Larger Catechism and the Law of God

I’ve recently begun a study of the Larger Catechism, and have been deeply encouraged by its wisdom.  Particularly edifying are questions and answers 98-148 which deal with the moral law in pretty exhaustive detail.  What I love about the Standards is the unapologetic concern for a proper understanding of the third use of the moral law and its necessary implications for everyday living.  Such rigorous scholarship, yet such unwavering concern for the Lordship of Christ over all of life.  

Question 98: Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?

Answer: The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.

Question 99: What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?

Answer: For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. That: What God forbids, is at no time to be done;: What he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. That: What is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. That in: What is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in: What is forbidden them.

Question 100: What special things are we to consider in the ten commandments?

Answer: We are to consider, in the ten commandments, the preface, the substance of the commandments themselves, and several reasons annexed to some of them, the more to enforce them.

Question 101: What is the preface to the ten commandments?

Answer: The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifests his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

Question 102: What is the sum of the four commandments which contain our duty to God?

Answer: The sum of the four commandments containing our duty to God is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind.

Zacharias Ursinus on Christian Baptism

This is a wonderful introduction to the basics of Christian baptism as defined by the Reformed churches.  Note particularly points 7 and 12. Ursinus attributes a profound efficacy to the instrument of baptism, going so far as to say that remission of sins is ordinarily granted through the proper use of the sacrament.  Point 12 is particularly significant as Ursinus argues against re-baptism.  Here is just another instance of how the 16th century Reformers regarded the practice of re-baptism as abominable, sinful, and a visible testimony to a lack of faith in the promises of the gospel.  

THESES ON BAPTISM

BY ZACHARIAS URSINUS

The following is excerpted from the English Translation of Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Ursinus was the second-generation Reformer who authored the most famous and influential of sixteenth-century Reformed catechisms, so his commentary has special authority. 

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament,by which Christ testifies to the faithful who are baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the forgiveness of all their sins, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and ingrafting into the church and into his o,,-rn body; whilst they, on the other hand, profess to receive these bepefits from God, and will and ought, therefore, henceforth, to live unto him and to serve him. This same baptism was begun by John the Baptist, and carried forward by the Apostles. John baptized in the name of Christ, who was to suffer and rise again; the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ, as having suffered and risen from the dead.
2. The first end of baptism instituted by God is, that he might thereby declare and testify to us, that he cleanses those who are baptized by his blood and Spirit from all their sins, and therefore engrafts them into the body of Christ and makes them partakers of all his benefits. Second: That baptism might be a solemn reception or initiation of everyone into the visible church, and a mark by which the church might be known from all other religions. Third: That it might be a public and solemn profession of our faith in Christ, and of our obligation to faith and obedience to him. Fourth: That it might be an admonition of our burial in afflictions, and of our rising out of them and deliverance from them.
3. Baptism has the power to declare or seal according to the command of God, and the promise which Christ has joined to it in its lawful use; for Christ baptizes us by the hand of his ministers, just as he speaks through them.
4. There is, therefore, in baptism a double water; the one external and visible, which is elementary; the other internal, invisible and heavenly, which is the blood and Spirit of Christ. There is, also, a double washing in baptism; the one external, visible, and signifying, viz : the sprinkling and pouring of water, which is perceptible by the members and senses of the body; the other is internal, invisible, and signified, viz: the remission of sins on account of the blood of Christ shed for us, and our regeneration by the Holy Spirit and engrafting into his body, which is spiritual, and perceived only by faith and the Spirit. Lastly, there is a double dispenser of baptism: the one; an external dispenser of the external, which is the minister of the church, baptizing us by his hand with water; the other an internal dispenser of the internal, which is Christ himself, baptizing us with his blood and Spirit.
5. Yet the water is not changed into the blood or Spirit of Christ, nor is the blood of Christ present in the water, or in the same place with the water. Nor are the bodies of those who are baptized washed with this visibly; nor is the Holy Spirit, by his substance or virtue, more in this water than elsewhere; but he works in the hearts of those who are baptized in the lawful use of baptism, and sprinkles and washes them spirituually by the blood of Christ, whilst he uses this external symbol as a means, and as a visible word or promise to stir up and confirm the faith of those who are baptized.
6. When baptism is, therefore, said to be the laver or washing of regeneration, to save us, or to wash away sins, it is meant that the external baptism is a sign of the internal, that is, of regeneration, salvation and of spiritual absolution; and this internal baptism is said to be joined with that which is external, in the right and proper use of it.
7. Yet sin is so washed away in baptism, that we are delivered from exposure to divine wrath and from the condemnation of everlasting punishment, whilst the Holy Ghost commences in us the work of regeneration and conformity with God. Remissions of sins, however, continue to the end of life.
8. All, and only those who are renewed or being renewed, receive baptism lawfully, being baptized for those ends for which Christ instituted this sacrament.
9. The church administers baptism lawfully to all, and only to those whom she ought to regard among the number of the regenerate, or as members of Christ.
10. Since the infant children of Christians are also included in the church, into which Christ will have all those who belong to him to be received and enrolled by baptism; and as baptism has been substituted in the place of circumcision, by which (as well to the infants as to the adults belonging to the seed of Abraham,) justification, regeneration and reception into the church were sealed by and for the sake of Christ; and as no one can forbid water that those should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit purifying their hearts, it follows that those infants should be baptized, who are either born in the church, or come into it from the world with their parents.
11. As the promise of the gospel, so baptism being unworthily received, that is, before conversion, is ratified and tends to salvation to those who repent, so that the use of it which was before unlawful is now lawful.
12. The impiety of the minister does not make baptism void, if only it be performed in the promise and faith of Christ. It is for this reason that the true church does not re-baptize those who have been baptized by heretics, but instructs them in the true doctrine respecting Christ and baptism.
13. And as the covenant once made with God, is also after sins have been committed, perpetually ratified in the case of such as believe, so baptism also being once received, confirms all those who repent in relation to the forgiveness of sins during their whole lives; and, therefore, neither ought to be repeated, nor deferred to the close of life, as if it then only cleansed from sin, when no more sins are committed after it is received.
14. All those who are baptized with water, whether adults or infants, are not made partakers of the grace of Christ, for the eternal election of God and his calling to the kingdom of Christ, is free.
15. Nor are all those who are not baptized excluded from the grace of Christ, for not the want, but the contempt of baptism excludes men from the covenant of God made with the faithful and their children.
16. Since the administration of the sacraments forms a part of the ecclesiastical ministry, those who are not called to this, and especially women, ought not to take upon themselves the right and authority to baptize.

