Christ at the Center: The Fulcrum of Biblical Covenantalism (Pt.1b)

Continued from last time on Colossians 1:15b

There is a great deal which might be said about the term “firstborn.”  Primarily of course it concerns right of inheritance and prominence among brethren.  As the examples of Isaac and Jacob and Judah and Solomon show, the first to be born is not the main idea in “firstborn” (prototokos).  The primary idea involves status, not physical birth.  Notice how this is true in Psalm 89:27, ” I also shall make him My first-born, The highest of the kings of the earth.”  The verb translated “make” in the verse carries with it the idea of  placing or constituting, but not generating.  The Psalm also portrays the promise to the firstborn as earning the very highest status among the “kings of the earth,” further underlining this understanding of the word.

So it is here.  Certainly, some primordial creation of the Son as per the Arian heresy is not at all in the Apostle’s mind.  There is a Time in Paul’s thoughts: though not the time of the original creation, but rather that of the second creation heralded by the Resurrection which he is thinking about.  Just compare “the firstborn from [among] the dead” in v18, where this is made more clear.

Verse 15 also states that Christ is “over all creation.”  He is over the creation because:

The World depends on Christ for its being created and its continued existence.

• all creation was made through Him – (v. 16).  Jesus is the ever-living Word through Whom the Father spoke the world into being (Jn. 1:3; Heb. 1:2).

• all creation was made for Him – (v. 16).  Jesus is the One for Whom the Father made the world. This staggering fact calls us all to prayerful meditation.  “For Him.”  This world.  You and I.  Creation is a Gift from the Father to the Son.  And while we may despise God’s gifts, the Son does not.  The created realm is valuable to Jesus first of all because it is His from God the Father!  And it is for that reason He redeems it.  Yes, and for that reason He will beautify it (cf. Rom. 8:20).  This world will not be discarded like an old car when He comes, like some teach.   It will be regenerated by the One who saved it.  Jesus will be enthroned within it (Matt. 19:28).  That is the only fit place for Him to be in it (cf. Lk. 1:33; Zech. 14:6; Rev. 19:16).  As James Fergusson (The Epistles of Paul) put it so quaintly, “The setting forth of his glory is a rent due by all creatures.”  And there will come a day when it will be payed before Him in person in His creation.      
  

• all creation is held together by Him – (v. 17)  Christ’s Lordship over the elements of bread and water and life and death is a logical outcome of what Paul speaks of in this verse.  Everything that is – that possesses being – whether it be visible or invisible (v.16), exists providentially under His hand.  The writer of Hebrews expresses a similar thought:

And He is the radiance of His [God's] glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. – Heb 1:3a

Among the many similarities of thought between the two passages is that of the whole disposing of the history of the Cosmos devolves upon Christ.  John Owen, in his magisterial Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 3.105, writes,

      And from these last words we learn: -

I. Our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, hath the weight of the whole creation upon his hand, and disposeth of it by his power and wisdom.

II. Such is the nature and condition of the universe, that it could not subsist a moment, nor could any thing in it act regularly unto its appointed end, without the continual supportment, guidance, influence, and disposal of the Son of God.

It is this “by Him, for Him, subsisting because of Him” teaching which situates the Son unquestionably at the center of the unfolding revelation of God to men.  It may be explored in several promising ways. 

Christ at the Center: The Fulcrum of Biblical Covenantalism (Pt.1a)

Introduction To The Series

There are all sorts of places one can launch out from when writing about the grand scheme of things in the Bible.  Certain passages are just packed with theology!  This has been seen and utilized by many writers down through the ages.  From John Calvin to John Stott men have built solid arguments from expounding a few verses and establishing connections with the Biblical worldview.  For all his faults Karl Barth is often a master at this.  Theology as exegesis as meditation!

While I cannot hold a candle to such men I would like to follow suit.  I’m going to do a series of posts showing how the perspective I call “Biblical Covenantalism” is radically Christocentric.  This is in contrast with most Dispensationalism which, although certainly not obscuring Christ, nonetheless does not place Him at the center of their systems (I believe this is another handicap of defining oneself by “dispensations”).

Two Presuppositions

Biblical Covenantalism hinges on two main presuppositions.  The first is that God means what He says.  The Bible is a revelation to Everyman and therefore communicates its meaning in a straightforward manner.  This is in contrast to what tends to be put across by covenant theology where often the Bible is portrayed as a revelation to the elect only.

True, genres and figures of speech and structure must be appreciated, but they must never be made into the preserve of the scholars to argue over people’s heads about.

The second assumption is that the covenants we come across in the Bible are essential to a correct understanding of the Bible story; including its conclusion.  This is something I shall bring out more in a future series on Teleology and Eschatology.  I shall only say that neither presupposition is blind.

