A Review of Scripture, Culture and Agriculture: an Agrarian Reading of the Bible by Ellen F. Davis: Part 1

I’m a couple chapters into Ellen F. Davis’s work Scripture, Culture and Agriculture: an Agrarian Reading of the Bible. I fully expect the book to satisfy its claim to examine the “theology and ethics of land use, especially the practices of modern industrial agriculture, in light of critical biblical exegesis.” Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible standard by which our faith and practice are to be guided. Yet Christians of the modern industrial era too often neglect our duties (as outlined in Scripture) in regard to land use and agriculture. For most of us, I guess, this is mainly because we fail to draw the lines between what we eat and where that food comes from and how it came to our plate. We need to be reminded that each of us is intimately and daily involved in the agricultural cycle. In “The Pleasures of Eating” Wendell Berry famously wrote that “eating is an agricultural act.” We need to be reminded that there are biblical guidelines on how land is to be responsibly used. We also need to be reminded that there are consequences if we fail to do so.

Wendell Berry wrote the foreword to Davis’s book. Berry wrote that the Israelites “were given, not a land, but the use of a land, along precise instructions for its good care. They could keep the land only upon the condition of their obedience. By their disobedience they were estranged from the land and the covenant by which they received it, and were removed into exile. . . . the Israelites [were] entrusted with what we would call ecological responsibilities. . .” Berry then reminds us of our tremendous failure as a culture:

“We Americans readily saw the parallel between the Israelites’ entrance into the land of Canaan and our own westward expansion. We adopted the simple nationalism of the old story along with its ‘promised land’ idea of ownership prior to settlement – we called it ‘manifest destiny.’ But we conveniently ignored the elaborate agrarianism and ecological stewardship implicit in that story’s insistence upon the land’s sanctity. The result, still continuing, has been desecration and destruction of the land . . . the dominant theme of our history so far has been opposite to beneficent settlement or responsible stewardship. It has been a thoughtless, heartless, greedy plunge into what apparently is still considered an inexhaustible plenty. The irony and absurdity are not fully apparent except in the context of our claim to be a ‘Christian nation.’”

We all, I think, would like to ignore the reality that we have destroyed the land that God has entrusted to our stewardship. What is more disturbing is that we continue to do so, sometimes even using Scripture in an attempt to justify our actions (and often, also, our inaction). Yet, clearly, Scripture tells us that “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor” (Romans 13:9,10). In reference to these verses, Charles Hodge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans wrote, “Love includes all our social duties. . . love delights in the happiness of its object, it effectually prevents us from injuring those we love. . .” Can we love our neighbors, or even our families, while actively destroying our means to live? “It is a contradiction to love your neighbor and despise the great inheritance on which his life depends,” wrote Berry in “The Gift of Good Land.”

In Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology, Francis Schaeffer wrote that Christians must “refuse men the right to ravish our land, just as we refuse them the right to ravish our women. . . . and the first step is exhibiting the fact that as individual Christians and as Christian communities we ourselves do not ravish our fair sister. . . . [we must] treat with integrity the things which God has made, and treat them this way lovingly, because they are His . . . If I love the Lover, I love what the Lover has made.” The Westminster Larger Catechism informs us that the “Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” It is from Scripture only that we learn “what duty God requires” of us. Principles of ecological responsibility are interwoven throughout the beautiful fabric of Scripture. If we were to apply the principles of love and stewardship to our own lives -- if we were to set the example of a holy and healthy life -- then our communities would be more fertile ground for the sowing of the gospel seed.

Dabney on Calling

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." - 1 Cor. 10:31

". . . the only condition of discipleship permitted by Christ to any believer is complete self-consecration to his' service. In this the self-devotion of the minister is just the same as that of all other true Christians. If a Christian man proposes to be a teacher, physician, lawyer, mechanic, or farmer, it must be, not chiefly from promptings of the world or self, but chiefly because he verily believes he can, in that calling, best serve his heavenly Master. If he hath not this consecration, we do not say he is unfit for the ministry only, he is unfit to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. If any man think this standard of dedication too strict, let him understand at once that he is " not fit for the kingdom of God;" let him relinquish his delusive hope of salvation; let him at once go back among the dark company of Christ's enemies, on the ground scathed and riven by the lightnings of his wrath, and under the mountainous load of all his sins unatoned and unforgiven. There is no other condition of salvation. For did not Christ redeem the whole man ? Did he not purchase with his blood all our powers, and our whole energies, if we are his disciples? We profess to desire to love him with our whole souls, and therefore what reason is there which demands a part of the exertion and service in our power which does not also demand the whole?"

