The following links are to the various posts in which I review Shawn Lazar's book, Scripturalism and the Senses:
Tuesday, April 6, 2021
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 here, here, here, 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.
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.
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).
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 oikouménē 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.
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 oikouménē 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.
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Infinitism: Transcriptions of Various Papers
Back when I was a public policy undergraduate and thought I might segue into a graduate program for philosophy, I was just beginning to learn the language of and popular topics in contemporary epistemology. I continued to use my free time (and probably time I ought to have been studying) researching and writing posts on this blog.
Typically, I would take on an annual "project," research whose content was more in depth and focused, and I've posted most of them. Some of these larger projects overlapped with my essay submissions for the annual TrinityFoundation contests. Others were various transcriptions, like a near comprehensive compilation of Gordon Clark's epistemological views from available publications at the time.
Another such project that I haven't posted until now was preparation for a literature review on infinitism that I thought could be used for a master's thesis and expanded, down the road, in a PhD dissertation. While I can't quite bring myself to call the university door entirely shut for me, I did apply once many years ago (using a polished edit of this post as my writing sample) and was rejected.
Thus, I don't know that I will ever return to the classroom as student instead of teacher. So to give myself some solace that my youthful energy did not go to waste, hopefully somebody finds useful my 1000+ pages of transcribed, collated philosophy papers on the epistemological concept of "infinitism," which can be found here. Each paper was found on google scholar, and while it may be missing a few of the longer, book-length treatments, I believe it is otherwise fairly comprehensive up until around 2011.
P.S. For those who are interested in the topic of infinitism in general, this book is excellent.
Typically, I would take on an annual "project," research whose content was more in depth and focused, and I've posted most of them. Some of these larger projects overlapped with my essay submissions for the annual TrinityFoundation contests. Others were various transcriptions, like a near comprehensive compilation of Gordon Clark's epistemological views from available publications at the time.
Another such project that I haven't posted until now was preparation for a literature review on infinitism that I thought could be used for a master's thesis and expanded, down the road, in a PhD dissertation. While I can't quite bring myself to call the university door entirely shut for me, I did apply once many years ago (using a polished edit of this post as my writing sample) and was rejected.
Thus, I don't know that I will ever return to the classroom as student instead of teacher. So to give myself some solace that my youthful energy did not go to waste, hopefully somebody finds useful my 1000+ pages of transcribed, collated philosophy papers on the epistemological concept of "infinitism," which can be found here. Each paper was found on google scholar, and while it may be missing a few of the longer, book-length treatments, I believe it is otherwise fairly comprehensive up until around 2011.
P.S. For those who are interested in the topic of infinitism in general, this book is excellent.
Monday, June 22, 2020
Podcast Update, Genesis 1:1-5, and a Small Tribute to Steve Hays
For those who follow, my friends and I will be starting our podcast again - completed episodes of which you can find here - on Peter Leithart's A House for My Name. Additionally, I would like to dedicate the following notes for a men's Bible study of Genesis 1:1-5 at my church to Steve Hays, Triablogue contributor who recently passed away. He did a great service not only for "the" faith but also my faith. I had mainly kept my blog bookmarked so I could continue to read his thoughts, which were always written at a machine-like pace with machine-like precision. Despite that comparison, he was always very kind to me, and I thank God for his willingness to encourage young men in particular. One light in this world has gone out, and let those who knew or benefited from God's work through him endeavor to carry on shining all the more brightly for what Steve did.
Later, in Isaiah 66:1-2: Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord.
Now, when I think about the house of the Lord in the Old Testament, I usually think about the temple, as that is the place where God dwelled among the Israelites. In 2 Samuel 7, for instance, the Lord communicates to the prophet Nathan His desire that a house be built for Him to dwell in, since He had been moving about in the tabernacle for His dwelling. Later, in 2 Chronicles 3:1, we see the fulfillment of God’s desire when the Chronicler writes, “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.” This house refers to the temple that God’s glory filled once it was completed, just as His glory filled the completed tabernacle in Exodus 40. In other words, God moved into His house.
What does all of this lead to? My first point was that because God baptized His creation house in the beginning, we should too, and that our baptism symbolizes our being new creations just as God newly created His house after baptizing it. But this also leads into my second point: when we say God baptizes His house, we see that God baptizes – not only creation, not only the tabernacle, and not only the temple – but also His family (His Son and the church), too.