1. A Place To Begin: Colossians 1:13-20

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. – (Col 1:13-20)

Now that I’ve said this about the centrality of revelation and the biblical covenants someone might ask themselves why I don’t begin the set of posts with John’s Prologue, which addresses somewhat both issues (the covenants indirectly as will be shown).  I shall be going there in time, but I think this passage in Colossians gives me the grist I want to kick the thing off with.

Exposition:

Verse 13. In the thirteenth verse it is God the Father who has “delivered us.”  So we see that the Father is the Deliverer and can be properly called the Savior (as in 1 Tim. 1:1; 4:10).  Notice also that just as a human father requires a son or daughter in order to be a father, so God the Father requires a Son to be who He is.  Therefore, we should understand that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ supports the doctrine of the eternal Fatherhood of God.  God’s “paternity” is part of his eternal function in the Trinity, so Christ’s Sonship must be viewed as eternal in consequence.  I don’t say that is all one can point to in support of the eternal Sonship of Christ; just that this text assumes the doctrine.

Now notice where the Father has “conveyed” us.  It is into the Son’s kingdom.  This kingdom is viewed by Paul in context as being both with us but ahead of us (cf. the “inheritance” language of v.12 and the “reconciliation” language of v.19).  It is, as they say, both “already” but “not yet.”  (This is not the same thing as allowing the “already/not yet” to determine our hermeneutics!  The hermeneutics produce the idea).  The “already” part is what makes us “strangers and pilgrims,” (Heb. 11:13), while being “citizens of heaven” (Phil. 3:20).  The “not yet” is what makes us look up and gain perspective from our futures instead of the present (as in Col. 3:1-2).

Clarifications and Limitations of the Rules of Affinity

Previous Post

A Little More Clarification on the Function of the Rules

In my so-called “Rules of Affinity” I am seeking to accomplish one main task.  That task is to uncover the degree of affinity between any statement of a doctrine or part doctrine, and the biblical references which are brought in to support it or defend it.  All of us know that Christians with different theological outlooks claim that their views are biblical.  But in reality just saying “I believe such-and-such because it’s biblical” does not mean that it actually is biblical.  It may be.  But if, for example, someone says, “Calvinism is biblical” and someone else says “Arminianism is biblical” it ought to be obvious that behind both statements is the opinion (informed or uninformed) of the one making the claim.  No one ought to assume that either statement is proven by assertion.

As I was reading my own Theology and thinking through the question of why I differed from this or that theologian, I concluded, of course, that the main reason for my disagreements was because I believed my position was more in line with the Bible.  The words “God has spoken” seem to me to be the most momentous three words in the English language.  I therefore wanted to know if what I believed and taught actually closely reflected what “God has spoken,” and how compatible were my theological propositions with the texts I appealed to.  I did this by assuming a suspicious attitude towards my Theology.  Hence, the negative application of the method was uppermost in my mind when it was first roughly devised.  The negative use also became apparent when I began asking myself why I couldn’t accept certain formulations of doctrine by some of the great men I read.  Almost immediately it dawned on me that the chiefest doctrines of the Christian Faith: the doctrines all Christians would say must be believed at a minimum to be a Christian, involved very straightforward appeals to biblical passages (hence, the Positive Application of the rules).

I believe I first introduced this way of comparing statements of belief with Scripture early last year in the post on “Diagnosing the Dispensational Malaise (Pt.4).”  There I said:

We can say things without having sufficient warrant from the texts we teach from (we can all do this!).  I would not want to draw a line, to step over which would bring one into the fields of speculation, but there ought to be some self-awareness here.  It ought not to be as common as it is to find believers insisting on theological tenets which, upon comparison with the texts they cite, attach themselves obliquely to those texts.  This is where we can all help each other; where iron sharpens iron.  Disagreements will remain, but mutual understanding will be promoted.

Let me say some words about the part of the quotation I have highlighted.  Perhaps I should have said something like, “I would not wish to circumscribe other peoples’ formulations with my own, but we need to be able to find a means of locating and identifying speculation in its various degrees and manifestations.”  So I went on to say,

we ought to have some sort of grid whereby we can categorize Direct from Indirect usage of the statements of Scripture, and get an idea of the degree of indirectness of our statements.   

This is what I think the Rules of Affinity help us to do.  But there are some things they cannot do.

What the Rules Don’t Do

1. First, the rules do not replace nor attempt to usurp grammatical-historical exegesis:

I say this with an awareness of the fact that the various systems of theology mean different things by this term nowadays.  It used to be that everyone agreed what the term “grammatico-historical hermeneutics” (hereafter G-H) meant.  It meant seeking as much as possible to put oneself into the situation of the writer while paying special attention to his words in their lexical meanings and the larger context in which they are used.  Thus, Milton Terry wrote:

In the systematic presentation, therefore, of any scriptural doctrine, we are always to make a discriminating use of sound hermeneutical principles.  We must not study them in the light of modern systems of divinity, but should aim rather to place ourselves in the position of the sacred writers, and study to obtain the impression their words would naturally have made upon the minds of the first hearers…Still less should we allow ourselves to be influenced by any presumptions of what the Scriptures ought to teach… – Quoted in Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, 55.

