Meet The Puritans

Birds of a Feather …

Posted on 11. Apr, 2010 by Mark Jones.

Removed for copyright reasons.

Continue Reading

Bruce Waltke and Evolution

Posted on 05. Apr, 2010 by Mark Jones.

Removed for copyright reasons.

Continue Reading

The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology

Posted on 30. Jan, 2010 by Mark Jones.

This book by my friend John Ronning is one of the best works I’ve read on Christology.  Where did the “logos” title from the Gospel of John come from? Ronning makes the most convincing argument I’ve come across that the “Logos” title was developed from the Aramaic Targums, not from Philo.  The biblical exegesis in this book is stunning, particularly the connections Ronning makes between the Old Testament and John’s gospel.  Another title for this book could have been “And YHWH became flesh.”  I think the translations of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are all done by Ronning himself.  You can get a preview at google books here.  Interestingly, Thomas Goodwin made a similar argument many years ago, but without the detail that Ronning goes into.

For Goodwin, the title of ‘the Word’ (ho logos) is not a reference to Christ being the thought or counsel of the Father’s mind since this ‘inclines too much unto the Notion of Plato, and other Heathen Philosophers’ (Of the Knowledge, 60). Goodwin is not unaware that the logos title had been used before John’s time by various Greek philosophers. However, in Goodwin’s mind, John refers to Christ as ‘the Word’ (logos) not because of Greek influences but because of the evidence in the Old Testament itself.

As a result, both Philo and Plato, by using the terminology of ‘ho logos’, are guilty of stealing ‘their knowledge from the Jews, and vend[ing] it as their own’ (Ibid, 62). Goodwin shows that the title, ‘the Word’, was used by the Jews, as a reference to the Messiah, in the Aramaic Targums, what Goodwin called the ‘Caldee Paraphrasts’ (Ibid). So, for example, Goodwin quotes the Isaiah Targum (Isa. 45:17) which makes several references to the divine Word (Memra). Hence, ‘Israel is saved by the Memra of the LORD with an everlasting salvation’. The KJV, based on the Masoretic Text (MT) in the OT, reads: ‘But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation’ (Isa. 45:17). Moreover, the MT text of Hosea 1:7 (… and will save them by the LORD their God …) is transliterated by the Aramaic Targum as ‘I will redeem them by the Word of the Lord their God.’

Referring to Christ as ‘the Word’, then, is Christologically loaded in terms of his divinity because of how the Aramaic Targums make use of the title, ‘the Word’ (Owen, 21:354). Not only, then, does the immediate context of John 1 show that Christ is the divine Word who existed in eternity, but the very fact that John calls Christ ‘the Word’ is evidence in itself for the deity of Christ because of how the Jews would have understood such terminology.

Continue Reading

Confusing “Law” and “Gospel”?

Posted on 07. Dec, 2009 by Mark Jones.

Perhaps you have heard people speak of the law and the gospel in different ways? Some are rather dogmatic about their opinion being the only right opinion.  In connection with this, I often hear the law-gospel distinction described in the following way:  indicative = gospel & imperative = law.  Or, the gospel = justification; it is an announcement that our sins have been forgiven and that we stand accepted before God through the death and resurrection of Christ; the gospel is totally outside of us, so the argument goes.  Or, again, “done” (gospel) and “do” (law).  I want to offer some comments on this type of thinking because I’m becoming increasingly persuaded that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue.

In the first place, I am not comfortable with how some use the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Some admit that they use these terms not in their precise biblical sense, but rather as “systematic” categories.  A few may even be so bold to agree that the Torah contains both “law” and “gospel”.  To insist that the “gospel” equals “done” and the “law” equals “do” invites confusion for any serious student of the Bible.  This antithesis causes a host of problems when read back into Scripture, particularly since Paul has a version of law-gospel that bears little resemblance to the  “Lutheran” antithesis.

