Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Thinking Generationally

In several of the last few posts I've written, I've mentioned that maturation, sanctification, and/or kingdom-expansion is a process. God wins, but there is a good story to be told about how He wins. He has generously chosen to accomplish victory through His people. While one never knows when the Lord may return, there is no point in waiting with bated breath. We need to work hard, breathe hard, battle hard to that end.

Let's assume that we have a ways to go before Christ's second coming. What is something practical that can have a lasting, generational effect? Here's one workable suggestion: if you are going to church - and you should be! - think about writing notes on the sermon, text, and your own reflections in order to create a family Bible commentary. I only intentionally started doing this almost 16 months ago in a journal my wife gifted me. I've been transcribing them to digital format and have ~40 pages of single-space notes, just from listening to and meditating on the word preached for one or two hours, one day a week.

In 30 years, that's 900-1,000 pages of commentary - not including notes I have from personal studies (which is above and beyond what I am recommending here). From small things, big things can slowly grow if we persevere and endure, not explode and burn out. Generationally, our knowledge of God's word and wisdom in application should, God-willing, exponentially increase.

Barrenness, Conception, Death-Resurrection, and Typology

I first encountered the idea of birth from barrenness as a type of resurrection from death in the thought of Warren Gage as my friends and I reviewed a book of his last year (link). This has been on my mind as our church has been recently blessed with a couple who have adopted a child, two child baptisms, another birth, and another pregnancy. All of this was a motivating factor as to why I wanted to provide a devotional on the birth of Samuel before the men in our church last month.

The above considerations gave me recent reason to revisit Gage's reasoning: Is it birth that is a kind of resurrection from death-barrenness, or is it conception? Or are both types of resurrection?

Prior to conception, a womb is a barren place, unfruitful and devoid of life (Proverbs 30:16, cf. 2 Kings 2:21). Conception normally occurs through natural means but, as with anything else, is ultimately caused by divine ordination. Specifically, God closes and opens wombs throughout Scripture (Genesis 20:18, 29:31, 30:22, 1 Samuel 1:5-6). Sex does not create life ipso facto or ex nihilo; in the case of conception nowadays, neither does God, but the point is that His power ultimately determines when and whether conception can happen (Ruth 4:13).  God Himself purposes to multiply the conception of the woman right after the Fall and protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15-16). Since a conceived child is treated in Scripture as a human life (Exodus 21:23, Job 3:16, Luke 1), this looked to me like conception could be resurrection in contrast to barrenness-death. 

Once I considered that possibility, I continued to think that once life has been created in the womb - once resurrection has occurred by divine power - the conceived child grows within the womb, being formed by God (Psalm 139:13ff., Jeremiah 1:5). That is, following death and resurrection, by the grace of God, comes progress and maturation. Granted that this is a physical conception and development in view, in a typological manner, this now appears to be a death-resurrection-sanctification pattern.

Because life starts and develops within the womb, an infant coming out of the womb is, in a way, like a second birth and, hence, a second resurrection. This makes birth to be like glorification. As we can see in the city pattern - which will make sense since our newborn selves are ready-made analogies to the tabernacle, [new] creation, etc. - there is an exodus from one life to another (Psalm 71:6, Isaiah 46:3-4) in which God delivers us. Our exodus and deliverance from an old world into a new creation is obvious in a physical sense as we exit the womb but also mirrors the spiritual dimension in which our glorification is yet another [kind of] birth (Romans 8:18-25, cf. Psalm 22:9-10, 1 Peter 1:3). Thus, from barrenness to birth, the child experiences a protological life cycle: death-resurrection-maturation-glorification. 

Pattern         Physical/Anthropological      Spiritual/Soteriological

death            - >     barrenness     ->            sin and guilt, death
resurrection  ->     conception     ->    regeneration, first resurrection
maturation   ->        growth         ->        progressive sanctification
glorification ->         birth           ->  glorification, second resurrection

There is more that can be said. As mentioned in my city pattern post:
I find that an implication of this excursus is that Christology, anthopology, ecclesiology, sociology, cosmology, and other -ologies of places and people at least tend to mirror one another from first things to last things, from the protological to eschatological. 

Above, anthropology and soteriology have been compared explicitly. Scriptural allusions to Christology and cosmology have also been made. Just like the themes in the city pattern, these could and should be explored more fully. But while it is on my mind, I wanted to extend how I see the barrenness-conception-womb-birth pattern plays out ecclesiastically.

I think Moses' question is rhetorical when he asks whether he conceived and begat all the Israelites for whom he was responsible; rather, the Lord conceived and begat His people, so Moses cries out for help from the Lord and receives it (Numbers 11:12ff.). [May our church leaders do the same!] As Paul says in an illustration that is pregnant with [pre]natal symbolism, especially in its context of city-building, Paul remarks that neither the planter nor waterer give increase, but only God, for only God has life in Himself  (1 Corinthians 3:6-7, cf. vss. 9-17 and 22, in which death, life, and the new world into which we will be born are all ours). In Christological-ecclesiastical union, the Son of God and the church were protected during as well as after pregnancy (Revelation 12). In short, we see the conception, growth, and birth of God's people over time. 

These narratives don't just describe what does and will continue to happen to the invisible church - the body of true believers whose source of life is in the Head of the members - but also the visible church. While it may be easy to view our circumstances myopically, within our own time and place, over time, God's kingdom has steadily visibly expanded across the globe. The visible church, being comprised of both true and false members, is in an ongoing process of maturation driven by true members (ecclesiology) just as a newly conceived infant in the womb steadily grows and acclimates to its surroundings before being ready to face a new world (anthropology). The same is true of individual believers (soteriology). The earthly realm itself is a womb to which the visible church is acclimating and growing within until we are a developed people. The God who resurrected us by exodus-deliverance from the death-curse of the ground-womb is forming us even now within this womb, readying us for a second resurrection-birth (Genesis 3, Romans 8).

At the same time, we cannot miss that sin has deeply twisted conception itself, a resurrection-life from death-barrenness, into a death-curse (Psalm 51:5, James 1:15), an unhappy and ironic result of our participation in the original sin of Adam (about which my friends and I will soon discuss on this this fascinating book I chose for this month's podcast). Original sin has caused a loss of original righteousness with which Adam was concreated, and therefore his progeny (us) require spiritual rebirth, which only happens as the Spirit unites us to the twice-baptized Christ. The physical twofold pattern of life-deliverances in conception and birth is matched by our twofold resurrection experiences of regeneration and glorification.

Now, I mentioned in the city post that the ebbs and flows in the killing of sin occurs over time, not all at once, both individually and corporately. This is true for the invisible body of believers. How much more true is it in the case of the visible church in which we can find deceitful leaders, unrepentant or false professors, or even corporate bodies whom our judge-elders must ex-communicate or disassociate with, cutting off rotting members to prune the olive tree? Such discipline is both for their judgment (an exodus-curse a la Genesis 3:24) and benefit (that they might see the gravity of their sin and repent). It is also a deliverance to the church whose worship, testimony, and prayerfulness are reborn (e.g. Numbers 21:4-9, 1 Corinthians 5).

Being engrafted into the [visible] church normally leads to life-abidance as one is surrounded by life. In fact, normally one cannot find life except in the visible church. However - and while believers in whom Christ is rooted will not fall away - because of the reality of sin and apostasy, death is able to spread even to the places where God forms His people. Death spreads to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12), and therefore even infants sometimes tragically die in the secret place of the womb. Instead of ensured maturation, sin has made death where life once was a possibility with which we must deal - in the womb of a mother, the womb of the world, and even the womb of the visible church. Only being found in the Triune family are we ultimately secured unto eternal life. 

