God in his moral excellency, namely in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. Though man has lost his ability to attain moral excellency he still retains the image of God in his created capacities. This means that man is still a moral creature because he retained his volitional capacity, he is still a thinking creature because he retained his mental capacity, and he is still a loving creature because he retained his emotional capacity. So, although man lost his ability to obtain moral excellency he still retains his moral agency.
At first glance this may appears to be similar to the Roman Catholic view, but it could not be further removed from such an abomination. Though man retains his capacities he can no longer use those capacities as they were originally created to function. Function follows form, or as our Lord put it, “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear healthy fruit,” (Matt. 7:15-20). When Adam sinned it changed his disposition and thereby changed the way he would use his created capacities. He no longer can use his capacities to glorify God unless the indwelt presence of the Holy Spirit allows him to do so by the grace of God. So moral agency remains, but it can never be used for God outside of God and as such natural mans only inclination is towards self.
No one can be sure what was going through Adam’s mind the moment he sinned. We do know, however, that in Adam’s decision to eat of the tree he was specifically told not to he was judging for himself was best for him and, in effect, what was essentially determining what was true. Every sin has since manifested itself in the same way as man’s original sin. Thus, every sin stems from the desire to be autonomous.
Webster’s defines autonomy as, 1: the quality or state of being self-governing; esp: the right of self-government 2: self-directing freedom and esp. moral independence 3: a self-governing state. Thus, to claim autonomy is to claim ultimacy. It is an absolute state. Therefore, man is either autonomous or he is not. Man cannot be autonomous and at the same time be conditioned by God, as if God was some grandfather in the sky wanting to reach down to man but could only stretch down from his walker so far. Thus, man needs to lift himself up to God through proper choices and actions as the heretics hold.
Even this position is entirely inconsistent with their concept of autonomy. In autonomy they must take the place of God. Cornelius VanTil writes, “On the non-Christian basis man is assumed to be the final reference point in predication. Man will therefore have to seek to make a system for himself that will relate all the facts of his environment to one another in such a way as will enable him to see exhaustively all the relations that obtain between them. In other words, the system that the non-Christian has to seek on his assumption is one in which he himself virtually occupies the place that God occupies in Christian theology.”[2]
In the same respect God cannot be sovereign and be conditioned by man in any respect. God cannot be God and be reactionary. Therefore, in order for man to be autonomous God cannot exist. But if God does not exist than man cannot exist. Again, VanTil writes:
It was thus that man, in rejecting the covenantall requirement of God became at one and the same time both irrationalist and rationalist. These two are not, except formally, contradictory of one another. They rather imply one another. Man had to be both to be either. To be able to identify himself apart from God, man had to distinguish himself as an individual from all the relationships of the system of which he actually is a part. If he were not part of the God-ordained system of relationships, he would be an entity in a vacuum; he would not be distinquishable to himself from any one or anything else. In fact he would not be self-conscious at all.”[3]
Therefore, any system which postulates the autonomy of man whether it claims to be Christian or not is in fact distinctively heretical and is a sign of God’s wrath. The fallen reason of man left unto itself is a never-ending spiral of self and thus, outside of God man has no meaning and no purpose. David Wells writes, “The autonomous self is autonomous because it has liberated itself from an outside world of meaning, of obligation, of rules, rites, customs, and practices. Or, to be more accurate, what has happened is that the outside world seems to have evaporated and all reality has contracted into self. It is in the self that the business of life is all settled.”[4]
Any system that bolsters in man’s abilities either directly or indirectly minimizes the saving work of Christ. Wells writes, “It is about God reaching down in grace and doing for sinners what they cannot do for themselves. For if this is God’s Kingdom, his rule, the sphere of his sovereignty, then it is not for us to take or to establish. We receive, we do not take; we enter, but we do not seize; we come as subjects in his Kingdom, not as monarchs in our own.”[5]
It is all about God in creation and in re-creation. God in His perfect Triune character restores man and breathes new life into his dead and decaying lunges. God the Father draws sinners to Himself, God the Son redeems those sinners through His perfect and spotless life and His propitiation on the cross, and God the Holy Spirit reveals to the sinners the perfection and completion of God’s mighty plan and their place within that plan. Man is, and always will be a dependant creature. The Christian revels in this fact and fallen man despises it.
