Here in verse 37 “to justify” clearly means something like to show yourself to be a good tree.  Note the context in vv. 33-35.  Just as evil words proceeding out of the mouth show that the heart is bad.  Even so good words proceeding out of the mouth show that the heart is good.  It is in this way that good fruits and good words justify us.  They show that our hearts are truly good.  This is an entirely different connotation than the verb has, for instance, in Romans 3:21-5:21.

It is also clear that the justification to which Jesus refers will take place in the day of judgment.  Verse 36 plainly says that this justification has for its venue (or is to take place in) the day of judgment.  This is the time period in which our words will justify or condemn us.

Thus, contrary to Irons, we have here a justification by works which takes place in the day of judgment.  Granted, it is a justification of an entirely different kind than that which takes place by Christ, grace, and faith alone and which is already possessed by the believer. Yet it is a “justification” according to the ipsissima verba of Scripture.

The above states what I think is the straightforward (and in some sense indisuptable) meaning of the passage.  But several further words of clarification and vindication with regard to it are important. 

First, when I say that the connotation of the verb, justify, here in Matthew 12:37 is an entirely different connotation than it has in Romans 3 and 4, I have in my mind the important distinction between "connotation" and "denotation."  What a word connotes and what it denotes or two different things.  Webster's New Word Dictionary says the following under its entry for connote: "to suggest or convey (associations, overtones etc.) in addition to its explicit, or denoted, meaning: as, the word mother means "femaile parent," but it generally connotes love, care, tenderness, etc."

It is important to make this distinction between the connotation and denotation of the verb, to justify.  Here is why.  Though its connotation is quite different in Matthew 12:37 than, for instance, in Romans 3:24, its denotation is the same.  What I mean is that in both passages its meaning is to "account righteous" or "acquit" and not as the Roman Catholic doctrine holds "to make righteous" or "to infuse righteous moral qualities into someone."  This denotation of justify is made clear by means of the contrasting (and, thus, clarifying) verb used in Matthew 12:37, condemn.  To condemn is not to make something bad, but to declare it bad.  Just so, to justify is not to make something good, but to declare it good.  Thus, Matthew 12:37 actually upholds the Protestant and forensic understanding of the verb, to justify.

Second, it should be clear from a fair reading of the passage that taking this passage as hypothetical is simply impossible.  Jesus is not talking about what would happen in a hypothetical judgment by works.  Jesus is talking about what really will happen both now and in the day of judgment.  Right now in this life and also in the day of judgment the true character of someone is manifested by the general tenor of his words:  the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.  This is not hypothetical.  This is not just the use of the law to slay self-righteousness and bring us to Christ.  These words may do that in some cases, but they refer to what actually happens in this life and in the day of judgment. 

Some argue that it would require perfectly pure language to pass judgment before God.  It would if Jesus were discussing the ground of our righteousness before God.  But that is not what Jesus is discussing.  He is discussing what manifests or declares someone to be either a good tree or a bad tree.  Perfection is not necessary to manifest that someone is a genuine believer.  Perfection would only be necessary to do this if genuine believers were perfect.  They are not.  Thus, only the kind of speech that manifests a genuine change of heart toward God and sin is necessary.  That is, only works in keeping with repentance are necessary to vindicate that someone has repented.  Notice the parallel uses of this imagery in Matthew:

Matthew 7:13-24 13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. 15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

These other uses of the good tree/bad tree language in Matthew are patently not hypothetical.  Neither are they just examples of the law slaying.  They speak of real, historical events and some who actually do follow the narrow way, actually do the will of the Father, and actually are received as genuine believers at the day of judgment.

The third thing I want to say by way of the clarification and vindication of the interpretation of Matthew 12:37 that I have offered is that it is virtually identical to the interpretation of Calvin himself.  Here are his comments in his New Testament commentary and its harmony of the gospels:

"But Christ turns it to a meaning somewhat different, that a wicked speech, being the indication of concealed malice, is enough to condemn a man.  The attempt which the Papists make to torture this passage, so as to set aside the righteousness of faith, is childish.  A man is justified by his words, not because his speech is the ground of his justification, (for we obtain by faith the favour of God, so that he reckons us to be righteous persons;) but because pure speech absolves us in such a manner, that we are not condemned as wicked persons by our tongue.  Is it not absurd to infer from this, that men deserve a single drop of righteousness in the sight of God?  On the contrary, this passage upholds our doctrine; for, although Christ does not here treat of the ground of our justification, yet the contrast between the two words points out the meaning of the word justify.  The Papists reckon it absurd in us to say, that a man is justified by faith, because they explain the word  justified to mean, that he becomes, and is, actually righteous, while we understand it to mean, that he is accounted righteous, and is acquitted before the tribunal of God, as is evident from numerous passages of Scripture.  And is not the same thing confirmed by Christ, when he draws a contrast between justified and condemned?"

Dikaiooo

It is not the purpose of this essay to argue that the verb meaning to justify is used frequently of a free justification which is already possessed by believers in which the ungodly are justified based on the righteousness of Christ alone through grace alone and faith alone (Rom. 3:21-5:21).  This is joyfully granted.

It is the purpose of this essay to show that this verb is also used of a future (and in some sense a present) justification in which evangelical obedience justifies or vindicates the genuineness of the believer’s faith and, thus, the believer himself.

At least two key passages in the New Testament manifest this usage of the verb: Matthew 12:37 and James 2:21-26.  Next time we will look at Matthew 12:37.

• Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others 

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant from Matthew 5:17. While discussing the foundations of the Sabbath, he says:

From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 9:3-5, Owen says:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[2]

Owen used Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as proof of the perpetuity of the Decalogue. His use of Matthew 5:17 is to the same end.[3]

2. Zacharias Ursinus. While discussing how abrogation affects the Moral Law, Ursinus makes the point that “the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[4] He then argues, “God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.”[5] As one of the reasons that he offers in proof of this proposition, he says:

From the testimony of Scripture: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.) This is spoken, indeed, of the whole law, but with a special reference to the moral law, which Christ has fulfilled in four respects …[6]

Ursinus understands Matthew 5:17 in such a way as to demand the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, as did Owen.

3. Francis Turretin. While offering “Proof that the law is not abrogated as to direction,”[7] Turretin says, “Christ ‘did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law’ (Mt. 5:17). Therefore as it was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, neither is its use among us to be abolished.”[8] 

It is now clear that Owen’s view of Matthew 5:17 (shared by Ursinus and Turretin) does not require the elimination of the Decalogue in all senses under the New Covenant.

[1] Owen, Works, XXIII:372.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 216.

[3] In IDOTD, I argued that Mt. 5:17 can be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, I argued that it could be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Old Testament from the New Covenant. For instance, after providing exegetical observations and conclusions and then testing my interpretation with the rest of the New Testament, I said: “The law of God, even the whole Old Testament, has its place under Christ, finding its realization in Him and its modified application in His kingdom. If the whole of the Old Testament is still binding, then certainly all its parts are as well.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 65. I realize my explanation has nuances Owen’s may not.

[4] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. n.d.), 496.

[5] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[6] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[7] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

In this series, we will explore the thought of John Owen, as well as several other Reformed theologians from the 16th-18th centuries, on the functions of the Decalogue. We will note the various nuances of terminology and theological formulation among Reformed theologians of the past. But we will also see basic methodological and theological continuity from John Calvin to Thomas Boston. This, once again, displays Owen’s continuity with the Reformed tradition and the continuity among the Reformed orthodox on this subject. As will be seen, the Reformed orthodox approached this subject utilizing a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, something that is common-place among older Reformed theologians.

Our focus will be upon John Owen. He is not always easy to understand and has been misused on the issue of the functions of the Decalogue. We will seek to allow him to speak for himself, offer some observations, and compare Owen’s statements with those of others before and after him. This will display, among other things, the fact that Owen fits within the broader theological tradition of Reformed thought on the functions of the Decalogue in redemptive history.

John Owen and other Key Reformed Theologians from the 16th-18th Centuries on

the Functions of the Decalogue

• The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen teaches that Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 refer to the Decalogue being written on the heart of New Covenant saints. Commenting on Hebrews 9:5, he says:

This law, as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works; for it contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image, and nothing else. It was the whole of what God designed in our creation unto his own glory and our everlasting blessedness. What was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3.[1]

Consider these observations relevant to our subject. First, the law, in the context of Owen’s discussion, refers to the law contained on the tables of stone (i.e., the Decalogue). Second, Owen is considering the Decalogue “as unto the substance of it” and not necessarily as to the form and/or function of it under the Old Covenant.[2] Third, he claims that the Decalogue “was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works.” Fourth, he claims that the Decalogue, as to the substance of it, “contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image.” Fifth, he claims that “what was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally.” Sixth, he claims that “what was in the tables of stone” (and written on the heart of man at creation) is that “which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant.” And finally, he references Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3. Owen, on this exegetical basis, clearly believed in the perpetuity (as to its substance) of the entire Decalogue under the New Covenant.

Owen continues:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[3]

From this statement, the following observations also are relevant. First, Owen distinguishes between how the Decalogue functioned in the covenant of works and how it functions “as a law and rule of obedience.” Second, he connects this law with God’s holiness and righteousness. In other words, Owen views the Decalogue as a perpetual “law and rule of obedience” because it is related to God’s holiness and righteousness (i.e., his unchangeable nature).

