Run John Run

 

At the Carey Mike Bullmore alluded to the following ditty which I had not heard before

 

Run, John, run, the law commands
But gives us neither feet nor hands,

Far better news the gospel brings:
It bids us fly and gives us wings

 

The couplets are usually spoken of as John Bunyan's (it's certainly his style). According to Justin Taylor, Jason Meyer pins it on Ralph Erskine. (Spurgeon goes for John Berridge).

More here.

Execution by Simon Webb

I read this little book on the history of capital punishment in Britain the other week. Judicial hanging is its main theme but it touches on burning, beheading, etc. It talks about forgotten matters such as the Halifax Gibbet and boiling people to death amongst other things. It covers some of the most gruesome passages of British history but not in a sensationalist way. The main story is of the development of better hanging techniques and of the hangmen who were sometimes drunks. I am in favour of capital punishment to some extent but this book shows how very difficult it is to come up with a method of execution that is anywhere near humane.

Westminster Fellowship session on the law

It was good to be back at the Westminster Fellowship yesterday. About thirty were present at Westminster Baptist Church in Horseferry Road to hear Robert Strivens from LTS speak on the law. Robert helpfully guided us through both the Reformed view and the New covenant view of the law, especially noting differences among the Reformed and the latter group (highlighting the views of Wells and Zaspel, Moo and Schreiner, which are not exactly the same).  Although the differences are many in practice the issue seems to be the fourth commandment and how that is understood. Mostyn Roberts chaired what was a very good time of discussion.

The law about pennies

Following up the last blog see this article here.

10 Lawyers turned theologians

1. Tertullian 160-225 (Church father and Montanist)
2. John Calvin 1509-1564 (Calvinist)
3. Pierre Charron 1541-1603 (Catholic theologian)
4. Nathaniel Ward 1578-1652 (Puritan minister in New England)
5. Moses Amyraut 1596-1664 (Amyraldian)
6. Thomas Erskine of Linlathen 1788-1870 (Liberal lay theologian)
7. Charles G Finney 1792-1875 (Semi-Pelagian theologian)
8. C I Scofield 1843-1921 (American dispensationalist theologian)
9. Tokutaro Takakura 1885-1934 (Japanese theologian)
10. Bishop James Pike 1913-1969 (American Liberal TV theologian)

Noachide laws

In a letter from a man seeking to witness to Jews that I read recently he say that in conversation with a Jew he was asked if he kept the Noachide laws. He explains

"The seven Noachide laws prohibit the worship of other gods, blaspheming the name of God, cursing judges, committing murder, incest and adultery, theft, and eating flesh with blood in it. A number of scholars have concluded that the regulations for Gentile believers laid down by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:19,20 are very similar to the Noachide laws."

More here.

The Law of God is good and wise

Dr Waldron quoted this hymn on the Law. (I later discovered it is by Matthias Loy).

The law of God is good and wise
And sets his will before our eyes,
Shows us the way of righteousness,
And dooms to death when we transgress.

Its light of holiness imparts
The knowledge of our sinful hearts
That we may see our lost estate
And seek deliv'rance ere too late.

To those who help in Christ have found
And would in works of love abound
It shows what deeds are his delight
And should be done as good and right.

When men the offered help disdain
And wilfully in sin remain,
Its terror in their ear resounds
And keeps their wickedness in bounds.

The law is good; but since the fall
Its holiness condemns us all;
It dooms us for our sin to die
And has no pow'r to justify.

To Jesus we for refuge flee,
Who from the curse has set us free,
And humbly worship at his throne,
Saved by his grace through faith alone.

Affinity blogged

The whole conference concluded with an opportunity to put a few questions to the speakers as a panel. That was a good time. Then after lunch we were all off. Despite a little a snow that morning travel didn't prove too difficult. One of the speakers, Michael Horton, came home with me and stayed the night. I took him to Heathrow this morning. It was good to have further fellowship in that way. Michael is a professor in Westminster West and the father of triplets! Copies of his magazine Modern Reformation were given to everyone at the conference.