To add a later comment, Robert Thomas himself, when writing about the gospels, observes:

Grammatical-historical hermeneutics do not assume an esoteric message requiring special keys to unlock meaning.  Rather, they follow the usual laws of language that advocate that the Gospels mean what they say, without any special coding – such as midrashic or haggadic style or any other type of literary signals – necessary to unlock meaning. – Ibid. 291

As Thomas demonstrates in his book, G-H hermeneutics is often taken to include application or the analogy of faith, or theology, or even ones understanding of the whole canon.  But listen to another voice:

In the last analysis, our theology finds its solid foundation only in the grammatical sense of Scripture.  Theological knowledge will be faulty in proportion to its deviation from the plain meaning of the Bible. – Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 74.

I appreciate that Berkhof held many interpretations which would succumb to the lower categories of the Rules of Affinity, but that is not because of what he stated above.  Rather, it is because of his firm belief in the theological interpretation of Scripture (as in chapter 7 of his manual).  The Rules of Affinity do not judge the propriety of a theological interpretation.  They do, however, uncover it!    

2. The rules do not judge the “rightness” of any proposition:

Any viewpoint which is self-limiting in its openness to methods of hermeneutics other than the G-H approach defined above cannot venture beyond the C3 formulation on the Grid.  “Classic” Dispensationalism is the obvious example of this.  But what about those views which avail themselves more readily of theological assumptions or ANE parallels and such?  Quite often these viewpoints require more detailed explanation and deduction than can be derived simply from the text of Scripture under consideration.  One thinks of the “Framework” and “Analogical” interpretations of Genesis 1, or the “Universe as Temple” teaching now in vogue.  Older doctrines like particular redemption or infant baptism or “the Christian Sabbath” come to mind.

Under the Rules of Affinity these sorts of ideas do not find support from C1, C2 or C3 categories on the Grid.  Their “affinity” with the texts used to support them is considerably weaker than, say, the affinity between the proposition, “Christ is our penal substitute” and1 Peter 3:18:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit

Negative Application of the Rules of Affinity (2)

Previous Post

1. In this piece I shall match up more theological beliefs with these “Rules of Affinity” in order to show the negative use of those rules.  I have tried to find respected sources to interact with so as not to be accused of soft-targeting.  This is from G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 32:

Adam was to be God’s obedient servant in maintaining both the physical and spiritual welfare of the garden abode, which included dutifully keeping evil influences from invading the arboreal sanctuary…(my emphasis)

Beale gives Adam a responsibility to guard the original creation from “evil influences.”  But there is nothing in Genesis 2 or 3 which encourages this (the verb shamar in 2:15 can mean “guard” or “protect” and could have the serpent in mind, but nothing is said about “influences” plural).  Certainly, God allowed the serpent into the Garden, but the only warning given to the man is the prohibition in Gen. 2:16-17.  The serpent tempts Eve and Eve tempts Adam.  It is Adam’s capitulation to his wife which is given as the reason he disobeyed God’s command (see Gen. 3:17.  cf.  1 Tim. 2:14).  Could Adam have ejected Satan out of Eden?  Where is that indicated?  And what of this talk of a plurality of “evil influences”?  One will look in vain for such things in the texts Beale employs.  We thus give the statement above a C4 rating.

Accordingly, essential to Adam and Eve’s raising of their children was spiritual instruction in God’s word that the parents themselves were to remember and pass on. (33)

Beale is writing about Adam and Eve before the Fall.  Where does he get this “essential” teaching from?  From inferring it on the basis of the inferred proposition above.  (Notice that if this were true it would strongly imply that if they didn’t pass on their remembrances each generation would be threatened with spiritual death and the curse!).  This adds a condition that God did not command.  This is a C5 inferential statement.

Just as God had achieved  heavenly rest after overcoming the creational chaos…

Neither the text of Genesis 1 and 2, nor any other Bible text, speaks even indirectly of  God having to achieve “heavenly rest” by “overcoming…creational chaos.”  The “rest” of Genesis 2:4 simply indicates the cessation (shabbat – “to make an end,” etc), “of all the work which He had done.”  That is, the work of the previous six days.   This “overcoming chaos” language comes from pagan creation myths being read back onto the Genesis narrative. C5

…and constructing the beginning of his creational temple…

There is no text of Scripture which even comes close to describing the pristine creation as a “creational temple.”  It may be argued that the aggregate testimony of several other passages leads to such an inference, which would make it a C3.  But it is better to speak in terms of the Tabernacle, and especially the Temple, as “remembrances” of Eden (see Allen P. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, chs. 4 & 5.  Ross is far less speculative than Beale), in which case this statement could well qualify as a C3.  In the “Rules” we are putting forth, a C3 is not strong enough to build upon, even if it may well be true.

