You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March, 2008.
“In the sacraments there is a personal encounter with the Triune God through the particular agency of the Spirit. The Jews marveled at the change that came about in the disciples, and noted that they had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13), and the same is true for us who have not encountered Jesus in the flesh- we are transformed not by impersonal energy flowing from God, but by a personal encounter, in word and water, in bread and wine, with the Lord who has become a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17-18). We are transformed when God shows His favor through granting favors, when God shows His grace through bestowing graces.” -Peter J. Leithart, The Baptized Body
Leithart’s comments encapsulate the urgency and joy I hope to reflect as I study, write about, and experience the sacraments. One of my greatest concerns in writing this blog is to helpfully put down some concrete thoughts on issues directly related to the covenant. I’m an undergraduate student at a Baptist institution whose personal study of the sacraments occasionally makes its way onto this blog in the form of thoughts, quotes I’ve profited from, analyses of alternate views, etc. etc. Much of what is said, quoted, and analyzed might seem intentionally antagonistic towards the Baptist position. My intention is not to blatantly discriminate against them in an un-catholic manner, but only to analyze Baptistic ecclesiology in light of my personal experiences as a former Baptist, and my newfound joy in a full-embodied Reformed sacramentology. I do not in any way regard Baptists as heretics whose theology is outside the boundaries of historic Christian thinking. On the contrary, I believe that Reformed folk can profit greatly from healthy theological interaction with their Baptist brethren. The White Horse Inn and T4G are testiomines to this reality, both settings very very catholic, respectful, and theologically charitable. Nevertheless, our understanding of baptism strikes right to the core of historic covenantal theology. Therefore, from my perspective, “Reformed Baptist” ecclesiology can tend to obscure key covenantal doctrines by attempting to synchronize them with an anabaptistic view of church. From my understanding, the “Reformed Baptist” movement can never escape the individualistic influence of their Anabaptist predecessors. I find these kinds of Baptist’s inconsistent and historically inaccurate, but not at all heretical or outside the bounds of orthodxy. Baptistic dispensationalism is an entirely different animal. Yet even despite their errors, I know many dispensationalists who treasure the doctrines of grace and love the gospel deeply. I’ve only recently embraced some of the sacramental views you’ll find me writing about on this blog. I’m merely a fellow pilgrim whose eyes have been opened to the beauty of the sacraments as God’s effectual means, along with the Scripture, to create, sustain, nourish, enliven, and strengthen our faith. God has not established a gracious covenant bond with believers and their children, only to then to leave them empty-handed. God gives us his sacraments to “dispense the covenant”, continually teaching us the all sufficiency of His sovereign grace in every step of our lives.
In my study of baptism, this article has perhaps been one of the most enlightening pieces I’ve read.
The entire article can be found here. I can’t overestimate the power of Nevin’s writing in general, and the specific help this article has provided me as I’ve worked through this issue. Nevin has helped me to understand the real differences between Baptistic ecclesiology and Reformed sacramentology. The baptizing of infants is only one aspect of the differences between Reformed and Baptist practice. The nature of Holy Baptism as objectively and spritually efficacious seems to be regarded by some as the REAL difference between the two systems of thought. Unfortunately, a Presbyterian identity crisis has lead some to believe that the Reformed consensus on Baptism isn’t really that different from the neo-gnosticism of Baptist ecclesiology. This “Baptistic Presbyterianism” aroused the ire of men like Nevin, whose theological labors centered upon reviving a genuinely patristic, confessional, and Reformed perspective on the sacraments, liturgy, union with Christ, Reformed Catholicity, etc. etc. Yes, Reformed/Patristic is not a historical and theological contradiction! A fresh reading of the Institutes might help in this area, seeing that Calvin was regarded as one of the greatest patristic scholars of his day. Anyway, I believe Nevin can help us tremendously in this area. While Nevin wouldn’t go so far as say Cornelius Burgess (at least in this article) in arguing