It was a very good conference that provided sidelights on all sorts of issues. I get the impression that it is the younger men who are most attracted to new covenant theology in its various forms. I was attracted as a young man myself. The attraction seems to be the emphasis on exegesis over against systematics. Rightly the approach "where will these lead to?" was rejected by the conference. I personally want to reject NCT as it stands. It is important to say, however, that it is not so very different in practice and perhaps has some insights for us to take on board.

We were very kindly given CDs and mp3s to take home with us. Affinity can be found here.

I hope my blogs have been of interest to someone. I'm only sorry I was not able to to convey more of the fun and finesse. Bob Letham began what became a running joke on Percy the tank engine that has gone largely unreported. I enjoyed the informal fellowship with several men especially Heresy Huntin Martin Downes, Mark Thomas and others, especially from Wales. I even had time to ask Iain D Campbell (thanks for the link) about Julie Fowlis.

Anyway it's good to be back. Lots to do.

[Pics: Stephen Clark Conference chairman; my small group chaired by Jonathan Stephen; Doug Moo, Campbell and P Helm - half the final panel; the apparently uncotnroversial Horton covenants diagram; Mr Horton chats with Ayr based Gavin Beers - young but by no means NCT!]

Affinity 06

Our final paper was by Michael Horton (Westminster West) in which he proposed the idea of two sorts of covenant in Scripture - the royal or unconditional grant and the more contractual sort. Using, surprisingly, Jewish and Roman writers (including the present Pope!) he explores this approach which looks to be a useful hermeneutical tool.

In introducing the paper, the danger of looking for a distinctively Reformed theology of everything was highlighted. If we do that we will miss contributions from elsewhere eg the threefold use in Aquinas, covenant ideas and the third use of law in Melanchthon. Calvin was not innovative but more nuanced than Luther (Melanchthon was too). Luther begins by following Aquinas and thinking in OT/NT terms but with Melanchthon's help he comes to his law/gospel thinking. It is important to see that in Calvin both continuity and discontinuity exist. For Calvin, in redemptive historical terms law and gospel are opposites. As for being a principle of life, here he synthesises.

Calvin was still a child of Christendom and so instinctively he upheld the principle of general equity. On usury – Luther preached against it from Exodus but Calvin did not and calls for love to one's neighbour. He actually says these laws are obsolete.
The irony is that just when so many non-reformed are recognising two types of covenant we Reformed are fudging it.
The paper goes to RC and Jewish writers who see covenant of works/grace distinction. John Levenson notes that today's Judaism is not the same as in Second Temple Judaism. He makes clear unconditional grant and contractual yet says the always louder Sinai absorbs Zion thinking.
David Novak on ethics, emphasises the idea of conscience – a covenantal connection. Jews must keep the law but Gentiles have responsibilities too.
How interesting that Horton finds so much in Jewish and RC writers. The Abrahamic and Sinaitic difference is accepted by Ratzinger.
Questions for clarification

Genesis 15 and 17 look conditional. It looks as though circumcision is a condition. But the point is that the giving of the covenant does not depend on doing something – unlike the “If you do this I will do this” type. Circumcision is a partial cutting off, not a whole cutting off (as in the cross).

Novak says that Gentiles are under the Noahic (Noahide) Covenant (which doesn't include the law's first table). It equals natural law.
The idea of one covenant of grace with different administrations is common and fits here. Think of an over arching Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic as a subordinate and temporary covenant of works not separate from the administration and fulfilled in Christ. The blood splashed on the people signifying their taking responsibility not as a sign of a redemptive covenant. The national covenant is conditional but there are unconditional promises too. Hodge though he says the Mosaic covenant was gracious adds that there is a works element.
Another question was whether Horton would preach on the Decalogue and the importance of the preface anchoring it in grace. In what way is the law not conditional eg Sabbath? Bavinck says that the Covenant of grace is unconditional in basis but not in operation.
Horton explained that he no longer takes the "Calvin Kline" (!) view on the Sabbath as published in his book on the Ten Commandments.
Is the Law an expression of God's character? Not of his necessary character but of his activity.
Just as we were about to leave the subject of angels was raised and how God deals with them.

