“Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle which feed among the lilies” (Song of Songs 4:5).
Federal Visionists are all over this verse because they think that Solomon is admiring his wife’s physical beauty, comparing her breasts to the twins of a gazelle. However, such crass interpretation flatly contradicts Reformed hermeneutics.
The ability to divide Law from Gospel has long been cherished in the bosom of Reformed hermeneuticians. Federal Visionists accuse us of interpretive augmentation, but the errors of “Biblicism” are as obvious as a pair of cheap implants.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that hermeneutics begins and ends with distinguishing Law from Gospel. Only this principle can keep things in their proper place. Thus, Law/Gospel is the brassiere of our Modern Reformation, offering support and preventing unnecessary bouncing and jostling.
On the surface, Solomon does seem to be extolling the physical beauty of his wife. However, peeping through Law/Gospel glasses enables him to see past physical endowment and appreciate the heaving suppleness of Law and Gospel. The cleavage they produce is unbelievable!
Clearly, Solomon is ravished by the Law and the Gospel. Everywhere he looks, he cannot help but see these twins. We should do the same, praying that we would experience the rapturous joy of discerning Law and Gospel. To be truly Reformed, we must fall in love with this mistress of our Modern Reformation.
As Solomon elsewhere says, be exhilarated with her love. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let Law/Gospel satisfy us at all times!
Showing posts with label Law/Gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law/Gospel. Show all posts
Friday, May 9, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Exodus 12:3
“Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household’” (Exodus 12:3).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that all children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration. They point out that the Lord told Moses to address “all the congregation of Israel,” and they assert that children were considered part of the congregation of Israel.
Furthermore, Federal Visionists point out that Israel was to take “a lamb for each household,” and they assert that children are part of these so-called “households.”
Federal Visionists then state that because all the children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration, so we should also include all of our children in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, Federal Visionists advocate Paedocommunion. However, this position is fraught with problems – historical, theological, and exegetical.
The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected Paedocommunion as beyond the pale of reformodoxy. All the Reformers and Puritans vehemently denounced it. Even Roman Catholics forbid it. When ecumenical blogs like the PuritanBoard do not allow members who are Paedocommunists, then one ought to think twice about adopting such a bizarre position. Yet, Federal Visionists are undeterred.
Frankly, the historical evidence carries all the weight for us. There is really no need to re-examine the exegetical or theological arguments for Paedocommunion. If Calvin rejected it, that’s good enough for us. Nevertheless, it could be helpful to have a few responses prepared.
Theologically, Paedocommunion arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Federal Visionists get a big kick out of linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper, but this is mixing Law and Gospel. Passover was part of the Old Covenant, which is the Covenant of Works. Communion is part of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Thus, under the Covenant of Works, God may have included children, but under the Covenant of Grace, God excludes our children.
Exegetically, Paedocommunion has no Scriptural support. First, the word “Paedocommunion” does not appear in the Bible. Second, no verse in the Bible ever shows the practice of Paedocommunion (admittedly, this is the same argument that Baptists use against us regarding Paedobaptism, but still). Third, Jesus instituted Communion with adults. He did not invite their children. Thus, we bar them from the table.
Furthermore, God did not intend children participate in the Passover. Although God specifies that the Passover was for “all the congregation of Israel” and for each “household,” children are not specifically mentioned. Thus, according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, children would have been excluded from Passover.
Therefore, on all fronts, Paedocommunion is an absolute train wreck. The whole point of Communion is to give the church a visible sign of the grace of God. Thus, Communion is the infrequent reminder that our children are outside of the grace of God, being only legally and not organically connected to Christ and his covenant.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that all children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration. They point out that the Lord told Moses to address “all the congregation of Israel,” and they assert that children were considered part of the congregation of Israel.
Furthermore, Federal Visionists point out that Israel was to take “a lamb for each household,” and they assert that children are part of these so-called “households.”
Federal Visionists then state that because all the children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration, so we should also include all of our children in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, Federal Visionists advocate Paedocommunion. However, this position is fraught with problems – historical, theological, and exegetical.