Continuing, and concentrating on how Christ is the true ark (the antitype of the Old Covenant’s Ark of the Covenant), he says:

In his obedience unto God according unto the law he is the true ark, wherein the law was kept inviolate; that is, was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished, Matt. v. 17; Rom. viii. 3, x. 4. Hence by God’s gracious dealing with sinners, pardoning and justifying them freely, the law [i.e., Decalogue] is not disannulled, but established, Rom. iii. 31. That this was to be done, that without it no covenant between God and man could be firm and stable, was the principal design of God to declare in all this service; without the consideration thereof it was wholly insignificant. This was the original mystery of all these institutions, that in and by the obedience of the promised seed, the everlasting, unalterable law should be fulfilled.[4]

Several observations are worthy of note. First, in the context of Owen’s discussion, the law is that which was placed in the ark (i.e., the Decalogue as written by God on stone tablets). Second, he says that this law was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished by Christ. Third, he says that the obedience of Christ to this law effects our justification. Fourth, he says that the law is not disannulled but established. Fifth, he teaches that all of this was typified in the Ark of the Covenant. And finally, he says that the law is everlasting and unalterable, probably due to its reflection of God’s holiness and righteousness.[5]

Owen’s use of Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 was not novel. Others who held to his basic understanding argued for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant on the same exegetical grounds.[6]

2. Herman Witsius. In his The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, while discussing the reason that God “engraved them [Ten Commandments] with his own finger,”[7] Herman Witsius says:

Both because they contained the declaration or testimony of the divine will, and because the preservation of them by the Israelites, was a testimony of the law given to, and received by them at Sinai. This writing also signified the purpose of God, to write the law on the hearts of his elect, according to the promise of the covenant of grace, Jer. xxxi. 33.

Nor is it for nothing that God himself would be the author of this writing, without making use of any man or angel. For this is the meaning of the Holy Spirit, when he says, that the tablets were written with the finger of God, Exod. xxxi. 18. and that the writing was the writing of God, Exod. xxxii. 16. The reasons were, 1st. To set forth the pre-eminence of this law, which he permitted to be written by Moses. 2dly. To intimate, that it is the work of God alone, to write the law on the heart, which is what neither man himself, nor the ministers of God can do, but the Spirit of God alone. And thus believers are “the epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God,” 2 Cor. iii. 3.[8]

Witsius goes on to discuss the effects of God’s grace, saying, “But the grace of God will cancel that writing of sin, and in the room of it, will the graver of his most Holy Spirit, engrave on the same table of our heart the characters of his law.”[9]

The context is clear. Witsius sees Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as testimonies to the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. As shown above, Owen used these texts in a very similar context and with the same practical result.

3. Francis Turretin. Turretin also references both Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3. His use of these texts corresponds with Owen’s and Witsius’ use, at least to a degree. While discussing how the abrogation of the Moral Law (the Decalogue) is not to be considered absolutely, but relatively, he says,

It is one thing to be under the law as a covenant to acquire life by it (as Adam was) or as a schoolmaster and a prison to guard men until the advent of Christ; another to be under the law as a rule of life to regulate our morals piously and holily. [10]

The law is compared by Paul to “a dead husband” (Rom. 7:2, 3), not simply, but relatively with regard to the sway and rigorous dominion it obtained over us and the curse to which it subjected sinners; but not with regard to liberation from the duty to be performed to it. Thus the law threatening, compelling, condemning, is not “made for a righteous man” (1 Tim. 1:9) because he is impelled of his own accord to duty and is no longer influenced by the spirit of bondage and the fear of punishment (Rom. 8:15; Ps. 110:3), but the law directive and regulative of morals is always laid down for him and he ought to be under it. [11]

What was given to the Jews as Jews can be for the use of the Jews alone; but what is given to the Jews as covenanted (or as the people of God simply) does not refer to them alone, but to all those who hold the same relation of people of God.[12]

Turretin says many more similar things. Suffice to say that he makes distinctions in the way the law is viewed. This is done to protect the Moral Law from an absolutist view of abrogation (see below) and to promote its perpetual utility. It is in this context that Turretin says, ‘“If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law’ (Gal. 5:18, viz., compelling and cursing), but under it directing, inasmuch as the Spirit works that law upon our hearts (2 Cor. 3:2; Jer. 31:33).”[13] In this context, the law which directs is the Moral Law (Decalogue). Hence, it is the Decalogue which “the Spirit works upon our hearts.”

4. Thomas Boston. Thomas Boston’s notes to The Marrow of Modern Divinity reveal that at least one 18th century Reformed theologian held that Jeremiah 31:33 referred to the writing of the Decalogue on the heart under the New Covenant. Boston says:

One will not think it strange to hear, that the ten commandments were, as it were, razed out of man’s heart by the fall, if one considers the spirituality and vast extent of them, and that they were, in their perfection engraven on the heart of man, in his creation, and doth withal take notice of the ruin brought on man by the fall. Hereby he indeed lost the very knowledge of the law of nature, if the ten commandments are to be reckoned, as certainly they are, the substance and matter of that law; although he lost it not totally, but some remains thereof were left with him. Concerning these the apostle speaks, Rom. i. 19, 20; and ii. 14, 15. And our author teaches expressly, that the law is partly known by nature, that is, in its corrupt state, See page 181. And here he says, not simply, that the ten commandments were razed, though in another case (page 44), he speaks after that manner, where yet it is evident he means not a razing quite; but he says, “They were, as it were, razed.” But what are these remains of them in comparison with that body of natural laws, fairly written, and deeply engraven, on the heart of innocent Adam? If they were not, as it were, razed, what need is there of writing a new copy of them in the hearts of the elect, according to the promise of the new covenant? “I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” Heb. x. 16, and viii. 10; Jer. xxxi. 33.[14]

Like Witsius and Turretin before him, Boston proves that there were some in the 17th and 18th centuries who argued for the perpetuity of the Decalogue from Jeremiah 31:33 (and 2 Cor. 3:3), i.e., on the same exegetical ground as Owen. 

Though Owen’s statements concerning Jeremiah 31:33 are not all equally clear, those provided above are clear enough to conclude that he used it and 2 Corinthians 3:3 in a context which argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. He does this in similar fashion as Witsius, Turretin, and Boston.

[1] Owen, Works of John Owen, XXII:215.

[2] Protestant Scholasticism taught that the Decalogue summarily contains the moral law and is the inscripturated form of the natural law, as to its substance. A distinction was made between substance and form. Substance is one; form may vary. Hence, when the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 98 says, “The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments,” it refers to the fact that the substance (i.e., the underlying essence) of the Moral Law is assumed and articulated in the propositions of the Decalogue as contained in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The form fits the redemptive-historical circumstances in which it was given. The substance or underlying principles are always relevant and applicable to man. The application may shift based on redemptive-historical changes, such as the inauguration of the New Covenant, but its substance and utility never changes.

[3] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 16.

[4] Owen, Works, XXII:217, 18.

[5] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[6] In my book In Defense of the Decalogue (IDOTD), I provided exegetical evidence that Jer. 31:33 and 2 Cor. 3:3 speak directly to the issue of the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. I provided references to Old Testament and New Testament scholars to this end. The scholars I referenced are not all Reformed confessionalists. I did this on purpose to show that one’s confessional commitments do not necessarily cloud one’s exegetical lenses. See Richard C. Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology (Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2001), 16-24 and 34-38.

[7] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II:170.

[8] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II:170, 171.

[9] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II:171.

[10] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), II:143.

[11] Turretin, Institutes, II:143.

[12] Turretin, Institutes, II:145.

[13] Turretin, Institutes, II:143, 144.

[14] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. 1991), 177.

A8: It is true that some paedobaptists claim that the Reformed Baptist position on infant baptism disavows covenant theology. But this is a misunderstanding of the teaching of the Reformed Baptist Church. Chapter seven of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which is entitled “Of God’s Covenant,” refutes this false claim. As James Renihan has explained, Reformed Baptists believe that “the structure of Scripture is properly defined by…covenant theology,” and “to grasp this fact is to grasp the central architecture of the entire Bible.” For this reason, “confessional Reformed Baptists are…full-blown adherents of covenant theology.” Moreover, Reformed Baptists believe that a proper understanding of covenant theology demands disciple or confessor baptism, because it does justice to both the continuity and discontinuity of the covenant.

Q9: How would you respond to this? Infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of the Covenant of Grace. (I am thinking specifically of the fact that the Westminster Standards teach that the CofG was first revealed in Gen. 3.)

A9: To state that infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of the Covenant of Grace is an erroneous claim. The reason being that, as claimed by the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Covenant of Grace is with the elect. Therefore, to adhere to infants being included in the Covenant of Grace would necessitate the belief in the doctrine of “presumptive election,” a presumption which is without biblical warrant. I deal with this subject in my book.

A1: The Bible teaches the centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ in all of Scripture in several places.

Q2: What are some of the several places where the Bible teaches the centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ in all of Scripture?