Affinity 05

Our fifth session was on the use of the Mosaic Law in the NT by Chris Bennett with Steve Wilmshurst (Bristol) chairing. Chris's paper was the shortest (and latest) of the six.

Outline of the paper
1. The whole Bible - Covenant, kingdom, Christ
2. Mosaic Law and the NT
3. 1 Corinthians 5
4. 1 Corinthians 9:7-14, esp 9, 13
5. 1 Timothy 5:17-20
6. Matthew 18:16
7. Synthesis and some application
Summary
In what he himself later described as a harangue Chris explained that he was attempting to supplement and slightly modify Moo taking it into a more Reformed position. He mentioned
1. The church and the fact that dispensationalism is a big error. Replacement theology is correct. Further, Paul interprets and applies the law not in a literalistic way (not a regulative principle approach - or normative principle either). Ordering the church is not so different to ordering other things.
2. On NCT he said that this was correct in light of the exegesis of Col 2:16. Also Gal 3:15-4:7; Rom 14:5, 6; Rom 7:1-6; Rom 6:14. Even advocates of Westminster theology do not carry through it was claimed their commitment to the Decalogue as they accept that the Sabbath day has changed.
Chris repeated his idea that if the gospel is scattered throughout Scripture then why confine the law to the commandments argument.
3. His main concern was what motivates us - it should not be law.
Questions for clarification
Chris said the Puritans were fearful of antinomianism, which Stephen Clark denied but is in fact so -so I defended him. The Larger Catechism was quoted to refute the idea that it was not gospel driven - Q 75: What is sanctification?
Answer: Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.
Plenary Questions
After our small group session we reconvened.
Plenary Questions
These included those on whether an Infant Baptist can accept NCT, which Chris does.
It was asserted that the Westminster catechisms are gospel driven and it is unhelpful to drive a wedge between law and gospel in understanding them. This prompted a confession of hyperbole from Chris.
It was suggested that the general equity of the moral law is what is to be sought just as with other laws, which makes sense.
A question was asked about unbelievers and the Law and an orthodox answer was given.
Professor Helm also tackled Chris on doing theology and the danger of reactionism which is not the way to deal with problems (eg moralism, legalism). He also questioned the suggested Platonism in the Puritans.

Affinity 04

With our fourth paper we turned to the use of the Mosaic Law in society today, which Paul Helm tackled with Stephen Clark chairing.I hope my abbreviated notes make sense.
Professor Helm summarised his paper thus:
1. Preliminary observations. This comes from the perspective of a principled pluralist (unlike Rutherford, Calvin, etc). The problem is what is the glue that keeps society together? It cannot be Scripture. So we look to natural law. However, the problem is that the phrase is ambiguous. The approach is a bottom up one – a posteriori. It is confined to the second great commandment
2. Biblical survey. Before the law was given there was no law but there were norms. Sin but not transgression. What are these norms – things that shame the patriarchs. They recognise the fear of God – remnants of a sense of obligation. Genesis is partly organised in this way. These norms figure largely in its structure. The book of deceptions would be a good name. Part of the plot is how these deceptions are perpetrated and dealt with. Motive is not an issue here. See David van Drunen. Mosaic law is not a novelty but a codifying of norms found in the early chapters of Genesis. Though not the only fulcrum, the early chapters of Genesis define natural law. The Reformers were happy to use the language of natural law – original, universal, not secular, not pristine.
Application to the contemporary world. Very difficult to do. Eg shelter, food, children, etc. Constraints on behaviour. Yet spoiled. Some cultures are morally superior to others.
4. Connectedness or disconnectedness of morality and law.
5. Oscillation in society. After extremes, norms kick in.
Questions of clarification
1. Romans 1 and oscillation
2. What about the first table? Much more difficult. Also creates problems.
3. Practical outworking. Points of contact. Our society not secular but showing vestiges of the image of God.
4. Why is PP a good thing? See the previous but one Affinity conference. Christ is King of kings? Now and not yet.
5. More on pendulum mechanics – how do the norms kick in? Sometimes by revival but sometimes it just becomes intolerable.
Further plenary questions
After the small groups we reconvened and asked
1. The difference between natural law and common grace.?Kuyper and Bavinck moved away from Calvin and natural law to common grace under the influence of 19th Century views. Two ways of looking at the same thing.
2. Self-evidence? Not an unphilosophical term though there may be differences on the matter. Gut feelings. An appeal to conscience very similar.
3. Paul Robert's painting in Geneva with justice pointing to the Law of God. How can principled pluralism be right? Do we want to deal with Servetus as Calvin did? Th impact of the Constantinian settlement was raise and Dr Helm spoke as a good Baptist on it.
4. Really a matter of approach to winning society.
5. Importance of Romans 13.
6. Is self-evidence the same as democracy? Politics - tactics, etc. In moral argument there has to be a stopping point. Otherwise utilitarianism rules. Here is where we can take a stand eg on abominations.
7. NT impact
8. Abimelech and the fear of God
9. I asked him about Paul's references to long hair and homosexuality being unnatural.
10. The great commission is primary not the cultural mandate? For ministers yes but what about Shaftesbury, Wilberforce, etc? But the call as a church.