for a spiritually efficacious baptismal regeneration of elect infants, his thoughts are nevertheless invaluable. Personally, I lean towards Burgess’s understanding of baptism. Burgess taught that the gospel is so intimately connected with the sacrament of holy baptism, that it is right to speak of the sacrament as the means whereby the seed of regeneration is bestowed to elect infants through sovereign working of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t in any way contradict a Reformed understanding of faith as the instrumental cause of justification. Reformed and Roman Catholic perspectives on instrumental causality are entirely different. Properly speaking, regeneration precedes faith and enables faith. Once the gift of faith is bestowed by the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit, justification logically proceeds as a once for all declaration of righteousness grounded in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Faith, and not baptism, is the instrumental cause of justification according to Burgess and the entire Reformed tradition Nevertheless, the Reformers and Puritans regarded infants as capapble of receiving the gift of faith, and some (like Burgess) labored in teaching that these gifts accompany the administration of Holy Baptism. I apologize for the rabbit-trail. Anyway… One of the greatest needs in the Reformed church is a sacramental reformation. I think Nevin’s work will be immensely helpful in working towards that end. Here’s a quote from the article which I found particularly helpful…
“A Pelagian anthropology leads over naturally to a spiritualistic construction of the whole Christian salvation; in which, as their is no organic power of the Devil or kingdom of darkness, for men to be delivered from, so there will be no organic redemption either, no objective, historical order of grace, in the bosom and through the power of which, this salvation is to go forward; but all will be made to resolve itself into workings of God’s Spirit that are of a general character, and into processes of thought and feeling, on the part of men, with no other basis than the relations of God to man in the most common, simply humanitarian view. Is there then no organic redemption needed for men, into the sphere of which they must come first of all, in order that they may have power to become personally righteous, and so be able to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, as knowing it to be God that worketh in them both to will and to do of His own good pleasure? Has the Church been wrong in believing through all ages, that “we must be delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son” (Col. i. 13), not as the end of our personal goodness and piety, but the beginning of it, and the one necessary condition first of all, without which we can make no progress in goodness or piety whatever? Has the Church been wrong in believing, that such change of state, such transplantation from the kingdom of the Devil over into the kingdom of Christ, must in the nature of the case be a Divine act; and that as such a Divine act, it must be something more than any human thought or volition simply, stimulated into action by God’s Spirit? Has the Church been wrong in believing, finally, that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, the sacrament of initiation into the Church, was instituted, not only to signify this truth in a general way, but to seal it as a present actuality for all who are willing to accept the boon thus offered to them in the transaction?Baptismal regeneration! our evangelical spiritualists are at once ready to exclaim. But we will not allow ourselves to be put out of course in so solemn an argument, by any catchword of this sort addressed to popular prejudice. The Liturgy avoids the ambiguous phrase; and we will do so too; for the word regeneration is made to mean, sometimes one thing, and sometimes another, and it does not come in our way at all at present to discuss these meanings. We are only concerned, that no miserable logomachy of this sort shall be allowed to cheat us out of what the sacrament has been held to be in past ages; God’s act, setting apart those who are the subjects of it to His service, and bringing them within the sphere of His grace in order that they may be saved. We do not ask any one to call this regeneration; it may not at all suit his sense of the term; but we do most earnestly conjure all to hold fast to the thing, call it by what term they may. The Question is simply, Doth baptism in any sense save us? Has it anything to do at all with our deliverance from original sin, and our being set down in the new world of righteousness and grace, which has been brought to pass in the midst of Satan’s kingdom all around it, by our Lord Jesus Christ?”