A2: Luke 24:25-27, 44-47; John 5:39-40; Romans 1:1-6; 16:25-27; 1 Peter 1:10-12.

QUOTE: Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 53, “The overwhelming testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, which is another way of saying that the Old Testament is about Jesus.”

Q3: What does the fact that these places are all found in the New Testament teach us about interpreting the Bible (i.e., biblical hermeneutics)?

A3: The fact that these places are all found in the New Testament teaches us:

(1)   that the New Testament is the authoritative interpreter of the Old Testament;

(2)   that the Lord Jesus Christ is the key that opens up the door of the Old Testament’s meaning for us;

(3)   that the relationship between the testaments is one of promise and fulfillment.

QUOTE: Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 52, “According to Jesus, the Old Testament is the Word of God, the Scripture which cannot be broken. Jesus also claims that he himself is the subject of the Old Testament. His teachings constantly point to the Old Testament as that which he fulfills. Thus the Old Testament does not stand on its own, because it is incomplete without its conclusion and fulfillment in the person and work of Christ. No part of it can be rightly understood without him. In this sense it is about Christ. God’s revelation in Scripture is progressive, moving by stages from the original promises given to Israel, until the fullest meaning of these promises is revealed in Christ. While we come to understand the New Testament in the light of what goes before it in the Old Testament, it is God’s fullest revelation and final word in Christ that gives meaning to all things. Thus Christ, and therefore the New Testament, interprets the Old Testament.”

A6: Paedobaptists usually view the relationship between circumcision and water baptism on a “one to one” basis. That is, they see these two “sacraments” (circumcision in the OT and water baptism in the NT) as with little or no difference except for the administration of rite itself. As expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance [essence], the same with those of the New.” There is a sense in which this is true, in that in both the Old and the New Testaments, all things point to Christ and His salvific cross work. But whereas circumcision in the Old Testament was for Abraham and his physical (male) seed, having to do with the relationship between the people of Israel and the promised land of Canaan, as explained by Paul, in the New Testament, water baptism represents the circumcision of the heart that has already been regenerated (Colossians 2:11-12; Philippians 3:3). The sacraments in the New Testament are for those who have already been converted; those who have already had their hearts transformed by the salvific cross work of Jesus Christ. So, there is a significant difference between the circumcision of the Old Covenant community (which dealt with Abraham’s physical seed), and the New Covenant community (which has to do with the spiritual seed of Abraham).

Q7: How is the New Covenant “not like” the covenant God made with the Fathers?

A7: I have already partially dealt with this issue above, but I would add that, according to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, the difference in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that the Old was breakable whereas the New is not. The Old was more involved with the physical seed; whereas the New is more concerned with the spiritual seed. According to the two passages cited above, the New Covenant community consists of those who “know the Lord.” It is for believers, not believers and their infant seed.

[1] Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, 41-42. Oehler’s methodological philosophy of biblical theology is similar to both Owen and Vos. Peter J. Wallace acknowledges that Oehler’s work “bears some resemblance to Vos’s later Biblical Theology…” Cf. Peter J. Wallace, “The Foundations of Reformed Biblical Theology: The Development of Old Testament Theology at Old Princeton, 1812-1932,” WTJ 59:1 (1997): 52, n. 56.

One concern that guided me in my studies was not to so react to modern deviations from justification by faith alone as to call into question the biblical doctrine of perseverance and trend back toward the Easy-believism which dominated Evangelicalism for most of the 20th century and still infects many parts of it.

I say all of this because I am concerned that an over-reaction may be setting in which actually does forget and call into question the biblical doctrine of the necessity of perseverance and actually does trend back toward viewpoints representative of Easy-believism.  I am also concerned when some take positions in an attempt to defend justification by faith alone which, when examined by an unbiased mind in light of Scripture, simply cannot be defended.  Taking such positions in my view does a great deal of harm to sola fide because it tends to create the impression that only by special pleading and ignoring a part of the witness of Scripture can the doctrine of justification by faith alone be defended. 

The articles in this series of blogs will interact with the writings of Lee Irons.  Let me make clear that I respect Lee a great deal.  I have particularly appreciated his articles and statements in defense of the doctrine of eternal generation.  I have chosen to interact with Lee, because I believe he tends to represent a fairly common and less extreme form of reaction against modern departures from the traditional doctrine of justification.  I do not believe he desires to call into question the biblical doctrine of perseverance or in the least trend back toward Easy-believism.  I write with no personal animus against him, but in the spirit of iron sharpening iron.  But I also write with a concern that some of the positions he and others he represents defend cannot be defended exegetically and raise unnecessary questions about justification sola fide.

A1: I was born in 1943 in Washington, D.C. I graduated from high school in 1961 and college in 1965. I earned an MBS from the Atlanta School of Biblical Studies, the Th.M. and Th.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the Central School of Religion in Surrey, England. I live in Virginia, am married, and have two married daughters and five grand children. General interests primarily include reading (I am an inveterate reader, primarily on the subjects of theology and philosophy) and writing, but I also enjoy having a physical “work out” each day. As to my church affiliation, I am a Reformed Baptist, and an advocate of the teachings found in the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Reformed Baptist Shorter Catechism. Over the last twenty-five years I have pastored three churches and have had the opportunity to preach and teach at a number of other churches. My wife and I are currently members of the Reformed Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia.

Books I have written include: What Calvin Says, Study Guide to the Westminster Confession, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, and By Scripture Alone, which were published by The Trinity Foundation. Soli Deo Gloria has published my What the Puritans Taught and Meet Jonathan Edwards. My He Shall Glorify Me was published by Whitefield Press, and Blue Banner Ministries published my Christ the Mediator, as well as Built Upon the Rock, Toward a Christian Worldview, and So Great a Salvation (these last three books were co-authored with Dr. Richard E. Bacon). Apologetics Press published Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Arminianism, which I coauthored with Dr. Kenneth Talbot, and Reformation Heritage Books published my A Conversation with Jonathan Edwards. I have also had a number of articles published by different Christian magazines, newspapers, etc. (e.g., The Blue Banner, The Confessional Presbyterian, The Trinity Review, New Southern Presbyterian Review, Chalcedon Report, The Christian Statesman, and Journey).

Q. 2: How long have you wrestled with the issue of the subjects of baptism?

A2: I have been struggling with the matter of paedobaptism versus credobaptism for almost twenty years.

Q3: What are some of the main problems you encountered with paedobaptism that caused you to keep studying?

A3: There were several issues that bothered me about the doctrine of paedobaptism. I will mention only one, and that is there is simply no text in the New Testament (NT) wherein there is any mention of the baptism of infants. This is admitted by some of the finest paedobaptist theologians that have written on the subject. This means, as admitted and taught by these same paedobaptist theologians, that we must go back to the Old Testament (OT) to establish the doctrine. When it comes to the other NT sacrament of the Lord’s supper, however, the paedobaptist theologians do not apply the same hermeneutic principle. That is, the recipients of the Lord’s supper are determined by the NT teaching rather than the OT teaching. The inconsistency here is glaring. Another problem here is that the OT does not mention baptism of infants at all. What this hermeneutic assumes is that the Abrahamic covenant, wherein the male infants were circumcised, is still binding on the NT church on virtually a one-to-one basis, and therefore the infants of believers should be baptized. There are so many difficulties here (which I write about in my book) that they are far too numerous to deal with in an interview like this. The most serious error committed here is that of overstressing the continuity of the Old and New Covenant to the detriment of the discontinuity between the two. The Reformed Baptist doctrine is not in any sense dispensational; rather, it is fully covenantal. It recognizes that there is most certainly a continuity between the two covenants, but there is also a discontinuity that must be seen (see Jeremiah 31:31-34; compare Hebrews 8:6-13).

A4: There are a number of books which were influential in my study of this subject. I will list some of the most persuasive: Fred Malone’s The Baptism of Disciples Alone, Mike Renihan’s Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes, Henry Danvers A Treatise on Baptism, David Kingdon’s Children of Abraham, Samuel Waldron’s Biblical Baptism: A Reformed Defense of Believer’s Baptism, Richard Barcellos’ Paedobaptism or Credobaptism?, and especially Paul K. Jewett’s Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. But perhaps the studies that were more convincing than anything else were two lecture series, one was William Einwechter’s The Great Debate Over Baptism and the Covenant and the other was Pastor Greg Nichols’ tape series on “Infant Baptism.” It is also interesting that the “failed” attempts of several paedobaptist books also had a great affect on my thinking on this subject. That is, the proponents of infant baptism simply did not answer the questions raised against paedobaptism.

Q5: Do you think infant baptism violates the Westminster Confession’s doctrine of the regulative principle of worship? If so, how?

A5: Yes, I do believe that the practice of infant baptism is a violation of the “regulative principle” of worship. I explain this in some detail in my forthcoming book on the subject, but (as cited in my book) basically the problem is this: If there is no express command given in Scripture to baptize infants, and if there is no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism, then to administer infant baptism in the worship service is a violation of the regulative principle. I would suggest that those interested in finding out more on this matter see what I have said in my book. Fred Malone also deals with this issue in his The Baptism of Disciples Alone.