Affinity 03

So here we are in another new day and we begin with Douglas Moo on the covenant and the Mosaic Law, expounding Galatians.
Brief outline of the paper
Moo used no headings but these could have been inserted
1. Hermeneutical assumptions
2. Galatians
3. Threefold division of the Law
4. Detour “Under the law”
5. Back to Galatians
6. Other texts - Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4
7. Important nuances
Extras
Dr Moo spoke of method. An affirmation of systematics. On the other hand, speculation is to be avoided. We must be grounded in Scripture. There is a hermeneutical spiral and we never arrive. He commented on the NT use of the word covenant. It is not that we cannot use Scripture words in ways not found in Scripture. However, we are raising the question of whether the Reformed use of the word covenant meshes with the NT. OT terminology does not necessarily (in fact is unlikely to) match NT terminology. As for the term New Covenant theology, Moo is uneasy about such categorisation. The view is that held by Luther, dispensationalists, etc. Labels are necessary but this one is not helpful.
We all struggle with certain texts but Scriptural data is important. Textual data. Moo spoke of himself jokingly as just a humble NT scholar! Some people like his undoubted humility. I'm a suspicious type and so I'm not sure it proves anything.
On the threefold division, uses of the Law, etc he simply asks do any of these distinctions become a basis for continuity or discontinuity in the NT data? Trying to find a way to express continuity. Form and substance does not work. No Mosaic Law continues to have authority over the believer except as it does through Christ and his Apostles. (This is no doubt correct but is something of a truism if the Ten Commandments are all treated like this – as I am sure they are).
Place of the law in the Christian life. There is a tendency to give the law too great a place. If Paul was asked about this he would emphasise life in the Spirit. Law is important but it must not supplant the Spirit.
Questions of clarification
Dr Moo questioned our use of the word clarification but answered many questions including these
1. When NCT types speak of the need for commands to be repeated in the NT they are not saying that in a wooden, proof texting way.
2. I asked Dr Moo if his position was Reformed. He agreed it was not but claims to be Reformed in other respects. To be fair to be Reformed while rejecting covenant theology is a strange kind of reformed but then some Reformed people would say that about all Baptists!
3. We are bound only to what is repeated in the NT – this was reiterated.
4. Dr Moo is inerrantist lining up with the view of Greg Beale.
5. When asked about the Spirit as prophesied in Ezekiel and the fact that the Spirit was to be given “so that you will obey the Law". He felt there must be a difference between the prophetic concept and the NT reality. What the NT transformed heart would look like was not clear to OT saints.
6. As for any difference between morality in the NT and in the Decalogue there is none – except with the inevitable fourth commandment. The Decalogue, however, is OT not NT. The 4^th commandment is not an eternal moral law. Otherwise why the change to a Sunday? After our small group meeting we came back and questioned Dr Moo further.
Further questions
These included
1. In Matthew 23 Jesus tells the people to do what the religious leaders say but not what they do was the religious leaders say but not what they do was raised. It is difficult but is probably to do with the change of dispensation.
2. Implications of NCT. Fourth commandment. Importance of the Lord's Day. If we lose this aren't we losing out and failing to witness to Christ's resurrection.
3. When asked to confess a dispensationalist background Dr Moo denied having one but affirmed that he had many good friends who are dispensationalist.
4. Fears of disaster if NCT takes hold were expressed and the matter of creation and the Sabbath raised. Dr Moo doubted whether the Sabbath was established at creation.
5. OT/NT believers. Certainly there is continuity but there must be discontinuity. It is seen by Moo in terms of greater inward power and direction.
6. Tom Holland (WEST) spoke of huge differences between the discussion of the Law in the Gospels and in the epistles. We must not confuse the two. We are too atomistic in our approach too. The context of Gentiles and Jews is important. The covenant is a marriage relationship. We must see the bigger picture, the context. 7. The question of bestiality was raised as this is a command not repeated in the NT but there is surely no difference in the way Moo would deal with this as opposed to a Reformed theologian.
If you would like a less pedestrian and more up to the minute blog try here with Adrian Reynolds.