Let all Pious men and all lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast; let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord; let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward; let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join in the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being too late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him who comes on the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first: yes, He has pity on the last and He serves the first; He rewards the one and is generous to the other; he repays the deed and praises the effort.Come you all: enter into the joy of your Lord. You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward; you rich and you poor, dance together; you sober and you weaklings, celebrate the day; you who have kept the fast and you who have not, rejoice today. The table is richly loaded: enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fatted one: let no one go away hungry. All of you enjoy the banquet of faith; all of you receive the riches of his goodness.Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed; let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave; let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free: He has destroyed it by enduring it, He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom, He has angered it by allowing it to taste of his flesh.When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: “O Hades, you have been angered by encourntering Him in the nether world.” Hades is angered because frustrated, it is angered because it has been mocked, it is angered because it has been destroyed, it is angered because it has been reduced to naught, it is angered because it is now captive. It seized a body, and lo! it discovered God; it seized earth, and, behold! it encountered heaven; it seized the visible, and was overcome by the invisible.O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen and life is freed, Christ is risen and the tomb is emptied of the dead: for Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the Leader and Reviver of those who had fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
“If we build on the foundation of God’s promises and Jesus’ statement about our children, then we can view the salvation of our children from the perspective of faith rather than anxiety. And by faith, we then set about the privilege of raising our children “in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The word that better fits this admonition is discipleship rather than evangelism. The earliest disciples were following Jesus even while they were learning what it meant to believe in him. Can’t it be said that our children are part of a family of Jesus’ disciples and that in that sense, they themselves are also disciples? As the family serves the Lord, led by the head of the household, the members of the family learn together what it means to embrace Jesus personally. A simple example of this form of discipleship is teaching our children to pray the Lord’s Prayer. When we teach them to say ‘Our Father;, that is true for them because the God and Father of Jesus is also the God and Father of our family, even if our children do not yet comprehend what it means to believe in him. The term used in earlier generations to describe this more discipleship-oriented way of passing along the faith was “Christian nurture”. The question of how children come to faith received a great deal of attention in the Presbyterian church with the rise of revivalism in the nineteenth century. So much attention was given to dramatic conversion stories that the ‘boring’ examples of people growing up and receiving the faith passed along to them by their families were considered invalid. In some way, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because such ordinary means as family prayers, catechizing children, and faithful church attendance were being set aside to wait for the next great season of revivial, many children were leaving the faith of their fathers. I remember hearing the catchy phrase that came out of that era, ‘God has no grandchildren’, and finding it appealing because it described my situation. In one sense it is true that God doesn’t have grandchildren, but if that means every person, including those raised in Christian homes, come into the world as pagans with no relationship to God, then it is not true.” -Stephen Smallman, How Our Chidlren Come to Faith
“Almighty Father, whose dear Son, on the night before he suffered, instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: Mercifully grant that we may receive it thankfully in remembrance of Jesus Christ our Lord, who in these holy mysteries gives us a pledge of eternal life; and who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.” -BCP (I929)
After a recent conversation with a friend, continually reading through the book of Revelation, and a second reading of Riddlebarger’s magnificent A Case for Amillenialism, I’m finally coming to some conclusions with respect to my millenial views. Some might think I’m too indecisive about these issues, seeing that I’ve frequently switched back and forth from the postmil to amil position throughout the past few years. Both sides are represented by prominent Reformed theologians of the past and present, and both sides present valid arguments which need to be closely examined. My former pastor once said to me that his millenial position depends upon what passage he is studying. Some days he’s historical pre-mil, other days he’s amil, maybe some days he’s even post-mil! I take comfort in the fact that I’m not the only one who has struggled with coming to definite conclusions on this issue, and I confess that this particular theological issue is indeed more difficult to resolve than others. Notwithstanding, I think I’m really starting to see the theologically deficient views of both post-millenialism and partial preterism. Derek Thomas over at Reformation 21 made a comment the other day which got me thinking. Any millenial view which places a primary emphasis on something other than the personal, visible, and historical return of Jesus Christ at the end of the age (not A.D. 70 by the way) misses the mark and fails to rightly understand the eschatalogical hope of the apostles. This applies to dispensational pre-millenialism and post-millenialism. Dispensational pre-millenialism, in its exegetically insane notion of a “pre-tribulational rapture”, fails to see that the hope of the Christian is the revelation of Jesus Christ at the end of the age. No such distinction between “a coming for the church” and “a coming for Israel” exists in the New Testament. The pre-tribulational rapture theory arises out of a pre-suppositional strait-jacket which sees every prophetic text through the lenses of the distinction between Israel and the Church. According to some, postmillenialism places a primary emphasis upon the advance of gospel within history, apart from the direct intervention of Christ within history, and as such, possesses an eschatological hope other than the second advent of Christ. I’m beginning to understand the validity of this argument. In this article, Poythress does a wonderful job of setting forth the amillenial position as the only legitimate millenial position. Particular attention is given to the book of first and second Thessalonians, and how the Pauline eschatological emphasis fails to fit into either the dispensational or post-millenial framework. Here’s the link to the entire article. The following is a portion of the article which I really found helpful.”