John Frame has often commented on Schaeffer, but until now little effort has been made to bring his thoughts together into a coherent treatment.  Thankfully, Steve Scrivener recently answered this oversight by compiling Frame's thoughts, even doing it in an interesting and engaging way.  He lays out Frame's comments in a Question and Answer format. The result is "Some Thoughts on Schaeffer’s Apologetics" by John Frame.  Here we find everything from Frame's outline and evaluation of Francis Schaeffer’s apologetics to how it compares with Cornelius Van Til's methodology.  This compiled article is filled with insightful information and will serve as a great introduction to Schaeffer and how he relates to presuppositional apologetics.  The "Further Reading" bibliography alone will prove immensely helpful for those who want to further explore these questions.

While I realize that Frame is controversial in some presuppositional circles (due to his triperspectivalism, his understanding of the relationship between the transcendental arguments and traditional arguments, etc.), I still heartily recommend reading this article. You will definitely come out with a better understanding of Francis Schaeffer and his legacy.

 John Divito

Member, Heritage Baptist Church

M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

(5)        Anyone who believes in particular redemption has—whether he wants it or not—a tension to deal with in regard to the accomplishment and application of redemption.  If you want to avoid such a tension you will have to give up particular redemption and fall back on the Amyraldian’s hypothetical universalism or full-blown Arminianism.  You will also (according to John Owen) in the process have to jettison (logically speaking) substitutionary atonement.  If you believe in a finished atonement and a particular redemption of some men at the cross, then you must somehow embrace the tension about which I was asked with regard to reconciliation. 

Are elect men still under the wrath of God before they believe?  Are elect men un-reconciled before they believe?  Are they un-redeemed before they believe?  Are their sins un-propitiated before they believe?  Are their sins un-atoned for before they believe?  I affirm that no one who believes in particular redemption can give an unqualified answer to such questions.  They must make the very distinction my message required with regard to reconciliation.  They must say that in some sense they were and in some sense they were not reconciled before they believe.  They must say this or give up particular redemption and logically substitutionary atonement.

(6)        What can be said by way of explaining and alleviating the tension that everyone who believes in particular redemption and (to coin a phrase) limited reconciliation must—as I have pointed out—feel?  I think Paul points the way for us by his speaking of receiving the reconciliation in Romans 5:11.  Paul, I think, is implying the very tension of which we are thinking.  Reconciliation was made for all His people at His death on the cross and by His life in His entrance as their representative into heaven.  But they have not yet received it personally.

This leads me to suggest that we must distinguish a representative and historical reconciliation in our head in heaven and a personal and experiential reconciliation in us on earth.  Such a distinction ought not to be strange to us if we are a little acquainted with the helpful insights of biblical theology with regard to the Scriptures.  As my colleague Richard Barcelos pointed out to me during this discussion, what we are dealing with here is simply one facet of the tension between redemptive history (the historia salutis) and our personal salvation (the ordo salutis).  So just as there is a redemptive-historical dimension of adoption, for instance, and the church is adopted historically with the coming of the New Covenant, so also there is a personal salvation dimension of adoption in which at various points in time when we believe we are adopted as God's sons.  Similarly we must distinguish reconciliation and redemption redemptive-historically considered and their application in our personal salvation histories.

In my message I used an illustration of the a Medieval hero who rescues the king's daughter from a fate worse than death.  When he returns the king's daughter to the royal castle, he ascends to the throne room in its highest tower and presents the daughter to the king.  In response he offers any reward the hero would like.  The hero requests the freedom of those confined in the deepest dungeons of the castle.  In response the king has the jailer hand the keys to the hero.  Later the hero goes to the dungeon and frees each captive.  When were the captives freed?  In one sense when the king gave the hero the keys in the throne room.  In another sense when the hero went to the dungeons and unlocked their cells one at a time.  Both actions (the one in the throne room and the one in the dungeons) are the liberation of the captives, but in different senses and ways.

We must distinguish the achievement of reconciliation in the throne room and the application of reconciliation in the dungeon.  Both are reconciliation, both are redemption, but in different senses. 

(7)      So are men by nature the children of wrath before they are born again and believe the gospel (Ephesians 2:1-3)?  Yes, of course.  But the elect are not by representation the children of wrath before they believe.  No, rather Christ already represents and intercedes for them in heaven, and this is why they come to be born again.

In this regard let me refer to another text which seems problematic to some.  John 3:36 reads:  "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."  The problem is that some, I think, read this text as if it said that until a person believes in the Son the wrath of God abides on Him.  This is, however, not exactly what the text says.  It says that the wrath of God abides or remains on the one who does not obey the Son—present tense.  The present tense, it seems to me, speaks of the final response of a person to the gospel.  Jesus, in other words, is not thinking of a point of conversion, but of the abiding response of an individual to the gospel.  If this is the thought, then there is no difficulty.  For the one whose abiding response to the gospel is unbelief never was reconciled at the cross and the wrath of God surely does remain upon him.

Even if we ignore this exegetical point, we could make the very distinction I made above.  We could say, in other words, that the wrath of God remains on the one for whom Christ died not in His representative, but in Himself.  It remains on Him personally, but not on His substitute, but only until he believes.

(3)        While I cannot and would not want to affirm exegetically that we are justified at the cross, I think it is clear that Romans 5:10-11 requires that we affirm that we were reconciled to God at the cross.  Let me take a moment to state my case for this.

First, the statement in verse 10, For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, seems plainly parallel to the statements of verses 6-8.

Notice verse 6:  For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Notice vers 8:  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

This evident parallel straightforwardly requires that the statement of verse 10 means that we were reconciled to God when Jesus died.  Christ’s dying for us and Christ’s reconciling us to God seem clearly parallel.  Just as Christ died for us when we were helpless, ungodly, and sinners, so He reconciled us God while we were enemies.

Second, Paul seems to reflect on the distinction between the accomplishment of reconciliation at the cross and the application of reconciliation when he speaks in verse 11 of our now having received the reconciliation. 

Romans 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Paul’s thought seems clearly to be that, while we were reconciled to God at the cross in the mind and heart of God, we do not personally receive or experience this reconciliation until it is applied to us by the Holy Spirit giving us faith.

Third, we should not be surprised that Paul speaks of reconciliation actually occurring at the cross.  Do we not have similar statements using parallel terminology?  For instance, Revelation 5:9 clearly places the redemption of men at the cross:  And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Aorists are used here in parallel of Christ’s being slain and His purchasing men for God from every tribe.  Notice the aorist that follows in verse 10 as well.  The text does not say that He is in the process of purchasing men for God, but that He—aorist past tense—purchased men for God.  Redemption is presented here as a once for all occurrence at the cross.  Assuredly, this redemption is not applied, enjoyed, or experienced until it is received by faith when we are adopted, but as with reconciliation in some sense it was achieved and finished and accomplished at the cross. 

The same thing goes for the propitiation of the wrath and the satisfaction of the justice of God.  If we believe that God’s wrath toward sinners was propitiated, and the justice of God was satisfied at the cross, then we have the same thing as Paul asserts in Romans 5:10 with regard to the category of reconciliation.

 This is why we sing the wonderful words of In Christ Alone:  When on the cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied...

(4)        All of this brings to me say this.  Why should anyone who believes in particular redemption count as strange doctrine what I said and what Paul affirms about reconciliation?  I might ask: What did you think particular redemption meant or involved when you adopted it?  Particular redemption or limited atonement has always meant exactly this.  In some sense, that is, it has always meant that God’s wrath was actually propitiated, His justice actually satisfied, the curse actually borne, sin was actually atoned, men actually redeemed, and sinners actually reconciled already at the cross.  If this is not what particular redemption means to you, then perhaps you need to go back and reconsider the matter.  This is the purport of John Owen’s famous argument for limited atonement.  Substitutionary atonement requires limited atonement, because substitutionary curse-bearing means that God’s wrath against His own was satisfied at the cross, and there is no reason left in God’s mind and heart to send them to hell once Christ was died.  Payment God cannot twice demand once at my dear surety’s hand and then again at mine.

March 27-28, 2010:  I will be speaking at Emmanuel Baptist Church for Pastor Thomas Waters and his fellow pastors on the subject of eschatology for a weekend seminar in Jesup, GA

April 11-13, 2010: I will be speaking for Jeff Pollard and Mount Zion Bible Church at their "graders" conference on the subject of Chapter 11 of the 1689 Baptist Confession:  Of Justification.  I have the privilege speaking with Dr. Joel Beeke at this conference. 

April 18, 2010:  I will be speaking for Pastor Bob Selph and his fellow pastors at Grace Baptist Church, Taylors, SC.  Subject yet to be determined.

April 20, 2010:  I will be speaking in the evening on the subject of "the dynamic church" at the ARBCA GA held at GBC Taylors, SC.

I would love to see any of the readers of this blog at one of these events.

Thanks,
Dr. Sam

Charles Hodge, Church Polity (New York: Scribner, 1878), 66-67.

This sounds very similar to Nehemiah Coxe, a 17th century Particular Baptist, and John Tombes, a 17th century Anglican Credobaptist. If you don't know who Coxe is, you can learn about him here.

"Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn't. Worship is ultimate." -John Piper

"Public worship is to be preferred before private.  So it is by the Lord, so it should be by [H]is people." - David Clarkson

“Above all, we must prize the blessing of corporate worship. The church of the Lord, gathered for worship, marks the pinnacle of our fellowship with the Lord and with one another. The church is the people of God, the new humanity, the beginning of the new creation, a colony of heaven …. In corporate worship we experience the meaning of union with Christ.” Edmund P. Clowney

 In preaching last night I taught that Romans 5:10-11 really affirms the Reformed distinction between the accomplishment and application of redemption.   After preaching  last night two of my fellow pastors asked me natural questions given my assertion in my message that our reconciliation was accomplished at the cross and that it was at the cross we were reconciled.  One asked if the elect are under the wrath of God before they believe the gospel.  Another asked me how what I said relates to the doctrine of eternal justification.  I believe his desire was to make sure that no one misunderstood me in that way.   Let me reiterate and expand here what I said last night in answer to those questions.  I hope it will prove to be to your edification.  Eventually, I will have six or seven points.  Here are the first two.

 (1)        I detest the doctrine of eternal justification.  Of course, I said nothing in my message about it.  Eternal justification confuses the plan to justify with actual historical justification.  This confusion is inexcusable and deadly to the gospel.  Election is not salvation.  The plan to justify is not justification.  There is not the shadow of support for eternal justification in the Bible.

 (2)        Although I regard this as a completely different matter, I did not even speak of people being justified at the cross.  I am pretty convinced that justification throughout Romans including Romans 5 is used exclusively of the application of salvation and not of its accomplishment at the cross.  Romans 5:1 is clearly speaking of the justification received by faith and, thus, the application of salvation.  I assume that this and the other uses of justification in Romans which assume the necessity of faith are normative for the mention of justification in Romans 5:9.  In other words, Romans 5:9 is speaking of the application of salvation and being justified by faith.

 I do believe that the idea adopted by John Murray in his commentary on Romans 5:6-11 of Christ’s people being justified in a sense at the cross is quite distinct from eternal justification and capable of an orthodox explanation and sense.  I do not, however, know of any place which I am certain uses justification of what happened at the cross.  Exegetically, as I have said, I am not convinced at all that this is the way justification is used in Romans 5:1 and 9.

That was my last Super Bowl."

Ray Ortlund, over at The Gospel Coalition

I appreciate Ortlund's comments, in so far as they go. I wonder what men like C. H. Spurgeon would post on the internet about the Super Bowl. OK, I know what Spurgeon would say and I know what my blog comment would say in response to his post - "I agree with C. H."

Derek agrees.  On the way to the hospital I ask him, “If you were making this visit alone, what d’ya think you’d try to do?” Derek’s answer is good – he hits a double, but I need to bring ‘em in. So, I set forth some additional goals, suggest a strategy, remind him that things may not go as we plan, park the car and pray. The visit was made. We got to pray with Kevin’s dad, spend some helpful time with our brother in Christ and his mom (showing her Christian compassion) and tactfully share the Gospel. The four of us took a short walk down the hall to the chapel, where I read a verse of Scripture and asked Derek to pray.

On our way back to the church parking lot, I asked my young pastoral student how he thought things went, what we could have done better, what he learned from the experience and if he wanted to sit in on a baptismal interview next Saturday morning. We prayed again for God’s blessing on the visit and said goodbye. As Derek was closing my car door, he said something like, “PT, thanks so much for thinking of me tonight. I learned tons! I have so much to learn but I must confess that experiences like this fire me up to be a pastor.”

The preceding story was partly factual but entirely realistic with regard to the pastoral mentoring component of MCTS.  In addition to giving our guys a solid, theological education (“informed scholarship”), we believe God has also called us to mold and shape them pastorally – s.h.a.p.e. (shepherds helping aspiring pastors experientially). We’re so convinced of this responsibility that we actually give credit for a course called Pastoral Mentoring.

What could be better than sitting under gifted and knowledgeable seminary professors? The answer is sitting under gifted and knowledgeable seminary professors who are also your pastors – men who can take you into elders’ meetings, premarital counseling sessions, pastoral care meetings, funeral home visits, sermon preparation, family devotions as well as Starbucks for some “hang time.”

Concerning the council of Jerusalem we read, “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). The pastor-professors of MCTS are not Jesus. They just want to be like him, and hope their students will mature not only by hearing from them in the classroom, but by being with them in other settings. If you want to meet the real Derek or Mark or Justin or Brandon or Larry or Matt or…, let us know. We’ll hook you up.

Ted Christman
Pastor for Counseling and Mentoring

Our Lord Jesus Christ is last Adam. He entered into the sphere of humanity as that. He came as the antitype of the first Adam. As Adam the first was son of God, in communion with God, in a state of probation, so last Adam came. Last Adam came to do what first Adam failed to do - pass probation. The first Adam failed to obey and failed to bring himself and his posterity into a state of immutability. Last Adam obeyed so as to bring the new humanity into a state immutable communion with God. In order to secure this, He had to do two things - provide obedience and satisfaction to divine justice due to sin. Satisfaction to divine justice entailed suffering to the point of death and thus exhausting the wrath of God. Satisfaction to divine justice involved suffering the punishment due to sin. The punishment due to sin is eternal wrath. Our Lord suffered the punishment of eternal wrath on the cross; damnation was exhausted! He did so as a perfect, sinless substitute and willing wrath bearer. Yet, He did so all the while remaining personally sinless. Though personal corruption is a necessary consequent of personal guilt in every normal case, there is one exception - our Lord! He was neither personally guilty nor personally corrupt. The guilt He bore was imputed; corruption never imparted. Why not imparted corruption? Corruption would imply personal guilt and make Him an unsuitable last Adam.

            Barcellos; covers Greek syntax and exegetical methodology

ST 23   Doctrine of God                                             3hrs.

            Waldron; covers the being, attributes, Trinity, and decree of God

PT 20   Mentoring/Table Talk                                      2hrs.

            Christman; covers practical, pastoral issues

2010, June: TBA (I'm really excited about this one!), June 14-19, 2010

2011, January: Polemics: Islam, Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism by James White, January 3-8, 2011

June 2011:  The Law and the Sabbath, by Richard  Barcellos, June, 2011

January 2012: Eschatology: The Basics by Sam Waldron, January 2012

June 2012: Edwards and His Successors by Michael Haykin, June 4-8, 2012

T. Desmond Alexander’s From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology provides the reader with what its title indicates and more – it is both an introduction to biblical theology and an excellent example of inner-biblical/inner-textual/canonical/typological interpretation, a crucial (and too often neglected!) element in the hermeneutical process. It also whets the appetite for more to come, something which Alexander promises (see below).

The book’s chapters are as follows: 1. Introduction, 2. From sacred garden to holy city: experiencing the presence of God, 3. Thrown from the throne: re-establishing the sovereignty of God, 4. Dealing with the devil: destroying the source of evil, 5. The slaughter of the Lamb: accomplishing the redemption of creation, 6. Feasting from the tree of life: reinvigorating the lives of people from every nation, 7. Strong foundations and solid walls: living securely among the people of God, and 8. Conclusion.

The book’s origin comes from Alexander’s study of Revelation 20-22. He says:

This study began life as a short course exploring what Revelation 20-22 reveals about life after death. In unpacking this, two things became evident: (1) the biblical description of our future existence has more in common with our present life than most people assume; (2) the concluding chapters of Revelation offer a window through which the main themes of the biblical meta-narrative may be studied. (7)

Alexander’s words reminded me of a book I read several years ago – The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21-22 and the Old Testament by William J. Dumbrell (a book I highly recommend).

Alexander identifies his approach. “The approach adopted here is to begin at the end. As is often the case, a story’s conclusion provides a good guide to the themes and ideas dominant throughout” (10). He sees Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 20-22 as framing the entire Bible. “The very strong links between Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 20-22 suggest that these passages frame the entire biblical meta-story” (10). This approach allows us to see the big picture and not loose the forest for the trees (11). The basic structure of each of the main chapters (2-7) is to state the theme of the chapter (from Rev. 20-22), find the theme in the Old Testament, while tracing its unfolding to the New Testament.

Chapter 2 deals with the garden (Gen. 1-3) and its relation to the holy city (Rev. 21). As the Bible ends with a holy city inhabited by both God and man, so it began in similar fashion – the garden was a dwelling place shared by God and man. Alexander traces the biblical teaching of the presence of God with man on the earth. He argues that the garden was the first temple – the temple-garden of Eden. His discussion is dependent upon studies by Wenham, Walton, and Beale, among many others. The striking parallels between the garden and later Israelite sanctuaries are presented as proof that the garden ought to be viewed as the first holy place/temple/sanctuary on the earth, prototypical of all subsequent holy places/temples/sanctuaries in the Bible (including the church), and finding its eschatological and escalated antitype in the New Heavens and the New Earth (20-73). He closes this chapter with these words:

We began this chapter by noting that Revelation 21 – 22 anticipates a new earth dominated by a golden city of immense proportions in which God resides. Observing that the origins of this temple-city may be traced back to the opening chapters of Genesis, our survey of the theme of divine presence reveals a fascinating and coherent progression from Eden to tabernacle to Jerusalem temple to church to New Jerusalem. This distinctive framework is not only important for understanding the biblical meta-story, but it enables us, as we shall see in our remaining chapters, to understand better complementary themes that run in parallel from the initial chapters of Genesis to the final chapters of Revelation. (73)

Instead of tracing the argument of each chapter, I will close this review with some high-level observations, encouraging readers to take up and read this book and others. My concluding observations will come under three headings: the hermeneutical approach of the book, recommended reading of books that utilize a similar approach, and identifying one theme that Alexander promises to explore in a subsequent work.