Affinity 02

Our second session was on the threefold division of the Mosaic Law, a view often under attack today. The paper was prepared by Iain D Campbell (Back Free Church). Mostyn Roberts (Welwyn) chaired.

Brief outline of the paper

1. Threefold division articulated

2. Historical considerations

Patristic thought; Aquinas; Calvin

3. Alternative considerations

4. Exegetical considerations

Manner of the giving of the Ten Commandments; Subsequent OT reflection on the law of God; Use of the concept of the law in the Gospels and Paul

5. Theological considerations

Adam prototype of Israel and Christ; Christ incarnation and embodiment of the law; Sin as violation of the moral precept; Atonement and its consequences as the vindication of the law's righteousness

6. Conclusion

Extras
We were also told that a PhD on the subject by Philip Ross has been completed plus various points such as the point that a covenant only formalises an existing relationship. The law should be seen as a generic development of the Abrahamic covenant. The importance of the preface to the commandments was stressed. It was denied that Sinai saw a republication of the covenant of works. The gospel is God's determination to save sinners.

Questions for clarification
It was questioned whether the statement that for Calvin the moral law, the 10 commandments were absolute and perpetual was correct. The difference between a relationship and a covenant was pursued. The remark that though the gospel gives us wings it is the law that gives us direction was queried. Etc.

Small groups
Here we looked at questions raised by the paper such as whether Adam broke all 1o commandments in one go (as Thomas Boston asserts) and made a little more progress.

Plenary Questions
This was when Doug Moo and the new covenant men came out fighting. They are clearly very unhappy with the threefold division but did not seem to me to make a valid case against it. 1 Corinthians 9 was mentioned and the oxen ploughing yet that does seem to be an example of drawing out the general equity of a civil law.

Affinity 01

I set off to the Affinity conference in High Leigh this morning and met Mark Johnston (Grove) and his assistant Simon Arscott en route. There are about 140 of us here including LTS students coming in on a daily basis. We began rightly with an examination of the concept of covenant in the history of theology. Dr Robert Letham (WEST) had prepared the paper; Robert Strivens (LTS) chaired.