AUTONOMOUS MAN?: Part Two
Posted: October 31, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Anthropology Leave a commentMan As Image
As was mentioned above, the doctrine of man is critical to understanding the doctrine of God, and in fact they must complement each other. For example, one cannot hold to the autonomy of man and still have a sovereign God, but I am getting ahead of myself. So the doctrine of man is crucial to understanding God. Where then do we begin to develop a doctrine of man? Again, the starting point for discovering the nature of man will be in unison with the starting point for discovering the nature God, namely the Holy Word of God. Cornelius VanTil writes:
The doctrine of Scripture as self-attesting presupposes that whatsoever comes to pass in history materializes by virtue of the plan and counsel of the living God. If everything happens by virtue of the plan of God, then all created reality, every aspect of it, is inherently revelational of God and of his plan. All facts of history are what they are ultimately because of what God intends and makes them to be. Even that which is accomplished in human history through the instrumentality of men still happens by virtue of the plan of God. God tells the stars by their names. He identifies by complete description. He knows exhaustively. He knows exhaustively because he controls completely.[1]
Thus, the only way to understand man is to understand him in relation to his place in the plan of God. For brevity sake, we will then begin with the presupposition that everything necessary for man to know about himself and God can be found in the revelation of God. Genesis 1:26-28 tells us that man was the hallmark of God’s creation.[2] In the last act of creation, God being in perfect Triune counsel with Himself created man in His likeness and image. Historically, many have split hairs over the distinction between image and likeness[3] First, we know that repetitions were common among the Hebrews, in which they express one thing twice; then in the things itself there is no ambiguity, simply man is called God’s image because he is like God. Accordingly, those who thus philosophize more subtly over these terms appear to be ridiculous.”[4] but Calvin helps to shed on this matter when he writes, “there is no slight quarrel over ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ when interpreters seek a nonexistent difference between these two words, except that ‘likeness’ has been added by way of explanation.
The question we then need to ask ourselves is not what is the distinction between image and likeness, but rather what does it mean to be created in the image of God? In answering this question we in turn will be laying the foundation for developing our entire theology. As such, the answer to this question is the logical antecedent to every one which follows. I cannot over emphasize this point enough. Your doctrine of man will determine your doctrine of the Fall and sin, the current state of man, man’s abilities to use his capacities, and most importantly it will determine the way one sees the person and work of Christ and the weight placed on the atonement.
As with many theological issues the Bible doesn’t explicitly state all of the attributes of man which represent God’s image. As such, several differing opinions have emerged as to what the image of God in man is. Not surprisingly, it would appear that these would fall on denominational lines. Although it is important to understand the different positions[5] it is more important to understand that there are really only two: Reformed and not Reformed. Cornelius VanTil helps to shed light on this mater when he writes, “We refer now to those Protestants who are usually spoken of as evangelicals as distinct from those who embrace the Reformed Faith. Under the term evangelicals we include all those who hold to the Remonstrant or Arminian view of man in his relation to God. We include also Lutherans. To be sure, Lutherans are not by any means to be identified as Arminian in every respect. But on the point at issue their view is basically the same as that of the Arminians. The point is that both Arminians and Lutherans maintain that man has a measure of ultimacy or autonomy. In this respect they resemble the Roman Catholics.”[6]
The Reformed view of the image of God in man is separate and distinct from these other views in that it approaches the Bible holistically, and as such is able to reap a fuller picture of God’s divine revelation. Where the Lutherans would claim that image is completely lost and would point to such passages as 2 Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 4:24, and Colossians 3:10 the Roman Catholics and Pelagians would point to passages such as Genesis 5:1, 9:6, Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 11:7, and James 3:9 indicating that image was retained. The Reformed however, sees both the image of God in man both retained and lost. Herman Bavinck writes:
As a rule, however, Reformed theologians continued to speak of the image of God in broader and narrower sense. In Holy Scripture they read that man, on the one hand, is still called the image of God after the fall and should be respected as such (Gen. 5:1; 9:6; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9); and that, on the other hand, he had nevertheless lost the primary content of the image of God (i.e., knowledge, righteousness, holiness) and only regains these qualities in Christ (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). By observing this distinction in Scripture and incorporating it in their theology, Reformed theologians have maintained the bond between the physical and ethical nature of man, and thereby also at this point (the relation between nature and grace) kept themselves from falling into various errors. Soon an additional distinction arose that was especially worked out in the doctrine of the covenant of works. This distinction answered the question what Adam had to become, not what Adam was. It is only in these three areas, the image of God in broad sense, the image of God in the narrow sense, and the development or distinction of the image of God – that is, in the doctrine of the covenant of works – that the locus of the image of God can be treated to the full extent.[7]
Only in understanding the image of God in man in the broader and narrower sense through the working of the covenant of works can we properly understand the effects of the Fall and the nature of the atonement. In order to fully understand this point we must then turn our attention to Adam’s sin.
[1] Cornelius VanTil, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Phillipsburg, (N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969), 28.
[2] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
[3] The early Church Fathers were quite agreed that the image of God in man consisted primarily in man’s rational and moral characteristics, and in his capacity for holiness; but some were inclined to include also bodily traits. Irenaeus and Tertullian drew a distinction between the image and the likeness of God, finding the former in bodily traits, and the latter in the spiritual nature of man. Clement of Alexandria and Origin, however, rejected the idea of any bodily analogy, and held the word “image” denoted the characteristics of man as man, and the word “likeness,” qualities which are not essential to man, but may be cultivated or lost. This view was also found in Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and John of Damascus. According to Pelagius and his followers the image consisted merely of this, that man was endowed with reason, so that he could know God; with free will, so that he was able to choose and do the good; and the necessary power to rule the lower creation. The distinction already made between image and likeness of God, was continued by the Scholastics, though it was not always expressed in the same way. Ibid., (Berhof), 202.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. John McNeill. (Louisville: Westminster Press, 2006, vol. 1), 35, 187-188.