As mentioned above, Alexander’s method is comprised of inner-biblical/inner-textual/canonical/typological interpretation. This method of interpretation is gaining ground in academic halls (and, I think, rightly so). Slowly but surely, conservative scholars are recognizing that some pre-critical exegetical/hermeneutical methodology worth retaining was abandoned due to Enlightenment influences that slowly crept into conservative scholarship. The grammatical-historical approach to interpreting texts became a control mechanism to keep interpreters from fanciful, allegorical interpretations. So far so good. However, some forms of grammatical-historical exegesis/hermeneutics over-emphasize human authorial intent and end up not allowing the Bible to interpret itself and do not allow the hermeneutical principles utilized by the biblical authors to become our principles. I found Alexander’s method refreshing and a good example of allowing the whole Bible its place in the interpretation of any given text or textual theme. Bravo, T. D.!

Here are some books and articles that will give the reader a flavor for Alexander’s approach in terms of both the establishment of principles, historical analysis of various methods, and actual application of the principles: 1) Books – Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, David S. Dockery; The Temple and the Church’s Mission, G. K. Beale ; Last Things First, J. V. Fesko; Him We Proclaim, Dennis E. Johnson; 2) Articles – G. K. Beale, “Did Jesus and his Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?”; Vern S. Poythress, “The Presence of God Qualifying Our Notions of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation: Genesis 3:15 as a Test Case”; Scott A. Swanson, “Can We Reproduce The Exegesis Of The New Testament? Why Are We Sill Asking?”; and the following articles by James Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” “The Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham,” “The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel,” and “Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus.” All of the articles are available on the internet.

On page188, Alexander acknowledges the fact that other themes are worthy of consideration. He mentions two: “the related concepts of rest and peace are closely coupled with temple building” and “the intimate link that exists within the biblical meta-story between the Davidic dynasty and the divine temple.” He then says, “This is a subject I hope to explore in a subsequent volume” (188, n. 1.). This reviewer of From Eden to the New Jerusalem eagerly awaits this subsequent volume!

Download the PDF of this review HERE

By Sam Waldron

Keller, Timothy.  The Reason for God.  New York, New York: Dutton (Penguin Group), 2008, 293 pp.

Introduction

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God is a good book. No. Scratch that. It is a really good book. I wanted after reading the first three chapters to assign it immediately as a text for the classes filled with mostly unconverted freshman I teach at Kentucky Wesleyan College. His apologetics connects with the culture in which he ministers. This is so because it is built on the real live interaction he has had with unbelievers in New York City where he has ministered since 1989.. Keller’s method is simply to answer the most common objections to Christianity with which he has been confronted over the years. This gives a freshness and relevance to what he says which is impressive. I found myself admiring his freshness and relevance again and again as I read the the book.

Keller is the minister at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. God has used him to build a thriving and biblical (and very large–5000 people were in attendance by 2007) church in the midst of New York City paganism. Redeemer has also given birth to a number of daughter congregations in the city. Keller carefully tells us that this did not happen by their adopting avant garde methods or by melding Christian doctrine with the spirit of the age. At one point he notes that visitors are surprised at how “orthodox” and “traditional” Redeemer Presbyterian is. (xiv)

All of this does not mean that The Reason for God is without flaws. There are problems endemic to almost all apologetic attempts to commend Christianity to the world. One of those dangers is the subtle tendency to shave down some of the roughest edges of the old rugged cross and soften the hardest sayings of Scripture for the sake of commending it to a critical world. I do not think Keller has wholly avoided these dangers. I want, however, to say that even here that he has fallen into them less than most Christian apologists. I will say more about this later.

Overview

Let me give a brief overview of Keller’s book before I come to the many commendations and the few criticisms I have of it.  The Reason for God is divided into two parts and between them (in keeping I guess with the artsy New York scene) is what Keller calls an “Intermission.”

Part 1 consists of an introduction and Keller’s answers to the seven most often raised objections to Christianity which he has heard as a pastor in New York City. In his introduction Keller argues that both skepticism and faith “are on the ascendancy in the world today.” (ix) This is why both sides sometimes engage in shrill and alarmist rhetoric. Both see themselves as endangered by the other. He then encourages both believers and unbelievers to face their doubts squarely. He affirms that a Christian faith which has not answered the tough questions which doubt asks is weak and ready to fall. (xvi) He also asserts that unbelievers must realize that there is a kind of faith behind their doubts about Christianity. They have “a set of alternate beliefs” (xvii) in which their unbelief is rooted. He urges skeptics to wrestle with the “blind faith on which skepticism is based.” (xviii)

In his first seven chapters Keller responds to the seven objections mentioned above. They are (1) “There Can’t Be Just One True Religion.” (2) “How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?” (3) “Christianity Is a Straitjacket.” (4) “The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice.” (5) “How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?” (6) “Science Has Disproved Christianity.” (7) “You Can’t Take the Bible Literally.”

In each of these chapters Keller begins by stating as fairly and strongly as possible the objection being made. Then with frequent use of contemporary illustrations drawn from literature and movies and both Christians and non-Christians, he proceeds to show the inner inconsistencies of the skeptical position. Keller is without exception extremely fair to the skeptic. In fact, this feature of his method will form the basis of some of my criticisms. Nevertheless, I think his approach is wise and reflects the ability to get a conversation started with the unbeliever and avoid the yelling match that so frequently characterizes exchanges between skeptics and unbelievers in our culture today.

In his “Intermission” Keller explains the purpose of the second part of his book. “It is one thing to argue that there are no sufficient reasons for disbelieving Christianity.” That was the purpose of the first part of the book. “It is another to argue that there are sufficient reasons for believing it. That is what I will try to do in the last part of the volume.” (115) Keller then proceeds to answer two questions about this purpose. They are respectively, Which Christianity?, and, Which Rationality? In response to the question, Which Christianity, Keller affirms that he is defending the Christianity of the “great ecumenical creeds.” (116) In response to the question, Which Rationality?, he rejects the idea that he must offer “a logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone.” (118) Keller argues here that the skeptics cannot offer such arguments for their viewpoint and that it is unfair for them to demand such arguments from Christians. (118) Citing the famous statement of the Russian who returned from space and reported that he had not found God, Keller affirms, “If the God of the Bible exists, he is not the man in the attic, but the Playwright. That means that we won’t be able to find him like we would find a passive object with the powers of empirical investigation.” (123)

Part 2 of Keller’s book contains seven chapters and an epilogue: (8) “The Clues of God” (9) “The Knowledge of God” (10) “The Problem of Sin” (11) “Religion and the Gospel” (12) “The (True) Story of the Cross” (13) “The Reality of the Resurrection” (14) “The Dance of God.” The epilogue is entitled, “Where Do We Go from Here?”

Commendations

I want to spend some time explaining the commendable things about Keller’s book. The first thing is this. I like his eschatology.

I imagine someone responding to this comment by wondering, But I thought this was book on apologetics? It is. But here is what I mean. Keller begins, as I have said, by distancing himself from the alarmist rhetoric on both sides of the divide between belief and unbelief. On the one hand, you have believers in America convinced that the unbelievers are about to deny them their religious freedoms. On the other hand, you have unbelievers talking as if a theocratic state which persecutes unbelievers is just around the corner.

Now, of course, both these prospects have a certain element of truth in them. As believers we know the mystery of iniquity already works. There have, on the other hand, been theocratic and professedly Christian states in history. Nevertheless, I think that Keller is wise to tone down the rhetoric and fear on both sides of this debate here in America. For one thing until these fears are diminished we will not be able even to talk to each other in the way the gospel requires.

Against the extremist rhetoric on both sides Keller affirms that throughout the world both belief and unbelief are growing stronger. Keller writes: “First, each side should accept that both religious belief andskepticism are on the rise. …. This would eliminate the self-talk that is rampant in each camp, namely that it will soon be extinct, overrun by the opposition.” (xvi)

Why do I like this? Because I think it is exactly what Jesus was teaching in the parable of the wheat and weeds. Jesus tells us that both rosy optimism and gloomy pessimism are out of sync’ with his view of the future. Both good and evil will grow and prosper together. It seems paradoxical to us. True! But it is what Jesus teaches. Matthew 13:30 records his words: Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.” Keller has a balanced eschatology, and it helps him to start the conversation with unbelievers.

Perhaps even more than his eschatology, I like Keller’s apologetic. (The only reason I can say I like it more is that this is after all a book intended to defend the faith. I am not ranking apologetics above eschatology in importance.) Too often I have begun books on apologetics that I thought might be useful.  Yet, I no more than start them than I find myself reading unalloyed Evidentialism complete with all its hopeless non sequiturs. Illogic rarely helps me in ministry.