The Reformed have historically taught that the gospel both promises and commands.  To say that all imperatives are strictly law reflects an Antinomian position, at least historically.  Samuel Rutherford’s work, “Spirituall Antichrist”, highlights the various tendencies among Antinomian writers of the seventeenth century.  One way to explain what’s at stake in this debate would be to evaluate the contention that the gospel persuades rather than commands.  Rutherford was adamant that the gospel persuades and commands.  Consider the following:

“The Gospel (according to Robert Towne) perswades rather then commands.  But say we, it both commands, (as the Law doth) and with a more strong obligation of the constraining love of Christ…so here be no differences at all” (Spirituall Antichrist, II.122).

Elsewhere Rutherford argues that the law and the gospel require the same obedience (Pt. II.7).  Indeed, “positively”, they are not contrary to one another.  “Perfect obedience, which the Law requireth, and imperfect obedience which the Gospel accepteth are but graduall differences” (II.8).  Moreover, “the Gospel abateth nothing of the height of perfection, in commanding what ever the law commandeth in the same perfection….In acceptation of grace, the Gospel accepteth lesse than the law, but commandeth no lesse” (Pt. II.8).  Incidentally, Rutherford, like Turretin, affirms that good works are necessary for salvation.

Of course, Rutherford was aware of a common cry of the Antinomians, a cry that one often hears today:

(Antinomian): “Yee confound Law and Gospel, and runne on that common error, that the Gospel is conditionall …”

Answer: “It is a new heresie of Antinomians to deny a conditionall Gospel….2. Remission is but one of the promised mercies of the Gospel” (II.63).

I should note that Rutherford was not extreme in his day and William Perkins (see his commentary on Galatians) and John Owen (see Works, III.604-10) echoed similar sentiments.  It is one thing to find authors that speak about distinguishing between law and gospel, but it is quite another thing to understand how these concepts function within their system of thought.

Now, one has to applaud the intentions of the Lutherans and those who agree with how they commonly distinguish between law and gospel.  We should always be zealous to protect justification by faith alone.  My contentions have not so much to do with how this concept relates to justification, but what we mean by the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Sure, the law drives the unconverted to find salvation in Christ, but what about those who are in Christ?

Paul sometimes speaks negatively of the Torah; he shows its impotence apart from the Spirit to give the life it promises.  Some versions of the law-gospel antithesis seem make a mess of Paul’s own antitheses.  For example, in Romans 7 the law is placed on the “Spirit” (not the “flesh”) side of the Spirit-flesh antithesis.  Sin leads to condemnation because the law exposes us as sinners.  But in chapter 8 the law becomes a liberating, not condemning, power because of the Spirit.  So, when we come to Romans 8:13 do we call it “law” or “gospel”.  I think the answer is obvious.  But, I’m not so sure some of my Reformed brothers would come to the same conclusion as I would!

I would also note that Paul often does not place “law” on the expected side of the antithesis (1 Cor. 7:19).  The law in the New Covenant becomes a quickening power that, by the Spirit, sets us free from sin and death (Rom. 8:1-4).

Rutherford realized, as did his contemporaries, that command and promise are sometimes inextricably intertwined with one another (see again Rom. 8:13; life is promised to those who mortify the sinful nature by the Spirit).  But, whatever the case, the promises, as well as the commands, fall under the rubric of Paul’s “gospel”.

All of this is to suggest that I do not view the biblical gospel as synonymous with justification.  It certainly includes justification, but it is not limited to justification.  Christ died for my sins (1 Cor. 15:3), which includes not only its illegal character (Rom. 1-3), but also its enslaving power (Rom. 6).

Thus, I would say that the gospel includes not only what Christ has done for us, but also what Christ does in us, namely, by forming us into the image of God (Rom. 8:29).  This seems to be a central concern of Paul’s throughout his letters.  Thankfully, the gospel includes God’s work in me (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 2:12-13).

The antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself.  This antithesis entered because of sin.  But, as Richard Gaffin has noted,

“The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer.  How so? Briefly, apart from the gospel and outside of Christ the law is my enemy and condemns me.  Why? Because God is my enemy and condemns me.  But with the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend.  Why? Because now God is no longer my enemy but my friend, and the law, his will, the law in its moral core, as reflective of his character and of concerns eternally inherent in his own person and so of what pleases him, is now my friendly guide for life in fellowship with God” (By Faith, Not by Sight, 103).

I think Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (p. 105), illustrates just how problematic certain versions of the law-gospel antithesis can be when he considers whether a commandment belongs to the gospel.  He writes:

“Objection. There is no precept, or commandment belonging to the gospel, but to the law. The preaching of repentance is a precept. Therefore the preaching of repentance does not belong to the gospel, but to the law.

Answer. We deny the major, if it is taken generally; for this precept is peculiar to the gospel, which commands us to believe, to embrace the benefits of Christ, and to commence new obedience, or that righteousness which the law requires. If it be objected that the law also commands us to believe in God, we reply that it does this only in general, by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it. But the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling. This however it does only in general, not specifying any duty in particular, saying thou shalt do this, or that, but it leaves this to the law; as, on the contrary, it does not say in general, believe all the promises of God, leaving this to the law; but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee.”

Some time ago I spoke with a Seminarian who had a rather wooden view of the “law-gospel” antithesis and asked him what he thought about the Sermon on the Mount.  It appeared, to use a phrase from T. David Gordon, “that he was entirely flummoxed by it”; indeed, “I would like to think that he was, at some level, aware of his incapacity to make any sense of it.”  This student used the law-gospel antithesis as a pedagogical tool that he brought to every text; but, when he came to Rom. 8:13 he wasn’t quite sure how to divide the text up given his hermeneutical assumptions.

I understand that many have been zealous to protect the graciousness of God’s saving purposes towards his people, but I am not entirely convinced that narrowing the meaning of “gospel” will prove helpful in the long run.  Many good men in our tradition make this clear; and I’d like to think – in fact, I’m sure this is the case – that this is because God’s Word makes this clear.

Besides that which I’ve mentioned above, let me emphasize the importance of maintaining the indicative-imperative structure of theology, which we see clearly delineated in Scripture (Ex. 20; Rom. 1ff.; Eph. 1-6; 1 Peter 1ff.).  But this structure falls within the context of “gospel” preaching.  To preach the gospel is to preach of Christ’s death and resurrection as the basis/ground for both our justification and our Spirit-wrought obedience.  Some might admit that they distinguish between the broader and narrower uses of the term, but, as I said above, this can be very confusing, and the emphasis among some today seems to be on the “narrow” understanding of the terms, which happens to be the less biblical way of looking at the law and the gospel (terms that in the NT are generally used to speak of redemptive-historical contrasts).

The final word from William Perkins:

“The Gospel, as it teacheth what is to be done, so it hath also the efficacy of the Holy Ghost adjoined to it, by whom being regenerated we have strength both to believe the Gospel and to perform those things which it commandeth” (Art of Prophesying VII, [Abingdon, 1970], 341-342).

Continue Reading

Goodwin (d. 2009)

Posted on 03. Nov, 2009 by Mark Jones.

I had some emails asking what had happened to thomasgoodwin.wordpress.com.  I ended up restricting access to myself, which meant, of course, the end of the blog.  If you care for an explanation, well, here goes:

1. I remember Richard Muller’s expression on his face when I mentioned blogging … that’s not actually a reason, but, I’ll never forget the expression.

2. Besides Muller, Trueman’s latest piece at the Ref. 21 site has confirmed a number of thoughts I’ve been having for some time. You really should read his latest article. I did notice that he doesn’t seem to be blogging anymore!

