In order to provide for more interaction among our listeners, we have decided to test-run an interactive book club. Tentatively scheduled for Monday, February 6, 2012 at 8pm Eastern, Reformed Forum will host a discussion of John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied. The format of the club is still nascent, but we hope to live stream the discussion and provide a way for listeners to chat and call-in through Skype or Google+. The discussion will be recorded and released as an episode of Reformed Media Review so those who aren’t able to join live can still participate “asynchronously.”

If you don’t have one already, get a copy of the book, read it by Monday, 2/6, and stay posted for the details on the live stream. And remember: the first rule about book club is that you don’t talk about book club!

photo by infowidget

I think we should devote most of our attention to the distinction between historia and ordo salutis. In similar (perhaps more familiar) categories, we speak of redemption accomplished and applied. Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. has done the Church a tremendous service in his book Resurrection & Redemption.¹ In this work, Gaffin navigates the connection between Christ’s death and resurrection (historia salutis) and the application of that work to believers (ordo salutis). He provides insightful exegesis that demonstrates convincingly that Christ’s resurrection is simultaneously his justification (1 Tim 3:16), adoption (Rom 1:3-4), sanctification (Rom 6:1ff; Acts 20:32), and glorification (1 Cor 15:42ff; 2 Cor 3:17f; 4:4-6).

The fundamental category—the “ground” of it all—is Christ’s person and work, which is neither exclusively forensic nor renovative. From what I gather, it is possible we need further clarification regarding what we mean by forensic. It is a term referring to the procedures of law. It is often used to distinguish the Reformed from the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Reformed argue that justification is entirely extrinsic. It does not make one righteous in themselves, rather Christ’s righteousness is imputed, and justification is the acquittal of guilt on that account. Conversely, Roman Catholics argue that justification imparts grace. It makes the sinner righteous intrinsically.  I gather from my interactions with people on this subject that some prefer to invest the word forensic with the notion of monergistic. I do not find the two synonymous. For instance, regeneration is entirely monergistic, but in no way forensic; it is renovative—a work that changes the subject intrinsically.

I believe we can move forward in this discussion by further exploring what is entailed by Christ’s resurrection, particularly as his justification (1 Tim 3:16). I believe this may help to crystallize Dr. Horton’s concerns in his interview response. We ought to develop the sense in which we may speak of the open declaration of Christ’s righteousness in his resurrection. Specifically, we must detail the way this wonderful truth interfaces with preaching (cf. Rom 10:17). This may clarify how Christ’s justification in historia salutis relates to the believer’s justification in the ordo salutis.

For example, there is a real union with Christ in his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. As Christ accomplished his work, he accomplishes it for his chosen people. But there is also a real transition from wrath to grace in the life of the sinner saved by grace. There is no point when a declaration can be made to a sinner that their sins have been forgiven until they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness by faith. Christians are not justified in the preaching of the Word. They are justified when God acquits them of their guilt on account of an alien righteousness. To keep with the forensic/legal metaphor, without that righteousness, received by faith, there is no case.

But this rebellion, or rejection of God’s revelation, leads to irrationalism. It is irrational because God and man stand in a discontinuous relation. Thus chance rules. Meaninglessness rules. The opposite problem is entailed by Romanism. Here rationalism rules because God and man share the same being. Again, there is no need for revelation. Man can arise to the position of God by his reason alone. But this also obtains for the irrationalist as well. He also seeks to come to a knowledge of the truth through reason alone. So the Kantian is both at once and the same time a rationalist and an irrationalist. He has both chance (because he has no God ruling or speaking in the world) and determinism (since man is autonomous). Reason is the determiner for him. Likewise, the Thomist also falls into irrationalism because there is no sovereign Lord. God and man stand in a continuous relation which means that they share a substance which transcends both God and man – being. Being is then Lord, and as an impersonal Lord, cannot rule or speak with meaning. One is left with mute facts. Thus, these facts are unintelligible. In this way we can say that Barth and Thomas both ultimately fall into the same dialectical pit.