I am thankful to say that Keller’s book is not filled with the illogical ramblings of an Evidentialist. Really strict Presuppositionalists may (in fact, they do) find fault with some aspect of his methodology, but it appears to me that Keller is approximates very closely and capably at most points a presuppositional approach to the defense of the faith. Let me offer three examples of this.

First, Part 1 of the book is an extended application of the negative aspect of the transcendental argument to modern arguments against Christianity. It offers, in other words, devastating internal critiques of the current, anti-Christian arguments against the faith. Keller again and again shows how these arguments are self-contradictory in that they assume and deny the same presuppositions.

For instance, Keller addresses the argument that there simply can’t be just one true religion. Notice his angle of attack in the following quotation. “Skeptics believe that any exclusive claims to a superior knowledge of spiritual reality cannot be true. But this objection is itself a religious belief. It assumes God is unknowable, or that God is loving but not wrathful, or that God is an impersonal force rather than a person who speaks in Scripture. All of these are unprovable faith assumptions. In addition, their proponents believe they have a superior way to view things. …. Therefore, their view is also an “exclusive” about the nature of spiritual reality.” (12)

Another example of Keller’s presuppositional approach is how he addresses the problem of evil and suffering. In a consistently presuppositional way he argues that the argument against the existence of God based on the problem of suffering actually presupposes the existence of God. He says: “If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgment.” (26)

Keller’s presuppositional approach also shows up in his moderate use of the arguments for the existence of God in Part 2 of the book. In the chapter is entitled, “The Clues of God,” Keller denies that there are proofs for God, but argues that there are clues to God’s existence. This reminds me of Bavinck’s approach to the theistic arguments. Stephen R. Spencer in his very helpful thesis entitled:  A Comparison and Evaluation of the Old Princeton and Amsterdam Apologetics argues on page 71: “Alexander, Hodge, Bavinck, and Van Til … make use of "theistic proofs," but their conception of the nature and value of them differs significantly. … Bavinck … reduces their value from that of valid proof to that of non-binding testimonies.”

This approach reflects, I think, to some extent the rejection by presuppositionalism of the theistic arguments as usually stated. (It’s likely that it also reflects the approach of Reformed epistemology about which I am not so enthusiastic, but more of this later.)

Keller’s presuppositionalism is also evident in his chapter-long claim that men already know that God exists. This is point-blank presuppositionalism and right on the money. Here is how Keller introduces that chapter. “In the next chapter I want to do something very personal. I don’t want to argue why God may exist. I want to demonstrate that you already know that God does exist.” (142) This is Van Til’s claim that men know God stated in a straightforward and unvarnished form!

Before I come to some of the things about Tim Keller’s The Reason for God which I do not appreciate quite so much, let me quickly point to several more things which I really do admire.

First, I admire the obvious devotion to this subject and to communicating Christianity to his contemporaries which Keller’s book manifests. It is clear that years of dedicated work lie behind it. This is shown in the scholarship of the book. There are a plethora of illustrations from contemporary culture which Keller uses to communicate his points. C. S. Lewis, The Lord of the Rings, well-known existentialists, and many others populate his pages with pointed illustrations of the issues with which he is dealing.

Second, and this is related, all of this gives an obvious sense of relevance to what he is saying to the unbelievers surrounding him in New York. This is calculated to engage them in discussion. This is something that Keller seems to have been able to do with great success over the years of his ministry there.

Third, and I suppose I am saying this more as a writer than anything else, I admire the way in which Keller is able to be so contemporary, relevant, and interesting without forfeiting a generally presuppositional and theological approach. It is easy, I think, to allow a desire for relevance to make one woolly-headed and really fuzzy theologically. Keller has avoided this and deserves credit as a writer and theologian for doing so.

Criticisms

It is necessary now to mention a few things that I do not like about Keller’s book. I hope I have made clear in the aforegoing commendations that I do have a deep appreciation for what Keller has accomplished in this volume. Though Keller is certainly a hero to not a few in our day, yet no one is above criticism–not our heroes from the past and not heroes from the present.

My first and preeminent concern with Keller’s work is how he deals with the question of evolution. It will assist the readers’ understanding of what I have to say here if I divide my remarks into three parts.

What does Keller say? 
Why does he say it? 
What do I think of it?

What does Keller say?

First, Keller clearly affirms the miraculous. He begins chapter six, “Science Has Disproved Christianity,” by addressing the question, Aren’t Miracles Scientifically Impossible? He affirms that Christianity has as an essential tenet that God does miracles and that the denial of miracles is merely an article of faith in the skeptic’s creed and not something science has proved. (85-86)

Second, he affirms that many Christians believe (including the Catholic Church) that God brought about life through the process of evolution. (87)

Third, he affirms that holding evolution “as a process” does not entail holding the “philosophical naturalism” which says that evolution explains absolutely everything about human beings. (87)

Fourth, he affirms that the literary genre of Genesis 1 is poetic, while Genesis 2 “is an account of how it happened.” (94) In context this seems to mean that Genesis 2 is to be taken in a more literal fashion.

Fifth, he affirms the original goodness of creation. “The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it.” (96)

Why does he say it?

The five affirmations which Keller makes about evolution are, I think, quite random. They certainly leave unanswered many questions that we might have about what he believes on this subject. It seems clear to me that Keller’s interest in these quite random responses is not to address in any detail the issue of evolution. It is rather and simply to say enough so that the person with prejudices against Christianity would not make evolution into a conversation-stopper. Keller does not want the theory of evolution to derail the evangelistic discussion and sidetrack the conversation from the core of the gospel.

I understand and sympathize with Keller’s purpose here, if I am right about what he is doing. I teach as an adjunct in the religion department of a United Methodist college. The students I teach are not as liberal here in Kentucky as they might be in another part of our country. But they are not for the most part Christians. They ask me questions which I would rather not answer at a certain stage in my effort to present Christianity to them. What I want to do in those situations is say enough to allay their prejudices and help keep them focused on what they really need to be thinking about. So I really do understand and appreciate, I think, Keller’s motives. This does not mean, however, that I agree with his approach to this issue. Now I must ‘fess up and answer the question, What do I think of it?

What do I think of it?

I said above that I find Keller’s comments in this section of his book “random.” He is not, I think, intent on giving any clear account of his own views of this subject. He is aware that some Christian readers may find his approach unsatisfactory and toward the end of this chapter tries to clear things up a little for us. I am not sure that what he says helps me. Here it is:

“Indeed I am sure that many reading this will be irritated that I don’t take time to adjudicate between the competing views. For the record I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory.” He then cites David Atkinson’s remark that “there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which–at the level of biology–God has gone about his creating processes.” (94-95)

I have to admit that I find all this confusing and troubling. Here are my questions: Does Keller think that Genesis 2 is a literal/narrative account of the origin of the human race? He seems to say so on the very same page, but then how can he open the door for the biological evolution of the human race in his quotation from Atkinson? Is Keller really serious in limiting a figurative reading of Genesis to only chapter 1? While I adopt a literal reading of Genesis 1 personally for exegetical reasons, I am willing to admit that it is legitimate to raise the question of literary genre about any passage of Scripture–as long as we allow Scripture itself and not extra-scriptural considerations to determine our conclusions about literary genre. If one really could limit a poetic reading of Genesis solely to the first chapter, while maintaining a literal reading of Genesis 2 and forward, I could admit as well that it would not destroy the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. I am not willing to call those who hold a framework hypothesis of Genesis 1 heretics or willy-nilly conclude that they overthrow the faith.

Nevertheless, I have to say that it is a dangerous and confusing tactic that Keller is using. I think that the idea of the biological evolution of the human race is radically inconsistent with the presentation of redemptive history given in Scripture. I do not think that any reading of the clearest chronological statements of Scripture is consistent with a human race that is, say, even a million years old.

Keller’s main interest, it seems to me, is also stated on the same page 94 I have already cited a couple of times. He says, “The skeptical inquirer does not need to accept any one of these positions in order to embrace the Christian faith. Rather, he should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity. Only after drawing conclusions about the person of Christ, the resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian message should one think through the various options with regard to creation and evolution.”

While Keller’s zeal for the gospel of Christ and the salvation of the sinner is commendable, this statement raises serious questions. Can we really present Christ apart from the backdrop of what the Bible teaches about creation? Is a Christ that is consistent with theistic evolution really the biblical Christ? If Christ is the last Adam, isn’t a non-literal reading of the first Adam destructive of the very identity and saving work of Christ? At some point the worldview against which the gospel is presented does begin to affect the gospel. I can as a creationist agree that someone should first accept Christ and only in light of that decide about the literary genre of Genesis 1. I can even understand why someone might say, first accept Christ, and then decide, for instance, what he teaches about the identity and role of women in the church. I really do not think we can say, or that it is beneficial to say, first decide for Christ, and then make up your mind about the biological evolution of the human race. The creation of the human race by God is the backdrop of the redemption of the human race by Christ. The two stand or fall together.