3. All of the fuss over Frame’s review over Horton’s book, “Christless Christianity”, drove me nuts.

4. Blogging is a huge temptation for lazy/careless scholarship. I’ve posted some things in the past that I regret.  And, as a Pastor, I have enough trouble keeping my mouth in check, never mind my “pen”.

As far as this blog goes, I hope to share information from time to time that may be particularly helpful.  Nonetheless, my academic obligations will prevent me from saying anything of substance, which is probably a (very) good thing.

Thanks, Richard; thanks, Carl; thanks, Hunter Powell (who, of the three, might read this!)  And thanks to thomasgoodwin.wordpress.com for all the friends and acquaintances I made over its two years of existence. I think I made more friends than enemies, but one never knows!

MJ

Continue Reading

The Puritans on Justifying Faith

Posted on 17. Oct, 2009 by Mark Jones.

“It is harder to believe in Christ for righteousness than to keep all the commandments, because keeping the commandments hath something in the heart of man agreeing with it, but so hath not the way of justification by faith” – Philip Henry

Goodwin and Owen both wrote works on justification (and on the Holy Spirit).  There are, of course, similarities, but there are also differences.  Goodwin had a special concern with assurance and his work is more pastoral than Owen’s.  Owen’s work is technically superb, but I would rate Goodwin’s work above Owen’s on account of better pastoral emphases.

In his work on justification, Goodwin had a burden to maintain the graciousness of the covenant of grace. Chief among his concerns was that graces and grace had been confused, not only by the Arminians, Socinians, and Catholics, but by some of his own (Calvinistic) brethren who were heavily emphasizing the conditional character of the covenant of grace. For example, Goodwin writes: [...]

Continue Reading

The Meaning of “Regeneration” (16th Century)

Posted on 16. Oct, 2009 by Mark Jones.

Translating Latin works from the sixteenth century Protestant scholastics will prove to be invaluable to Reformed Christians (I’m toying with the idea of translating a work, perhaps Heidegger or Polanus).  Translations into English will help us to better understand the growth and development of Reformed theology and the different ways terms were used over the centuries.  “Regeneration” has a fairly tricky history, and our ideas of what the term means today may not in fact reflect the way sixteenth and seventeenth-century theologians used the term.  It appears that the term was narrowed in meaning during the debates between the Remonstrants and the Gomarists.  There’s a big debate going on right now in the Netherlands concerning whether Arminius was Reformed or not, especially with the recent publication of William den Boer’s work on Arminius.  Many of the questions at my promotion had to do with Arminius and why I believed he was not Reformed.  A lot can be said on this matter, but one of the problems was that Arminius agreed with Calvin’s use of the word “regeneration”. (I’m not convinced he could agree entirely, however).

Amandus Polanus’ (1561-1610) work called The Substance of Christian Religion is a practical body of divinity.  Regarding the term “regeneration” Polanus writes the following:

“Regeneration is a benefit of God, by which our corrupted nature is renewed to the image of God by the Holy Spirit …. That same is also called sanctification and the gift of grace. Also of schoolmen it is called infused grace … Regeneration is either begun or perfected” (103).

As I alluded to above, Calvin certainly understood regeneration to signify more than an aspect of the ordo salutis.  For him, it incorporated many aspects of the whole Christian life (Institutes, III.iii.9).  Hodge remarked that “Calvin gives the term its widest scope” (Systematic Theology, 3.3).  Calvin affirms that the Spirit makes alive what was once dead: “[The Spirit] regenerates us and makes us to be new creatures” (Institutes, II.ii.27).  But he was not content with such a narrow view of the doctrine.  Before Polanus, Calvin argues that regeneration is akin to sanctification insofar as “it is a renewal of the divine image in us” (III.xvii.5).

There is also a good deal of evidence that the early English Puritans had a very elastic view of regeneration.  Perkins, for example, understood John 3:5 to incorporate sanctification (Foundation of Christian Religion, 278).