Hence, we sometimes see signs of life from those to whom the gospel has been proclaimed before they, like seed in rocky soil, wither against the heat of the Son. These apostates are sad cases - like infants who are stillborn, miscarried, or murdered in the womb - as are those who cause such a one to die (Psalm 58:8, Hosea 9). When we consider the judgment upon those who cause little ones to stumble in sin (Matthew 18:6), we must correspondingly consider those who abort or murder their own children or others and be afraid for them. This correspondence is all the more reason the visible church must be vigilant in opposing false teachings.

Monday, April 12, 2021

The Birth of Samuel: Reflections from a Devotional

I'm very grateful that my church has allowed me to lead one of our monthly men's devotional studies in each of the past few years. Last year, I spoke about God's house (link). God then provided my wife and I with a house later in the year. This year, this providential pattern and recent witnessing opportunities at Planned Parenthood led me to speak about Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1-10. I thought I would share the thoughts that came from the devotional study and discussion here for anyone who might be interested.
 
Context: The context of this time is the period of the judges, after Israel settled in the promised land, when they were repeatedly lapsing into all kinds of syncretism and idolatry. The Philistines were a thorn in the side of Israel. Actually, Israel was being a thorn in its own side, constantly falling into sin. We see in the first few chapters of 1 Samuel that the priests of the tabernacle were grievously disobeying God. Samuel is the last judge before God gave Israel a king Saul in 1 Samuel 9. That sets the stage for Hannah, whose story we hear in chapter 1. Quick summary:
 
- She was one wife of two, maybe Elkanah took the second because Hannah was barren. Year after year, Hannah could not bear children. The other wife is viewed as a rival: Penninah provoked Hannah about her barrenness.

- Hannah prays to God about her affliction and vows to dedicate her son as a Nazirite (a comment from one of the men in the group led me to think of Hannah as a microcosm of Israel - her affliction in barrenness is like Israel's during the time of the judges and in the future, cf. Isaiah 54:1).

- Eli sees her pray, initially thinks she is drunk, then blesses her. The Lord remembers her and gives her a son. She names him Samuel, for “I have asked for him from the Lord.”

- She weans him, probably for 3 years since she sacrificed a 3 year old bull at the time of his dedication. Much could be said about this. To end chapter 1, as long as he lives, Samuel is “dedicated” or “lent” to the Lord. This leads into Hannah's prayer.

One of the things I learned while preparing this devotional is that Samuel’s name was given because his mother “asked for him from the Lord,” which is interesting because the Hebrew word for "asked" is actually Saul. When Hannah says, “As long as he lives, he is lent or dedicated to the Lord,” the Hebrew word for "lent" or "dedicated" is actually Saul. Hannah "Sauled" Samuel to the Lord. This makes it a bit ironic when later in the book of Samuel, we see Saul is who the Israelites ask for as a king. God already gave the Israelites a true Saul, a good judge. But that wasn’t enough for them. Even when Samuel warned of what kind of king they would receive, they chose that path. God providentially worked it out according to His will - as He does with all things - but not without a little discipline first.

This all sets the stage for Hannah's prayer, which is structured chiastically – everything matches on both ends of the prayer. The first and last parts of the prayer are similar (vs 1-2 compared to the last part of verse 10): Hannah exalts the Lord, her horn, and the horn of the Lord. Hannah and the anticipated Messiah are both exalted. When we exalt God, God exalts us because we are united with Him. Hannah's and her family's faith are contrasted with Eli's in the rest of the chapter. Hannah also anticipates a king - the true king, the Messiah, not a mere human king.
 
Then the prayer is bookended (compare verses 2-4 to verse 9-10a) with references to our salvation by the silence of prideful wicked, our enemies who are also God’s enemies. Their strength or might will be broken into pieces by God. Our God is a rock: rocks are great places to seek refuge, but they can also be used to break idols or enemies of God, like we see the great mountain of God in Daniel 2 or in execution-stonings.

Verse 5 then matches verse 8, where God reverses the fortunes of His people who are oppressed or cursed, whereas the wicked who have exalted themselves are now humbled or forlorn – this brings with it a word of caution to us when we find ourselves in blessed circumstances. Whatever we have, we have received from God, and it can just as easily be taken away from us as it was given to us.

Finally, the center of the prayer is verses 6-7, which emphasize that God is in control of all things. The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. As I was studying this passage, I came across Proverbs 30:16, which describes Sheol as "the barren womb." It certainly sounds like Hannah understood that she was a barren woman whose womb was a place of lifelessness, and that life could only come from God. Her conception of Samuel is, therefore, a kind of resurrection from death in which God raises up life from Sheol. This is exactly what God did with us when He gave birth to us again by His Spirit. It's exactly what He did in raising Jesus from the grave. 
 
This gives a whole new perspective on how we can view all the passages in Scripture that speak to the barrenness of woman: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Mary (someone noted Noah was 500 when he finally fathered his sons). For example, because Abraham had already witnessed God’s power to resurrect life from death in bringing the promised son forth from Sarah's lifeless womb, when he was asked to sacrifice his promised son in Genesis 22, he could reasonably expect, as Hebrews 11:19 tells us, that Isaac would be resurrected. His initial lack of faith in seeking out Hagar changed - Abraham should have remembered that God initially brought forth Adam's life from dust as a kind of resurrection (cf. 1 Samuel 2:8, 1 Corinthians 15).
 
One of the comments from the men after I closed my devotional was that we should be careful not to put having and raising children on a pedestal - which is absolutely true. If someone asks you as a married man or woman, "When are you going to start a family," your answer should be, "We started one when we got married." I remember a sermon by Voddie Baucham in which he pointed out that eventually, kids will grow up and leave the father and mother to start their own families. Having and raising kids, while a blessing, is not the be all, end all of life. Eventually, it comes back to where you started: you and your wife.

For any in the church who have anxiety about the issue of barrenness, we have the further encouragement of being adopted as sons and daughters of God. We are all adopted members of our Father's heavenly family in being united to the natural Son. Just so, anyone who is unable to have natural born children (like Voddie Baucham) can consider adoption, which truly grafts a child into an earthly family just like we have truly been grafted into God's family. 
 
Even to those who are not married, we have the encouragement that we can, like the Ethiopian eunuch, rejoice at the prospect of bringing sons and daughters into our family of the church by our witness to them. Earthly family was and should be patterned after the heavenly family. Mother church brings forth sons and daughters only by providing the water of the word, with our Father causing the growth, bringing forth land from water as He did on the third day (!) of creation. We water others by living out God's word of light, being lights before others, which God uses to shine in the darkness of others, just as He did in shining the light of the Truth - the Word of Life, His Son - in us. Likewise, it is God who overcomes physical lifelessness or barrenness that sin has caused. Any kids you give birth to is not by your own power - God kills and raising to life. He gives but can take away. What do you have that you have not received? Be not proud, but humble. Only then will you be exalted.

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Book Review: Scripturalism and the Senses (Part 2)

Links to all parts may be found here. This part will contain a review and evaluation of Mr. Lazar's first chapter in his book, Scripturalism and the Senses.