…so Adam presumably would achieve unending rest after overcoming the opposition of the serpent and the opposing temptation to sin and extending the boundaries of the glorious Eden temple around the entire earth. (40)

Beale is trying to parallel Adam’s function with one he thinks he sees in God at creation.  But God is nowhere said to be “overcoming creational chaos.”  Indeed, this way of wording it makes it appear that the amorphous world of Gen. 1:2 was somehow not good.  Beale’s presumption, which is common in covenant theology, is just that – a presumption.  Another instance of tying one inference to another without solid biblical evidence.  C5!  Later on in the book he has two whole chapters on the church being Israel which are based almost entirely on inferences drawn from other inferences, and with no engagement with contrary views.  As we have shown, this is not the way fundamental doctrines are formulated and supported (see the second post).

2. Moving in a different direction, let us examine a typical assertion by someone who professes to speak in tongues.  It usually goes something like this: “God has given me a prayer-language through which I draw closer to Him.  This is not a human language, but like an angelic tongue.”

Then the scriptures are produced for each assertion:  For one who speaks in a tongue [meaning "language," as in the phrase "he speaks in his native tongue"] does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.  (1Co 14:1-4 NAS)

The reason the tongue-speaker speaks not to men, but to God is not here a good reason.  It is because “no man understands him.”  This becomes more acute once 14:21 is read:  So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe. (1Co 14:22) 

Unless one is going to cause a major contradiction with this plain declarative C1 text (the only one which explicitly tells us what tongues were for) it is not possible to hold that God has bestowed a private “unknown” prayer-language.  The negative connotation of verses 2 and 4 plus this statement in verse 22 make the “prayer-language” assertion look heavy on special-pleading.

Negative Application of the Rules of Affinity (1)

These guidelines test the “distance” between a given theological proposal and the actual textual references alleged to lend them authority.  As already mentioned in previous posts, all the major non-negotiable doctrines of the Christian Faith have a strong affinity with the wording of the biblical text.  Under the “Grid of Category Formulations” of these “Rules of Affinity” all these first level doctrines are C1 and C2 doctrines.  Doctrinal propositions which are arrived at by the consent of several converging biblical texts to bring about an “inference to the best explanation” are C3′s.  C3′s are open to revision if better scriptural conclusions from clear texts are forthcoming.

The two other categories in the Grid which reveal little or no affinity between the words of Scripture and the doctrines supposed to be borne out of it are C4′s or C5′s.  These categories are heavy on inference and light on affinity.  They are chock full of human reason and empty of clear, definable connection to the verses which are being unfairly summoned to support them.

Bad Features of C4′s and C5′s

1. Another feature of C4′s and C5′s is that they often come into contention with clearer verses which contradict them (C1′s & C2′s).  Why then, are they allowed to stand?  It is because of our faith in our own rational faculties.

2. Yet another interesting fact about doctrines based on C4′s and C5′s is that they usually command large areas of systematic theology.  For example, “the covenant of grace,” which as defined by covenant theologians (or the limp “Edenic covenant” of Confessional dispensationalists like Scofield and Chafer), enjoys no C1 – C3 support.  Moreover, the texts used in support of it are not talking about it at all, but about biblical covenants like those with Abraham or David.

3. This brings up the third interesting feature of C4 and C5 formulations; because they are formulated by human reason they are already believed before the search is made for scriptural support-texts.  That is to say, the doctrine is already in hand and cherished so the Bible must be ransacked for any verse which might give the impression that it supports the cherished teaching.

4. A fourth negative characteristic is that C4 and C5 formulations highlight the fact that doctrines have been manufactured not unusually from other doctrines.  Although this may lend them a certain logical coherence, which can in itself be deceptive, it does nothing to show that the doctrine in question is built up from the clear statements of Scripture (C1′s – C3′s) which the fundamental doctrines are.

Still another item of notice is that even fundamental doctrines can be supported by texts with weak affinity to the proposition under scrutiny.  This does not invalidate the doctrine.  it does, however, encourage the theologian to look for better and clearer passages.  But we shall consider this aspect in another post.

Here are some important theological propositions which, in fact, lack affinity with the Scriptures used to validate them:

Review of Greg Forster, “The Joy of Calvinism”

Review of Greg Forster, The Joy of Calvinism, Wheaton: Crossway, 2012, pbk, 205 pages

This new book by Greg Forster is written to set the record straight as regards what Calvinism is.  The author feels that Calvinism is often misrepresented by non-Calvinists, so he writes to help them understand this theology.  Forster’s book joins the shelves of books along the same lines that have been written by Calvinists.  That said, what he has produced is to be commended for its frankness.  Even if, like me, one finds it hard to accept that Calvinism broadly conceived can be easily misunderstood, The Joy of Calvinism presents it (again), often in plain terms, for the uninitiated.