Maccovius spends a good deal of time on regeneration in his work on theological and philosophical distinctions and rules.  He does not abandon Calvin’s use of the term, but he makes finer distinctions relative to the Remonstrant and counter-Remonstrant debates.  For example, Maccovius writes:

Regeneratio aliter se habet ratione primi moment, aliter ratione progressus (In respect of its first moment regeneration comes about in another way than in respect of its progression).  Ratione primi moment homo se habet mere passive, ratione progressus cooperatur cum Deo (Regarding the first moment of regeneration man is purely passive; regarding its progression man cooperates with God).

Elsewhere he argues:

Regenerationis gradus dantur in hac vita, non tatntum in se, verum etiam in subjectis (In this life regeneration is by degrees: these degrees do not only concern regeneration by itself but also the subjects).  Magis regignitur unus quam alter, hinc magis adulti quam infantes (Some people are more regenerate than others; hence older prople are more regenerated than the young ones).

Notice, then, that Maccovius uses, like Calvin and Polanus, the term “regeneration” to include what we now call sanctification.  Incidentally, Maccovius viewed Paul as “regenerate” in Romans 7.  Indeed, he had to since the turning point for Arminius, I believe, was when he began his lectures in Romans 7 and decided that Romans 7 described Paul in his unconverted state.  Many think Arminius went wrong at Romans 9 – he did, of course – but his problem started earlier!

* On Maccovius’ distinctiones see “Scholastic Discourse” (Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek), pp. 239ff.

Continue Reading

Grace in the CoW?

Posted on 30. Sep, 2009 by Mark Jones.

Was the covenant of works gracious in any way? Or should we talk about “divine favor” instead of grace?  I’ve heard some Klineans argue that if you reject a “strict justice” view of the covenant of works you inevitably end up doing irreperable harm to the doctrine of justification by faith.  Theologians in the Reformed tradition have never been shy of speaking of grace during the “Adamic administration” or what one person calls the “covenant of works” (do I have that backwards?)

Francis Roberts wrote the longest work on covenant theology in the seventeenth century and his thoughts on grace in the covenant of works are interesting.  He argues that God’s entering into the covenant of works with Adam was an “act of divine grace and favour, not of debt” (God’s Covenants, 23).

God could have dealt only in terms of “command”, requiring duty from Adam without a reward.  However, because he condescended to Adam and entered into a covenant with him, it was “meer grace” (Ibid).  Roberts insists that Adam could not merit any reward.  In fact, even if Adam had rendered perfect obedience he would still have “been an unprofitable servant, having done nothing but what was duty” (Ibid).  On account of Creation, Adam owed God obedience.  On account of God instituting a covenant at creation, Adam had to be “double dutiful” (Ibid).  In fact, Roberts suggests that if God’s dealings with Adam in the covenant of works was an “Act of Divine Grace”, then God’s covenant of grace was an act of “superabounding and transcendent grace” (Ibid).

What is interesting is that Thomas Goodwin takes a rather different approach than Roberts, which is yet more evidence of the diversity among theologians in the Reformed tradition.  Sure, the covenant of works became firmly entrenched in our confessional tradition, but the details of the covenant of works have never been fully agreed upon. [...]

Continue Reading

Puritan “Copying” and “Pasting”

Posted on 28. Sep, 2009 by Mark Jones.

If you read a writer carefully you can pick up on some rather interesting things.  In reading through Goodwin’s corpus I noted that he has his own form of “copying and pasting”.  I’ve provided an example below from his excellent work on Christology, “Of Christ the Mediator” (vol. 5 in the Nichols edition), and a sermon on  Hebrews 10:4-7. [...]

Continue Reading

Ames’ Federal Theology

Posted on 23. Sep, 2009 by Mark Jones.

The big question over the relation of the ordo salutis to the historia salutis has been answered in various ways.  In the Puritan theologian William Ames we see something rather remarkable in terms of the connection he makes. [...]

Continue Reading