In other words, the second implication of creation being the Lord’s house is that as we too are baptized, new creations of God’s handiwork, that means we too are God’s house. And because we also are God’s house, we too are God’s dwelling place. I think this explains what I mentioned a moment earlier about why “house” in Scripture can sometimes refers to physical dwelling places, sometimes families, and sometimes both. As we live our lives analogically patterned after God’s life and actions, we can see that our dwelling is not only our physical place of existence but also our family. In God’s case, He not only intended to dwell in and enjoy Sabbath rest in His new creation in the sense of the cosmos but also in His images, us as new creations.
I believe this is why New Testament Scriptures explicitly reveal us to be temples for the Holy Spirit and houses of God, both individually and corporately as Christ’s body. I’ll note a few Scriptures:
New
Creations: Our Identities as Followers of Christ
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day...
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
I may have mentioned this to a few of you over the years, but to give a little background about myself for those who may not know me as well, I grew up in a diverse Protestant background. When I was young, I went to a Methodist church, then a non-denominational church, and all the while I was going to a Baptist school. What I find interesting looking back at those times - and there could be many reasons for what I am about to say, most of them due to my own faults - but it probably wasn’t until my late teens to early twenties that I can remember understanding that the stories in the Old Testament were actually much richer than I had realized, and that they happened and were revealed for good reason and according to God’s wisdom.
When I was a kid, I knew of events in the Old Testament like creation and the fall of Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, Moses and Egypt, David and Goliath, and Daniel and the Lion’s Den. These and a few others were really popular in Sunday school. But we mostly read the stories of Jesus from the New Testament, and I just thought of Old Testament stories as completely separate from each other, almost like a random collection of stories that all just had common morale along the lines of, “You had better side with God if you want to turn out all right.”
Of course, that is a really important truth to know, especially for young children. But as I grew older, and especially after I started college, I began to hear others ask some hard questions about Christianity. I’m honestly grateful for that time, because I think it was God’s providence that led me to ask my own questions, by which His grace has caused me to grow in knowledge and assurance of His trustworthy promises.
All of that is a bit of a prelude to why I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the very beginnings of the Bible, one of those stories I mentioned that I was told as a kid but now realize has layers to it that always causes me to go back and appreciate the weightiness and freshness of God’s word and plan in history.
One of the hard questions I encountered was the idea of why God created things the way He did. I think we all know that God didn’t need to create, although there is nothing wrong with His decision to create since it pleased Him to do so. But given that He chose to create, I’ve had coworkers or friends ask me why I think God decided to create the way He did, because it seems He could have created many other ways. And while we could always just say, “well this is what pleased Him,” and on some level all questions of why God does what He does bottoms out with this answer, I think there is something else we can say to those people who ask us this.
For instance, a part of my answer to the question of why God created the way He did was that I think God was setting a pattern for imitation and life for the images of Himself that He knew that He would create: we men and women. Now obviously, we can’t create out of nothing, and we don’t have life in ourselves, but there are analogous actions and life we can have that mimic God’s, and I’ll mention a few of them shortly.
Before I do that, I want us to start by thinking about what creation itself is to God: what was the intention for creating the heavens and the earth in the beginning? And a reason I want to do that is that God Himself describes how He thinks of or treats His own creation of heaven and earth, so it will be useful to consider why God reveals these truths to us. So let’s turn to a few Scriptures:
In Isaiah 40:21-22, we read: Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.Later, in Isaiah 66:1-2: Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord.
Now, when I think about the house of the Lord in the Old Testament, I usually think about the temple, as that is the place where God dwelled among the Israelites. In 2 Samuel 7, for instance, the Lord communicates to the prophet Nathan His desire that a house be built for Him to dwell in, since He had been moving about in the tabernacle for His dwelling. Later, in 2 Chronicles 3:1, we see the fulfillment of God’s desire when the Chronicler writes, “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.” This house refers to the temple that God’s glory filled once it was completed, just as His glory filled the completed tabernacle in Exodus 40. In other words, God moved into His house.
So we have an idea that creation is God’s house, and also an idea that the tabernacle and temple, at least in the Old Testament, were God’s house. Reverend Michael Morales, who I believe some of you know, wrote the following about this connection between creation in Genesis 1 and the tabernacle and temple:
Approaching the biblical account of creation, there are various indications that such a parallel between cosmos and temple (or tabernacle) is in view. For example, the Spirit or “Wind of God’ as a phrase appears in Genesis 1:2 for the construction of the cosmos and in Exodus 31:3 and 35:31 for the construction of the tabernacle. Moreover, the Spirit’s endowment of Bezalel, the chief artisan of the tabernacle, is described in terms of wisdom, understanding and knowledge (Exodus 31:3), the same attributes by which God is said to have fashioned the cosmos (Proverbs 3:19-20). Other creation terminology shared with the tabernacle includes the word light or lamp in Genesis 1:14-15, which always in the Pentateuch designates the lamps of the tabernacle...