The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected Paedocommunion as beyond the pale of reformodoxy. All the Reformers and Puritans vehemently denounced it. Even Roman Catholics forbid it. When ecumenical blogs like the PuritanBoard do not allow members who are Paedocommunists, then one ought to think twice about adopting such a bizarre position. Yet, Federal Visionists are undeterred.
Frankly, the historical evidence carries all the weight for us. There is really no need to re-examine the exegetical or theological arguments for Paedocommunion. If Calvin rejected it, that’s good enough for us. Nevertheless, it could be helpful to have a few responses prepared.
Theologically, Paedocommunion arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Federal Visionists get a big kick out of linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper, but this is mixing Law and Gospel. Passover was part of the Old Covenant, which is the Covenant of Works. Communion is part of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Thus, under the Covenant of Works, God may have included children, but under the Covenant of Grace, God excludes our children.
Exegetically, Paedocommunion has no Scriptural support. First, the word “Paedocommunion” does not appear in the Bible. Second, no verse in the Bible ever shows the practice of Paedocommunion (admittedly, this is the same argument that Baptists use against us regarding Paedobaptism, but still). Third, Jesus instituted Communion with adults. He did not invite their children. Thus, we bar them from the table.
Furthermore, God did not intend children participate in the Passover. Although God specifies that the Passover was for “all the congregation of Israel” and for each “household,” children are not specifically mentioned. Thus, according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, children would have been excluded from Passover.
Therefore, on all fronts, Paedocommunion is an absolute train wreck. The whole point of Communion is to give the church a visible sign of the grace of God. Thus, Communion is the infrequent reminder that our children are outside of the grace of God, being only legally and not organically connected to Christ and his covenant.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Mark 8:35
“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that salvation hinges upon whether one is willing to “lose his life.” However, this is the classic Pelagian mistake of confusing Law and Gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Gospel is an unconditional gift appropriated by faith alone. Conditions such as being willing to “lose your life” are not part of the Gospel. This is the Law.
If you try to “lose your life” for Jesus’ sake, then you are trying to save yourself. You are putting yourself back under the Law. Far better to simply rest in Jesus and forget about “losing your life.”
Discerning Law and Gospel is the key to being Reformed. Until you’ve read the Bible through Law-Gospel glasses, you are missing everything.
Along these lines, we have good news: Law-Gospel glasses will soon become obsolete! Ophthalmologists have been working closely with The White Horse Inn to develop a Lasik procedure that will produce perfect Law-Gospel vision.
Theologians who were previously unable to discern an indicative from an imperative can now have 20/20 Law-Gospel vision just one week after the surgery. WSC has already made Law-Gospel Lasik surgery a prerequisite for enrollment, and NAPARC is considering making it mandatory for those seeking ordination in Reformed churches.
There are risks with Law-Gospel Lasik surgery. Side effects include increased pompousness, a propensity towards sectarian hyper-abstract theological issues, an inability to take the Bible at face value, and a man-crush on Caspar Olevianus.
It is unknown whether Law-Gospel Lasik surgery is reversible, but you can overcome the side effects of this procedure through a cranial-rectal extraction.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that salvation hinges upon whether one is willing to “lose his life.” However, this is the classic Pelagian mistake of confusing Law and Gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Gospel is an unconditional gift appropriated by faith alone. Conditions such as being willing to “lose your life” are not part of the Gospel. This is the Law.
If you try to “lose your life” for Jesus’ sake, then you are trying to save yourself. You are putting yourself back under the Law. Far better to simply rest in Jesus and forget about “losing your life.”
Discerning Law and Gospel is the key to being Reformed. Until you’ve read the Bible through Law-Gospel glasses, you are missing everything.
Along these lines, we have good news: Law-Gospel glasses will soon become obsolete! Ophthalmologists have been working closely with The White Horse Inn to develop a Lasik procedure that will produce perfect Law-Gospel vision.