Before proceeding, however, I want to reiterate what I mentioned in my first post: I believe "Scripturalism" is not Gordon Clark's brainchild. In fact, I cannot find a published instance in which Clark applied the term to his own views. Obviously, the shoe does fit, for I think anyone may be legitimately referred to as a "Scripturalist" whose "theory of knowledge ought to be founded upon the Bible as [the extant extent of] divine revelation." It is understandable that Clark, a prominent popularizer of Scripturalism as such, would be the lens through which Scripturalism is evaluated, so I will say little more about this matter as I proceed in reviewing Mr. Lazar's book. But I hope the reader understands that I do not consider a sound criticism of Clark to necessarily entail a sound criticism of Scripturalism.

Chapter 1: How to Evaluate a Worldview

In his Introduction, Mr. Lazar refers to “Clark’s distinct philosophy of Scripturalism.” Elsewhere, he lets the reader know of his intention to explore “why Scripturalism failed as a worldview.” As he is describing his own background, Mr. Lazar states that he “began to notice… problems with Clark’s apologetic,” so he “turned away from Scripturalism” until he rethought whether he could “improve Scripturalism” while being “faithful to the core of Clark’s apologetic.” The very subheading of the book itself is "Reviving Gordon Clark's Apologetic. Finally, Mr. Lazar will, in the chapters 2 and 3, refer to “Scripturalist epistemology” and Scripturalism as “Clark’s… theory of knowledge.” All emphases are mine.

In various parts of the book, Mr. Lazar refers to Scripturalism either as being or containing a philosophy, apologetic, worldview, and an epistemology. The reader should be careful when reading such statements, for while one might consider a “philosophy” or “worldview” to mean the same thing, an “epistemology” and an “apologetic” are narrower in focus and, at the same time, distinct from one another.

For example, Scripturalism considered as being a “philosophy” or “worldview” would contain an epistemology and apologetic, but it would also encompass a metaphysic and ethic. Mr. Lazar is mainly interested, it seems, in the epistemology and apologetic of Scripturalism – of course, there is nothing wrong with this interest.

It should be kept in mind, though, that when Mr. Lazar states in the introduction to this chapter that “Clark’s students pointed out some crucial flaws in his apologetic that Clark failed to answer to their satisfaction,” all this would mean is that Clark’s students weren’t satisfied with Clark’s defense (apologetic) to flaws in his defense (apologetic) [of Christianity]. When read in those terms, the indictment against Clark does not appear so bad.

Firstly, who can ensure that his critics will ever be satisfied? Is it not by the grace of God – divine action over which we have no control except in providing opportunity for it – that anyone accepts the truth? Secondly, if the flaws in Clark’s apologetic really are “crucial,” then his students were right to remain unsatisfied, and Mr. Lazar is right to mention them. But an apologetic failure is not necessarily an epistemic one. 

The Distinction Between Epistemology and Apologetics

It will be extremely important for the purposes of my review(s) to distinguish a Scripturalist epistemology (a Scripturalist’s theory of knowledge) will be distinct from his apologetic methodology (how one defends Scripturalism as a worldview, not just as an epistemology, and how one attacks other worldviews), Mr. Lazar’s book intends to criticize Clark on both accounts.

At the risk of anticipating too much discussion, to illustrate the difference between epistemology and apologetics, we might ask a Scripturalist how he knows how to defend his faith. If he wants to answer this question, the Scripturalist would presumably respond by offering an apologetic (he will make a defense). Particularly, he would endeavor to communicate how his apologetic method is deducible from his epistemic axiom. The Scripturalist’s apologetic method is – if it is something he wants to defend as knowable – derived from and subordinate to his epistemology.

Perhaps Clark’s students or others have criticized Clark’s apologetic because they regard it as unbiblical. If so, then while that would be a criticism against Clark’s apologetic, it would not necessarily entail a criticism against Clark’s epistemology. Rather, it would just mean that if the charge sticks, Clark would need to revise his apologetic to be internally consistent and in accordance with his theory of knowledge.

An apologetic failure does not necessarily indicate a failure in one’s epistemology, metaphysic, or ethic. We might say that many people aren’t well-equipped to defend their faith; we would not suggest that their faith be revised. Likewise, one might argue that if Scripturalism, as a philosophy or worldview encompassing these topics, only needs revision to its apologetic, this would be relatively less troubling than a needed revision to its epistemology. A revision to one’s epistemology could entail change to one’s apologetic. 

For example, if Clark’s theory of knowledge required revision in regards to source[s] of knowledge, scope of knowledge, means of knowledge-acquisition, etc., then the content of what Clark could know would change; thus, what he could defend as knowable would change. His apologetic methodology itself could require revision. This completes a second reason why Mr. Lazar's introductory indictment against Clark does not initially appear so bad.

Regardless, the primary point I wish to make is that a Scripturalist’s epistemology and a Scripturalist’s apologetic are distinct and must not be conflated. If one is to be consistent, his apologetic must conform to his theory of knowledge. The former depends on the latter, not vice versa. 

Defending this Distinction in Clark's Thought

Keeping this distinction in mind, Mr. Lazar raises two questions following the initial indictment against Clark: "what kind of flaws should you look for in an apologetic? And what methods can you use to discover those flaws?" My thought process was to immediately wonder whether Mr. Lazar would conflate flaws in an epistemology with flaws in an apologetic methodology, both of which are found in a worldview. This question was in my mind as I read the first sub-heading in Mr. Lazar's chapter, called "How to Choose a Worldview," where he attempts to begin to answer to the above questions by expositing Clark's thinking. 

The first paragraph is a fair summary. In particular, Mr. Lazar's first summary of Clark is correct: "he argued that you must choose your first principles, because if you could prove them to be true, the proof would rely on premises that were more basic that your first principles, indicating they were not first principles after all."  

As indicated in the above summary, however, in the middle of the paragraph, Mr. Lazar seems to switch from choosing worldviews (per the title of the section) to choosing first principles, since "all worldviews have first principles." The language of "first principles" is epistemic. There is a subtle shift from discussing worldviews, which are broad, to first principles, which are narrow. While the initial discussion surrounding this shift is fine, it is important to note, for starting in the second paragraph, Mr. Lazar cites the following statements by Clark:
1) "...our belief is a voluntary choice; but if one must choose without a strict proof, none the less it is possible to have sane reasons of some sort to justify the choice. Certainly there are sane reasons for rejecting some choices." (Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, 1988, pg. 41)
2) ...no philosopher is perfect, and no system can given man omniscience. But if one system can provide plausible solutions to many problems while another leaves too many questions unanswered, if one system tends less to skepticism and gives more meaning to life, if one worldview is consistent while others are self-contradictory, who can deny, since we must choose, the right to choose the more promising first principle? (A Christian View of Men and Things, 1998, pg. 16)
3) We can judge the acceptability of an axiom only by its success in producing a system. (An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, 1993, pgs. 59-60)

From these statements, Mr. Lazar concludes that Clark/Scripturalism suggests we first "identify a worldview to be tested," then "take the worldview as a conjecture of a hypothesis," and finally "evaluate the worldview" in order to "make a sane choice between worldviews." 

Without having read any further in the book, I suspected the direction in which Mr. Lazar's criticism of Clark might lead: that of Gordon R. Lewis in his book, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims, which I reviewed many years ago. In that review, I argued Lewis makes the very conflation between apologetics and epistemology that I think that Mr. Lazar has made in forming the above conclusion. It was no surprise to me that Lewis' criticisms later made an appearance in chapter 3.