Some more on Barth. Barth, like Thomas, begins with the act of God. He reasons from the effect to the cause. He does not, like Thomas, begin with the revelation of God in Scripture. Rather, he begins with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The problem is, how does he get to Jesus Christ? Even if Barth does have a notion of the historical reality of the person and work of Jesus Christ, we have no way to get back in time to the Jesus Christ of history. In fact, the best we can hope for is to gain an idea of him through Scripture and the preaching ministry of the Church which both serve as fallible witnesses to the person of Jesus Christ. But, since those witnesses are not themselves the revelation of God (but mere witnesses to revelation; i.e., Jesus Christ), man must undergo a rational process quite independent of God’s revelation – and thus as autonomous – to critically determine what things in the witnesses are true about Jesus Christ and what things are not true. And now, God still remains outside of Barth’s grasp – and with God also the meaning of all things (hence his irrationalism). But to take the place of God as the arbiter of the meaning of all things is man’s autonomous reason by which he tries to get to God (here is Barth’s rationalism). The irony here is that Barth has swapped out one kind of analogia entis (Thomas’) for another. This other analogia entis is his own in which he, by reason alone, critically escalates the chain of witnesses until he arrives at who he believes is God in Jesus Christ. Barth’s thought, unfortunately, is stuck in a rational/irrational dialectic leaving both God and his creation ultimately unintelligible.

You can find Van Til’s great works on Barth here and here.

This little phrase from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. encapsulates so much of Geerhardus Vos’ eschatological program. The phrase is meant to convey the idea that God has a plan of eschatological, consummated life laid out for Adam even before the fall into sin.  The Covenant of Works was put into place with the offer of that reward.

When attempting to demonstrate this point, we often appeal to the Tree of Life and its “reappearance” in Rev 2:7 and 22:2, 14, 19.  This occurrence demonstrates the realization of the blessings offered to Adam prior to the fall. But one place we do not often consider is the book of Job.  Job 42 offers a similar perspective on the question of eschatology.

Job undergoes terrible trials and loses almost everything.  Job was blessed in 1:2-3: “here were born to him seven sons and three daughters.  He possessed 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 female donkeys, and very many servants, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the east.”  All of this he lost at the hands of Satan who received permission from God to persecute him.  The book continues through several questioning episodes from Job’s friends who are convinced Job must have sinned in order to receive this portion.  Retributive theology is at work among his cohorts.  The LORD eventually speaks up in the face of Job’s questions.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? “Adorn yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor. Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on everyone who is proud and abase him. Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then will I also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can save you. (Job 40:6-14, ESV)

Shortly thereafter, in chapter 42, Job is restored, and this is the interesting eschatological point.  Look at the details of his restoration in Job 42:12-13 “And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He had also seven sons and three daughters.”

His blessings are doubled [except for the sons, an interpretive issue we'll save for another day].  The inheritance is expanded to his daughters – something unheard of in Job’s contemporary culture. Moreover, his daughters are named and the sons are not.  This is perplexing, but I think is illustrative of the expansive reach of the New Covenant blessing (similar to how the covenant entrance sign of baptism is given to both men and women).

God’s plan and goal for a consummated glory was in place even before man fell into sin.  It was set out for Adam to attain.  He would have entered into eschatological, consummated life had he obeyed throughout his probation period.  But he fell and now a second Adam must come to provide a way for God’s elect to reach that original goal.

This eschatology is behind the message of Job.  Job’s “salvation” is not a return to his original blessing.  Likewise, we do not look to the Garden as our heavenly reward.  We look to the New Heavens and New Earth.  Job is a prototypical righteous one who suffers while pointing to the eschatological one who comes to suffer vicariously.  This is the Christ, the one who ushers in eschatological blessings greater than anything ever present before.

As a boy, I remember my mother telling me that Amy Grant was transitioning into secular music.  I recall trying to get my head around the idea of “secular” and coming to a realization that we now had one of our own soldiers infiltrating the enemy front.  Grant was quickly followed by Michael W. Smith.  It seemed that nothing could stop our subversive onslaught.

And today, many Christians look to bands like U2 or Switchfoot to become our champion such that if their records sell, Christianity [in some form or another] would advance.  This follows because we identify the faith and its advancement with the music produced by Christian figures independent of its content.  This implicit identification comes out in Knapp’s interview.  During her difficult decision to take a hiatus from the Christian music world, she struggled with the question “If I don’t do Christian music, am I not a believer anymore?” Knapp appears to have found her identity in being a Christian musician, not primarily in Jesus Christ.