Postmillennialism says that, through the gospel, allegiance to Christ and Christian obedience will gradually spread through the world until the great majority of people are Christians. Societies and their institutions will be progressively conformed to the will of God, and an era of great peace and prosperity will ensue before the Second Coming.In my opinion, it is possible that this sort of thing might happen. In fact, because I am awed by the power of God for salvation in the gospel (Rom 1:16), I am optimistic about the future. Christ may return very soon, but if he does not return in the next hundred years, we may see a great harvest for the gospel. Some other amillennialists display the same optimism.17What, then, is the difference between this sort of “optimistic amillennialism” and a full-blown postmillennialism? Is there any significant difference at all?2 Thessalonians 1 helps to indicate one difference that remains. 2 Thessalonians 1, I claim, asks us to focus our hopes on the Second Coming of Christ, not on a hypothetical millennial prosperity taking place before the Second Coming. The rest of the New Testament has a similar focus. Thus, in my mind, the main issue separating contemporary amillennialists and postmillennialists is not the issue of mere possibility, that is, the issue of what might possibly happen if Christ’s return is still some decades away. Rather, the issue is whether biblical promise and prophecy invite Christians to focus hopes on such a millennial possibility. Is such a prosperity the main focus of prophetic expectation, and is it a certainty guaranteed by prophecy? Postmillennialists say yes, and on that basis they expect confidently that the Second Coming is still quite a long way off. Hence they find it theologically inappropriate and psychologically impossible to focus their most urgent, immediate hope and expectation primarily on the Second Coming. In contrast, premillennialists and amillennialists think that the Second Coming is the next main event in God’s plan for history. It may be very soon, and they hope and pray for the Lord’s coming.18Now consider 2 Thessalonians 1. 2 Thessalonians 1 is in tension with postmillennialism, insofar as postmillennium wants to focus hopes on a coming millennial prosperity. The text of verses 5-7 indicates that Christians may continue to expect trouble for awhile. They are to anticipate relief from the Second Coming, not merely from a coming time of millennial prosperity, as postmillennialists would have it.(To be sure, persecutions come and go, as can be seen in the history of the northern kingdom of Israel as well as in the Book of Acts. Christians may sometimes have a measure of “relief” when persecution subsides or when persecution takes more “civilized” forms like ridicule. But the focus for our hope, according to 2 Thessalonians 1, is on the Second Coming. Whether the troubles vary in form or whether Christians may at times expect to be in a numerical majority is from a theological point of view a matter of merely secondary interest.)Some postmillennialists have endeavored to escape the implications of 2 Thessalonians 1 by postulating that 2 Thessalonians is actually describing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. rather than the Second Coming.19 According to David Chilton and some other contemporary postmillennialists, not only 2 Thessalonians but most of the other NT passages that have traditionally been understood as describing the Second Coming are in fact describing the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The language is figurative rather than literal. Chilton applies a similar procedure to 1 Thess 5:1-9.20 But he believes that 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor 15:51-58 are about the Second Coming.21We cannot enter into all the details of Chilton’s system at this point. But we claim that this kind of approach cannot reasonably be sustained in dealing with the Thessalonian letters. 1 Thess 4:13-18 is about the Second Coming. 1 Thess 5:1-10, which is right next door to 1 Thess 4:13-18, must also be about the Second Coming. Hence, 2 Thessalonians 1, which builds on 1 Thessalonians, is also about the Second Coming. Nothing in either letter has any real tendency to point in a direction different from this understanding.Chilton and others like him can find what they want in the Thessalonian letters only because they first read in what they afterwards read out. But their interpretations disintegrate once we try steadfastly to put ourselves in the shoes of the Thessalonian Christians. Paul only stayed in Thessalonica for a few weeks (Acts 17:1-10). Moreover, even though Paul had talked to them about the Second Coming (2 Thess 2:5), the letters show that the Thessalonian Christians were confused. They did not completely grasp even relatively basic matters of eschatology. The Thessalonians did not already have a mastery of some esoteric eschatological system.