Theologians who were previously unable to discern an indicative from an imperative can now have 20/20 Law-Gospel vision just one week after the surgery. WSC has already made Law-Gospel Lasik surgery a prerequisite for enrollment, and NAPARC is considering making it mandatory for those seeking ordination in Reformed churches.
There are risks with Law-Gospel Lasik surgery. Side effects include increased pompousness, a propensity towards sectarian hyper-abstract theological issues, an inability to take the Bible at face value, and a man-crush on Caspar Olevianus.
It is unknown whether Law-Gospel Lasik surgery is reversible, but you can overcome the side effects of this procedure through a cranial-rectal extraction.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Mark 1:6
“John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey” (Mark 1:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that John’s diet bears some symbolic significance. They assert that locusts and wild honey should call to mind some of the Old Testament types and inform us of a “deeper” meaning.
For example, in the prophets, locusts were used to symbolically portray the enemies of Israel. Thus, John eating locusts teaches us that Israel’s enemies were going to be defeated.
Also, the Promised Land was flowing with milk and honey. However, John is eating wild honey in the desert. Supposedly, this absence of honey in Israel symbolizes how the land of Israel is under the curse of God.
Obviously, such fanciful typology strains the limits of rationality. The Reformed faith has always emphasized sound exegesis over whimsical allegory.
Clearly, locusts represent the Law, and honey represents the Gospel. This is incontrovertible. John would eat locusts first (the Law), and then wash these down with honey (the Gospel).
As we never tire of reiterating, the key to maintaining a modern Reformed understanding of the Scriptures is the Law/Gospel hermeneutic. Don't leave home without it!
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that John’s diet bears some symbolic significance. They assert that locusts and wild honey should call to mind some of the Old Testament types and inform us of a “deeper” meaning.
For example, in the prophets, locusts were used to symbolically portray the enemies of Israel. Thus, John eating locusts teaches us that Israel’s enemies were going to be defeated.
Also, the Promised Land was flowing with milk and honey. However, John is eating wild honey in the desert. Supposedly, this absence of honey in Israel symbolizes how the land of Israel is under the curse of God.
Obviously, such fanciful typology strains the limits of rationality. The Reformed faith has always emphasized sound exegesis over whimsical allegory.
Clearly, locusts represent the Law, and honey represents the Gospel. This is incontrovertible. John would eat locusts first (the Law), and then wash these down with honey (the Gospel).
As we never tire of reiterating, the key to maintaining a modern Reformed understanding of the Scriptures is the Law/Gospel hermeneutic. Don't leave home without it!
Friday, April 11, 2008
Genesis 3:22-24
“Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’ – therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:22-24).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that this is the first time that God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the ToL (Tree of Life). They assert that God gave Adam and Eve access to the ToL from the beginning. Rather than requiring them to merit covenant blessings, God gave the blessings of the covenant upfront, apart from their merit. Thus, the pre-fall covenant was supposedly based upon “grace.”
Dude.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a COW (Covenant of Works). Adam was sinless, but not righteous. He could have merited covenant blessings through his works of perfect obedience. Thus, if Adam had obeyed perfectly, he would have earned access to the ToL, but not before.
Now, the Bible never indicates that God had previously barred Adam from the ToL. In fact, the text explicitly states the opposite, as the TKGE (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was the only tree that was forbidden (Genesis 2:16-17). However, we have never let the word of God stand in the way of our modern Reformed imagination.
Notwithstanding the Scriptures, the Reformed faith has always insisted that both trees were out of bounds. This is precisely where the theological train track splits, and unfortunately, Federal Visionists take a right (heading home to Rome), when they should take a left (easing towards Escondido).
The two trees of the garden represent the Law and the Gospel. The TKGE represents the Law, and the ToL represents the Gospel. If Adam had kept the Law (TKGE), then he would have earned access to the Gospel (ToL). Those who deny this are SoL.
Federal Visionists claim that this is speculative eisegesis, but isn’t this just the kettle calling the pot black? Federal Visionists are the ones who employ a typological hermeneutic that would make Origen squirm.