Elsewhere in the Bible, creation is likened to a tent pitched by God (Psalm 104; Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22) or to a house God has established, with pillars, windows and doors (Job 26:11; Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23)…” Reverend Morales concludes that “there is an analogical relationship between creation and tabernacle: again, the cosmos is a large temple; the temple is a small cosmos.
Indeed, as Psalm 78:69 says, “He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded forever.”
There are a lot of implications that we can draw from this connection between creation as God’s house and the temple as God’s house. I’ll just mention three things that I think we can learn from the first few verses of Genesis. The first is that God baptizes His house. The second is that the church is also considered God’s house. And the last is that as His house, we are to be lights in and of God’s house.
Baptism
The first point is that God baptizes His house. Let’s turn back to Genesis 1:2, where we see that the earth is formless, and the Spirit hovers over the face of the waters. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 32:10-11, several Reformed authors have noted that Moses uses the same relatively rare terminology to describe the Spirit as hovering like an eagle over the Israelites while leading them out of formless wilderness of Egypt (cf. Ezekiel 20:36) during the exodus. Paul later identifies this exodus through the Red Sea as a type of baptism (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). Similarly, a dove hovered over the flood in the time of Noah, and the Holy Spirit hovered in its descent as a dove on the Christ during His baptism. This leads Reformed author J. V. Fesko notes that “the origins of baptism lie in Genesis 1:2…” Thus, after creating His house, the first revealed act of the God is the baptism of His house. And as images of God and imitators of Christ, we too baptize our houses.
Only after God baptizes His house does He begins a process of newly creating it. He created the heavens and the earth as formless, void, and dark, but after baptism, we see God newly creating it in light, making divisions within His house, and then filling it. And this is why our baptism symbolizes us as new creations: because it recalls historical events in which God took His house and made it new.
Now, when we say that we should baptize our houses, we don’t actually mean our physical homes that we move into and physically dwell but rather our families. “House” is sometimes a double-entendre in Scripture – it can refer to a person’s dwelling place, or it can refer to his family – like when the Lord says in Hosea that He will have mercy on the house of Judah – and sometimes both a dwelling place and family are intended with just one word. There’s a good reason for this, and I will talk about that in a minute. But to give an example of what I mean, in 2 Samuel 7, the Lord reveals to David, “I will build you a house.” God was not only talking about the temple, the dwelling place of the Lord, but also the house of David, his family dynasty (2 Chronicles 21:7), including Solomon who we already noted built later built the temple-house of God.What does all of this lead to? My first point was that because God baptized His creation house in the beginning, we should too, and that our baptism symbolizes our being new creations just as God newly created His house after baptizing it. But this also leads into my second point: when we say God baptizes His house, we see that God baptizes – not only creation, not only the tabernacle, and not only the temple – but also His family (His Son and the church), too.
House of God
In other words, the second implication of creation being the Lord’s house is that as we too are baptized, new creations of God’s handiwork, that means we too are God’s house. And because we also are God’s house, we too are God’s dwelling place. I think this explains what I mentioned a moment earlier about why “house” in Scripture can sometimes refers to physical dwelling places, sometimes families, and sometimes both. As we live our lives analogically patterned after God’s life and actions, we can see that our dwelling is not only our physical place of existence but also our family. In God’s case, He not only intended to dwell in and enjoy Sabbath rest in His new creation in the sense of the cosmos but also in His images, us as new creations.
I believe this is why New Testament Scriptures explicitly reveal us to be temples for the Holy Spirit and houses of God, both individually and corporately as Christ’s body. I’ll note a few Scriptures:
2 Corinthians 6:15-20 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Hebrews 3:6 Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.
1 Corinthians 3:9-11, 16-17 For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ… Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.
2 Corinthians 5:1-4, 17 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life... Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
I’ll briefly note that this last passage touches on eschatology. Peter writes in his epistle that all will be baptized by fire upon Christ’s return (1 Peter 1:7, 2 Peter 3:5-7), with some whose faith in Christ will be shown to be genuine and lead to a new and glorified life, and some whose unbelief leads to them and their sinful works being burned up in destruction. Likewise, Paul tells us to look forward to the return of Christ for new and glorified tent-bodies, if indeed we are new creations in Christ.