Now Paul understood the situation of the Thessalonians and their capabilities. Paul would not have used language in such way that the Thessalonians would almost surely misunderstand.Once we understand the level on which Paul must communicate to them, it follows that 1 Thess 4:13-18 is about the Second Coming. The transition in 5:1 is not violent. Hence, The Thessalonians will understand the “times and dates” of 5:1 as the times and dates regarding the events associated with the Second Coming. Hence 5:1-10 is about the Second Coming.22Next, 1 Thessalonians in the main background for 2 Thessalonians. In view of the sustained concern for the Second Coming in 1 Thessalonians, the Thessalonian Christians are bound to understand 2 Thessalonians 1 as a continuation of the same topic. The question is not whether one can invent an interpretive scheme, such as Chilton’s, capable of interpreting the whole passage figuratively. The question is whether the Thessalonians have any significant clues that would lead them to turn away from what from their point of view is the most obvious meaning.
In short, there is no escaping the fact that from the standpoint of the Thessalonian Christians 2 Thessalonians 1 is “obviously” about the Second Coming. Paul knew the capabilities of the Thessalonians and did not intend to confuse them. Hence, Paul was actually talking about the Second Coming.”
“In light of the clear revelation of the Old and New Testaments, we are right to conclude that it is the character of God to pass his salvation from generation to generation, and this is still true. In fact, the promise in Isaiah 59 that meant so much to me turns out to be more than an Old Testament promise. When examined in the context of the surrounding chapters, it is actually a prophecy of what is called the new covenant. This is the covenant that came with Jesus and is to be proclaimed to all the nations. When we pray for our children and work with them in our homes and churches, God’s covenant-making and covenant-keeping should give us confidence that it is his purpose and plan to pass his salvation from generation to generation. In the Presbyterian, we use the expression covenant children to describe their unique standing before God. That is a very helpful and biblical way to think of our children. Having this confidence in God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises is the most important single thing we can do for the salvation of our children. We should pray for them with earnestness, but pray with confidence because God has clearly revealed his will for our children and he keeps his promises.”
-Stephen Smallman, How Our Children Come to Faith
Sitting in on Dr. Poythress’s lecture yesterday was a blessing. Particularly encouraging was being able to hear some of the very same things I’ve heard him write about in such books as Understanding Dispensationalists and The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. I won’t touch on every aspect of his lecture, but only want to highlight some of the things which I found particularly helpful. In a discussion dealing with preaching from the Old Testament, Dr. Poythress mentioned 4 basic approaches to preaching: Exemplary, redemptive-historical, systematic-theological, typological, and fulfillment.Exemplary preaching attempts to understand a given text as it relates directly to our present situation. Consequently, the exemplary approach directly and forcefully interprets and applies specific texts to the immediate cultural and situational context of the heareer, often times ignoring historical context, authorial intent, and the entire flow of redemptive history within the Biblical narrative. This approach is probably the most popular and consistently used method of preaching within evangelicalism. Positively, exemplary preaching identifies with people, and sincerely desires to apply the Scriptures by making them relevant to our cultural context. Negatively, exemplary preaching can all too often become man-centered, moralistic, and lacking in any kind of reference to Christ and the gospel. An example of exemplary preaching might be: If David conquered Goliath, then you go out there and fight the giants in your life!
The next approach is the redemptive-historical approach, which seeks to understand a given text within the larger historical context of the Biblical narrative. Particular emphasis is placed upon God’s process of progressively bringing history to fruition and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. How does this text relate to the entire scope of redemption, and its historical progression from Genesis to Revelation? Redemptive history seeks to answer this question. Positively, the redemptive-historical approach emphasizes the unrepeatable historical events of history, which find significance as an integral part of God’s covenantal action in saving a people for Himself in Christ. Another positive aspect of this approach is that it rightly understands Biblical texts within their historical context, and therefore, pays much closer attention to authorial intent, progressive revelation, theological-historical context, etc. etc. Redemptive-historical preaching is also much more God-centered than the exemplary approach, focusing on the Divine activity of God in bringing history to its culmination in the person of Christ. Negatively, redemptive-historical preaching can tend to ignore the sense of commonality which exists between the original audience and ourselves. It can also sometimes ignore application and focus exclusively upon the historical aspects of the text. This negative aspect of redemptive-historical preaching actually created a fairly large controversy within the Dutch-Reformed community, which to my knowledge, continues to this day. An example of redemptive-historical preaching might be: David delivered Israel through the defeat of Goliath, and in so doing created the national-redemptive context in which Christ was to come.