One of the things of note is that Forster puts aside the TULIP acronym in favor of a presentation more in keeping with older formulations of Calvinism; although by “Calvinism” he is speaking in particular of soteriology (15).    He observes that “many Calvinist writers seem to agree that the five points are a lousy way to describe Calvinism!” (16).  So, much of the reason for the misunderstanding comes from the source.  As Forster says,

There are a million books out there claiming that “everything you know about” some subject “is wrong.”  This is another one.  But in this case it’s really justified.  The absence of affirmative and spontaneously devotional expression of Calvinistic theology has left a gaping hole in the public understanding of what Calvinism is.  Put simply, the rest of the world has no idea of what it’s like to be a Calvinist.  It’s like trying to describe Italian food by making a list of all the things it doesn’t taste like. (19).

Towards the close of his introduction the author issues an urgent warning relating to his use of the pronoun “you.”

Throughout this book I speak of the promises of salvation with reference to “you” – as in, “when Jesus died and rose again, he saved you” – on the assumption that you, the reader, possess these promises.  If you have genuinely repented from sin, trusted Christ alone as your Savior and Lord, and embarked upon a life of active discipleship through obedience and service to others, you do.  If not, you don’t. (27)

He underlines the discipleship aspect in assurance by declaring that the “biblical basis of assurance is to test the fruits of your faith in your life by God’s standards,” which he says is taught by 2 Peter 1:1-11 and 1 John.  

The next chapter; entitled “Detour,” repeats the claim that Calvinism has been “radically misunderstood” and presents the author’s own “5 Points” aimed at dispelling some of these major misunderstandings.  One such misunderstanding is over the issue of free will.  Forster says the Reformers were concerned, not with voluntary choices but in captivity of the will to Satan (31-32).  But even with this qualifier, what needs clarifying is how modern Calvinists use the word.  Forster reasons that even though the Holy Spirit “does not ask our permission” before regenerating us, this should not be understood as a violation of our freewill because this change “makes us more free, not less.” (34).  

On the issue of whether or not God loves the non-elect the writer admits that Calvinists have not come to a consensus about it, and admits that the Westminster Confession takes no position on it (39).  He stresses the Trinitarian aspect of salvation (43), and declares that the Calvinistic view of predestination “encourages reverence and meekness” (44).

There then follows four chapters on definite atonement, unconditional election, effective calling, and perseverance, and a Conclusion.  After that is a long Appendix dealing with questions and answers. 

Chapter one proper brings us right up against the doctrine of “limited atonement” or “definite atonement” (also called “particular redemption”).  This might seem like a surprising move, especially for any four-point Calvinist readers.  To be confronted with what many believe is the most uncomfortable, not to say debatable tenet of Calvinism like this might be thought of as unwise.  This reviewer believes it is very commendable.  As one who has studied this form of theology for many years I find myself in full agreement with those who locate the very logic of Calvinistic soteriology in this doctrine.  A Calvinism which denies limited atonement makes no sense to me, and I was glad that Forster nailed his colors to the mast like he did.

Forster wants to get across that Jesus died for each of us (the elect) personally and specifically (49-50).  He believes that “Whatever work God sets his hand to do must be effective” (51), which means all other options end up depersonalizing God’s love by universalizing it.  Hence, this is the watershed doctrine for Forster; “the most fundamental dividing line between Calvinism and all other theological traditions.”  In fact, he is clear that “everything else in this book hangs on it.” (52).  

Positive Application of the Rules of Affinity

See ‘The Rules of Affinity’ post

These “rules” are only rules to the degree that one allows them be rules or ground-rules.  Ones hermeneutics will tend to determine how friendly they will be toward these ideas.   All the doctrines listed below can be established via C1 or C2 formulations, with some C3′s supporting.  Even if, due to a blind spot, I may be inferring more than is there in the text, I can be corrected with these same rules.  None of the major biblical doctrines are established with C4′s or C5′s!

The propositions below are examples of what might be predicated of each doctrine in an evangelical Statement of Faith.

The Inspiration of Scripture – Proposition: “The Scriptures come from the God who breathed them out and caused them to be inscripturated through men who were ‘borne along’ by the Spirit.  That is what makes them Scripture.” – 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 17:17; Psa. 119:89-91

Inerrancy – Proposition: “The inspired Scriptures are the Word of God before they are the words of men.  They must be up to the job of transmitting truth from He who is True.  This truth will be as reliable in one area of knowledge as in any other, even if exact precision is not necessary.” – 2 Tim. 3:16; Psa. 12:6; Jn. 17:17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21

Only one God – Proposition: “God the Creator is the only existing God and the only God there has ever or will ever be.” – Deut. 6:4; Jer. 10:10; Exod. 20:3

