"Second" Adam or "Last" Adam: How Should We View Christ?

I am getting ready to start studying at RPTS this coming Fall. One of the courses that I am taking is titled Spiritual Development. There are many short books that are required reading, and for me, that means I need to read them before the class begins. I learned that lesson the hard way a few years ago, but it also is a suggested way about how to be successful in class.

One of the assigned books is by a pastor in the RP church in Northern Ireland named Edward "Ted" Donnelly. I have heard him preach and have read his book on Heaven and Hell. The assigned book is titled Life in Christ, and is based on a series of messages given at the English Conference in August 2001 hosted by the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

Chapter 1 deals a very important part of Covenant Theology: our union with the first Adam and the last Adam. There are two important New Testament texts that deal with this theme, and they are both written in letters by the Apostle Paul to the church of Rome and Corinth. The first appearance can be found in Romans 5:12-19, and then the second appearance of this theme is considered in 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-47.

In a hymn written by John Henry Newman titled Praise to the Holiest in the height, Newman writes the following in the second stanza:

O loving wisdom of our God!
when all was sin and shame,
a second Adam to the fight
and to the rescue came.

Newman refers to Jesus as the "second" Adam in the part of the stanza that I have italicized. However, even other Christians refer to Christ as the "second" Adam. For example, I have enjoyed reading Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre's book William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters but on page 153 they write:

We not only need Jesus to restore us to God's favor, but we also need Him (as the Second Adam) to lead us into fulfillment of all God's purposes.

Just doing a simple Google search on "Second Adam" will turn up many results from various theological backgrounds that would suggest that we could either refer to Jesus Christ as the "Second" Adam or the "Last" Adam and still be theologically correct. However, I would like to challenge that idea. While the sense might be understood in the same way, I would suggest that Christ is only the "last" Adam not the "second" Adam and the two terms do carry an implicit substantial difference in their meaning.

On page 20, Donnelly says the following about Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians in light of Newman's hymn:

But the hymn-writer was mistaken. ... For Christ is never referred to in the Scriptures as the second Adam. He is (and it should make us want to shout and sing) the 'last' Adam—the final, the perfect, the ultimate Adam, the supreme representative who has once and for all accomplished salvation.

So where do we get the idea that Christ is the "second Adam?" Who is correct? Well, we get the idea that Christ is the "second" Adam from a logical deduction from Paul's wording in 1 Corinthians 15:47.

Christ is called "the second man," and we get the idea of two different Adams from verse 45. However, if we think that the adjectives "second" or "last" are interchangeable we lose the distinctiveness of the last Adam. "Maybe a 'third' Adam will come around and finally be the Savior I want?" Or, "maybe I am the 'third' Adam?" No! Paul is writing very deliberately to communicate that Jesus is both the last Adam, and the second man.

Jesus' Authority as God and Jesus' Authority as Mediator: Symington

For several years I have been trying to understand the history of the doctrine of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. One issue that continues to crop of in the literature is how to understand Christ in relation to the Church and Christ in relation to the created order.

This distinction was important during the time of the Westminster Assembly (1643-1653), the killing times in Scotland (1660-1688), and in the Reformed Presbyterian Church's witness though writers such as William Symington.

I hope in a future post to address this distinction as the Westminster Assembly was confronted with the issue.

More recently, this distinction has appeared, throughout the years, in the debate over Two Kingdom theology. Dr. Darryl Hart and Dr. R. Scott Clark have been redirecting any opposition at Two Kingdom theology to an essay written by Dr. David McKay in The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear. I intend to write a future post about how to understand Dr. McKay's essay in the future, but for now I want to highlight a very helpful, modern day explanation of this distinction that Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre give in their book William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters on pages 210-212:

Before examining the main content of Symington's work, one important clarification should be made. It is a matter of clarification which Symington sought to establish in the opening pages of his book [ed., Messiah the Prince]. Specifically, we must have clearly fixed in mind a distinction between Jesus' authority as God—an authority which He always enjoyed over all things—and His authority as our Savior. By His very nature, Jesus always was God. To bring about our salvation, however, Jesus had to become a man. It is in Jesus' becoming a man that He took up the responsibilities and prerogatives of a Priest, a Prophet, and a King. We should have it clearly in mind that Symington was writing, in this book, about the royal authority Jesus obtained as our Incarnate Savior. This is an aspect of His authority distinct from that which He always enjoyed as the Creator God.

This might seem a confusing distinction to make, but it is a biblical distinction that needs to be upheld.Just as it is hard to comprehend how Jesus can be both God and man, similarly it is difficult to comprehend how Jesus can be at once both eternally sovereign (as Creator) and yet also to have needed to obtain sovereignty (as Savior). Yet such distinctions are taught to us by Scripture, and are important to have in mind as we approach Symington's book. ...

[T]he same Jesus, who as Creator always held sovereignty over us, now takes on mediatorial kingship as well for the purposes of our salvation.

In the case of Jesus, we might speak of the first kind of authority—His eternal sovereignty as God—as His natural dominion. It was Jesus who made all things, and having made everything, Jesus naturally owns all things. Simply because of who Jesus is (His nature), He has sovereign authority over everything. Paul wrote about this kind of authority held by Jesus in his epistle to the Colossians:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col.1:16-17; cf. Ps. 24:1-2).

As the Creator God, Jesus always had absolute authority over all things. Just as there was never a time when He was not God, there was never a time when Jesus was not King, in this sense. Symington refers to this authority of Jesus the Creator God as His essential, or what we here have termed His natural dominion.