Such rites as have been added to baptism by men, as the consecration of the water, tapers, exorcisms, anointing with oil, salt, crosses, spittle, and things of a similar character, are justly condemned in the church of Christ, as corruptions of the sacraments.

Jonathan Edwards Meet Brian McLaren

I know, I know.  I’m not the biggest fan of Jonathan Edwards. Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone can argue against the reality that Edwards was one of the most brilliant thinkers in American history.  And I think that Edwards can be very useful when confronting dubious forms of “Christianity” presenting themselves in our day and age.  This is a paper I wrote a while back.  I hope it proves helpful.

Emergent Church Meet Jonathan Edwards: A Philosophical Comparison of Jonathan Edwards with Emergent Theology

Imagine Jonathan Edwards sitting down to coffee with Brian McLaren.  How would Edwards respond to McLaren’s concerns?  How would McLaren respond to Edwards’ theology?  Would McLaren conclude that Edwards is the prototypical modernist, entrenched in the suffocating epistemological certitude that his movement finds so repulsive?  Would Edwards find McLaren’s assumptions familiar, maybe even similar to the radical skepticism of 18^th century enlightenment thinking?  Within the past few decades, the Emergent Church movement has arisen from the ghettos of modern evangelicalism with a spirit of protest against the perceived ecclesiastical modernism characterizing most churches in the 20^th century.  Behind the protests of Emergent Church leaders, there stands an identifiable worldview, functioning as philosophical catalyst through which their epistemological proposals find significance.  How does Jonathan Edwards fit into this discussion?  Edwards embodies a particular form of Protestant orthodoxy that substantially differs from the pre-suppositions of Emergent Church leaders.  A careful examination of primary texts reveals that the philosophical assumptions of Jonathan Edwards and Emergent Church leaders reflect decidedly different approaches to epistemology.

 To substantiate this proposal, we will examine the central concerns of emergent theology with a particular emphasis upon their proposed method of knowing truth, and their basic view of truth itself.  The second part of the essay compares the epistemology of Jonathan Edwards with the thinking of Emergent Church leaders.  The conclusion of the essay will examine some of the more general implications of comparing Edwards with Emergent thinking.