Dabney, Robert L., Discussions, Vol. III, What is a call to the ministry? (1891)

John Murray on Menial Labour & Vain Ambition, 1957

“That Adam’s labour consisted in dressing the garden and keeping it informs us that it was highly worthy of man’s dignity as created after the divine image to be employed in so mundane a task. This is eloquent warning against the impiety of despising and judging unworthy of our dignity the tasks which we call menial. And one cannot but suspect that the widespread tendency to take flight from agricultural and related pursuits springs from an underestimate of the dignity of manual toil and oftentimes reflects an unwholesome ambition which is the fruit of impiety. There is warrant for the judgment that economics, culture, morality, and piety have suffered grave havoc by failure to appreciate the nobility of manual labour. Multitudes of men and women, if they had thought in terms of this principle and had been taught in the home, in the church, and in the school to think in these terms, would have been saved from the catastrophe of economic, moral, and religious ruin because they would have been preserved from the vain ambition of pursing vocations for which they were not equipped and which, on sober and enlightened reflection, they would not have sought.”

John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, 1957 -- Pages 35-36, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978

Irresistible Grace

My friend Brenden Camp wrote this article and posted it to facebook. He makes some really good points and has supported the Reformed position with a good collection of Scriptures. He has allowed me to repost his article along with my response to this blog.

Irresistible Grace? by Brenden Camp

What does the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" mean to you? Generally when one states the doctrine by this name, a common charge is brought against it which states that "people often DO resist God and His grace", in which case this doctrine is incorrect. On the contrary, it is understood that people do resist God, to the extent that ALL people in their lives have done so at one point, even if we were unaware of it, or maybe not so boldly outspoken. However, on the other hand we must realize that there WAS a defining cause as it were, that brought us to the salvation we have in Christ Jesus. In other words, there must be a reason why - if you are a born again believer - you can say from the depths of your heart that you believe, while another will deny Jesus straight to the grave. This is what I hope to show within the doctrine I will rather refer to as "Effectual Calling" [as "irresistible grace" may be too misleading for some].

In order for this to prosper, we must remember that the only way it can be true is if God's word reveals it as truth, where a mere human theory without Scripture should be done away with. With this in mind, we'll begin in everyone's favorite book of the Bible; Romans. Romans 8:30 tells us exactly this; that "whom He called, He also justified." Now right off the bat I want you to understand that Paul's words state the indefinite justification of those who are called. If you are called, you are justified. So is this call resistible? I have heard the view that this particular call Paul mentions is a call of service or duty. For example, God calling one to be a preacher, another to be a missionary, etc. There are a actually a few problems I hold with that view. It doesn't fit the entire context of Romans 8:29-30, which teaches the building up to our glorification from before the beginning of time. Also, Paul mentions this call several more times, even once in the exact same context, one chapter later. In Romans 9:23-24 Paul tells us "He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Compare this verse with Romans 8:30: "...and these whom He predestined, He also called..." My point? The entire context of Romans 9 is based on physical Israel [the Jews] being replaced as God's chosen people by the remnant, which is as Paul explains, made up of who God calls from among both Jews and Gentiles alike. This is a call from God that, rather than one of service, is one that must bring about the salvation of the called, which results in the remnant that is now God's chosen people [or Israel].

Possibly my favorite passage of all on God's effectual call [irresistible grace] comes from Jesus Himself in John 6:44-45. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." The word 'unless' generally shows us one thing in particular. That is, there are two options present. In this passage the options would be, either you are drawn by the Father and can come to Jesus, or you are not drawn and cannot come to Jesus. But if that's not enough, Jesus goes on to explain Himself further. He quotes a prophecy from Isaiah, in which the prophet claims of Zion, "all your sons will be taught of the Lord" [Is. 54:13 / entire chapter for context]. The fact that Jesus uses this statement signifies two things for us. It shows us that the Zion prophesied by Isaiah was God's kingdom. And it also shows us that all of the sons of God's kingdom would be taught of God. [The phrase 'taught of God' is equal to 'taught by God' as is apparent in several other translations including KJV & NKJV.] But again, we see that Jesus doesn't just stop there. He uses Isaiah's words to expand His own teaching of God's drawing; "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." I want you to catch that first Jesus said that "no one CAN" come to Him, unless the Father draws him; now Jesus states that all who the Father teaches DOES come to Him. Jesus never lied and never misspoke, so we can understand that Jesus didn't mean to say that those who the Father teaches CAN, but rather that they DO [indefinitely] come. Can we say then that those who do not come to Jesus, were never taught by God? I believe we safely can. And who decides to be taught by God, if God's teaching brings you to your very belief?

The last point I'll make is in accordance with Jesus' words in Matthew 22:14. "Many are called but few are chosen." This is not the same calling that Paul mentions in Romans or that Jesus mentions in John. Rather, this is the call of the gospel. Paul and Jesus [especially] understood that the gospel call would not save everyone it reached. This is in fact a sad reality for us, and if it's not, it should be. Our hearts should be conformed to the image of Christ and we're told that "Jesus wept." Does this mean that we can't come to an understanding that perhaps God the Father does choose to effectually call or teach whom He pleases? Of course not! God's ways are NOT our ways. [Is. 55] In 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 Paul says "We should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice that in verse 14, Paul states two important truths. First, he makes a clear distinction between the gospel call and God's call. "He called you through our gospel..." Second, he explains what the purpose of this call is. "...that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." So you see that not only is this calling separate from the gospel call, it is a calling separate from one of service as well. The purpose of this particular calling of God is for salvation [justification] unto glorification. James also uses this same kind of language in James 1:18. "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures." Again, the clear distinction is made between the call [or drawing] of God and the call of the gospel. First James tells us why God would call us, "In the exercise of His will"; that God DID in fact call [or draw] us, "He brought us forth"; God's way of presenting His call to us, "by the word of truth"; and what the purpose of this particular calling is, "that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures." I'll leave you with a few more thoughts from Paul on why you believe and others don't, and the difference between the gospel call and God's effectual call. 1 Corinthians 1:2 Paul refers to his recipients as "saints by calling". Verse 9 "God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Verse 18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." And then what the difference is between the perishing and those being saved, in verses 22-24; "For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Notice that those who are "the called" are the ones Paul mentions are being saved, while the others are perishing.

Your thoughts?

------------------------------

My response to Brenden Camp’s Irresistible Grace?

Brenden, You certainly begin from the correct approach, Sola Scriptura: “the only way it can be true is if God’s word reveals it as true.” You have a good collection of Scriptural evidence to support the doctrine of effectual calling. You distinguish between the three Scriptural usages of the word “calling” – vocation or service, gospel summons or external calling, and effectual calling. That’s very important. The church of today usually ignores or confuses those distinctions. I think you would like Thomas Watson’s A Divine Cordial. It’s an entire book on Romans 8:28. He writes of effectual calling: “It is an irresistible call. When God calls a man by His grace, he cannot but come. You may resist the minister’s call, but you cannot the Spirit’s call.” Charles Hodge in his Commentary on Romans wrote: “The word calling . . . is never, in the epistles of the New Testament, applied to those who are recipients of the mere external invitation of the gospel. It always means effectually called.” In another place Hodge wrote a similar statement but added that the effectually called are “those who are so called as to be made obedient to the call. . . . [it] is applied to Christians, since they are drawn by grace, and do not come of themselves.” That’s most certainly language of irresistibility.

On this subject I found helpful the guidance of Arthur W. Pink. In The Sovereignty of God, Pink looks at Acts 13:48, “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Pink makes four observations: (1) “believing is a consequence and not the cause of God’s decree.” (2) “a limited number only are ordained to eternal life.” (3) “this ordination of God is not to mere external privileges but to eternal life, not to service but to salvation itself.” (4) “all . . . not one less . . . will most certainly believe.” This is consistent with our confession: “These angels and men, thus predestined, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished” (WCF 3.4) And in chapter 10: “All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time effectually to call . . .”

If effectual calling could be resisted then that foreordained number of men would fluctuate based on the will and faithfulness (and more often unfaithfulness) of men. Therefore, by necessity, “predestination” would be contingent not upon God’s foreordination, but upon God “foreseeing” those who would believe and choosing to save them. That idea strikes at the very heart of free grace and the nature of God’s sovereignty. Also, Christians would have absolutely no assurance that they are, in fact, saved. And that, of course, leads us into the subject of perseverance, and, I think more importantly into an examination of the nature of the atonement.

It’s important for Christians to understand that the doctrine of irresistible grace does no damage to the will of man, which is actually in bondage, but instead frees it. We are not reluctantly coerced into believing, but as the Canons of Dort explain, the Holy Spirit “revives, heals, reforms, and -- in a manner at once pleasing and powerful – bends it back . . . It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists.” Nor does this doctrine nullify the use of means, i.e. the external gospel call. It is a sincere and universal promise. Cornelis P. Venema in But for the Grace of God wrote that there is nothing in the “description of irresistible grace that would lessen in any degree the gospel summons to faith and repentance, together with the promise of salvation and blessedness to all who heed this summons.” However, as you note in your last point, not everyone who hears the gospel will be saved – to some it will be stumbling blocks and to others foolishness. Thomas Watson wrote: “This external call is insufficient to salvation, yet sufficient to leave men without excuse.” So then the gospel call always accomplishes the purpose God intends. Likewise, effectual calling always accomplishes its design – it saves all who are ordained to eternal life. Inseparable from the unchangeable decree, effectual calling is irresistible in the sense that all who are predestined will in time be justified and will afterwards be glorified.

Grace is a flower

"Grace is a flower of eternity. . . . Death does not destroy grace but transplants it and makes it grow in better soil." -- Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm, 1669

He Performs What Is Appointed For Me: Some Thoughts on Predestination

Jeremy Andress, 2009

Upon crossing paths with the ninth chapter of Romans, a Bible study group decided to just skip ahead to the less controversial more “practical” chapters -- leaving behind “He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” I have a few thoughts on this matter I wish to convey to my fellow Christians. It is not my intention that this article be an exhaustive defense of the doctrine of predestination; for throughout the two millennia of Christian church history there are ample books by competent churchmen that have successfully defended the doctrine. Nor am I writing a new and enlightened explanation of the doctrine. This will be apparent as you continue. It is my prayer that Christians are encouraged to examine the doctrine, and instead of bypassing this difficult and important subject they come to an understanding of predestination grounded firmly in Scripture. This will only result from the intimate study of the Word of God. Essential doctrines, wrote B. B. Warfield, “stand at the root of the Christian life . . . [it is] the duty as well as the right of the Christian man to study them, to seek to understand them in themselves and in their relations, to attempt to state them with accuracy and to adjust their statement with the whole body of known truth” (Warfield 24). Pray with the psalmist:

Make me know Your ways, O LORD;

Teach me Your paths.

Lead me in Your truth and teach me,

For You are the God of my salvation.

-- Psalm 25:4, 5

We are not only directed to study the Scriptures, but also to defend the faith. Whether you’re dealing with the infallibility of Scripture, the Trinity, original sin, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, the nature or extent of the atonement, the resurrection, the sacraments, etc, know that all Christian doctrines are controversial. If we stand firm on the fundamental doctrines of our faith we will be in the midst of controversy. Should we stand firm? J. Gresham Machen wrote: “The type of religion which . . . shrinks from ‘controversial’ matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight” (Machen 1-2). Upon the text of 1 Thess.5:21, J. C. Ryle wrote that each Christian “must do their part in contending for the truth. Each should work, and each should pray, and each should labour as if the preservation of the pure Gospel depended upon himself or herself and upon no one else at all. . . . If we would hold fast that which is good, we must not tolerate or countenance any doctrine that is not the pure doctrine of Christ’s Gospel. . . . . There is an intolerance which is downright praiseworthy: that is the intolerance of false teaching in the pulpit” (Ryle). True love for God, wrote Thomas Watson, “infuses a spirit of gallantry and fortitude into a Christian. He that loves God will stand up in His cause, and be an advocate for Him” (Watson 57). I encourage you not to avoid those doctrinal subjects that are difficult to understand or controversial. Instead, stand firm upon the Rock of our Salvation. Stand vigilantly and hold fast “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone, is an underpinning and primary doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. It is a fundamental of our faith. William Ames wrote in 1623: “All things necessary to salvation are contained in the Scriptures and also those things necessary for the instruction and edification of the church . . . Therefore, Scripture is not a partial but a perfect rule of faith and morals. And no observance can be continually and everywhere necessary in the church of God, on the basis of any tradition or other authority, unless it is contained in the Scriptures” (Ames 187). In addition to Scripture being the only guide to our Christian life, each and every Scripture is inspired by God and has been given to us for our instruction in doctrine and practice: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).

It is our responsibility and privilege to understand what has been revealed in Scripture. However, there are secrets or mysteries which God has not unveiled to us: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us” (Deut. 29:29). Undoubtedly, there are aspects of predestination that are reserved within the mind of God alone. But does Scripture reveal something of predestination? Certainly, numerous Scriptures speak of God, for His own glorious purpose, choosing (or electing) specific people to everlasting life before the world was even created: “You did not choose me but I chose you” (John 15:16); “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44); “God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9); “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13); God “has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9); “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48); “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him in love: He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:4-12); “And we know that God causes all things to work for good for those that love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. . . these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified” (Romans 8:28-30). And of course there’s Romans 9:11-24:

“[T]hough the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works but of Him who calls . . . Just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. . . . . I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. . . . So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this’, will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?”

Therefore, based upon the Word of God, election is defined as “the eternal and unchangeable decree of God, by which he has graciously decreed to convert some to Christ, to preserve them in faith, and repentance, and through him to bestow upon them eternal life” (Ursinus 297).

While unswervingly declaring and thankfully accepting what has been revealed to us about predestination, we must nevertheless be cautious that we don’t inquire beyond what has been revealed in Scripture: “The preaching of election,” wrote Cornelis P. Venema, “must be carefully disciplined by the Word of God, declaring neither more nor less than God has been pleased to reveal to us . . . . we are not to pry ‘inquisitively’ into the subject of election beyond the limits of Scriptural revelation” (Venema 30-31). Upon this caution John Calvin explains further:

“The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty, is rendered very perplexed, and hence perilous by human curiosity . . . when they inquire into predestination, let them remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom . . . For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself . . . Those secrets of his will, which he has seen meet to manifest, are revealed in his word -- revealed insofar as he knew to be conductive to our interest and welfare . . . Let it, therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is expounded by the word of God, is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to seek light in darkness. . . . There are others who, when they would cure this disease, recommend that the subject of predestination should scarcely if ever be mentioned . . . in order to keep the legitimate course in this matter, we must return to the word of God, in which we are furnished with the right rule of understanding. For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which nothing useful and necessary to be known has been omitted, so nothing is taught but what it is of importance to know. Everything, therefore, delivered in Scripture on the subject of predestination, we must beware of keeping from the faithful . . . allow the Christian to unlock his mind and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him, provided he do it with this moderation, i.e., that whenever the Lord shuts his sacred mouth, he also desists from inquiry. . . . This is clearly expressed by Moses in a few words, ‘The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever’ (Deut. 29:29) . . . I wish it to be received as a general rule, that the secret things of God are not to be scrutinized, and those which he has revealed are not to be overlooked, lest we may on the one hand, be chargeable to curiosity, and, on the other with ingratitude” (Calvin 607 – 609).

Nothing taught in Scripture is unnecessary to our growth in Christ. But what is the practical value of the doctrine of predestination? To answer this it must first be established that doctrine and practice are inextricable. “[D]octrine is the very base of the practical life,” wrote Arthur W. Pink, “There is an inseparable connection between belief and practice. . . The relation between Divine truth and Christian character is that of cause to effect” (Pink 261). Machen wrote that “the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life . . . but a way of life founded upon a message. . . . In other words it was based upon doctrine. . . . Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first” (Machen 21, 23). “The assertion often heard in our day, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life, may have a rather pious sound . . . but is after all a dangerous falsehood” wrote Louis Berkhof. He continues: “Participation in the life of Christianity is everywhere in the New Testament made conditional on faith in Christ as He has revealed Himself, and this naturally includes knowledge of the redemptive facts recorded in Scripture. Christians must have a proper understanding of the significance of these facts. . . .They who minimize the significance of the truth, and therefore ignore and neglect it, will finally come to the discovery that they have very little Christianity left” (Berkhof 28-29). What about predestination? What is its value as a doctrine? I return to the words of A. W. Pink:

“The doctrine of God’s sovereignty [which includes predestination] then is no mere metaphysical dogma which is devoid of practical value, but is one that is calculated to produce a powerful effect upon Christian character and the daily walk. . . . [It] is a Divine cordial to refresh our spirits. It is designed and adapted to mould the affections of the heart and to give a right direction to conduct. It produces gratitude in prosperity and patience in adversity. It affords comfort for the present and a sense of security respecting the unknown future. . . . it ascribes to God . . .the glory which is His due, and places the creature in his proper place before Him – in the dust” (Pink 263-264).

The doctrine of predestination, wrote R. L. Dabney “exalts God, his power, his sovereign, unbought love and mercy. . . [It] humbles man in the dust. . . while it lays man’s pride low, [it] gives him an anchor of hope, sure and steadfast, drawing him to heaven; for his hope is founded not in the weakness, folly, and fickleness of his human will, but in the eternal love, wisdom, and power of almighty God” (Dabney 79-80 ). Our salvation is secure. Charles Hodge wrote, “the plan of God cannot fail; those whom He has called into this state of reconciliation . . . He will certainly bring to the glory He has prepared for his people” (Hodge 257). Let us draw comfort and assurance from knowing that we have “been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” Let us boldly declare with Job the absolute sovereignty of God: “what His soul desires, that He does. For He performs what is appointed for me” (Job 23:13, 14).

Sola Dei Gloria.
----------------------
Ames, William. The Marrow of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Dabney, Robert L. The Five Points of Calvinism. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1992.
Hodge, Charles. Romans. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.
Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Pink, Arthur W. The Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975.
Ryle, J. C. “Hold Fast”. Sermon. http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/hold_fast.htm .
Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954.
Venema, Cornelis P. But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 1994.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Right of Systematic Theology. Edinburg, Scotland: Clark, 1897.
Watson, Thomas. A Divine Cordial. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace, 2001.
New American Standard Bible, http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB/.

Dabney on John Knox and God-less Compulsory Public Education

“Were that iron man to return to the earth just now, and to hear these pretended successors to his creed quoting him as authority for the educational rights of a State which they have stripped of all Christian character and of every right of Christian inculcation, one can imagine the thundering disclaimer which would come from the roughest side of his rough tongue. He would declare that such a State, giving such an education, was a conception of the devil himself.”

Robert Lewis Dabney, The Practical Philosophy, Book IV, Chapter III.1 (1897)

Helpful Reformed Systematics

In the Reformed Theology links column to the right of the screen I’ve added links to the systematic theologies that have most influenced my thoughts on religious matters: The Systematics of R. L. Dabney, C. Hodge , and L. Berkhof . These are books in my library that I often reference concerning theological questions. In addition to these volumes I appreciate Calvin’s Institutes and Bullinger’s Decades as well as The Marrow of Theology of William Ames. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism by Ursinius has also been very helpful. Also, the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms, primarily those of Westminster, have guided my understanding of God’s Holy Word. If you object to the usefulness of Systematic Theologies please read The Right of Systematic Theology by B. B. Warfield, 1897.

Should Christians Fight? Some Thoughts

As a veteran (who’s opposed to our aggressive foreign policy and the often illegal use of our military) and also an ardent reader of the peaceableness writings of Wendell Berry , I‘ve often asked the question: should Christians fight? In searching for the answer I discovered that the responsibilities deduced from the sixth commandment require us to preserve, when we are able, our life and the lives of others. I find helpful the following: Question 107 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks: “But is it enough that we do not kill any man in the manner above mentioned?” Answer: “No; for when God forbids envy, hatred and anger, he commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves; to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and all kindness towards him, and prevent his hurt as much as in us lies; and that we do good even unto our enemies.” In the answer to question 105 read: “Wherefore the magistrate is armed with the sword, to prevent murder.” The following books have also been very helpful to me on this subject: The Commentary of the Heidelberg Catechism, by Zacharias Ursinus, commentary on questions 103-107, on the 5th and 6th commandments; The Institutes of the Christian Religion , by John Calvin, Book 4, Chapter 20:10-12, On Civil Government; Politica , by Johannes Althusius, who writes often on defensive and just war (especially in chapter XVI:1-17) and expounds the political and social duties contained in the second table of the Decalogue (especially in chapter XXI:22-29); The Marrow of Theology, by William Ames, Book II, Chapter XVIII, Humanity Toward Our Neighbor; Systematic Theology, by Robert L. Dabney, Lecture XXXIII, 5th and 6th Commandment; Systematic Theology, by Charles Hodge, Part III, Chapter XIX: 10, The Sixth Commandment.

(A discussion post on the www.facebook.com group: Calvinism: The Group That Chooses You.)

Insight from Rev. B. M. Palmer, 1876

“The original curse, pronounced upon the first transgression, wraps up a promise in the bosom of the denunciation, ‘in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.’ The language certainly implies that, if man be doomed to labour, he shall at least live by that labour. With the multiplication of the arts by which labour is cheapened, nay, by which iron arms and hands are made the substitute for human muscle and strength, wealth is more and more accumulating in the hands of the few, and the distance is widening betwixt capital and labour. The great peril of our modern civilization lies in this direction; and the specter which is haunting the mind of the statesman, is the gradual and steady approach to that crisis when labour shall be utterly unable to procure a bare subsistence. Nothing will stand when the point of starvation is reached by the masses in society. The only remedy is found in this law of equity which the Bible lays upon the conscience of the master. The servant is entitled to maintenance, and wages cannot be reduced below the point of a decent support. If this fundamental law be disobeyed, the retribution may be slow, but it will be only the more terrible in its fury when it breaks upon society at the last.”

Palmer, B. M., The Family in its Civil and Churchly Aspects. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1991 (1876); pp 140,141.

Fountainhead of Federalism, a Review

By Jeremy Andress

I would like to recommend and introduce a book to you. It’s a short work, only about a hundred pages, called Fountainhead of Federalism by Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker. There are many good books, essays and articles that trace political federalism (contractualism) to federal (covenantal) theology, and specifically to the Protestant Reformation in Zurich under the leadership of Heinrich Bullinger. Some of the contemporary authors I’ve read on this subject include J. Wayne Baker, Charles S. McCoy, Andries Raath, Shaun De Freitas, and Daniel J. Elazar.

Baker’s book Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition is an excellent analysis of Bullinger’s theology. Baker elaborates on Bullinger’s understanding of a bilateral conditional covenant (compact) between God and man. Baker then contrasts this to John Calvin’s doctrine of a unilateral unconditional covenant (testament.) This is very interesting especially in how their covenantal ideas are expressed in the realm of salvation. Bullinger presented a doctrine of single predestination infra-lapsarianism, Calvin a double predestination supra-lapsarianism. I disagree with Baker’s conclusion, however, that Bullinger’s Covenant Theology was so different from that of the Genevans that it should be identified as “The Other Reformed Tradition.” I agree with John V. Fesko that there was Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition. Cornelis P. Venema also argues for the diversity theory in his Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination.

What is most interesting is how Bullinger’s idea of a bilateral compact influenced political theory. The aforementioned contemporary authors have traced the development of political federalism from Bullinger’s 1534 The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God. Bullinger directly influenced his fellow reformers, including the Marian Exiles who carried covenantalism back to the British Isles later developing Presbyterianism and Puritanism. In England, politically, their federalism played out in the Civil Wars of the 1640s and again in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Upon arrival in the New World they established the colonial confederal societies, which of course led to the United States. Bullinger’s federal theology also influenced the Dutch Reformers who helped in the establishment of the United Provinces in the 1580s. (In reference to the United States and the United Provinces, John Adams wrote “the originals of the two Republics are so much alike that the history of one seems but a transcript from that of the other.” Compare our Declaration of Independence with the Dutch Declaration of Abjuration.)

In Fountainhead of Federalism Baker and McCoy explain that many political historians have been unable to properly identify the source of James Madison’s political theory. It is wrong to assume that his source is John Locke. Raised in a covenantal Puritan household, Locke was an inheritor of the federal tradition. His contributions to federal political theory were monumental; however, Baker and McCoy argue, Locke was not the primary source of thought for the “Father of the Constitution.” Long before reading this book I noticed some clear differences between Locke and Madison. One example is in the remedy against tyranny. Locke does not allow for the secession of a state or province (which was the course of action taken by the American colonies in 1776); Lockean revolution is an overthrow of a tyrannical regime, not a territorial withdraw from it. The authors argue that Madison learned his federalism from “the federal tradition embedded in the colonial institutions and experience surrounding Madison and exemplified in John Witherspoon, who taught Madison theology and political philosophy at Princeton.” The “colonial institutions” they examine were established years prior to Locke’s publishing of the Two Treatises of Government. Think of the Pilgrims in 1620 and their Mayflower Compact.

The book explores Bullinger’s federal theology and its relationship to federal political theory from Mornay and Althusius to Cocceius and Madison. Part Two of the book is an English translation of Bullinger’s The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God. This is valuable since much of Bullinger’s writing hasn’t been translated into English and what has been is difficult to obtain.

I recommend this book but also encourage you to read the essays written by the authors I named in the beginning of this review and then dive into the books written by the federal political authors of the Reformation Era. Johannes Althusius wrote Politica in 1603. Elazar in Althusius’ Grand Design for a Federal Commonwealth wrote that Althusius built “a systematic political philosophy out of the Reformed experience . . . Politica was the first book to present a comprehensive theory of federal republicanism rooted in a covenantal view of human society.”

In the preface of his third edition in 1614, Althusius wrote, “I have attributed the rights of sovereignty, as they are called, not to the supreme magistrate, but to the commonwealth or universal association. . . . I recognize the prince as the administrator, overseer, and governor of these rights of sovereignty. But the owner and usufructuary of sovereignty is none other than the total people associated in one symbiotic body from many smaller associations.”

The beauty of the Althusian federal system is his structuring of society by the “many smaller associations” beginning with the family, a political unit, as the base of a federal commonwealth. Husband and wife covenant with one another and with God, entering into union forming a covenant family. Families form villages. Villages form provinces. Provinces form the commonwealth. “All came together into a certain public body that we call the commonwealth,” wrote Althusius, “and by mutual aid devoted themselves to the general good and welfare of this body.” Althusius, throughout Politica, reinforces the contractual nature of the various federal levels of the commonwealth: “The people and the supreme magistrate enter into a covenant concerning certain laws and conditions that set forth the form and manner of imperium and subjection.” The laws and conditions of the covenant must be clearly expressed in the contract. All rights and powers not explicitly delegated to the supreme magistrate are reserved by the people of the commonwealth: “The supreme magistrate exercises as much authority as has been explicitly conceded to him by the associated members or bodies of the realm. And what has not been given to him must be considered to have been left under the control of the people or universal association. Such is the nature of the contractual mandate.”

In explaining the duties of the ephors, or “representatives of the commonwealth,” Althusius is clear that one of their primary duties is to restrain a tyrant who is in the process of destroying the commonwealth. There are two types of tyranny. The first is “the overthrow and destruction of the fundamental laws of the realm.” The second is “when the supreme magistrate like an enemy plunders, perverts, and upsets the church and commonwealth.” He also makes it clear that “Subjects and citizens who love their country and resist a tyrant, and want the commonwealth and its rights to be safe and sound, should join themselves to a resisting ephor or optimate. Those who refuse to help the resisting ephor with their strength, money, and counsel are considered enemies and deserters.” Theodore Beza held a similar view in regard to the duty of the representative. He wrote in De Jure Magistratum that the subordinate magistrates “are certainly bound, even by means of armed force if they can, to protect against manifest tyranny the safety of those who have been entrusted to their care.”

Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion warned representatives of not doing their duty: “For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings” and neglect their duty, or even conspire with a despotic magistrate, they are “not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.” The same idea is conveyed by Althusius: “For the ephors either abolish or overcome the wicked actions or tyranny of the supreme magistrate. . . . Unless the ephors have done all this, they themselves are held liable and are rightly said to be betrayers of the commonwealth, especially when they secretly conspire or connive in the wicked and impious actions of the king.”

There are “just remedies” against tyranny. It is our duty to be able to properly identify tyranny and then, wrote Althusius, “each and all ought to move quickly against a tyrant as against a common fire, and eagerly carry water, scale the walls, and confine the flame so that the entire commonwealth does not burn.” Protestant Christians have understood these principles in the past. A long held motto was “Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.” In 1878 R. L. Dabney wrote in his Systematic Theology concerning the civil magistrate: “To Americans whose national existence and glory are all founded on the right of revolution, slight arguments would probably be needed to support it.” How times have changed! Most American Christians have a very distorted perspective of our political inheritance and responsibilities. Why else would they not vote for Ron Paul? With a better understanding of the theological roots of federalism, in my opinion, one is left with the conclusion that complacency in the political sphere of society is sinful and we will be held accountable before God for our political actions and in-actions.

Revised: 18 Feb. 2008