The next approach is the systematic-theological approach which understands particular Biblical texts in terms of their reference to the attributes of God, along with the entire scope of systematic theology. Example: God was powerful and faithful to deliver David, therefore, God will be powerful and faithful to deliver you. Positively, systematic-theological preaching focuses rightly upon the character of God, and emphasizes the universality and objectivity of Biblical truth. Negatively, this approach can ignore some of the crucial historical aspects of the text, and remove the sense of redemptive-historical connection between the original audience and ourselves.
The next approach Poythress listed is the typological approach, which seeks to understand how a particular text, event, or character relates to Christ as a type. As a result, the type-antitype connection is a prominent feature within this approach to preaching, the text and events understood as typical references to the person and work of Jesus. How do mediators point to Christ? How do prophecies point to Christ? How do historical-national events point to Christ? How does Israel’s history point to Christ? These are some of the questions that the typological approach asks when approaching a given text. An example of this approach might be: God mediates national deliverance as David kills an earthly enemy. Understood within the context of New Testament teaching, Christ mediates both spiritual (already) and physical (not yet) deliverance to his people as he destroys the kingdom of Satan through the cross. “This is allegorization!”- someone might object. Interpreting Old Testament events with reference to their new testament anti-types is not allegorization, but typology, a different approach significantly distinct from an allegorical hermeneutic. Positively, the typological approach is thoroughly Christ-centered. It also emphasizes the unity of the covenant of grace within the history of redemption, avoids strict moralism, and preaches the gospel. Negatively, the typological approach can sometimes sublimate the earlier story by ignoring original context. If exegetical care isn’t taken in the interpretation of texts, we can sometimes end up with allegory, and understand texts arbitrarily without any understanding of their proper anti-typical fulfillment in Christ.
The final approach, and the most consistently Biblical approach out of all of them, is the fulfillment approach. The fulfillment approach is very similar to the typological approach. I think Poythress labeled it “typology plus.” The only significant difference in the fulfillment approach is that it asks the more specific question “How does Christ fulfill?”, and therefore pays closer attention to the uniqueness of Christ, and the promise/fulfillment framework which the entire Biblical narrative finds itself in. It observes redemptive themes, traces them through Biblical texts, and grounds them in their anti-typical reference point (Christ). I think the only difference between this approach and the typological approach is the degree in which emphasis is placed upon the specific fulfillments in Christ. The concept of bread isn’t merely an Old Testament type finding fulfillment in Christ. The concept of bread is directly linked to the concept of manna in Exodus 16, which is given by God to the nation of Israel, which according to John 6 finds its climatic fulfillment in Jesus Christ as the true, heavenly, and everlasting manna. See what I’m getting at? The fulfillment approach is much more specific.
Every approach Poythress mentioned had both negative and positive aspects. The reason why the fulfillment approach is probably the most Biblical approach, is because all of the other approaches can be integrated into it. To use the David/Goliath example, while our primary hermeneutical attention is placed upon the type-antitype connection between David and Christ, we can nonetheless talk about imitating Christ (exemplary) the beauty of the New Covenant in surpassing the Old (redemptive-historical), and the faithfulness of God (systematic-theological). The New Testament writers are radically oriented to the idea of fulfillment in Christ, and we should expect nothing less in our preaching.
As this process is difficult, and takes years to really “get down”, Poythress gave a few suggestions to help as we understand the Bible in terms of promise/fulfillment. First, be aware that the anointing of the Spirit teaches, guides, and helps us as we study the Scripture (1 Jn. 2:22-27). Second, learn by meditating, taking time to familiarize yourself with the entire Biblical narrative. Third, start with Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament, and trace their typological significance backwards until finding its theological-literary origin. Fourth, move to those passages “next door” to the ones directly quoted in the New Testament. For example, if you’re studying the typological connections between Galatians 3 and Genesis 15, move to a close yet distinct portion of Genesis, and trace its typological progression forward until it reaches its climax in the New Testament.Wow! I didn’t really intend to write that much. I actually wanted to cover a different aspect of Poythress’s lecture (diachronic analysis) but somehow never got around to it. I guess I’ll save it for another day. This part of the lecture on preaching was so helpful. We often hear about redemptive-historical preaching, typology, promise-fulfillment, etc. etc. Yet its nice to be given the specific tools with which to work in understanding the Bible as a whole. My next post will cover diachronic analysis, a hermeneutical method which traces specific types throughout the entire Biblical narrative, in order to understand the typological-anti-typical significance of Old and New Testament texts as they find their fulfillment in Christ.