Here is the question we must ask of Mr. Lazar: in the above contexts in which Clark cites persons having "sane reasons of some sort to justify the choice [of a first principle]," "judg[ing] the acceptability of an axiom only by its success in producing a system," and a "right to choose the more promising first principle," does he think Clark is speaking about epistemic justification or apologetic justification? 

If the former, does that mean he thinks Clark wants his readers, in these contexts, to reason towards a first principle from premises which are more basic (e.g. the four "tests" which are the subject matter of Mr. Lazar's next four chapters)? That would indeed undermine whatever so-called first principle or axiom Clark chose, for the first principle(s) would really be the tests. 

This understanding would also seem to agree with Mr. Lazar's citation of Ronald Nash in one of the footnotes, where Nash argues that a presuppositionalist is like a scientist who tries to test hypotheses to see whether or not his "world view can measure up to the standards and tests for trust" and "reflect reliability back upon its first principles." As Clark argued against the possibility of knowing scientific hypotheses by means of testing and inductive reasoning, it would be quite ironic (and damning) if Clark advocated epistemically justifying a first principle or worldview by the same reasoning.

If any of this is what Mr. Lazar would argue Clark believed, I would disagree. In addition to my above review of Lewis, see point 5 here, in which I defend Clark against a similar argument by Michael Butler. I think Clark need not be interpreted as being inconsistent.

Rather, I think Clark means that there are "sane reasons" by which one can defend the choice of his first principle, that no one with an inferior first principle may deny Christians the right to choose a superior one, and that one can therefore defend it to be a "success." In other words, I think the above contexts in which Clark speaks are meant to be apologetic.

Consider these paragraphs by Clark which immediately follow quote 1) cited above by Mr. Lazar:

Consistency extends further than a first principle narrowly considered, so that it can be shown to be self-contradictory in itself; it extends into the system deduced from the first principle or principles. The basic axiom or axioms must make possible a harmony or system in all our thoughts, words, and actions. Should someone say (misquoting by the omission of an adjective) that consistency is the mark of small minds, that he does not like systems, that he will act on one principle at one time and another at another, that he does not choose to be consistent, there would be no use arguing with him, for he repudiates the rules, the necessary rules of argumentation. Such a person cannot argue against theism, for he cannot argue at all... 
When now the theist speaks of theism as a practical postulate, he is not indulging in any "as-if" philosophy. He means that God exists and that one should conduct his daily life by that belief. It is called a postulate because it is an indemonstrable first principle and not a theorem derived from more ultimate premises (Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, 1988, pgs. 41-43)

The "sane reasons" for choosing our first principle are not "more ultimate premises." Rather, a worldview is apologetically tested or evaluated by methods which [ought or are purported to] come from the worldview itself which is in question. One can, for example, apply a test of reason to the axiom of Scripturalism because Scripture itself is and claims to be, as God's word, reasonable. On the other hand, there would be no reason in arguing with a person who chooses insanity or inconsistency. Of what use would it be to apply apologetic tests of sanity or consistency to a person self-admittedly doesn't want to defend his worldview as being so (and thus, logically, is prevented from attacking or "arguing against" other views such as theism)? One could, of course, do so for the benefit of third-parties; this would, I think, be more like an external critique rather than an internal one.

Side-note: Bahnsen, who makes a later appearance in Mr. Lazar's book, misinterpreted Clark in similar respects in his book, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, when the latter used language like the "hypothesis of divine omniscience." Clark does not mean divine omniscience is to be taken only "as if" it is true. He means it is an undemonstrated assumption, presupposition, axiom, or first principle:

When unbelievers object to Christianity on the basis that it views the world on the basis of undemonstrated hypotheses, the reply should plainly be made that everyone more or less consciously bases his conclusions on undemonstrated assumptions. There are no facts, no meaningful facts, apart from presuppositions. (The Bible Today, 42.4, 1948)

Likewise, in quote 2) above in which Clark asks, "who can deny, since we must choose, the right to choose the more promising first principle?" Clark is speaking rhetorically and against those with an inferior apologetic whom we will try to persuade, an idea he alludes to in a preceding paragraph:

...after the humanist or theist has worked out a consistent system by arranging all his propositions as theorems in a series of valid demonstrations, how is either of them to persuade the other to accept his unproved axioms? (A Christian View of Men and Things, 2005, pg. 26).

Persuasiveness is apologetic, not epistemic. And because the Christian is able to produce a better apologetic due to a better epistemology, it is true that non-Christians cannot deny our right to choose a more promising first principle – note that this does not mean Clark believes our first principle is premised on any apologetic test he mentions. On the contrary, as Clark says later in the same book: 

How then could God show to a man that it was God speaking? Suppose God should say, “I will make of you a great nation...and I will bless them that bless you and curse him that curses you.” Would God call the devil and ask Abraham to believe the devil’s corroborative statements? Is the devil’s word good evidence of God’s veracity? It would not seem so. Nor is the solution to be found in God’s appealing to another man in order to convince the doubter. Aside from the fact that this other man is no more of an authority than the devil, the main question reappears unanswered in this case also. What reasons can this man have to conclude that God is making a revelation to him? It is inherent in the very nature of the case that the best witness to God’s existence and revelation is God himself. There can be no higher source of truth. God may, to be sure, furnish “evidence” to man. He may send an earthquake, a fire, or still small voice; he may work spectacular miracles, or, as in the cases of Isaiah and Peter, he may produce inwardly an awful consciousness of sin, so that the recipient of the revelation is compelled to cry out, “Woe is me! For I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips.” But whether it be an external spectacle or an inward “horror or great darkness,” all of this is God’s witnessing to himself. (A Christian View of Men and Things, 2005, pgs. 182-183)

Finally, the above quote 3) refers to Clark's statement that "We can judge the acceptability of an axiom only by its success in producing a system." In the very next sentence, Clark reiterates: "Axioms, because they are axioms, cannot be deduced from or proved by previous theorems." The same thing is said in the previous paragraph, and note the conclusion:
...that revelation should be accepted without proofs or reasons, undeduced from something admittedly true, seems odd when first proposed. It will not seem so odd, however, when the nature of axioms is kept in mind. Axioms, whatever they may be and in whatever subject they are used, are never deduced from more original principles. They are always tested in another way... by the systems they produce, axioms must be judged. (Clark and His Critics, 2009, pg. 53)

Axioms are tested by evaluation of their resulting systems, but they are not known by those means. Some might say Clark would have agreed with John Robbins' implicit positism in defining knowledge as "giving reasons" (in which case, an axiom cannot be known because no reasons for it can be given). Others have thought Clark was a coherentist, thinking he could know his first principle by evaluation of the resultant system. I would disagree: Clark was a foundationalist (link; cf. point 5 again in the Butler link above), which buttresses my argument that he viewed a distinction between epistemology and apologetics.

Another aside: unless people are prepared to argue that Clark was a traditional coherentist, other forms of coherentism collapse into foundationalism. Among others, Ernest Sosa and Peter Klein have each noted that “emergent” coherentism, on which the justification for a proposition or belief emerges in virtue of its being a member of a coherent set, is a form of meta-justificatory foundationalism.

To return to Mr. Lazar conclusion, he believes that Clark/Scripturalism suggests we:

1) "identify a worldview to be tested," then 
2) "take the worldview as a conjecture of a hypothesis,"  
3) "evaluate the worldview" and finally, 
4) "make a sane choice between worldviews."