In our cult of celebrity we look to famous figures to provide hope and meaning.  Frankly, we look to them as saviors.  Take for example, the American Idol phenomenon.  The title is apropos, and the concept is one of the driving factors behind the reaction to Knapp’s interview.  Christian music figures become objects of worship because we see them as the ones who advance the kingdom.

Unfortunately this misses the point entirely.  We should not look to Christian musicians [or even, dare I say, T4G speakers] for validation.  We cannot look to the culture’s acceptance of our “Christian” artists as a gauge for the advancement of the kingdom. Christ advances his own kingdom through the Spirit. Redemption occurs exclusively through the regenerating work of the Spirit upon the souls of sinners.  So while we will be disappointed when professing Christians move away from biblical principles, if we place our trust in Jesus Christ, our living hope, we will never be disappointed.

// To hear more on the relationship between the church and culture, listen to our current Christ and Culture debate at Reformed Forum.

post photo from nolefan32 and is licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 license.

The FCC argues that Comcast must treat all forms of traffic without prejudice for fear of creating a two-tiered Internet: a slow lane for traffic that Comcast would prefer not to carry and a fast lane for “preferred” data providers.  Comcast and other ISPs are fearful of become a dumb pipe.  The last thing they want to be seen as is a utility company.  They would prefer to maintain the ability to treat the data running on their network as they see fit.

At this juncture, you may be asking what this has to do with the constituency served by Historia Salutis.  This issue is significant for many groups including independent content producers such as Reformed Forum.  Why? GigaOm reports:

Because Comcast could potentially slow down the delivery of our streaming video. Why would it do that? To protect its multichannel cable-TV oligopoly, and its owned and operated cable networks — including The Golf Channel, Style and G4 –- from web-based competition.

An added layer of complexity comes to view when we consider that Comcast recently purchased a majority stake in NBC Universal.  Comcast hypothetically can speed the delivery of its own content and slow down content from other networks.  Is this a false alarm?  I don’t think so.  These are legitimate concerns, but the question at this point is How should the government and/or consumers deal with the situation?  Should it be regulated or left to competition?

Jim Harper of the CATO Institute, a libertarian think-tank, provided a helpful rundown and perspective on the subject during an episode of the institute’s daily podcast.  Personally, I have libertarian leanings, but the problem with the argument from competition is that for many Americans, the competition necessary to make it work simply doesn’t exist.  Many consumers do not have more than one viable broadband option.  Moreover, by its very nature, the Internet is interconnected.  Though I might be a Verizon customer, if my bits happen to pass through Comcast routers, my traffic may still suffer.

This is an important issue.  I would encourage you to read up on the subject and study the arguments.  The United States is nearing several key decisions that could shape how a large portion of the Internet works for several decades.

Links

• NY Times Net Neutrality topic page

post photo by jurvetson

Christ the Center treated the subject a while back with Rick Phillips.

HT: Micah Bickford to Todd Pruitt

By faith [the Christian] is a member of the covenant [of grace], and that faith has a wide outlook, a comprehensive character, which not only points to justification but also to all the benefits which are in Christ.  Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith one-sidedly – only in its connection with justification – for the Reformed Christian it is saving faith in all the magnitude of the word.  According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place … The covenantal (of Reformed) outlook is the reverse.  One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition by faith.  By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given.  Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, as his rich and full Messiah.  (Geerhardus Vos and Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. ed., “Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 256).

Vos recognizes the structural difference between a Reformed and a Lutheran soteriology.  The principal issue is the structural positioning of union with Christ relative to justification and the other salvific benefits.  For Vos and the Reformed, the benefits flow out of union.  Union is primary.  Vos’s reason is that each of the benefits are received by faith through which believers lay hold of Christ.  This is saving faith “in all the magnitude of the word.”  Consequently, salvation is bigger than the single benefit of justification.  It is a possession and laying hold of Christ in His entire person as Prophet, Priest, and King: the full Messiah.