I usually don’t post “journal” type entries on the blog, but feel as though the occasion calls for it. Early this morning, my wife and I headed down to Glenside PA to visit Westminster Theological Seminary for their prospective student day. We started the day off by sitting in on a Theology Proper class taught by Dr. Scott Oliphant. The students were getting ready for a mid-term, and Dr. Oliphant gave a lecture on the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, along with a lengthy discussion about the nature of Trinitarian terminology in the first few centuries of the early church. I could probably spend the next few months mining the riches of this particular lecture, but I’ll stop here and talk about it more specifically later. After sitting in on Oliphant’s lecture, Angela and I headed to the seminary auditorium for the daily chapel service. The guest lecturer (whose name I forget) gave a wonderful Biblical-theological exposition on Psalm 51. His thesis was that this particular Psalm, and the historical events prompting it, are to be understood as both prototypical (David as prophet and King a type of Christ the greater prophet and King) and prophetic (the specific tensions of the Psalm pointing to the greater King in whom this Psalm is fulfilled). He specifically focused upon David as the prototypical penitent whose righteousness finds an answer in Christ. David, the imperfect prototypical penitent is a type of Christ, the perfect anti-typical penitent Messiah. How is this so? Was Christ in need of repentance? God’s Messianic provisions in Christ far exceeded the Messianic expectations of ancient Israel. Christ is sinless, in need of no repentance, who nevertheless stands in the place of sinners, and identifies Himself with them in baptism. Thus Christ is the exceedingly great fulfillment of the perfect penitent who is foreshadowed in Psalm 51. David is not only a type of Christ as King, but also a type of Christ as prophet. Consequently, the Psalms are to be read as Messianic prophecy. Christ the Messiah fulfills the ideal Messiah of Psalm 51, and fulfills the eschatological expectations of ancient Israel. After chapel we sat in on Dr. Poythress’s hermeneutics class. This was one of the main highlights of the day. Dr. Poythress is one of my favorite authors, and it was a blessing to sit under his teaching. He was finishing up a section on the redemptive-historical significance of land and seed within the Biblical narrative. He then finished that particular section, and started a section on preaching from the Old Testament. This part of the lecture was perhaps some of the best material on Christocentic preaching I’ve ever heard. Since it deserves an entire post to itself, I’ll wait and share the details later. After Poythress’s class, we had lunch with some of the professors and students. Angela and I ate with Steven Smallman, who I eventually came to recognize as the author of Spiritual Birthline (a wonderful book by the way) and a number of pamphlets on the Reformed faith. His background is somewhat similar to mine (Baptist, dispensational, etc. etc.), and it was refreshing to talk with him about our personal experiences in coming home to the Reformed faith. After lunch, Angela and I made our way through the bookstore. I probably could have spent days perusing through all of the books, but eventually had to make up my mind and buy the few that I selected. I purchased WTS prof Peter Enns’s book Inspiration and Incarnation, 3 pamphlets by Smallman (What is a Reformed Church, What is Conversion, How Our Children Come to Faith), and Carl Trueman’s The Wages of Spin. Next was the seminary tour which was wonderful. As I walked through the halls of this historic institution, I was humbled by the reality of its rich theological heritage. Historically, WTS has been the center of Reformed academia in the 20th century, its list of former professors including the likes of Machen, Van Til, Murray, Clowney, Stonehouse, and others. It was joyfully overwhelming to think that I was sitting in some of the very same classrooms in which these men exercised their ministry. Personally, I’d say it was probably second to visiting the graves of Jonathan Edwards, B.B. Warfield, and the Hodges in Princeton. Anyway…we ended the day by visiting the rare book room in the library. We were able to view many first edition books written by the early Reformers, Puritans, and Princeton theologians. Especially note worthy was being able to look at some of the personal belongings of Spurgeon, Vos, Van Til, Machen, and John Murray. These included books, class syllabi, notes from lectures, etc. etc. I plan on beginning seminary in either the Fall of ‘09 or Winter of ‘10. I must say that my visit to WTS far exceeded my expectations. WTS is a wonderful Reformed institution which I hope to attend in the near future.