Is the outlined procedure here a reference to the epistemology of Scripturalism, to its apologetic, or both? And if it is a reference to the apologetic, does Mr. Lazar think Clark's epistemology is grounded on his apologetic or vice versa? It preliminarily appears as though Mr. Lazar makes Clark's apologetic the ground of his epistemology, since it looks like he is arguing that the choice of a worldview['s first principle] comes at then end of a process. Further evidence for this is found when he expounds on the second step:
Second, you take the worldview as a conjecture or a hypothesis. At this point, it's not important whether you already believe the worldview to be true or false. For the sake of the evaluations, you consider it on its own terms to test it for consistency. (emphasis mine)
One already believes a worldview to be true before he attempts to apply apologetic tests. This is inescapable: by the time a reader realizes that we all choose first principles, he has already implicitly chosen one. No one begins in an epistemically neutral position (link): 
...if one were ever truly thoroughly epistemically neutral, there would be by definition no criterial basis on which he could ever move to non-neutrality. The first step toward knowledge is not neutrality, it's committing to some criteria by which one can allegedly distinguish what is and isn't knowable.

On Clark's system, for example, I need to know another's first principle in order to show it to be self-defeating on its own grounds. But apagogic argumentation itself presupposes I hold to a worldview from which I am able to operate. To know how to undermine skepticism, for instance, I must first be able to know what skepticism is. But how? Certainly not on skeptical grounds, for skepticism is self-defeating. You can't really criticize another's worldview until you have - or, at least, think you have - one of your own. But then is it is clear that one can't criticize from a self-pronounced position of epistemic neutrality, for one cannot operate from a position whose sole requirement just is to abstain from all positions, including criteria for knowledge. That itself is self-defeating.
What, then, does Mr. Lazar believe was the criterial basis on which Clark believed by which he claimed to know anything? The three or four tests he mentions, or Scripture? It is one thing to say that the epistemic axiom ought to be self-consistent. It is another to suggest that we have no idea whether the worldview (and, thus, the epistemic axiom of that worldview) is true until we test it, or that the truth of the worldview is irrelevant. That line of thinking would lead to considering Clark's apologetic being the root of his epistemology and result viewing Clark as being a traditional coherentist who, for some reason, likes to talk about first principles.

I have mostly been offering a counter-exposition as to what I think Clark believed. If I were writing a book about Scripturalism, I would probably mention many other instances in Clark's writings from which I gather he is a foundationalist, why I think several writers are mistaken about whether or not he views Scripturalism as just one axiom among many others (any of which may be, antecedent to testing, possibly true), etc. 

I might also put forward for consideration that because, for Clark, it is by grace that we believe in the Scriptures, there is a further distinction at play which could be discusses: the distinction between a metaphysical, etiological explanation for a belief (e.g. the causation of the Holy Spirit) and epistemic justification (which itself can be categorized, broken down into further distinctions: inferential reasoning vs. self-authentication). 

But I hope it is clear that in my view, the apologetic of Clark proceeds from the epistemology of Clark, an order with which I agree (and perhaps Mr. Lazar does as well, in which case much of this is just discussion about what Clark actually believed). I think Clark is able to attack other worldviews and defend his own, not because he began with certain tests in mind, struck upon the idea of an epistemic axiom of revelation and, since it passed those tests, chose to accept it. Rather, he was able to test anything only because he first believed the axiom of revelation. The knowledge of the tests doesn't precede the axiom, they come from it (or, depending on the worldview in question, purport to). Epistemology grounds apologetics, not vice versa. I will mention this again at various points in the rest of the review at pertinent points.

Scripturalism's Two Tasks

Before Mr. Lazar turns to examine whether Scripturalism passes four tests, he describes Clark's apologetic as having "two tasks: negative and positive." I think Scripturalism itself has more tasks than that if one considers to to be a worldview, not just an apologetic. But Mr. Lazar is correct that the apologetic Scripturalism has these two tasks. 

Something that I think is missed in ensuing discussion, though, is that Clark did not think that the negative test of consistency was a sufficient one. Mr. Lazar concludes this section of exposition of Clark's thought by writing, "In sum, demonstrating the consistency of Christianity and the inconsistency of non-Christian worldviews is how you can make a sane choice between first principles." Yes, it is extremely useful to, where possible, show that a person contradicts himself and examine why. It is also useful to show, to as great an extent as possible, that Christians can be consistent. And indeed, apologetics is concerned with being useful, persuasive, and practical. With all of this, Clark would agree. But besides logical consistency, Clark was also clear that Scripture itself is also a test of truth (which would, of course, be in line with his epistemology):
The substantive point needing discussion is whether the law of contradiction is the one and only test of truth. 
Ideally or for God this seems to be the case. Since there is nothing independent of God, he does not conform truth to an alleged reality beyond truth and beyond him. Since there is no possibility of “vertical” (to use Carnell’s terminology) coherence, the “horizontal” test, or, better the horizontal characteristic of logical consistency seems the only possible one.
Weaver correctly notes that I do not claim for human beings the ability to apply this test universally. In this sense it is a “negative” or, better, an incomplete test. For this reason it must be supplemented some way or other... 
Undoubtedly I hold that truth is a consistent system of propositions. Most people would be willing to admit that two truths cannot be contradictories; and I would like to add that the complex of all truths cannot be a mere aggregate of unrelated assertions. Since God is rational, I do not see how any item of his knowledge can be unrelated to the rest. Weaver makes no comment on this fundamental characteristic of divine truth. 
Rather, he questions whether this characteristic is of practical value, and whether it must be supplemented in some way. It is most strange that Weaver here says, “I must agree with Carnell,” as if he had convicted me of disagreeing with Carnell by providing no supplementation whatever. Now, I may disagree with the last named gentleman on many points, but since it is abundantly clear that I “supplement” consistency by an appeal to the Scripture for the determination of particular truths, it is most strange that Weaver ignores my supplementation. (Clark and His Critics, 2009, pgs. 287, 290)
In addition to the tests of truth Mr. Lazar mentions, a further chapter on Scripture as a test of truth may have solved some of the problems he finds with Scripturalism. But I don't blame him for missing this, because despite earning the moniker of Scripturalism and advocating for Scripture as his epistemic axiom, it is remarkable how many people fail to mention that Clark thought Scripture itself is useful in apologetics. If we can know Scripture is true (and we can, axiomatically), then we can appeal to it when defending our faith. Now, it is a standard that some people reject. But just as there is use in mentioning to third parties that a person who chooses insanity or inconsistency fails the test of reason (an external critique), there is use in mentioning to third parties (e.g. Christians) that a person who chooses to reject the inerrancy of God's word has failed the test of Scripture.

My final comment on this chapter is about the following statement by Mr. Lazar: "As with all other worldview conjectures, Scripturalism can be falsified, but not verified." I would argue that Scripturalism cannot be falsified. It can be tested, but there is no possibility that a correct examination could lead to a conclusion that it fails. For something to be falsifiable means that it could be proven false. 