The Trinity – Proposition: “God exists as one substance yet in three distinct yet eternally inseparable ‘Persons.’  Each ‘Person’ is co-equal and divine yet existing in distinguishable intra-relationships and functions with one another.  God is one yet three, though in different modes of being.” – Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; Jn. 1:1-3, 18; 14:15-17; 20:28; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 9:14, 10:28-29

Creation ex nihilo – Proposition: “The Triune God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing.” – Gen. 1:1f; Isa. 40:28; 45:12; Jer. 10:12; Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2; Heb. 11:3; Rom. 11:36

Mankind made in God’s image and likeness – Proposition: “After God had made the world and the plants and animals He created man and woman in His image and likeness.” – Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; Jam. 3:9

Man is a sinner (fallen in Adam) – Proposition: “When Adam disobeyed the prohibition he plunged not only himself but all humanity after him into sin and misery.  We are born ‘in Adam’ and must be born-again ‘in Christ’” – Gen. 2:17; 3:1-24; Psa. 51:5; Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:10-18; 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22; Jn. 3:3

The Virgin Conception – Proposition: “Jesus was born of a virgin through the Spirit without a human father.” – Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23-25; Lk. 1:31-35, 3:23; Gen. 3:15

There is only one Savior – Proposition: “God Himself is the only Savior of sinners, especially God the Son.” – Isa. 45:21; Hos. 13:4; Acts 4:12, 17:30-31; 1 Tim. 1:1, 15, 4:10; Jn. 3:16, 20:28-29

Christ died for all sinners (whosoever believes) – Proposition: “Christ died for all men (sinners).” – Isa. 53:6; Jn. 1:29; 3:16-17; Rom. 5:6; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 4:10; 1 Jn. 2:2; Heb. 2:9, 10:29

Christ arose bodily from the dead – Proposition: “Jesus died on the cross but was raised up bodily and in glory.” – Mk. 9:31, 10:34; 1 Cor. 15; Mk. 16:6; Lk. 24:6-7, 36-43; Acts 17:18, 30-31; Rom. 1:4; Rev. 1:18

Justification by faith (Salvation by grace not works) – Proposition: “To be saved from their sin a person must be justified before God.  This cannot be achieved through our own merits, but must be imputed by God to those who believe in Jesus atoning work.” – Jn. 3:36; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:21-30; 4:16, 26; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:24; Eph. 2:5, 8-9; Isa. 64:6

Christ will return physically in power – Proposition: “The same Christ who ascended from this earth will one day return visibly to this earth as Lord of lords and King of kings.” – Acts 1:11; Matt. 24:27, 29-30; 26:64; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 19:11f.

Christians shall receive glorified bodies – Proposition: “Because Jesus is risen we too shall rise glorified at His coming.” – Jn. 6:40; 1 Jn. 3:1-2; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 35-54; 2 Cor. 5:1-3; 1 Thess. 4:13-17

Now for some more controversial ones:

Christ will rule on this earth after the Second Advent – Proposition: “Christ will return to rule on His world before delivering it back to the Father.” – Matt. 25:31-34; Lk. 1:31-33; 19:11-27; Acts 1:3,6; Rev. 19:11-20:10; 1 Cor. 15:20-27; Isa. 61-62; Mic. 5:2-4; Zech. 6:12-13; 14:9, 16f.

Israel (as the Remnant) will inherit its covenanted promises – Proposition: “God entered into irrevocable covenants with Israel which He must and shall fulfill in accordance with their stipulations.” – Gen. 15; 17:4-9; Psa. 105:6-11; Isa. 9:6-7; Mic. 5:2; Jer. 32:42; 33:14-26; Ezek. 34:11-31; 36:1-37:28; Zeph. 3:20; Zech. 8; Lk. 1:32-33; Acts 1:6-7; Rom. 11:23-29

There will be a temple and sacrifices in the future kingdom – Proposition: “One of God’s everlasting covenants concerns Phinehas and his descendents (Zadokites).  This requires us to take statements of a post Second Advent temple literally, whatever our present lack of understanding on the subject.” – Num. 25:11-13; Psa. 106:30-31; Ezek. 36:32-38; 37:12-28; 40-48; Zech. 6:12-13; 14:16-21; Mal. 3:2-6

“Heaven” (New Jerusalem) will come to the new earth after the millennial kingdom – Proposition: “When God creates a new heavens and earth the ‘New Jerusalem’ will descend from God out of heaven to earth and God shall dwell with men.  The gates of the city will be opened to the nations.” – Rev. 20:1-22:5; Isa. 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13

 There are more doctrines and propositions which could pass muster under these rules, but we have shown above a good specimen of doctrines where the distance between theological assertion and texts used to support them is close.

Rules of Affinity

Introduction

What I call “The Rules of Affinity” are a relatively straightforward device whereby a theological proposition (e.g. that a sinner is justified by faith) is compared with the texts of scripture by which it is supported to disclose how closely those passages agree with the proposition in question.