The 20^th century witnessed the rise of liberal Christianity, an intellectual and social project centered on accommodating the gospel to a thoroughly modern culture. Threatened by the radical skepticism of this new religion, Christians fought back, attempting to reclaim the historic orthodoxy trampled upon by the liberal Christians.  As it was then, so it is now.  A new cultural expression of Christianity has arisen which seeks to accommodate the gospel to what the movement perceives to be a uniquely post-modern context.  This movement has proposed a number of challenges to established forms of Protestant epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics.  The starting point for Emergent reform lies in their epistemological skepticism, which mirrors the cultural push towards doubt, uncertainty, and the celebration of mystery.   What exactly does this epistemological reform entail? What does epistemology look like in a post-modern context? In order to answer this question, it is necessary that the emergent method of knowing be examined.                          

In a fictional dialogue between a post-modern high-school teacher and a frustrated pastor, Brian McLaren, through the voice of the post-modern Neo, claims that “Postmodern theology has to reincarnate; we have to get back into the flesh and blood and sweat and dirt of the setting, because as I said, all truth is contextual (McLaren 106).”  This emphasis upon the contextualization of truth can be traced throughout emergent literature.  Emerging Church leaders place a high priority upon culture as an epistemological medium through which truth is formed.  Universal constants, uniform laws of logic, the validity and possibility of objective truth claims; all of these ideas are scorned by Emergent leaders.  According to the Emergent Church, all truth is contextual and will vary from culture to culture.  Sounding very much like Brian McLaren, Pastor Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch writes:

“All expressions of Christianity are culturally affected, and that is a good thing.  Therefore, we must resist any temptation to say that one understanding of Christianity is more pure or closer to that of Jesus’.  Post-evangelicals are not expressing better Christianity, only a more fitting one for their setting. (Tomlinson, 47).”

For Pagitt, Christian truth is culturally affected and individually relative.  It is clear from their literature that Emergent epistemology is not so much concerned about truth and falsehood so much as it is about cultural appropriateness and inappropriateness.  Ultimately, culture is the first and primary proposed method of determining which “truth” is most appropriate.

            Another emphasis found in emergent literature is radical skepticism.  Skepticism has always played a prominent role within the philosophical world, coming to its fruition in the epistemology of 18^th century philosopher David Hume.  While certainly sharing entirely different worldviews, Emergent proponents and Hume share a fundamentally skeptical philosophy of knowing.  Hume reduces all knowledge to sensory experience or perceptions, while Emergent leaders contextualize all knowledge of truth to different cultural contexts.  Both approaches are philosophically skeptical while differing on the precise medium of receiving knowledge.   Elements of Kantian epistemology can also be observed in the views of Emergent leaders.  Kant restricts all human knowing to the phenomenal world, refusing to concede that the intellect can grasp the realities of the noumenal.  Like Kant, emergent leaders reflect this epistemology and Christianize it into a convoluted form of mysticism.  If we cannot know, then we must embrace the mysteries of the noumenal world, and ground ethics in exclusively phenomenal categories. McLaren writes that:

“You cross the threshold into postmodernity the moment you turn your critical scrutiny from others to yourself, when you relativize your own modern viewpoint…You begin to see that what seemed like pure objective certainty really depends heavily on a subjective preference for your personal viewpoint

(McLaren 35).”

Not only should institutions, establishments, or churches be questioned, but individuals as well.  McLaren manifests a profound spirit of uncertainty and skepticism as he undermines personal belief by relegating it into the realm of subjectivity.  In a similar vein, Dave Tomlinson writes that Christians should move “from propositional expressions of faith to relational stories about faith journeys.  From the authority of Scripture alone to a harmony between the authority of Scripture and other personal ways God mysteriously and graciously speaks to Christians (Tomlinson 42).”  Tomlinson specifically targets propositional truth and the authority of Scripture as objects worthy of epistemic suspicion.  The Emergent Church isn’t interested in any kind of truth claims grounded in a higher metaphysical referent.  The movement seems intent upon asking questions and raising suspicions, while denying the possibility of ever really knowing truth in objective categories. 