Suppose one regarded every worldview as falsifiable. Then everything is capable of being proved false... but how? If no test is exempted from being proved false, then how would you test whether something is false at all? And is the very meaning of true and false subject to falsifiability? Is a principle of falsifiability itself falsifiable? All of this is an indirect argument for infallibilist knowledge (link). Clark certainly didn't believe that his first principle was falsifiable. He thought, as a good foundationalist, it was self-authenticating and infallible:
This disjunct faces two replies. First, it assumes that a first principle cannot be self-authenticating. Yet every first principle must be. The first principle of Logical Positivism is that a sentence has no meaning unless it can be verified (in principle at least) by sensory experience. Yet no sensory experience can ever verify this principle. Anyone who wishes to adopt it must regard it as self-authenticating. So it is with all first principles. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pgs. 46-47) 
Logically the infallibility of the Bible is not a theorem to be deduced from some prior axiom. The infallibility of the Bible is the axiom from which several doctrines are themselves deduced as theorems. Every religion and every philosophy must be based on some first principle. And since a first principle is first, it cannot be “proved” or “demonstrated” on the basis of anything prior. As the catechism question, quoted above, says, “The Word of God is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify Him.” (What Do Presbyterians Believe?, 1985, pg. 18) 

The only reason I can think of as to why one would think Clark believed or held beliefs which imply that Scripturalism is falsifiable is if he thought Clark appealed to various tests (reason, skepticism, explanatory power, etc.) in order to epistemically (rather than apologetically) justify his axiom. As I hope I have shown, this is not what Clark believed, nor should the reader.

In the next part of my review, I will turn to chapter 2, which concerns what Mr. Lazar calls the test of reason.

Book Review: Scripturalism and the Senses (Links to All Parts)

The following links are to the various posts in which I review Shawn Lazar's book, Scripturalism and the Senses:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 2.5

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 10.5

Part 11

Part 11.5

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 14.5

Part 15

Saturday, April 3, 2021

Book Review: Scripturalism and the Senses (Part 1)

As someone whose own thinking has benefited and developed from Gordon Clark’s epistemological system called Scripturalism and has advocated for like-minded people to look to the future, every so often, I tend to review a book, article, or audio which either criticizes or attempts to correct the thinking of Gordon Clark (see hereherehere, or here, for just a few examples). Sometimes this is due to my own curiosity, and sometimes it is at the request of a friend.

Last year, I briefly skimmed through a book on Kindle Unlimited called, Scripturalism and the Senses: Reviving Gordon H. Clark's Apologetic. This book was written by Shawn Lazar, an author of whom I have not otherwise heard. Beyond noticing very slight similarities to my own thoughts on developing Scripturalism, which it seems the author arrived at independently, I didn’t remember the book until a friend recently asked my opinion of it. So I decided to revisit the book, review it after all, and here we are. 

The first five chapters of Mr. Lazar's book are an attempted exposition and evaluation of Gordon Clark's epistemology on its own terms (subsumed under the heading, "Why Did Scripturalism Fail?"), with the remainder of the book seeking to improve upon Scripturalism ("How Can Scripturalism Be Revived?"). I read and formed initial notes of the book in three days, so it was not at all a chore to read. There are some good points made by Mr. Lazar, and I will try to be fair in highlighting at what points I believe he is correct. At the same time, I do not believe the book, as a whole, accurately depicts Clark's published thought. The book is 15 chapters (including the Introduction, Conclusion, and an Appendix), and I will engage each chapter at points I find significant. 

In the remainder of this post, I will only examine Mr. Lazar's Introduction. My notes became longer than I had originally anticipated – in part because, for various reasons, it has been quite some time since I have consciously thought about Scripturalism. So I have decided that I will edit and reproduce my notes in separate posts corresponding to each chapter. I hope the author takes any disagreement with the same charity I will try to remember to display throughout this review.

Introduction

Mr. Lazar's main point here seems to be that Gordon Clark "had many admirers, but few followers." In my experience, this evaluation has been correct. There are few people who have followed Clark, and there are fewer who follow him in all his thought (which would be tricky, as it appears, as I will endeavor to show in future posts, that Clark himself changed his mind on certain subjects). 

Now, I don't know that Clark himself wanted people to follow him per se. Clark likely would have hoped to play a role in convincing people that what he taught was true, but I also would expect Clark would have applied the 1 Corinthians 3:4-7 principle to himself. Just as Mr. Lazar states the book is written mostly for his own benefit (and this entire blog is mostly for my own), I think Clark would have accepted that certain ideas he presented were open to correction or development.

Mr. Lazar probably would agree with this. If so, however, then even if or though Clark has convinced few people – and before we count this criticism as a given, let us remember that there is a history ahead of us left to be revealed (perhaps Scripturalism will prove more influential than first glance) – I doubt this would have much affected Clark, as he was more concerned with truth rather than popularity. I do not mean to accuse Mr. Lazar of thinking otherwise, but I think it bears explicit emphasis that Clark himself may have preferred that Mr. Lazar's introduction be solely aimed against the truth of his beliefs rather than the influence of them. As a consistent Calvinist, Clark (and Mr. Lazar) must recognize that only the Holy Spirit actually convicts sinful minds. This is just a minor suggestion.

One other consideration regarding his Introduction that I want to address – and I could be reading too far into this – is that Mr. Lazar seems torn about how to present his position. Should his suggested modifications be regarded as on a continuum of Scripturalism or a departure from it? He decides to split the difference and call his reformulation "Neo-Scripturalism," although he states that he will continue to "think of it as Scripturalism."

I am sympathetic to this dilemma. I too have benefitted from Clark in many ways, yet I find myself in some disagreement with him, even regarding epistemological considerations. Should we consider disagreement with Clark to be a reason to be dissuaded from identifying with Scripturalism? Are we still Scripturalists if we try to "improve" Clark's thought? We would not want to be dishonest in our disagreement with Clark, and yet the spirit of what he intended to communicate seems to resonate.

How I currently have come to a resolution of this dilemma is through consideration of the following question: is "Scripturalism" Gordon Clark's brainchild? Is it merely a descriptor of those who agree with Clark? In this case, divergence from Clark would be the decisive factor upon which we ought to own our disagreement and abandon the title. I doubt this is how Clark would have wanted us to view matters. 

If, however, "Scripturalism" is rather an appropriate title for a prescribed theory of knowledge which Clark discovered and articulated from the Scriptures – perhaps erring in his holistic presentation of it in certain respects – then whether or not one is a "Scripturalist" does not quite belong to Clark. It belongs to anyone who believes his or her theory of knowledge ought to be founded upon the Bible as [the extant extent of] divine revelation. Much in the same way two empiricists or rationalists might disagree with one another in certain respects, two Scripturalists also may disagree in certain respects. 

Of course, a Scripturalist will argue that God's word is a better method of resolving disagreement than is available to the empiricists or rationalists (or Muslims, etc.). The point is that with this framework in mind, I think admirers of Clark need not be shy in expressing disagreement with him.

Friday, April 2, 2021

Mirror Images: The City as a Biblical Paradigm of Eschatological Escalation

Before our most recent podcast on localism, my friends and I were discussing the theology of location as a lacuna within Reformed theology that could use supplementation or systematic treatment. While writing about that subject seems better suited to some of my friends, it prompted one of them to ask me to put down what was, in nascent form at the time, a few thoughts in which I tried to outline an eschatological escalation of and towards “city.”

To give context to where this thinking stemmed from, as I was learning about localism, which was mentioned in a different book we had recently reviewed, I wanted to make sure that one of my friends who is an advocate for localism and is moving to a more rural area wasn’t becoming a “romantic agrarian.” After all, while the people of God began by being planted in a garden, the people of God end in and as a city (Revelation 21-22). Of course, that begs a whole host of questions such as what a city looks like, but as my friend was level-headed in his answer to my concern, my thoughts trended towards a different direction: what do we read about cities in Scripture?