The second king of authority Jesus held, however, is something which He had to obtain as part of His work of salvation. It is what Symington calls His mediatorial dominion. As a man, Jesus took "the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7). In respect to His humanity, Jesus was not (at first) revealed as a king, but a servant. Nevertheless, from that position of servanthood, Jesus went on to be exalted to a throne: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9).

Peter also preached about this authority Jesus received as our incarnate Savior in Acts 2. Using one of David's Psalms (Ps. 110) as a preaching text, Peter proclaimed,

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne...David...saith himself [of Jesus], The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:30-36; cf., Isa. 9:6).

Jesus was exalted to a throne and endowed with titles of sovereignty. Peter is clear to indicate these privileges as being "new" acquisitions—authority ascribed to Jesus at a specific point in time and in specific connection with His work as our Savior. This is a second kind of authority obtained by Jesus in specific connection with His work of salvation. [A]lthough Jesus already held natural authority over the creation, in His love He went further to obtain for Himself mediatorial authority for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the effectiveness of our redemption.

Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre's reference to Symington's establishment of this distinction in the opening pages of Messiah the Prince must be a reference to pages 4-5:

The sovereign authority of Christ may be viewed either as necessary, or as official. Viewing him as God, it is necessary, inherent, and underived: viewing him as Mediator, it is official and delegated. It is the latter of these we are now to contemplate. The subject of our present inquiry is, the MEDIATORIAL DOMINION of the Son; not that which essentially belongs to him as God, but that with which, by the authoritative act of the Father, he has been officially invested as the Messiah. It is that government, in short, which was laid upon his shoulders—that power which was given unto him in heaven and in earth.

It is also helpful, when addressing this distinction, to note that Symington had to defend Christ's mediatorial authority (as Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre use "authority" instead of Symington older term "dominion") over the Nations against contemporaries in Symington's time who contended that Christ only had natural dominion over the Nations. Symington's lengthy defense of his position can be found on pages 192-230 of the edition of Messiah the Prince that I have linked to earlier in this post.

The Importance Of Reading William Symington in Order

Around the years 2008-2010 Dr. Roy Blackwood began and completed teaching his final church history classes at Second RPC in Indianapolis, Indiana. I did not participate in all those final classes, but I did attend most of them and I had family members and friends who completed the entire course work.

Dr. Blackwood was/is a pastor who earned his Ph.D. by studying an important man in the history of the Reformed Presbyterian Church named William Symington (1795-1862). I have occasionally quoted Symington's works in older posts, and am working on some posts in the future that will be about bringing Dr. Symington's teachings in the 19th century into debates going on currently in the Reformed church in the 21st century.

Occasionally Dr. Blackwood would bring Symington's writings into his earlier lectures. Dr. Symington wrote two books: On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (1834); and Messiah the Prince, or On the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ (1839). One of the observations that Dr. Blackwood would made during class was that if people had heard of William Symington and read anything by Symington it was typically Messiah the Prince and then they would not read anymore. The reason why they read Messiah the Prince is to understand the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ over Nations, which is still the teaching of the Reformed Presbyterian Church all over the world.

However, Dr. Blackwood made attempts in his class to help students understand that people should also read Symington's earlier work in order to understand Symington's later work. While Dr. Blackwood was teaching a book came out by him and Dr. Michael LeFebvre in 2009 titled William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters. This book is based on Dr. Blackwood's thesis paper for his Ph.D. One half of the book is a biography of Symington's life and ministry and the second half is a modern summary of Symington's two books.

On pages 153-156, an argument is presented for reading both works, which is what Dr. Blackwood would present in his classes.I would like to quote two sections of Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre argument to help those who might try to read only Symington's second book consider reading Symington's first book. The first quote is from page 153:

    Jesus by His blood, resttores us to God's favor. He makes us "at one" again with the Father. He washes away the sins that placed us outside of divine blessing. In a sense, His atonement restores us to the status of Adam before his fall. The positive task incumbent upon us remains, nonetheless. We not only need Jesus to restore us to God's favor, but we also need Him (as the Second Adam) to lead us into fulfillment of all God's purposes for us. It is in Jesus' obedience to the law, as our new Head, that this further need is also accomplished.

    Why is this distinction important? Because it is central to granting Christ full esteem as both our Priest and our King. In making the distinction, Symington is preparing the way for his later work on the kingship of Christ. It is as our Priest that Jesus offered the atoning sacrifice that reconciles men to God. We rightly ascribe the atonement to His labors for us as our sacrificing Priest. It is as our King, moreover, that Jesus fulfills the righteousness of the law for us. When we fail to carefully ascribe the sufferings alone to Jesus' priestly atonement, and suppose that His obedience also belongs to this priestly work, we are in danger of diminishing the kingly work of Jesus.

As a concluding remark, on page 156, Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre conclude by saying:

    It was in the so-called "Second Reformation" in Scotland that Christ's mediatorial reign came to be more fully explored .... In Symington's handling of the "Substance of Christ's Atonement," we find one of his particular contributions as penman of the Scottish Covenanters. By restricting the atonement to that which was accomplished by Christ's sufferings, Symington is opening the way for a full appreciation of His law-fulfilling, kingdom-building work as Messiah the Prince.

I have omitted the content in-between these two quotes, which shows that this distinction is from the Bible. I would recommend the book as a good companion guide to reading Symington's two works. My point, in this post, is to urge Christians who should be interested in William Symington to recognize that both of Symington's works were written to be read together.

If both books seem intimating I would suggest reading a chapter a week starting with the 1934 book and then moving on to the second volume. Depending on your reading speed, you will finish both books within a year.

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).