Another point at which I find Keller’s defense of the faith a little troubling is in Chapter Twelve, “The (True) Story of the Cross.” In this chapter Keller attempts, I think, to defend the concept of substitionary sacrifice to the unbeliever by illustrating it from human experience. He argues, first, that “Real Forgiveness Is Costly Suffering.” (187) Here Keller argues that to forgive means that in some sense we bear the cost of the person’s offense against us. He argues, second, “Real Love Is a Personal Exchange.” (193) That is to say, “In the real world of relationships it is impossible to love people with a problem or a need without in some sense sharing or even changing places with them. All real life-changing love involves some form of this kind of exchange.” (193)

Perhaps there is apologetic value in these kinds of illustrations of the substitionary sacrifice, but as clear accounts of what Christ did on the cross they fall far short of a clear account of substitionary curse-bearing. If I read them simply as illustrations, I find Keller’s observations interesting and perhaps helpful. If I read them as accurate explanations of the cross, I find them deficient. At best Keller’s illustrations are dim and finally inadequate human reflections of substitution.

Contributing to this fuzziness is Keller’s citation of N. T. Wright at a key point in this chapter (196). The real nature of Wright’s own theory of the atonement has been widely questioned. [Cf. John Piper’s discussion of Wright’s view of the atonement in The Future of Justification (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 46-53, for a very generous assessment of Wright which nonetheless underscores the uncertainty surrounding his view of the atonement.] Keller’s citation of Wright and his idea that the cross involves a reversal of the world’s values reminds me of non-violent theories of the cross coming out of the Anabaptist pacifist tradition.

We do, of course, have to remember that Keller is doing apologetics not writing systematics for Christians. Nevertheless, there is a slippery slope in apologetics by which our attempt to illustrate Christianity to unbelievers subtly becomes our whole understanding of Christianity. Did the Apologists in the 2nd and Origen in the 3rd century intend to teach subordinationism and finally create Arianism by adopting the logos speculation of Greek philosophy? No. But that is what happened when their partial illustrations were taken as whole explanations.

Though I find William Dennison’s review of Keller too “all or nothing,” I do not entirely blame him for writing the following:

“Although one will find the terminology of the satisfaction view of atonement scattered throughout Keller’s presentation, it would seem that Keller is advocating more directly the moral theory of the atonement. Hence, the reader should not be surprised that the justice achieved by Christ on the cross is a restoration of the social order of human activity (196-197). Ironically, I am skeptical whether the reader will find an exposition of the penal substitutionary work of Christ’s atonement as taught in the Reformed confessions in Keller’s presentation of the “true” story of the cross. In my estimation, Keller’s exposition appears dangerously close to Horace Bushnell’s moral theory on the atonement, which was assessed and critiqued correctly by Charles Hodge.” [This review may be found on the internet athttp://www.opc.org/os.html?.article_id=119.]

Is this perhaps a little too harsh? Yes, probably. Does Keller’s argumentation lay him open up to just such misunderstanding? Yes, I think it does.

I do not want to unsay what I said about this being a great book by multiplying criticisms of Keller’s work. But let me briefly mention a couple of further criticisms upon which I will not expand.

Let me just say, first, that I think he is confused (like many others today) about forgiveness. To be specific, I think he confuses love and a forgiving spirit with actual forgiveness. (187-193) In the Bible–believe it or not–forgiveness is conditioned on repentance (Luke 17:3-4).

Let me also warn the unwary reader that Keller’s apologetic is heavily influenced by the views of Reformed Epistemology and Alvin Plantinga. Note the extensive list of subjects under Plantinga’s name in the index (290-91). There are similarities between Reformed Epistemology and Presuppositionalism. I think of Plantinga’s claim that the existence of God may be treated as “properly basic.” On the other hand, there are also significant differences. I think Plantinga’s more philosophical spirit and approach departs from the more biblical approach of presuppositionalism in significant respects. Kelly James Clark, a cohort of Plantinga and defender of his Reformed epistemology, claims, for instance, that there is no “biblical” apologetics or epistemology. [Five Views of Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 274-275] If I understand this claim aright, it directly contradicts key features of presuppositionalism. So also does Clark’s assertion that “We simply cannot, this side of the grave, obtain religious certainty” (Five Views of Apologetics, 366).

Let me draw this assessment of Keller’s book to a close.

The history of the church exhibits two distinct tendencies with regard to its relation to the world. On the one hand, there are those who take the responsibility to engage the world with the gospel as uppermost. On the other hand, there are those who take the responsibility of preserving the faith as primary. Of course, both these tendencies are legitimate. Furthermore, they are not contradictory. Yet, history shows that these two approaches to the church’s relation to the world often give birth to quite different viewpoints.

An early illustration of this is provided by the contrast between the Apologists and Irenaeus in the mid to late second century. The Apologists were concerned to explain and defend the Christian faith to the Gentiles. To this end they adopted the logos speculation of Greek philosophy to explain the Trinity. They did this because Christians had a difficult problem with regards to their doctrine of God. They held together several tenets that were difficult to make sense of to the average Gentile. First, they held that there was only one God. Second, they held that Christ was God. Third, they held that the Father was God. Fourth, they held that Christ was not the Father. How do you explain the seeming contradiction in holding all these tenets to the typical Greek?

To explain this seeming contradiction to Gaius the Greek, the Apologists’ borrowed an idea from Greek philosophy called the logos speculation. According to Greek philosophy the supreme being was so remote or transcendent on the scale of being that he was incapable of coming into meaningful contact with the world. The solution to the problem of this radically transcendent supreme being was to speculate that an intermediate being called the logos existed by which the supreme being was mediated to the world. The Apologists’ task was facilitated by the Apostle John’s use of Logos to describe Christ in John 1:1. The Apologists and their Logos Christology became a popular method of presenting Christian doctrine in the second and third century.

In contrast to traveling apologists and evangelists like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus was the bishop of the church in Lyons. Irenaeus represents the opposite tendency. His favorite name for Christ was the Son. He did not make much use of the logos speculation. His major concern was to protect the church and its doctrine from the eroding effects of Gnosticism. He represents the felt need to protect the church and its doctrine from the world.

Now both impulses (the impulse to engage the world and the impulse to protect the church from the world) are, as I said, legitimate. But the later history of the Logos Christology is instructive. In adopting the logos speculation the Apologists and later Origen also unwittingly brought into the orbit of Christian doctrine ideas that were both alien and profoundly destructive. The idea of the supreme being as radically transcendent and the logos as intermediate being led directly to Origen’s subordinationism in the third century, and then to Arianism in the fourth.

My point is that there can be such an urgency to be relevant to and engage the world with the truth of the gospel that the truth of the gospel is compromised. I am afraid that in his fine book Keller has not wholly avoided this tendency.

Abraham Kuyper was an apologist for the Christian faith. He certainly believed in engaging the world. His stint as prime minister of the Netherlands and his founding of the Free University of Amsterdam prove this. In another sense, however, he was the anti-apologist. One reason was that he had profound suspicions about the impulse to make the truth understandable and relevant to the world which he saw in some apologists and their apologetics. Is Kuyper right? I think we must seriously consider his views as we evaluate Keller. Perhaps I may let Kuyper have the last word about Keller:

“There is no doubt then that Christianity is imperiled by great and serious dangers. Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat. Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature; while, on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the living God, and God himself, are bent upon saving the ‘Christian Heritage.’ This is the struggle in Europe, this is the struggle in America, and this also, is the struggle for principles in which my own country is engaged, and in which I myself have been spending all my energy for nearly forty years. In this struggle Apologetics have advanced us not one single step. Apologists have invariably begun by abandoning the assailed breastwork, in order to entrench themselves cowardly in a ravelin behind it.

From the first, therefore, I have always said to myself, -”If the battle is to be fought with honor and with a hope of victory, then principle must be arrayed against principle; then it must be felt that in Modernism the vast energy of an all-embracing life-system assails us, then also it must be understood that we have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power. And this powerful life-system is not to be invented nor formulated by ourselves, but is to be taken and applied as it presents itself in history. When thus taken, I found and confessed, and I still hold, that this manifestation of the Christian principle is given us in Calvinism. In Calvinism my heart has found rest. From Calvinism have I drawn the inspiration firmly and resolutely to take my stand in the thick of this great conflict of principles. And therefore, when I was invited most honorably by your Faculty to give the Stone-Lectures here this year, I could not hesitate a moment as to my choice of subject. Calvinism, as the only decisive, lawful, and consistent defense for Protestant nations against encroaching, and overwhelming Modernism, -this of itself was bound to my theme.” [Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., n. d.), 8.]

Purchase the book HERE

 Richard Barcellos, in a thoroughly researched, persuasively argued and clearly written manner, shows the soundness of Vos’s self-perception.  By means of a large-scale comparison of his work with that of the towering instance of 17th century Reformed orthodoxy, John Owen, Barcellos brings to light undeniable lines of affinity and the deeply rooted compatibility there is between the two.  If Vos may be said to be the father of a Reformed biblical theology, then, in the author’s words, Owen is “a grandfather (among many others) of a Reformed biblical theology.”  Those interested in Reformed theology, in particular issues of theological method, are indebted to Barcellos for this most welcome and helpful study.

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Emeritus
Westminster Theological Seminary

Download and read samples from Dr. Barcellos' dissertation HERE

• Abstract (PDF)
• Chapter 1 (PDF)