In Genesis, the first cities explicitly mentioned are cities of men: Cain's city, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Zoar where Lot slept with his daughters. This is not a particularly great start in our understanding of how city life can be good!

The next cities mentioned, however, are patriarchal and convert nations: Ephron (in which peoples blessed Abraham and gifted him with land for a burial site), Nahor (in which kin blessed Abraham and Isaac with the gift of Rebekah), Beersheba (the first city founded by a patriarch – in particular, the son of promise, Isaac – in which Isaac covenanted with Abimelech, had a peace meal with people who had previously persecuted him, and drew water), and Bethel (Jacob's mediatorial ladder). We begin to see major typological and redemptive themes associated with cities.

The next mention of cities returns to those of men: Shechem (in which the Dinah is defiled by a prince and Jacob’s sons literally apply circumcision-death to people with whom they had covenanted; surrounding cities become terrified as Jacob and his sons experience an exodus from Shechem to the house of God in Bethel, cf. Genesis 34:30 and Exodus 5:21) and 3 Edomite cities I don't know much about (Dinhalah, Avith, Pau).

Finally, Pharaoh and his cities (plural) of Egypt convert under the ascension of Joseph, and Israel is blessed and reciprocally blesses Pharaoh.

Genesis events – the patriarchal ones in particular – were later meant to be a template for the Israelites (especially their leaders) to know how to act. Learn from history. Will you be a spiritual city of refuge for the nations or spiritual Babel, Sodom, and Egypt? We now know how that eventually turned out. The same message now applies to visible churches.

With this backdrop in mind, in James B. Jordan's Crisis, Opportunity, and the Christian Future, he writes a chapter about “The Three Fundamental Cultures” that followed the giving of the Decalogue, listed here and described with examples in my own words:

The Age of Tribes – tribal, priestly, period of the judges

The Age of Nations (or Cities) – national, kingly, period of the kings

The Cosmopolitan Age – imperial, prophetic, period of the emperors

Reflection on this chapter, scattered statements he has made elsewhere, and study on my own led me to see an eschatological escalation of the city theme throughout Scripture. The following is an outline of what I have in mind:

In the patriarchal era after which Israel's history was patterned, we first see God scatter the nations at Babel, one of the first cities mentioned in the Bible, because He would not allow a centralization of false worship. Out of this event came the temporary distinction between a nation of priests (Hebrews/Israelites/Jews) and those who were not, an event which catalyzes the cultural periods Jordan alludes to above. The resulting multitude of nations was good, not bad (see this podcast discussion), and these local-cultural distinctions will remain (Revelation 7:9), but conflated with the Babel-event is a judgment which led to exodus.

[...and parenthetically, perhaps this always happens: the first, divine judgments follow divine separations (exoduses?), all of which eschatologically resolve in our experiencing exoduses from darkness and waters of judgment. When does the first exodus occur? Not in the book of Exodus! That isn’t even the first (or second!) exodus from Egypt in particular that we read in Scripture. I think it possible that one can find exoduses as early as Genesis 1, and earlier than Jordan himself proposes: the day/night distinction will resolve on the Day of the Lord, the firmament distinction will resolve in a baptism by fire – just as there was a Noahic baptism by water – as heaven descends upon earth, and the water/land distinction will become land only, as there will be no more sea; Revelation 21:1, 25). Creation itself might be an exodus – it is some kind of ontological change from what could have been, at least. When we become new creations, we have certainly experienced an exodus. This is a bit speculative and tangential on my part, but interesting to consider. One danger to watch out for would be pantheism, as the Creator-creature distinction will always remain. If creation was an exodus in that Creator and creature are separated, it is the only one that doesn't resolve.]

Regardless, there are plenty of exoduses in Genesis – particularly in the patriarchal narratives, which directly follow the Babel narrative – and Israel's history recapitulates these patriarchal events, from which they do not learn many lessons. Besides the example of Jacob in Shechem that I mentioned above: Abraham and Isaac are faithful throughout their exoduses from Egypt, whereas Israel was falsely worshipping (Joshua 24:14) and required salvation from God’s plagues. They are more like Lot’s wife during and after their exodus from Sodom and Gomorrah – barely out of Egypt before crying out against Moses (and, thus, God) that they wish they had never left – than they are like Hagar and Isaac, who wandered in a wilderness and cry out to God for salvation. Abraham and Isaac wandered before the latter, the son of promise, established the first patriarchal city, Beersheba, with its waters of healing and feast of peace between covenanted peoples. Israel wanders like the patriarchs did before finally establishing cities in the promised land to which Gentiles come and convert (prophetically, cf. Exodus 15-18)... before they fall again and again, resulting in the desolation of the tabernacle, 1st temple, and 2nd temple. Etc.

Israel is scattered from Egypt to be priests to the nations, because Egypt became a new Babel. Like Babel, the scattering was again due to the false worship in the city (by both nation-peoples), for which the city was to be judged. Judgment again led to exodus. Furthermore, I think Egypt is the first biblical instance in which we explicitly see a land that has cities (plural) over which one person, pharaoh, ruled. This is kingly, if not imperial (as I might argue), and an escalation in the Babel pattern. History typologically spirals, not exactly repeats. The history in Genesis foreshadows the rest of biblical history, with Israel’s history being next, so the escalating pattern of city judgment, exodus-scattering, and new creation should and does appear in Israel's history. 

There are quite a few examples in Israel's history that are worth mentioning in a more exploratory post on this subject, but the eventual scenario of multiple cities over which a Davidic king rules is perhaps on the same scale as Egypt in one sense, perhaps on a larger scale in another sense (given more distinctive local communities and a wider sphere of influence), and perhaps less in another sense (pharaoh ruled over both priestly and non-priestly peoples). I could include the tabernacle-temple escalation as a microcosmic escalation of what we see playing out geographically. As before, though, syncretism leads to false worship (in both tabernacle and temple, by both priests and kings), Israel becomes a new Babel, judgment led to exodus, and the Israelites are exiled in one sense – and yet, although scattered, God promises to be with them as they continue their priestly ministry among the nations of the Babylonian empire.

During the prophetic period of Daniel et al., the Jews eventually return to rebuild the temple at the behest of emperor Cyrus, a king who disarms other kings (Isaiah 45:1, Ezra 6). Israel’s history reaches an escalated climax in proportion to the climax of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. Their sphere of influence is pervasive in the biblical oikouménÄ“ until they reject the true King of the cosmos, Yahweh, in Acts. Jesus came as the Cosmic Man, recapitulating the events of the patriarchs and Israel as the true Israel and Son of God, antitype of these types. He passed the wilderness wanderings (it seems to me He wanders throughout most of the gospels), eventually establishing Himself as the City of Refuge, the resurrected third and true Temple-City, Head of the new body-politic of believers in which Jews and Gentiles were finally one house. Jerusalem became Babel when they rejected this City for their own, judgment led to exodus, and believers in Christ were scattered among the nations, a true priestly people and truly adopted sons of the Spirit. Now on an escalated, world-wide scale, this will lead to peoples from all nations converting.