The final thing I will mention here is that not only are we houses and dwelling places for God as His new creation, but also, Christ is our new dwelling place. If we recall John 2, Christ mentioned that the temple of His body would be resurrected the third day after His crucifixion. We also may remember in Matthew 27 that the temple veil was torn when the temple of Christ’s body was crucified, enabling access for anyone who is united with Him to dwell, pray, and worship in the presence of the Father and heavenly hosts that are mentioned in Hebrews 12.
In other words, Christ is the true temple in that in Him dwells the fullness of the Father and Spirit, which is why He was able to reveal them to us. As Paul says, “he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” So when the Spirit unites us to the Christ our Lord, a few things happen: we dwell in Christ, the true temple, and He then dwells in us, and we become temples. There is then a perichoresis or mutual indwelling of God in us and us in God that mimics the life of the Trinity, the source of all created life.
Light in God’s House
The third and last implication I want to draw out in the remaining time we have here is what we now are to do, knowing that we do that we are baptized new creations and the house of God. And to that point, let us return back to Genesis 1:
Genesis 1:2-5 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Think about what any of us do when we enter our houses. The first thing we do is to turn on the lights. We don’t stumble around blindly in darkness. Instead, we turn on the lights so we can see, evaluate, or judge the state of our house to make sure that everything inside set right. That’s exactly what God does here at the beginning of time. God, after baptizing His creation anew, says “Let there be light” and then evaluates His work as good, by which He then proceeds to continue to make covenantal divisions within His house, each of which He then covenantally fills, especially in multiplying His image.
Now for all we know, God could have created everything in light since the beginning, but He instead chose to create a formless and void creation in darkness. The Spirit then hovers over the face of the waters, baptizing it into the light of the word of God. Light is the means by which work is evaluated, which is why the first good work of God in newly creating His house is to turn on the light. This is also the beginning of a good work God will bring to completion at the day of the Lord, the Sabbath day. God Himself is the true light who came into a dark world to give it light, the true morning that follows the evening.
What we may not realize – or, at least, for I long time I didn’t realize – is that as we live the Christian life as we are supposed to do, we’re imitating a pattern God set since the beginning of time. Due to sin, we are born formless and void, creations in darkness (Ephesians 5:8). To make us new creations, the Spirit hovers over our faces, baptizing us into the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6), who is the Word of God (John 1:1). Light is the means by which work is evaluated (John 3:19-21), which is why the first good work of God in newly creating us as His house (Hebrews 3:6) is also to turn on the light in it, and in His light we see and are light (Psalm 36:9). This is the beginning of a good work in us that God will also bring to completion at the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6), the one who gives us rest (Matthew 11:28). Christ is the true light who came into a dark world to give light (John 1:9), the true morning that follows the evening. He is the light by whom blind men are able to see (2 Corinthians 4:4), and in His light we will rest forever as we walk in it (Revelation 21:23-25). I won’t go through all of the Scriptures that support this comparison, but to name a few:
John 1:1-5, 9 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it… The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
2 Corinthians 4:3-6 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
I think John ties all of the themes I have brought up in Revelation 21 in his description of the new heaven and new earth with its the holy city, the new Jerusalem. In this chapter, God declares He is making all things new, and that His dwelling place is with man. There will be no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there.
All this is to say that what I’ve discovered is that the story in Genesis is the story of the rest of the Bible. It isn’t put there just because it is a record of the beginning of time, although it is that. As God brought forth light from darkness in Genesis, John 1 describes the Son of God as the life that is the light of all mankind, the true light gives light to everyone, the light that the darkness has not and will not overcome. This light exposes darkness, either converting it to light or judging it for trying to hide from it. To believers, God has given the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of the light. And having been enlightened, so to speak, we are to be lights in and to the world, means of witness by which the Father gives that light to others just as it was given to us:
Matthew 5:14-16 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Ephesians 5:8 at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light.