Thus, a theological proposition may be adduced which has either direct “one-on-one” relation to a text of the Bible (e.g. justification by faith, or that God created the world), or strong reasons for deriving the doctrine from certain texts of the Bible (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity); or it may have little or nothing to do with any scriptural passage brought forth to substantiate it, especially once the passage is viewed within its context (e.g. propositions such as the covenant of grace or infant baptism).

It is understood, of course, that the wrong texts may be mistakenly employed in support of a sound doctrine.  These “rules” will help ferret out such misapplications by highlighting the weak link between text and proposition.  This does not mean the proposition must be discarded automatically.  It may be that other texts of Scripture can be brought forth to fully support the doctrinal proposition.  In which case, ones scriptural case for a certain theological belief will only be bolstered.  On the other hand, if after successive attempts to align the Bible with a given doctrine fail to produce any clear relationship between them, the proposition must be held to suspect or even spurious.

A Positive and Negative Role

This means that the “Rules of Affinity” have both a positive and a negative role to play in formulating and testing doctrines.  In the first place they have a positive function because they display the biblical basis for any proffered Christian belief.  If we take the proposition above about the sinner being justified by faith, this statement can be shown to enjoy the direct corroboration of passages like Romans 5:1: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  (cf. Rom. 3:30; Gal. 2:16; 3:24).  Therefore, our biblical foundation for this doctrine ought in the first place to be grounded in these kinds of passages.  Then other less direct but clear passages can be brought in alongside of these initial “direct” passages (e.g. Rom. 4:1-25; Gal. 3:2; Eph. 2:8-9; Jn. 20:31; Acts 15:7-9).

It should be obvious that many Bible passages support more than one doctrine.  Thus, any text may be viewed as a potential ally to a theological proposition in principle if not in actual practice.  But by passing each proposed doctrine through the “Grid of Category Formulations” set out below, it is possible to identify doctrines which have very clear biblical support from those which depend greatly upon the ingenuity of the individual proposer to tie together via subtle inferences, a proposed doctrine and the text of Scripture.  The negative application of these rules shows up propositions where a high degree of human reasoning is needed to tie the biblical text to the said proposition.  It therefore encourages the formulator of doctrine to “try again” to narrow the distance between the doctrine being proposed and the texts being appealed to.

The Usurpation of Inferred Doctrines over Directly Stated Doctrines

One interesting and noteworthy feature of doctrines poorly supported when seen under the “Rules of Affinity” is that they quite often have a powerful effect upon those who have expended mental energy formulating them.  It is not unusual to discover major planks of certain theological schools having only threadbare support from the passages from whence they are supposed to be inferred.  In such cases it is often seen that rather than the doctrine being formulated from the ground up using the Bible it has instead been inferred from another doctrine and then the search has been made to find the requisite biblical texts to substantiate it.  More often than not it is these formulations which fair badly when tested for their affinity with the Scriptures in context.

Basic Outline of the “Rules of Affinity” and their “Grid of Category Formulations”

In the course of recording and editing seven courses on Systematic Theology (over 200 lectures) for Veritas School of Theology, I became aware of the importance of measuring what I term the “propositional distance” between any given statement of a doctrine and the biblical passages used to support it.  I wanted a way of checking this “distance” and came up with my (now) five Categories – Category 1 through 5, or C1 to C5 for short.

The Rules of Affinity

C1 = a doctrinal proposition based on a straightforward quotation of Scripture (e.g. special creation; justification by faith; the deity of Christ; the virgin birth; the inspiration of Scripture; the pervasiveness of sin among the human race; the one salvation through Jesus; the bodily resurrection; the physical return of Christ; heaven and hell, etc.)

C2 = a proposition based on a strong inference from the witness of several C1 passages combined, thus producing an inevitable doctrinal conclusion (e.g. the Trinity; the future kingdom of God on earth; inerrancy of Scripture; believer’s only baptism; men only eldership, etc.)

 Please note well.  C1 and C2 formulations, while they may be nuanced and improved, are non-negotiable.  The weight of direct and/or strong scriptural inference in their favor requires that they be held as “fundamental” Bible doctrines.* 

—————————————————————————————

C3 = a doctrinal proposition based upon a plausible inference from the shared witness of the cumulative direction of C1 and C2 texts of Scripture (e.g. the pre-trib rapture; baptism by immersion; single or plural elders; seminal headship of Adam, etc.)

N.B. C3 formulations are inferences to the best explanation based on the evidence of various scriptures.  As such, they are defeasible.  That is, they are open to being overturned if better scriptural arguments for another position can be brought forth. 

Because C1 through C3 formulations can be measured against the clear statements of Scripture without the need for inferring one doctrine from another, these are the only “safe” categories from within which to construct a biblically based evangelical theology.