Typology is absolutely necessary, but only when proper hermeneutics are employed. The Reformed hermeneutic is Law/Gospel. Until you read the Bible through Law/Gospel glasses, then you are misreading the Scriptures. Once you understand the Law/Gospel grid, then you will have the inklination to see every pair in the Bible as symbolic of the Law and the Gospel. For instance, consider these obvious examples:
The sun and the moon = the Law and the Gospel
The two wives of Lamech = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels that rescued Lot = the Law and the Gospel
The two tablets of stone = the Law and the Gospel
The two cherubim on the ark = the Law and the Gospel
Nadab and Abihu = the Law and the Gospel
The twin gazelles in Song of Songs = the Law and the Gospel
The two female bears that devoured the youths who insulted Elisha = the Law and the Gospel
The two fish in the feeding of the 5,000 = the Law and the Gospel
The sons of Zebedee = the Law and the Gospel
The two greatest commandments = the Law and the Gospel
The two denarii in the Good Samaritan = the Law and the Gospel
The two mites of the widow = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels in Jesus’ tomb = the Law and the Gospel
The two soldiers who guarded Peter = the Law and the Gospel
The two years Paul spent in Rome = the Law and the Gospel
The two-edged sword of the word of God = the Law and the Gospel
The two witnesses in Revelation = the Law and the Gospel
This is just a sample of how understanding Law and Gospel opens up the Scriptures in breathtaking ways. For all their self-vaunted “Biblicism,” you won’t see Federal Visionists engage in this quality of interpretation. So much for exegesis. So much for the Bible.
Dude.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that this is the first time that God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the ToL (Tree of Life). They assert that God gave Adam and Eve access to the ToL from the beginning. Rather than requiring them to merit covenant blessings, God gave the blessings of the covenant upfront, apart from their merit. Thus, the pre-fall covenant was supposedly based upon “grace.”
Dude.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a COW (Covenant of Works). Adam was sinless, but not righteous. He could have merited covenant blessings through his works of perfect obedience. Thus, if Adam had obeyed perfectly, he would have earned access to the ToL, but not before.
Now, the Bible never indicates that God had previously barred Adam from the ToL. In fact, the text explicitly states the opposite, as the TKGE (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was the only tree that was forbidden (Genesis 2:16-17). However, we have never let the word of God stand in the way of our modern Reformed imagination.
Notwithstanding the Scriptures, the Reformed faith has always insisted that both trees were out of bounds. This is precisely where the theological train track splits, and unfortunately, Federal Visionists take a right (heading home to Rome), when they should take a left (easing towards Escondido).
The two trees of the garden represent the Law and the Gospel. The TKGE represents the Law, and the ToL represents the Gospel. If Adam had kept the Law (TKGE), then he would have earned access to the Gospel (ToL). Those who deny this are SoL.
Federal Visionists claim that this is speculative eisegesis, but isn’t this just the kettle calling the pot black? Federal Visionists are the ones who employ a typological hermeneutic that would make Origen squirm.
Typology is absolutely necessary, but only when proper hermeneutics are employed. The Reformed hermeneutic is Law/Gospel. Until you read the Bible through Law/Gospel glasses, then you are misreading the Scriptures. Once you understand the Law/Gospel grid, then you will have the inklination to see every pair in the Bible as symbolic of the Law and the Gospel. For instance, consider these obvious examples:
The sun and the moon = the Law and the Gospel
The two wives of Lamech = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels that rescued Lot = the Law and the Gospel
The two tablets of stone = the Law and the Gospel
The two cherubim on the ark = the Law and the Gospel
Nadab and Abihu = the Law and the Gospel
The twin gazelles in Song of Songs = the Law and the Gospel
The two female bears that devoured the youths who insulted Elisha = the Law and the Gospel
The two fish in the feeding of the 5,000 = the Law and the Gospel
The sons of Zebedee = the Law and the Gospel
The two greatest commandments = the Law and the Gospel
The two denarii in the Good Samaritan = the Law and the Gospel
The two mites of the widow = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels in Jesus’ tomb = the Law and the Gospel
The two soldiers who guarded Peter = the Law and the Gospel
The two years Paul spent in Rome = the Law and the Gospel
The two-edged sword of the word of God = the Law and the Gospel
The two witnesses in Revelation = the Law and the Gospel
This is just a sample of how understanding Law and Gospel opens up the Scriptures in breathtaking ways. For all their self-vaunted “Biblicism,” you won’t see Federal Visionists engage in this quality of interpretation. So much for exegesis. So much for the Bible.