Being enlightened new creations by God’s handiwork, and we can know with assurance that God looks at and judges His work in us as good, just as He did in Genesis. That is our confidence that, as Paul says:
Philippians 1:6 I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Following the heavenly pattern of God’s revealed actions and life is our impetus as new creations to live out godly lives on earth. Baptize our house, be God’s house, and shine as lights of His house so that we can, by God’s grace, reach those who are, like we were, in darkness. That is how we are a part of the answer to our prayer that the Father’s “will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” And with that, I will close with the following blessing from the apostle Paul from his letter to the Galatian church:
Galatians 6:15-16, 18 …neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Gordon Clark and the Necessity of Internalist Knowledge
Almost 5 years to the day (where does the time go?), I wrote a post in which I addressed how I thought a consistent Scripturalist would have to stand on the question of whether the nature of epistemic justification is internalist or externalist. My initial leaning was towards access internalism, the idea that one's epistemic justification is something of which one can be aware of, reflect on, or is otherwise cognitively accessible. My own views have developed since then, as I now think some beliefs may be internally justified whereas others may be externally justified. In fact - if "justification" is as fuzzy a concept as some epistemologists think - one belief may be both! Still, I tend to agree with my initial suspicion insofar as consistent Scripturalists should be internalists with respect to some knowledge, at least.
But given the stated differences on this blog between my epistemological views and those of Gordon Clark, some might question whether those differences color whether I'm confusing what I think a "consistent Scripturalist" or "strict adherent" to Gordon Clark's epistemology would believe vs. what I think a consistent Christian would believe. In other words, am I fairly representing what Gordon Clark would have defended?
While that is not my primary concern in developing my own epistemological views, it is a fair question and, in part, a reason why I've decided to argue, in this post, what position I think Gordon Clark himself would have had to say. Another reason is that some have taken the opposite position, stating they think Clark was an externalist.
Now, I would preface any discussion about Clark's views regarding internalism and externalism with my opinion that Clark didn't seem to be aware that this was a much debated subject. To some extent, that would make sense, as I don't think externalism was much developed until the 1960s or 70s.
In any case, the idea that our epistemic justification comprises things of which we could be unaware or fail to be able to reflect on is something which, in my mind, is completely foreign to Clark's view on which Scripture is our source of knowledge, our sole epistemic foundation. Admittedly, the Holy Spirit's function in the production of our knowledge is indeed important because He does, indeed, cause it:
But before I express my reasons why I believed Clark would have identified with internalism, there is a problem with a purely Scripturalist externalist position that I have never received an answer to, and it is this:
If Scripturalism is true, then all that we can "know" are the propositions of Scripture or those deducible from it. But does the Holy Spirit - the epistemically justifying cause Scripturalist externalists I have encountered constantly appeal to - only [immediately] cause true beliefs of believers in regards to that which may by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture? That is, does the Holy Spirit not [immediately] cause us to believe truths which cannot be deduced from Scripture? Nowhere do I find this to be a deducible proposition from Scripture, and yet it is needed in order to say that we can only know what Scripture reveals, i.e. to be a Scripturalist. Where does Scripture say the Holy Spirit [immediately] causes only beliefs which are deducible from Scripture?
There are other problems I find with a Scripturalist externalist framework, such as the question of whether or not I am more justified in actually having deduced propositions from Scripture than a person who believes - without reason - in a deducible proposition as a result of the causation of the Holy Spirit. But for the sake of the topic of this post and due to the fact that I have lodged other arguments elsewhere on this blog, I will move on. The following constitute my reasoning for believing Gordon Clark himself would have identified as an internalist:
To start with the obvious, something all Scripturalists can agree with is that Clark believed that the axiom of revelation is that alone by which we know anything:
Further, Clark is obviously interested in a "method" by which classes of beliefs like opinion and knowledge can be distinguished in practice. Two externalists with contradictory beliefs could both appeal to a causal process (like that the Holy Spirit caused their belief) to justify their beliefs without a method for distinguishing who to believe. Right or wrong, then, it looks like Clark believed that such a situation would amount to ignoring the problem rather than confronting it. Any time a so-called Scripturalist externalist attempts to defend his "case" exegetically as if it contributes one iota towards one's epistemic justification, he is ironically probably presupposing an internalist framework. For it is not the work of the Holy Spirit that he considers his epistemic justification, it is the actual content of or reasoning from one's first principle, both of which he is aware.
Finally, Clark believed that not only is the axiom of revelation self-authenticating but also that all first principles must be:
But given the stated differences on this blog between my epistemological views and those of Gordon Clark, some might question whether those differences color whether I'm confusing what I think a "consistent Scripturalist" or "strict adherent" to Gordon Clark's epistemology would believe vs. what I think a consistent Christian would believe. In other words, am I fairly representing what Gordon Clark would have defended?
While that is not my primary concern in developing my own epistemological views, it is a fair question and, in part, a reason why I've decided to argue, in this post, what position I think Gordon Clark himself would have had to say. Another reason is that some have taken the opposite position, stating they think Clark was an externalist.