The escalating pattern of scattering should and does appear in church history, since we are united with Him. The cherubim firmament-guarders of the sanctuaries (Eden, Sinai, tabernacle, temple, heaven) have been succeeded by the church, since while we were in infancy under angelic tutors, we are now united with Christ who has been exalted above them. The flaming sword and duty of the cherubim have been passed to the church. The church appeals to God’s word-Word to mediate the new covenant, guarding His sanctuary from within (excommunication) as well as at the gates (sacrament), a priestly firmament in which people are cut off or cut in, so to speak.

So when, like the leaders of Israel, the visible church compromises its power to bind and loose, the visible manifestation of God’s kingdom on earth ebbs until it flows; the difference between Israel and the church, I think, is that in our case, the power of Christ will flow through the Spirit to we who are truly united with Him. It isn’t a matter of if (cf. discussion of Daniel 2 below). I recall that Jordan somewhere mentions the tabernacle is emblematic of a man, with its innermost regions (most holy place), stomach (holy place), and feet (pillars) – or something like that. Just as individually, we experience our own exodus from sin and ebbs and flows as we escalate in sanctification towards being glorified temple-bodies of the Holy Spirit, corporately, we see the same in the church. 

[As an aside, this means that I disagree with Jordan’s view of the relation between good works and final justification, his view of the conditional perseverance of those united to Christ, etc. Like Jordan, I do believe ecclesiology, anthropology, and soteriology are tied together (a point to which I will return below). But not all Israel is of Israel, and not all the church is of the Church. I think that the visible-invisible church distinction is sufficient to explain visible ebbs in the manifestation of God’s kingdom. It just takes time for Christ's true body to fully mature in worship and practice, cutting off infectious sources (false members), just as it takes a man time to mature in worship and practice, cutting off sin.]

The next time a kingdom is shaken and a death-resurrection and exodus scattering event occurs, it will be the last, and on a cosmic scale, a crescendo in the escalation in geographic manifestation of God’s king-domain on earth as in heaven – heaven on earth. God’s enemies rather than His people will be finally scattered; in fact, His people will assemble together. Judgment will lead to death, resurrection, and exodus one last time, with true worship being established forever in the resolving of creation judgments alluded to earlier.

Returning to Jordan's "Three Fundamental Cultures": remembering that this pattern was meant to depict a time after the giving of the Law (Israelite history), and given that Israelite history is particularly patterned after patriarchal history, the principle of city judgment, exodus-scattering, and new creation, may not capture but does also apply, for example, to Cain's prediluvian city. Cities which have forsaken God will always be judged, and the remnant of God's people (if such there be) will experience exodus from the city. In Noah's time, the whole earth became the city of man, and judgment led to exodus, this time with Noah being replanted, as it were, as a new Adam in a garden-city, commanded to be fruitful and multiply. This leads me to consider the ark of Noah as a city of refuge, with the ark's door as the gate of entrance. From reading I've done in the past, I am convinced it was a protological temple and microcosm of the universe. Antitypically, Christ is our Temple-City now, our Ark-Gate-Door, the Cosmic Man in whom we will survive the coming baptism by fire and be planted in the eschatological garden-city of Revelation 21-22. There is more to Peter's description of the Noahic flood as the end of an epoch that will be matched by the baptism by fire to come than meets the eye (2 Peter 3).

Now, one of my friends on the podcast pointed out that Eden was to become the glorified city of Revelation 21-22 (compare the tree and river imagery in both settings, for example). Thus, the garden is a prototypical city. I recalled that was to happen by Adam's adornment of it with jewels from Havilah - the eschatological end on Adam wasn't somewhere "out there," although he was called to engage in the public domain to glorify the sanctuary. Eden is the first city. When Adam sinned, judgment led to exodus, and humanity was scattered across the face of the earth, awaiting the new creation through the second Adam, whose work tore the temple veil and enabled return access to the sanctuary-city that true churches now enjoy fellowship with in worship.

What is true macrocosmically is true microcosmically: we are called trees in Scripture. Upon conversion, we become temple-houses of the Holy Spirit, the beginning of a sanctifying process of killing sin that ends in city-glorification: adorned, bejeweled, and given robes of glory in being united with Christ. Our eschatological end isn't some "out-of-body" spirit a la gnosticism, although our sanctification of our individual (and corporate) sanctuary-bodies is likewise not [only] found by inward reflection or contemplation but by working out our salvation with fear and trembling in the real world. And as we engage in the real world, different people bring back different jewels with which to adorn the temple: localism and distinctiveness of nation-peoples is preserved even as we are all united in the sanctuary. As the land of Eden was to be adorned – as was the later tabernacle and temple – with gold (etc.), the heavenly Jerusalem will be adorned with us. 

One final picture of this I will present here is the mountain theme. Mountains are constantly depicted as places of God’s presence: His city in which He is enthroned. Eden, Sinai, Zion, and so forth. Mountains are also temples, locations of sacrifice; hence, altars were miniature mountains. We, as living sacrifices, come to the true Mount Zion, the city of the living God (Hebrews 12:22). United to Christ, we are also mountains, living stones built upon the Chief Cornerstone of the Rock of Christ, the builder of His house-church. So when Daniel 2 mentions an uncut stone that grows to become a great mountain and smashes the false body-politic/temple/idolatrous worship – true worship[pers] triumphs over false worsip[pers] – it simultaneously pictures the city-people-worship of God as simultaneously growing to encompass the whole cosmos, scattering God's enemies to establish His kingdom and throne (cf. various parables like the mustard seed, which grows to become a tree of refuge to the nations-birds).

I find that an implication of this excursus is that Christology, anthopology, ecclesiology, sociology, cosmology, and other -ologies of places and people at least tend to mirror one another from first things to last things, from the protological to eschatological. Actions of God and man – soteriological ones, yes, but also pre-redemptive historical actions such as doxology, liturgy, faith, obedience, etc. – are the means by which this glorification from first to last takes place. And, I suppose, Trinitarianism is at root. After all, the chief end of man is the glory-exaltation of God.

There's clearly a lot more than could be fleshed out here, but I leave it to the reader's consideration for now.

Thursday, April 1, 2021

300th Post: An Indulgent Look Back

When I first started this blog, I completed my first 100 posts nearly within a year. The next 100 posts took around 2 years, and it has since taken me 9 years to complete this most recent iteration. The exponential lapse in time between publishing my thoughts has only been exceeded by the exponential increase in God's grace in my life, so I can't say that I am too dissatisfied. At the same time, be it God's will, hopefully it won't be another decade or so for me to take this kind of opportunity to look back at where I was and have come to be.

It's hard to believe how quickly time flies. it doesn't seem too long ago that I was beginning to grapple with, among other things, Trinitarianism, metaphysics, contemporary epistemology, theology proper, textual criticism, and podcasting. I have some thoughts I hope to post shortly. I know I can be a better steward of my time, and while that does not mean hanging around on blogger, it does mean putting talents God has given me to better use.

For readers who happen upon this post and wonder what I have been up to - which may be nobody, but at least, as with the rest of this blog, I'll now be able to revisit present reflections later - God has been, as always, good. I've been blessed by local church, wife, house, dog, family, and friends. I pray I have grown in grace as well as knowledge and that, by God's power, I am better able to obey the first and second commandments. I still work on being more disciplined with myself, less short with others, and more appreciative for what God has done for me, for what do I have that I have not received? Exalt God, and you will be exalted. And so, reader, as my pastor says during the benediction:

The grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all, now and forevermore. Amen.