Brief outline of the paper
1. Preliminary considerations
Covenant in the Bible; Covenant theology: a problem of definition
2. From the Apostles to Augustine
Covenant and redemptive history; Covenant and soteriology
3. Mediaeval Europe
Covenant and politics: mediaeval constitutional theory; Emergence of social contract theory;
The King and the rule of law; Soteriological perspective again
4. Covenant theology in the classic reformed period
Covenant of grace; Classic statement Westminster
Under law Under gospel
Covenant of works/life
Arguments against Rationale
Covenant and law; Covenant and politics; Covenant of redemption?
Extras
In addition to his paper Dr L called attention to the idea of progress in theology, warning of the danger of reading ideas back into history. He also spoke of the differences among Reformed theologians over the place of the Mosaic covenant in relation to the Abrahamic covenant. The majority with Calvin wrote of one covenant with different administrations. Generally the Puritans taught that Sinai was never intended to be a means of grace. As for the covenant of redemption, the idea is post Westminster standards beginning with Owen and others. It was intended to buttress the doctrine of penal substitution. Covenant and union with Christ are very important. However, for Dr Letham the notion as normally propounded undermines its own case by threatening classic Trinitarian doctrine. Owen was aware of this. Dr Letham seemed happier with John Brown, Dick, Kuyper, Hoeksema (Council of peace) – the Trinity in covenant with the Second Adam.
He closed with an amusing but slightly irrelevant reading from "Percy takes the plunge" by Rev W Awdry (sic)
Questions for clarification
These were with regard to one will in God. (Gethsemane is best understood as being an alignment of Christ's human and divine wills. Certainly God has one will and great care needs to be taken in the matter of the covenant of redemption. It was confirmed that Owen took the minority view that Sinai was a republication of the covenant of grace. The objection to the covenant of redemption was reiterated. It is like a business meeting, the Holy Spirit sending his apologies.
Small groups
We then adjourned to small groups for half an hour to consider five questions including
1. Mosaic covenant radically different from Abrahamic? After fall two different covenants or always only one covenant of grace?
We felt the second was development of the first.
2. Arguments for and against the pre-fall covenant of creation/nature/works/life? Are arguments against the priority of law valid? Not sure.
3. Should we abandon the idea of an eternal covenant? No.
We made little progress with these difficult questions despite some able contributors in our group.
Plenary questions
These didn't get us very much further. Dr Letham summed up recommending Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology by John V Fesko. He saw the covenant of works as logically deducible, opposing a solo scriptura approach (something evidenced in our small group). The covenant of redemption needs care in how it is formulated. The view has no confessional support.

52 JC No 4

Third use of the law

The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns ... For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge ... Man is retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make's less progress than he ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth.

From Instititutes Book 2.17.12

Affinity Conference

The book of papers for the Affinity Conference early in February on the end of the law has arrived. It currently lacks Paper 4: The use of the Mosaic Law in the New Testament church by Chris Bennett Wilton Community Church, Muswell Hill. The other papers

Paper 1: The concept of Covenant in the history of theology

Bob Letham Wales Evangelical School of Theology (WEST), Bridgend
Paper 2: The validity of the three-fold division of the Mosaic Law in Scripture

Iain D Campbell Back Free Church, Isle of Lewis
Paper 3: One Covenant or two – the relationship between the Old and the New

Douglas Moo Wheaton College, Illinois
Paper 5: The use of the Mosaic Law in society today

Paul Helm Regent College, Vancouver and London University
Paper 6: Where do we go from here?

Michael Horton Westminster Seminary, California

I've only just started on the papers so I can't comment yet but I am looking forward to reading them and the discussion at the conference. Douglas Moo and Michael Horton are names I know well but have rarely had opportunity to hear. The Affinity website is here.

Barcellos at Salisbury

You may have missed this brief report on the Salisbury Conference here. I'd like to have gone.

Banner Magazine online

I've been taking the Banner of Truth Magazine since I was a young man and I have all 519 editions in my collection. It can be a bit pedestrian at times but it is a fine magazine that should appeal to all who have any commitment to the historic Reformed Faith of Luther, Calvin and those who preceded and followed them.

It is currently under the editorship of Walt Chantry.

Since February an electronic edition of the mag has been availiable. I'm a bit slow with these things and my first copy came the other day. It is the December issue. They send you a pdf file with the magazine on plus a bonus article, which this time is the introduction to a reprint they are doing of a rare work by David Dickson (1583-1633), which is a commentary on the Westminster Confession.

Two of the main articles (by Calvin and Maurice Roberts) are on the threefold division of the law, something widely dismissed in our day.

One is free to share this stuff but, as they say, the magazine needs funds to survive.

Check out the website for more details

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/magazines/magazines.php