Dude.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
1 Peter 4:17
“For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the household of God obeys the gospel. However, this is the toxic cocktail formed by mixing law and gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that law and gospel are mutually exclusive categories. They are as different as night and day. They are certainly not to be mixed.
Law is God’s demand for perfect obedience. Hence, obedience is only associated with the law.
Gospel is God’s free gift. It cannot be earned or merited through obedience. Obedience has nothing to do with gospel.
Thus, “obedience” and “gospel” are incongruous. Those who attempt to “obey the gospel” find themselves plunging towards Pelagius.
Rather, we appropriate the gospel by faith alone. This faith alone rests upon the gospel. In no way should we ever attempt to obey the gospel. This is turns gospel into law, which is not good news.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the household of God obeys the gospel. However, this is the toxic cocktail formed by mixing law and gospel.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that law and gospel are mutually exclusive categories. They are as different as night and day. They are certainly not to be mixed.
Law is God’s demand for perfect obedience. Hence, obedience is only associated with the law.
Gospel is God’s free gift. It cannot be earned or merited through obedience. Obedience has nothing to do with gospel.
Thus, “obedience” and “gospel” are incongruous. Those who attempt to “obey the gospel” find themselves plunging towards Pelagius.
Rather, we appropriate the gospel by faith alone. This faith alone rests upon the gospel. In no way should we ever attempt to obey the gospel. This is turns gospel into law, which is not good news.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
1 Samuel 24:3
“He came to the sheepfolds on the way, where there was a cave; and Saul went in to relieve himself” (1 Samuel 24:3).
Federal Visionists and other budding theologians routinely miss the import of passages such as this because they have rejected Reformed hermeneutics.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the most basic hermeneutical principle is distinguishing between law and gospel. Some have difficulty understanding this, but it is as simple as recognizing the differences between indicatives and imperatives.
The law comes to us in imperatives, such as “abide in me,” “deny yourself” or “repent and believe.” These are commands, which are designed to bring terror.
The gospel comes to us in indicatives, such as “there is none who does good,” “there is none righteous,” or “all our righteousness is as filthy rags.” These are indicatives, which are designed to bring comfort.
Every verse in the Bible is either law or gospel, either terror or comfort. Being Reformed means having the skill to distinguish the law from the gospel. On the other hand, confusing law and gospel is the quickest ticket to Rome and her suburbs (e.g., CREC, CoE, EO, etc.).
So, what is 1 Samuel 24:3? Is this law or gospel? Clearly, this is an indicative statement, which means that this is gospel. Thus, Saul’s bowel movement is designed to bring you comfort, not terror.
Federal Visionists and other budding theologians routinely miss the import of passages such as this because they have rejected Reformed hermeneutics.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the most basic hermeneutical principle is distinguishing between law and gospel. Some have difficulty understanding this, but it is as simple as recognizing the differences between indicatives and imperatives.
The law comes to us in imperatives, such as “abide in me,” “deny yourself” or “repent and believe.” These are commands, which are designed to bring terror.
The gospel comes to us in indicatives, such as “there is none who does good,” “there is none righteous,” or “all our righteousness is as filthy rags.” These are indicatives, which are designed to bring comfort.
Every verse in the Bible is either law or gospel, either terror or comfort. Being Reformed means having the skill to distinguish the law from the gospel. On the other hand, confusing law and gospel is the quickest ticket to Rome and her suburbs (e.g., CREC, CoE, EO, etc.).
So, what is 1 Samuel 24:3? Is this law or gospel? Clearly, this is an indicative statement, which means that this is gospel. Thus, Saul’s bowel movement is designed to bring you comfort, not terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)