[5] There are three major positions that should be mentioned: Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Pelagian.
The Lutheran conception of the image of God differs materially from that of the Reformed. Luther himself sometimes spoke as if he had a broad conception of it, in reality he had a restricted view of it. While there were during the seventeenth century, and there are even now, some Lutheran theologians who have a broader conception of the image of God, the great majority of them restrict it to the spiritual qualities with which man was originally endowed, that is, what is called original righteousness. In doing this they do not sufficiently recognize the essential nature of man as distinct from that of the animals on the other hand. In the possession of this image men are like the angels, who also possess it; and in comparison with what the two have in common, their difference is of little importance. Man lost the image of God entirely through sin, and what now distinguishes him from the animals has very little religious or theological significance. The great difference between the two lay in the image of God, and this man has lost entirely. In view of this it is also natural that the Lutherans should adopt Traducianism, and thus teach that the soul of man originates like that of the animal, that is, by procreation. It also accounts for the fact that the Lutherans hardly recognize the moral unity of the human race, but emphasize strongly its physical unity and the exclusively physical propagation of sin. Ibid., (Berkhof), 208.
Roman Catholics hold that God at creation endowed man with certain natural gifts, such as the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and the immortality of the body. Spirituality, freedom, and immortality, are natural endowments, and as such constitute the natural image of God. Moreover, God “attempted” (adjusted) the natural powers of man to one another, placing the lower in due subordination to the higher. The harmony thus established is called justitia – natural righteousness. But even so there remained in man a natural tendency of the lower appetites and passions to rebel against the authority of the higher powers of reason and conscience. This tendency, called concupiscence, is not itself sin, but becomes sin when it is consented to by the will and passes into voluntary action. In order to enable man to hold his lower nature in check, God added to the dona naturalia certain dona supernaturalia. These included the donum superadditum of original righteousness (the supernatural likeness to God), which was added as a foreign gift to the original constitution of man, either immediately at the time of creation, or at some later point as a reward for the proper use of the natural powers. These supernatural gifts, including the donum superadditum of original righteousness, were lost by sin, but their loss did not disrupt the essential nature of man. Ibid., (Berkhof), 208.
The image of God, Pelagius taught, consists only in a neutral God-given possibility of perfection, which cannot be lost and is therefore still a part of every human being. God bestows the ability (posse), but the will (ville) is up to us. Later, this view found acceptance among the Socinians, who located the image of God solely in human dominion over nature; among the Anabaptists, who said that as a finite earthly creature man was not yet the image of God but could only realize that status by a rebirth; among the Remonstrants, the Rationalists, and the Supernaturalists, and numerous modern theologians, all of whom saw the state of integrity as a state of childlike innocence. As a rule these theologians still hold to the historical reality of such an original state. But in their view of the image of God in the first humans they materially agreee totally with those who, detaching the idea from the fact, deny the reality of integrity locate the image of God solely in man’s free personality, his rational or moral nature, in a religious-ethical bent, in man’s vocation to enter communion with God. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt. trans. John Vriend, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004, vol. 2), 534-35.
AUTONOMOUS MAN?: Part One
Posted: October 30, 2007 Filed under: Andy Parker, Anthropology Leave a commentIntroduction
Every year the ivory halls of academia are bustling with new students. Bright and cheerful they are ready to establish their independence and find their place in the world. Some are looking to party, some to get a job, and then there are those who truly want to make a difference. In order to make a difference however, a gauntlet of professors is waiting to challenge and indoctrinate them. Over the next four years, and perhaps even more for some, many will be exposed to an introductory course in anthropology.
Anthropology is the study of man, and in such is inseparable for the study of God. In fact, John Calvin said, “Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God.”[1] And Louis Berkhof writes, “The doctrine of the image of God in man is of the greatest importance in theology, for that image is the expression of that which is most distinctive in man and in his relation to God. The fact that man is the image of God distinguishes him from the animals and from every other creature. As far as we can learn from Scripture even the angels do not share that honor with him.”[2] If two such titans in the field of theology express such a concern in the study of man perhaps more Christians should be wise to what is being taught in secular universities.
In secular universities anthropology has been reduced to the study of what man does, not what man is. As a result of such a reduction, all morality is determined by watching mans actions. Therefore, what man ought to do is derived from mans doing. This may seem irrational, but fortunately it makes completes sense after being indoctrinated with Darwinian science and rationalistic and objectivistic philosophy. In such a philosophical and theoretical framework determining ought from ought seems logical when operating in a system of blind chance that is governed by the laws of logic and science.
Although it would give me great pleasure to do so the point of this paper is not to lambaste the secular universities and the worldviews which are taught therein. However, it is my intention to clearly show that there is a distinct difference between the Christian and the secular view of man.
Given the length and breadth of this paper, and the magnitude of the topic before me I simply wish to give a representation of the Reformed Christian view of man and thereby answer the question, what is man? From here, I will show the implications of conflicting views and there repercussions. With this, let us begin.
Gospel-Centered Musings 