It would be reductionistic to say that Protestant orthodoxy is incompatible with the questions raised by the Emergent Church.  Many of the concerns raised by Emergent Church leaders are a legitimate reaction to dubious forms of Christianity, which have deviated from historic orthodoxy.  Nevertheless, Protestant orthodoxy and Emergent epistemology represent two strikingly different approaches to truth.  Jonathan Edwards is one particular 18^th century theologian whose ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology present an alternative to the Christianized post-modernism of the Emergent Church. 

First, Jonathan Edwards manifests a weighty philosophical optimism in his epistemic approach.  In contrast to the skepticism of the Emergent Church, Edwards defends the project of knowing objective truth grounded in a stable metaphysical reality.  In his Dissertation Concerning the Nature of True Virtue, Edwards grounds his metaphysics in what he labels “Being in General.”  Edwards later explains that Being in General is God himself, the fountain and foundation of all being and beauty, and the objective referent to which all moral agents are accountable.  In one part of the Dissertation, Edwards defends the possibility of knowing God objectively.  Edwards writes, “God has sufficiently exhibited himself, both in his being, and in his infinite greatness and excellency: and has given us faculties, whereby we are capable of plainly discovering his immense superiority to all other beings (Nature, 23).”  Unlike McLaren

who scoffs at the very idea of resolving difficult truth claims, Edwards states that man’s natural faculties and God’s revelation are sufficient to ascertain particular objective truths about God. 

 Second, Edwards is concerned to defend the project of knowing by appealing to its centrality in the Christian life.  Unlike the Emergent worldview, which excludes objective knowledge from a prominent place within the life of a Christian in favor of cultural expression and subjective experience, Edwards demands its prominence.  In a sermon entitled Christian Knowledge, a lengthy exposition on Heb. 5:12, Edwards defends the apostles reproof to the Hebrews by appealing to the nature and centrality of truth.

“As they were Christians, their business was to learn and gain Christian knowledge.  They were scholars in the schools of Christ; and if they had improved their time in learning, as they ought to have done, they might, by the time the apostle wrote, have been fit to be teachers in this school (Christian Knowledge, 9).”

Three important observations can be discerned.  First, Edwards claims that learning and gaining knowledge ought to occupy a prominent place in the Christian life.  Second, Edwards claims that all Christians are scholars in the school of Christ.  This runs contrary to the Emergent push for less scholarship and more relationship.  For Edwards, this dichotomy is unnecessary.  Rigorous scholarship serves as the foundation upon which genuine relationships are built.  Third, the difference in emphasis between Emergent leaders and Edwards can’t be missed.  The philosophical posture of Emergent Leaders is skeptical, uncertain, and mystical.  Edwards’ approach reflects optimism, certainty, metaphysical precision, and necessity of reason. 

            The Emergent Church is a unique cultural and religious phenomenon. The movement embodies a particular paradigm shift in philosophical perspective that has attempted to change the face of Christianity for a new generation.  This shift includes a radical deviation from traditional forms of epistemology and includes the most basic of concerns.  The very concept of truth, its nature, shape, and place in culture; all of these concerns find themselves addressed by the Emergent Church within a post-Protestant, post-Evangelical, and post-Fundamental system of thinking.  Jonathan Edwards comes into the picture as the embodiment of traditional Protestant epistemology.  While some scholars in the Reformed community might debate his theological compatibility with earlier forms of Reformed thinking, it is generally agreed that the most basic of Edwards’ epistemological and metaphysical concerns are orthodox.  Edwards argues for epistemological optimism, the objectivity and universality of truth, the legitimacy of both questions and answers, the necessity of scholarship, the centrality of truth in the life of the Christian, the legitimate pursuit of the noumenal, and the unchanging nature of truth in every culture.  Friend and foe alike would be wise to consult Edwards before adapting their Christianity to the Emergent agenda.  

---

McLaren’s Bibliology reflects his suspicion of resolving difficult questions of truth.  For McLaren, Scripture is a story in which the readers are presented with questions. “I wonder what would happen if we approached the text less aggressively but even more energetically and passionately.  I wonder what would happen if we honestly listened to the story and put ourselves under its spell, so to speak, not using it to get all of our questions about God answered but instead trusting God to use it to pose questions to us about us. (McLaren 57).”  Edwards’ approach is entirely different.  For Edwards, questions can’t be separated from their corresponding answers.  His approach itself in the Dissertation assumes epistemological optimism. 

See Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice by R. Scott Clark for a critical analysis of Edwards’ theology.  For a more positive perspective, see Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography.