A Healthy Understanding of Doctrinal Conficts within the Church

I have been reading Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1 to get ready for seminary studies this coming fall. I am not taking a church history class to start out my education, but I have found it helpful to read books ahead of time so that I can focus more on the class than the reading. I am nearly done with this first volume and found this really great reflection from Pelikan about Augustine's theological writing during times of controversy in the Chruch on page 307:

Yet in his theology, too, this was the goal, and it was especially in the course of theological disputation that he was compelled to examine and defend, but also to refine and develop, his view both of grace and of the means of grace.

Typically I feel, that writing and disputing any idea, or theology, is only seen as functioning within a discipline as solely examining and defending what both parties believe. However, Dr. Pelikan's other point needs to be heard as well; a healthy debate should refine and develop all the sides of the debate. This can be seen in Augustine's writings, as Dr. Pelikan shows in his book.

J. Gresham Machen gave a series of addresses on June 17, 1932 on different aspects of Christian Scholarship in London. All three addresses are republished in J. Gresham Machen Selected Shorter Writings. In Dr. Machen's lecture titled, "Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith", Machen presents a case that until the Lord returns the church is to be militant between both Advents in order to survive. The whole lecture is worth reading along with Dr. Darryl G. Hart's lectures on Machen's life. Hear particularly the last lecture (Assessing Machen) from 33:00-40:10 in the audio to hear Dr. Hart read this quote and further develop this point. On pages 148-149 Dr. Machen says:

    ... But men tell us that instead of engaging in controversy about doctrine, we ought to seek the power of the living Holy Spirit. A few years ago we had in America, as I suppose you had here, a celebration of the anniversary of Pentecost. At that time, our Presbyterian church was engaged in a conflict, the gist of which concerned the question of the truth of the Bible. Was the church going to insist, or was it not going to insist, that its ministers should believe that the Bible is true? At that time of decision, and almost, it seemed, as though to evade the issue, many sermons were preached on the subject of the Holy Spirit. Do you think that those sermons, if they really were preached in that way, were approved by him with whom the dealt? I fear not, my friends. A man can hardly receive the power of the Holy Spirit if he seeks to evade the question whether the blessed book that the Spirit has given us is true or false.

    Again, men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we con preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice, we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end. Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul's teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, and we can avoid controversy today if we only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn. In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth. ...

Another great example that can be read a bit earlier in Dr. Machen's life is his last address to Princeton Theological Seminary students before he left that school in 1929 to start Westminster Theological Seminary in the fall of that very same year. That address is titled "The Good Fight of Faith."

Dr. Machen's point is that we need to recognize that true peace within the visible church always involves battle, because we are still saints in need of a Savior. Doctrinal conflicts between Brothers and Sisters help the entire church grow and they help the wolves stay out of the church, because of our union with Christ. All other unions will fall apart as long as they based on something other than Christ.

Who May Serve As a Deacon? A Short Study of Romans 16:1-2

The content of this paper is from Dr. Robert B. Strimple’s minority report submitted to the OPC in 1988 on The Report of the Committee on Women in Church Office; Dr. Strimple’s article published in the June-July issue of New Horizons magazine titled, Phoebe Was A Deacon: Other Women Should Be, Too; the current 1980 Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America; the paper titled Communication #01-3 in the minutes of the RPCNA Synod for 2001 on pages 262-277 of the pdf; and the Report of the Committee to Respond to Communication #01-3 in the minutes of the RPCNA Synod for 2002 on pages 116-123.

    The current Testimony of the RPCNA 25.8 teaches:

The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. The office of elder is restricted in Scripture to men. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation.
1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6.

    Phoebe is called a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. However, what does diakonos mean? There are two Greek terms used throughout the New Testament to describe “service”. The first term, (diakonia) is “the most comprehensive term for the ministry of the New Testament church”. The second-which Paul uses in Romans 16:1-term (diakonos) is “the general term for all those who carry out that ministry.” Therefore, these two Greek words have an overall broad meaning of serving. The first is used when speaking of the whole church, and the second is used when describing the tasks of an individual serving within the church. However, neither term, on its own, means a particular ministry or office within the church. We do, however, see in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8, 12, 13 Paul using these two words as an official title within the church. Romans 12:7 may also point to the first term moving to an official position within the church where Paul might be saying “office of service”. The question in the text is whether the term diakonos used by Paul about Phoebe is used to talk about Phoebe holding a church office or if Paul is saying Phoebe is a women who serves in the church at Cenchrea in an informal role?
    To determine the answer to this question we need to examine the context of these two verses. One approach to these two verses is to say that there is nothing in the context to rule out a general use of the Greek word diakonos; the way to understand what Paul is saying about Phoebe’s relationship to the church at Cenchrea is based on the way we understand the office of deacon in the other New Testament texts and then we can understand what Paul was saying about Phoebe. This view says that the interpretation of diakonos is not clear in the immediate context and the translation of either “servant” or “deacon” is left up to one's view of if a woman ought to be able to be deacon or ought not to be able to be deacon. The other approach to this passage contends that Paul does say enough in verses 1 and 2 to be able to decide if Phoebe is an office holder of the church or someone who informally serves the church in Cenchrea and is now in Rome.
    The second view considers four exegetical arguments in the context as being decisive in determining how we ought to understand Paul’s meaning towards Phoebe and then Paul’s other instructions to other churches and church officers about how we are to understand who may be considered for the office of the diaconate. We need to quickly consider these four points to help us understand what Paul is saying about the larger office of the diaconate. It maybe helpful to clearly state that each one these four arguments make a different point about different parts of verses 1 and 2 of Romans 16. I will try to state the immediate part being considered, state the argument, and then state a short summary of the argument to plainly reveal the point of the argument.

1. "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea..." The formula that Paul employs in this passage suggests that the reference is to Phoebe’s holding the office of deacon. Paul speaks of Phoebe, literally, as “being a deacon.” Such a formula is consistently the way in which a person identifies the particular office someone holds at a particular time. Examples of this usage in the N.T. are found in John 11:49 (“Caiaphas, who was high priest that year”), Acts 18:12 (“Gallio was proconsul of Achaia”), and Acts 24:10 (“... for many years you (Felix) being a judge to this nation ..."). This argument is establishing that the Paul is writing about Phoebe as a church officer is the normal way that the Bible addresses other people who hold either a church office or a office in the state.
2. "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea..." In the critically accepted Greek manuscripts of the Book of Romans, Paul uses a Greek term meaning “also”. Verse 1, based on these manuscripts would read, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is also a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord …” In this fuller translation of the text the emphasis seems to be not only that Phoebe is a Christian sister but also a deacon in the church of Cenchrea. In this second argument, Paul is not writing about an additional quality of Phoebe, but giving additional information about Phoebe by using the word "also." The word "also" is an addition to Paul's commendation. Paul is not explaining why he is personally commending Phoebe, but is adding a church's commendation to his own.
3. The possessive phrase (“... of the church which is at Cenchrea …”) does not simply inform us of the place from which Phoebe came, but underscores again her official status. Modern examples of this are common as we speak of Barack Obama, president of the United States of America, or Dave Long, pastor of the RP church in Lafayette. This point is arguing that since Paul is noting which church Phoebe is from that Phoebe had an official relationship with the church of Cenchrea. This point by itself does not mean that Phoebe was office holder, but does mean that Phoebe had an official relationship with the church of Cenchrea. Paul has already established at the beginning of verse Phoebe's standing with Christ, but now is explaining Phoebe's status within the church.
4. At the end of verse 2, Paul adds that “she herself has also been a helper of many.” If the reference to Phoebe as a “deacon” in verse 1 only describes Phoebe’s acts of service, the words in verse 2 would be a superfluous repetition. However, if Paul were saying that Phoebe holds a church office, Paul is stating that Phoebe held a church office and is describing how she has performed in that office.

    The conclusion is that if Philippians 1:1 is the first reference in the N.T. to the particular office of deacon (for reasons that will be demonstrated in the next two paragraphs), then Phoebe is the first and only officer of the office named in the N.T. I believe the four exegetical points to be a compelling reason for our church to continue the practice of allowing women to hold the office of deacon if they meet the other qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. However, we should broaden out our argument to consider a few other passages of Scripture. I do believe that Romans 16:1-2 is most clear text on this issue, but let’s consider Acts 6, which is commonly believed to be the beginning of the office of Deacon in the church, and 1 Timothy 3:8-13, particularly verse 12.
    Dr. Strimple believes that the office of the deacon was established outside of the events reported in the book of Acts. The seven men chosen in Acts 6 were appointed to an unique office in the same sense as the Apostolate was unique. The office of the seven led into the permanent office of the diaconate; in the same way the office of the twelve apostles led into the permanent office of elder. The ministries of Steven (6:8-7:60) and Philip (8:5-40; 21:8) went well beyond the ministry of the diaconate. For instance, in Acts 6:8 Philip is said to be performing signs and wonders among the people; Steven, likewise, in verses 9-10 is filled with the Spirit and disputing with the Jews as an apologist of the Christian faith.
    With regards to 1 Timothy 3:12, the RPCNA adopted response in 2002 argued that Paul's meaning in the phrase “ husband of one wife” expresses the idea of a person already managing what God has given them and choosing to use the analogy of a family to express the qualification. The qualification can be stated as the following question,“Is this person managing their current responsibilities in a Godly way?” The report argues that Paul is not limiting the identity of the office holder to either a man or a woman in either verses 11 or 12, but Paul is using an analogy to address qualifications needed to serve as a deacon in general. The RP Testimony already employs a very similar understanding of the qualifications of an office holder in 24.17 when it states that marriage is not necessary for officers in the Church to be eligible for an office and cities 1 Cor. 7:7 as the Scripture reference for this position.
    In conclusion, the current practice within the RPCNA is currently biblical; whereas, the majority practice within the Reformed church of North America is not biblical. By not allowing qualified women to serve in the diaconate our brothers and sisters are actually representing a loss of biblical authority. This might be a reaction to late 19th and 20th century concerns about gender roles, which is a perfectly valid concern in and of itself. Furthermore, the majority of modern English translations and interpretations of Paul’s writing in these first two verses of Romans 16 is an example of inductive exegesis; that is, reading an idea into Paul’s letter instead of letting Paul in Romans 16 inform us about Phoebe.
    This debate is healthy to have within a church committed to having a biblically correct Confession. We have needed to, on other issues, enlarge or subtract statements from our Testimony because we have recognized that either previous saints have not spoken clearly enough on a matter that the Bible teaches or have taught beyond what the Bible teaches and then have made appropriate changes. If women being deacons is not the teaching of God’s Word then changes must be made. However, I believe that women may serve the church as deacons because of Romans 16:1-2 and the nature of the diaconate as explained elsewhere in Paul’s letters. The problem is that the RPCNA has not, as a church, really presented a positive case for women to be deacons. The lack of clear teaching has resulted in mass confusion on not only the role of women in our church, but also a larger confusion on the role of the diaconate in the church. We have abandoned this part of our testimony because of neglect. Therefore, it is appropriate, and a duty, that ministers ask the denomination to explicitly abandon it through both a study committee and a vote on the what the Scriptures teach about women and the diaconate. Nevertheless, the practice is still clearly taught and now must be clearly addressed beginning with the Synod meeting of 2015. I welcome this debate and hope and pray that the RPCNA will still recognize Paul’s clear teaching in Romans 16:1-2 as encouraging women to serve the church in the office of deacon.

Understanding Sexual Orientation Gives Us a Better Understanding of Our Sin

I really am glad that I am a member of a church that has come out with a great statement on sexual orientation before all these recent court rulings that are making marriage more of a human institution than an institution that God has given to His creatures.


One particularly great point in the report has to do with same-sex orientation and the question of what wold be the impact of finding out that orientation is more basic than only a choice to love a member of the opposite sex or the same sex.

In chapter 2, the report considers Biology, Gender, and the Biblical Doctrine of Man. Near the end of that chapter the report summarizes the chapter in the following words on page 20:

To summarize this important point: even if it were to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that some people possess a same-sex orientation through biological or sociological factors outside their own control, this would not indicate that homosexuality is part of God's intended order. It would (and, even at the current provisional stage of the scientific findings in the realm, ought to) increase our awareness of how desperate the human condition is, how utterly hopeless men are of achieving renewal simply by self-will or behaviorism, and, frankly, how imbalanced the effects of sin are throughout human experience that some people experience one area of brokenness more deeply while other people experience another more heavily.

The brilliance of this paragraph is that its teaching is so contrary to how we the majority of Western society and much of the Western church is going on this issue. Instead of sexual orientation highlighting how intolerant we were about sexual struggles, sexual orientation highlights how small we have allowed our understanding of sin's effects to be on our lives! That is, we have reduced the act of sin to only be a consciousness voluntary choice of an individual. We have lost sight of the fact that sin is so pervasive in own nature that we often forget that individuals who sin view the choice to sin as the only option available. For a mind that is unregenerate that choice only looks good. The consequences maybe bad, but those consequences might not actually come about. However, for the believer in Christ, the choice ought to be conflicted. On the one side, they don't want to displease God; but on the other side, the temptation to give into sex is so strong that it can appear overwhelming. For a bit more reflection on believers struggling with sin look at a post by Rev. Van Bemmel. Sex is a gift from God, and so that can make the struggle even more difficult. However, their is hope, and that is found in the Gospel as explained on page 22 in the following words:

Without denying or belittling the intense, seemingly irresolvable struggle that same-sex desires genuinely entail for many men and women, the testimony of Scripture is clear: "... neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality ... And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were hustified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). It in the nature of the Spirit's transforming power to address even the deepest struggles of the human soul and to bring the power of the resurrection to bear upon them.

As Christians we should not discount the real temptations that people who identify themselves as Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders (GLBT) face when they struggle with sexual desires that we do not personally share. I think that if we were to look back at how well-known American pastors over the past 30 years have publicly addressed GLBT issues we will find that their statements do not recognize how desirable the Bible teaches that all sin is at the moment of temptation. We, as the Church, need to publicly repent of our false witness to GLBT people on the aspect of our teaching.

However, sin, as the above passage says, always manifests itself in very personal ways to each individual. The answer, however, for all sins, and our sin nature, is Jesus Christ. Through Christ, we are made right with God and given a new set of desires that make God's commands a delight. I have addressed this report in an earlier post, and would highly recommend buying a copy and reading it.

The Reason for the Ceremonial Law

I just finished reading the first part of William Symington's book On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ. This book is made up of two parts: part one, the Atonement; part two, the Intercession. Both parts are united because Jesus was the Atonement for the members of his Church and Jesus is now providing Intercession for the members of his Church on the basis of finished Atonement on the cross.

Near the end of the final section of part one, Symington writes about the Results of Christ's Atonement under seven points. Point number six is on pages 248 - 254, and is basically:

The atonement more or less affects all the divine dispensations toward our world.

Where Symington goes with explaining this short sentence is very exciting! On pages 249 - 251 Symington summarizes his entire argument up to this point that is breathtaking:

The dispensation of providence regards the atonement as its centre. Redemption is the grand central point of providence, and atonement is the central point of redemption. The whole apparatus of redemption owes its being and its efficacy to the death of Christ; and every movement of the complicated wheels of providence derives its impulse from redemption. Preceding events look forward, succeeding events point backward, and meet as in a common centre in the cross. The course of providence, for four thousand
years before the advent of the Son of God, prepared the way for this stupendous event; and the train of occurrences since only serves to follow up the great design of his coming. "The Lord reigneth — the government is upon his shoulders." " The world is. therefore, not a wandering star, abandoned in wrath, discarded from use, rushing to destruction, but is still held for a design, and turned to an account the most glorious. Its Maker has not denounced nor disowned his property. It may be a rebel, but he is still its sovereign : it may be a recusant, but he is still its Lord."*

The dispensation of mercy, in all its several stages, stands, of course, in intimate connection with the cross of Christ. Revelation, the record of these progressive dispensations, is everywhere sprinkled with the blood of atonement. History, type, prophecy, song, epistle, all breathe the sweet-smelling savor of this one theme; and their varied contents derive a character of unity from this pervading circumstance.

From Adam to Moses, the practice of sacrificing, we have seen, existed. Adam, Abel, Noah, Lot, Abraham, all presented their burnt-offerings, which, from the substance of which they consisted, and the language in which they were spoken of. appear to have been both designed and understood to prefigure the great Christian Expiation. Without this they have no meaning, no worth; but are a cruel mockery of man's misery, and a deception of human hopes.

The Mosaic economy had innumerable rites and institutions, calculated to convey distinct ideas of propitiation and vicarious suffering. But, without the atonement of Christ, they were meaningless, useless, hurtful all. The whole system was nothing better than a pompous parade of gaudy ceremonies: a criminal waste of valuable property; a wanton infliction of unnecessary pain on sentient unoffending creatures. The atonement of Christ is what gives it all its significancy, utility, and consistency.

The peculiarity of the New Testament dispensation consists in a free, full, unhampered proclamation of mercy and salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to all men. It is an offer of eternal life and every spiritual blessing to them that believe. "Holding forth the words of eternal life." "Come unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth, for I am God, and besides me there is no Saviour." But on what ground do these universal proffers proceed? Whence derive they their consistency, and their power, but from the perfect all-sufficient atonement of the Son of God? "We preach Christ crucified." "I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified." "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." This is the language held by its ministers; and, indeed, every individual benefit it bestows, they are accustomed to speak of in language which marks the same connection. Is it redemption? We have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." Is it reconciliation? "God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ." Is it peace? "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Is it justification? "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The Gospel minister's commission is sealed with the blood and stamped with the cross of Emmanuel; nor can he ever execute it, in consistency with the character and glory of God, unless he exhibit the sacrifice of Christ as the chief article of his message, the burden of his doctrine, the central orb of the Christian system which gives to every part its living energy, and binds the whole together in sweet and indissoluble union.

At one point early in the quote, Symington used an asterisk character (*) after a quote. The source of the quote is given as "Hamilton's Sermons". I have though it would be interesting to try to track down all the other works that Symington references and try to get those republished as a way to better understand Symington. But, that will have to be for another day.

There are a few interesting points to make about this long quote, so here's a few that standout to me:

• The relationship between Redemption and Providence, and then the Atonement to Redemption
• The idea of "[p]receding events look[ing] forward, succeeding events point[ing] backward, and meet as in a common centre in the cross."
• "Revelation, the record of these progressive dispensations, is everywhere sprinkled with the blood of atonement. History, type, prophecy, song, epistle, all breathe the sweet-smelling savor of this one theme; and their varied contents derive a character of unity from this pervading circumstance."
• The explanation of the sacrifices from Adam to Moses as having no meaning, no worth; but are mockeries of man's misery, and a deception of human hopes unless they were both designed and understood to prefigure the great Christian Expiation.
• Then what Symington has to say about the Mosaic economy is also helpful "... innumerable rites and institutions, calculated to convey distinct ideas of propitiation and vicarious suffering. But, without the atonement of Christ, they were meaningless, useless, hurtful all. The whole system was nothing better than a pompous parade of gaudy ceremonies: a criminal waste of valuable property; a wanton infliction of unnecessary pain on sentient unoffending creatures. The atonement of Christ is what gives it all its significancy, utility, and consistency."

It all pointed to Christ, and now we are looking back to Christ as the meaning for all the " ...  several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties." We now believe that, "[a]ll which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament" (WCF 19.3).

Can Biblical Theologians ever be wrong?

In the never ending war between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology, but only in some minds. We need to remember that the doctrine of the Trinity is not properly speaking a doctrine that an exclusively biblical theologian can logical accept. So, let's all be reminded of this simple truth by Lutherans, who typically speaking aren't all that comfortable with Systematic Theology themselves! Enjoy, and remember that all these heresies are actually Bible only folks who think we are imposing a man made system on God.

The Ground of the Universality of the Gospel Offer

I have been reading through the works of William Symington and have found it to be a very helpful study. Most people who have heard of Symington skip his first book, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, to read his second book, Messiah the Prince or the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ. However, there is a lot of good content in Symington's first book that would be missed if readers just assume that William is repeating and expanding his prior work.

In fact, Symington was probably on his way to write a trilogy of books on the Three Offices of Jesus Christ: Prophet, Priest, and King. Dr. Symington, however, was first and foremost a pastor to himself, his family, and his church. Therefore, in the memoir written by his son, Alexander Symington, we learn that the only way he was able to write these two books was because his whole family was bedridden - On the Atonement - and he was sick - Messiah the Prince. Therefore, we should be glad with what he was able to write during quite a bit of duress in his life.

I was reading through section 11 - about the 'Extent of Christ's Atonement' - when I came to a part where Symington writes about one objection to a definite atonement being that the universal offer made of Christ in the Gospel. Symington writes about this objection on pages 209 - 214. I found a great few summary sentences that I really thought were well put on page 213:

The ground on which the universality of the Gospel offer proceeds, is the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement.  This the universal Gospel message supposes and affirms.  It is not said in the Gospel, that Christ died with the intention that all should be saved, but that his atonement is a sufficient ground of salvation to all, and that all who rest on this ground of salvation shall be saved.

I think this is a wonderful summary of the Gospel Offer. I will probably have more on Symington as I continue to read. Let it never be said that the Reformed Presbyterian Church has a problem with the Free, or Universal, Offer of the Gospel. Furthermore, let us always remember the reason for that offer: the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement not the duty of all men to believe in Christ for salvation (page 211).

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 7 - Sabbath Extracts

In part six, we concluded the main argument that Ross makes in his lecture and his book for why the threefold division of the should be continue to be the church's ongoing testimony of understanding the law of God.

Ross ended that part by looking at Ephesians 6:1 - 3 in light of some commentators who try to argue that Paul is not issuing an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment, but issuing a call from some other source for children to obey their parents. Ross ended the lecture by reaffirming that the moral law shapes our understanding of Christ's penal substitution on the cross, and by exhorting his listeners and readers that we must hold on to this doctrine to understand the Gospel.

However, I left out Ross' main two defenses of understanding Sabbath as still being the moral law, and I want to now include those sections of Ross' argument separate from the other six posts for a few reasons. The main reason being that I view Ross' examples of Christians arguing for or against the abiding validity of the Sabbath as a demonstration of the confusion that exists within the Reformed churches and the broader Christian church about how to understand all the laws that God gave in light of Christ's finished work on the cross. For me, the biggest contribution of Ross' research is about explaining that the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws are the only possible way to understand the whole of Scripture without having to sacrifice the parts of Scripture that don't fit. Therefore, defenses of any one particular commandment, while helpful, are in my opinion raising flags to get people to pay attention.

A number of Christians, however, today have trouble with how to understand the Sabbath, and furthermore, because of that problem will not consider Ross' book in the first place because of Ross' defense of the Sabbath throughout the book and in the lecture. Phil Johnson, who pastors with John MacArthur, while reviewing Ross' book cannot get past Ross' defense throughout his book of the Sabbath because of his dispensationalism and as a result the review becomes very difficult to follow and largely unhelpful. More generally, while Tom Shreiner believes that the threefold division is biblical, the presence of a commandment about the Sabbath raises questions in his mind about how to understand the division; Justin Taylor, while commending the threefold division, nevertheless does not think it "fully works" because of the commandment about the Sabbath. My point in separating the substance (problem) from the demonstration of the problem is that the argument for the division needs to be considered before some people will consider rather or not the Sabbath applies to belevers today or it does not.

There are other books which defend the Reformed position on the Sabbath, but none of them currently include much of a defense of the threefold division, but Ross' book does both because Ross believes, and I agree, that the rejection of the Sabbath and the threefold division are linked together. Just because, however, the link exists does not mean there is only one way to defend both truths. Ross chooses to lead out his defense of the threefold division by showing where the most heat against the doctrine is currently being generated. I, however, think it might be more helpful to lay out the doctrine then show how it practically affects other doctrines. I think it is more helpful because, as has been shown, the threefold division has had many different attacks from other angles in the past, that do not only originate with a rejection or acceptance of the Sabbath.

Despite whatever differences I might have with Ross about the structure of his presentation, I do agree with Ross about the abiding validity of the Sabbath for the Christian.

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

I will break this up into two parts in my one post and note where in the lecture the two different sections the extracts are from in the lecture. The first part is from the Introduction in the lecture.

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

According to Tim Keller, nearly all presbyters in the PCA subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 'with only the most minor exceptions (the only common one being with regard to the Sabbath).' (pg. 5)

If, however, such an exception amounts to a wholesale rejection of the Confession's approach to the Sabbath, then Ross suspects the Westminster Divines might have thought that to call it minor was probably understatement. (pg. 5)

If the WCF were a garment, you would not want to pull this thread, unless you wanted to be altogether defrocked. (pg, 5)

Ross wonders if the reason why some people pull at this thread is because they regard the Confession as more of a straightjacket than a garment. (pg. 5)

Unbuckle the Sabbath, and as far as Reformed Theology is concerned you are well on the way to mastering theological escapology. (pg. 5)

If this sounds like overstatement to rival Keller's understatement, Ross wants to remind his listeners that biblical law, with its Sabbath, is not an easily dispensable part of our doctrinal infrastructure. (pgs. 5, 6)

You cannot perform a precision strike on the Sabbath without producing an embarrassing amount of collateral damage. (pg. 6)

You cannot strike out the Sabbath without shattering the entire category of moral law and all that depends on it. (pg. 6)

If the Shorter Catechism represents Westminster theology in its most practical form, it would seem that any expurgation of biblical law from the theological framework it expounds, should lead to its complete unraveling. (pg. 6)

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

The next part is from the section titled Jesus and the Gospels

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

One thing that does not appear in Matthew 5 is anything about Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath.

It's often assumed that Jesus disregarded the Sabbath and that the Gospel writers conveyed that.

But Ross thinks Géza Vermes is right, if the evangelists were seeking to do that 'they did a pitiful job'. (pg. 173)

Even the authors of From Sabbath to Lord's Day have to agree that Jesus did not brake the Sabbath. (pg. 167)

Ross think there is little point in going into detail with the book because of their conclusion in a summary written by Andrew Lincoln for the book (pgs. 171 - 172):

The veiled nature of Jesus' ministry accounts for the slight ambiguity in regard to His relation to the Sabbath and for the fact that for a time in the early church there were those who continued Sabbath observance while the full implications of the entry to the new age accomplished by Christ were being worked out.

Ross contends that Lincoln's conclusion makes little sense. In fact, it is inexplicable considering the dates for the Gospels range from A.D. 50 - 150. How much tome did they need to work things out? (pg. 172)

If Mark clearly understood that Jesus had declared all foods clean, why did He choose to leave his readers in the dark over so fundamental an issue as the Sabbath? (pg. 172)

Until someone does better than raise the anti-Sabbatarian case from the Gospels from the 'pitifil' to the ambiguous there is little to gain be engaging in this discussion.

The evangelists represent Jesus as a Sabbath-keeper, who does not undermine the ordnance by word, action, or yet-to-be-understood personal claims. (pg. 173)

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

While in this section Ross does not specifically deal with the Colossians 2:14 - 15 passage which both are the given reason for Taylor and Dr. Schreiner's caveat about the threefold division Ross did address the Colossian text in part five. Since I don't want to make in seem like I'm only picking on the Gospel Coalition or Baptists, I need to also include the Lutherans' Dr. John Theodore Mueller and Dr. Francis Pieper. Both men wrote very popular and still used works on Christian Dogmatics. Near the bottom of page 213, Dr. Mueller rests his entire case on the Ten Commandments not being identified with the moral law on the sole argument of the Sabbath commandment being the ceremonial feature of the Ten Commandments. Since Dr. Mueller's one-volume work is based on Dr. Pieper's four-volume work I assume that both men agree on this argument, but have not yet verified Dr. Pieper's position in print.

Now I'm really done with the whole lecture, but I do want to ofter a bit more coverage of Ross' book in relation to some other controversies in the Reformed world. One of, which, is about a claim made by a few Westminster California professors about the application of the first four commandments to the other nations than Israel in the time of the Old Testament.