—————————————————————————————

C4 = a proposition based on a theological inference usually from another doctrine instead of any plain statement of Scripture  (e.g. the covenant of grace, based on ideas like “the one people of God” and “the church as the new Israel”)

C5 = a proposition based on a theological inference which itself based on other theological inferences without reference to plain statements of Scripture (e.g. Sunday being “the Christian Sabbath” and replacing the Jewish Sabbath; infant baptism and salvation inferred from inclusion into “the covenant of grace”).

The Cruciality of Jesus Christ (2)

We have been considering the centrality of the Person of Jesus for an understanding of ourselves in the created order.  We continue with a look at the Prologue to John’s Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. – John 1:1-3

So again, this shows us that Christ is right at the very center of the creation. In fact, creation is made for Him, and not only through Him. It is not that God used the Second Person to make the world and then He had no further interest in it. No! These things were made for Him and nothing was made unless it was made through the agency of Jesus Christ and to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

As we told are told here in John 1:1, ‘In the beginning was the Word’, that Word is to be equated as it is by John with the words spoken by God in Genesis 1:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. – Genesis 1:1-3

 

…that “saying” or “speaking” of God was not just in audible words; it didn’t require audible words anymore than the healing of the centurion’s servant required them.  In all probability there would not have been any other creature around other than God to hear them.  But the Word was the expression, the idea of God’s mind and will coming through the instrumentality of the Second Person of the Trinity, whom John calls the Logos.

With this introduction John insisted Jesus’ origin and nature are incomprehensible if seen solely in terms of this world. Only when we read it in the light of his pre-incarnate deity does Jesus’ story makes sense; that is why this prologue is here. It tells us who the subject really is so we can better understand his story. To show Christ’s preexistence requires that it identify the Word with Jesus, which the prologue does in John 1:14-17. – Douglas McCready, He Came Down from Heaven, 140

What McCready has said here is most important for us to get.  To repeat, we must start in our study of Jesus Christ by realizing who He really is: that He is God; that He is the pre-existent personal Deity.  Unless we do that, we don’t grasp John’s message.  Neither can we have a satisfactory Christology.  McGready continues in connection with John’s prologue:

Much of this passage has parallels in contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic literature, but when we get to verse 14, ‘the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us’, we find a statement that would scandalize both Jew and Greek. The extra-biblical parallels that do exist provide little more than points of contact for John’s message; none determined how John would describe Jesus.  – Ibid.

John does not rely either on the Greek concept of the Logos or on the Hebrew concept of the Dabar-Yahweh – the word of the Lord.

The concepts of logos [Greek] and word [Jewish] both pointed to something of universal significance that had its home outside the temporal world, although each affected the world and played a role in its coming into existence. So when John wrote of the logos people may not have understood precisely what he was saying but they knew he was talking about something very important. John’s key differences from these two traditions were to present the Logos as someone not something, to affirm his complete deity, and particularly for the Greeks, to proclaim he had taken up residence in this world. The ancient world had no trouble with supernatural beings and little difficulty with the reality of this world, to the Hellenists; however, the Divine could not contaminate Himself by entering into the physical realm. Jews were familiar with theophanies in the Old Testament but these were not incarnations; God was spirit and so could not become part of the physical realm.  The Hellenists could follow John until verse 14 when he would be horrified by the thought of the ‘word becoming flesh’. Conversely a Jewish reader would object to the anthropomorphism implicit in the claim that a man known to history was himself the revelation of the invisible God rather than an inspired messenger like the prophets. Only a few verses often introducing this Logos Word, John identified him as the man Jesus of Nazareth – Ibid, 140-141.

This is what we must grasp right off the bat!  We must fully ponder the great significance of the designation “the Logos,” but within the safe confines provided by Scripture’s own definitional framework.  The One “through whom and by whom and for whom all things were created and cohere” (as Paul puts it), enters our world, becoming flesh.

Misrepresentations of Dispensationalism

Despite exhibiting many positive traits Reformed covenant theologians can usually be relied upon to do two things.  The first is to misrepresent Classic Arminianism, and the second is to misrepresent Classic Dispensationalism.  They often misrepresent Classic Arminianism by calling it Semi-Pelagianism and claiming the driving force behind the theology is “freewill.”  Neither of those claims is remotely true as anyone who has read Jacob Arminius is well aware.

Now I am not among the devotees of the former, but am happy to be included within the ranks of Classic Dispensationalists – even if I reserve the right to question the validity of defining the system via “dispensations.”  Here, if anything, the distortions are even worse.  I have previously highlighted such things when critiquing the vaunted “95 Theses Against Dispensationalism”

Now, following on the heels of a display of ignorance about Dispensationalism from Sinclair Ferguson and R. C. Sproul, here is a short rebuttal of a false claim about the new book Christ’s Prophetic Plans by Michael Vlach.  It is one thing to disagree with someone; and quite another to misrepresent them!