Now, I would preface any discussion about Clark's views regarding internalism and externalism with my opinion that Clark didn't seem to be aware that this was a much debated subject. To some extent, that would make sense, as I don't think externalism was much developed until the 1960s or 70s.
In any case, the idea that our epistemic justification comprises things of which we could be unaware or fail to be able to reflect on is something which, in my mind, is completely foreign to Clark's view on which Scripture is our source of knowledge, our sole epistemic foundation. Admittedly, the Holy Spirit's function in the production of our knowledge is indeed important because He does, indeed, cause it:
How then may we know that the Bible is true? The Confession answers, “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of the Scripture] is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit.” Faith is a gift or work of God. It is God who causes us to believe: “Blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto thee” (Psa. 65:4). (GHC What Do Presbyterians Believe?, 1985, pg. 18)So, does this give us reason to think Clark believed that one's epistemic justification for believing God's word just is the causation of the Spirit, as some Scripturalists think? Not at all. It's fallacious to infer from "God causes knowledge" or "God causes us to believe" that our epistemic justification just is the causation itself. Rather, the "how" here is a metaphysical question yielding a metaphysical answer. I might as well ask, "how do we desire God?" or "from where does our desire for God come?" God ultimately - if not immediately - causes our desires. Of course, God causes knowledge, and blessed by God is he who receives it over against one who doesn't. But how we even know and justify the work of the Spirit which took place logically prior to accepting our axiom must be via deduction made from and justified by our axiom:
Any axiom eliminates its opposite. The Christian system is no more indefensible on this point than any other system.
Therefore, the more serious reply to the charge that the axiom of revelation begs all questions is that the objection fails to distinguish the status of axioms and the status of theorems. Obviously a first principle or a set of axioms covers all that follows. Indeed, that is why first principles are asserted. It is their function to cover all that follows. But this is not to identify the axioms with the theorems. Euclidean geometry may have six axioms and a hundred theorems. The axioms imply the theorems, to be sure; but the theorems are not axioms. The distinction between axioms and theorems is for the purpose of arranging derivative truths under a basic or comprehensive truth. Were a geometer to assume one of the Euclidean theorems as his axioms, he would, except in very special cases, deprive geometry of many of its propositions. Thus an all-inclusive axiom that swallows everything at one gulp is most desirable. (Clark and His Critics, 2007, pg. 55)The point is that it seems to me that the justification for our philosophical knowledge is never, for Clark, grounded in the mere causative process itself but rather his faith in the axiom of revelation. For Clark, the axiom of revelation is not that the Holy Spirit must cause our beliefs in order for them to qualify as knowledge, it is that "the Bible is the word of God." Anything about what the Holy Spirit does must be deducible from this axiom.
But before I express my reasons why I believed Clark would have identified with internalism, there is a problem with a purely Scripturalist externalist position that I have never received an answer to, and it is this:
If Scripturalism is true, then all that we can "know" are the propositions of Scripture or those deducible from it. But does the Holy Spirit - the epistemically justifying cause Scripturalist externalists I have encountered constantly appeal to - only [immediately] cause true beliefs of believers in regards to that which may by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture? That is, does the Holy Spirit not [immediately] cause us to believe truths which cannot be deduced from Scripture? Nowhere do I find this to be a deducible proposition from Scripture, and yet it is needed in order to say that we can only know what Scripture reveals, i.e. to be a Scripturalist. Where does Scripture say the Holy Spirit [immediately] causes only beliefs which are deducible from Scripture?
There are other problems I find with a Scripturalist externalist framework, such as the question of whether or not I am more justified in actually having deduced propositions from Scripture than a person who believes - without reason - in a deducible proposition as a result of the causation of the Holy Spirit. But for the sake of the topic of this post and due to the fact that I have lodged other arguments elsewhere on this blog, I will move on. The following constitute my reasoning for believing Gordon Clark himself would have identified as an internalist:
To start with the obvious, something all Scripturalists can agree with is that Clark believed that the axiom of revelation is that alone by which we know anything:
It is incorrect, therefore, to complain that the axiom of revelation deprives us of knowledge otherwise obtainable. There is no knowledge otherwise obtainable. (Clark and His Critics, 2009, pg. 76).The axiom of revelation, "the Bible is the word of God," was, for Clark, the foundation for philosophical knowledge. Of course, Clark was aware that knowledge could bear different meanings (The Pastoral Epistles, 1983, pg. 166), but for "knowledge with a capital K":
Granted, it is unlikely that anyone should go to such extremes to substitute another woman for the wife of an unimportant theologian or philosopher. But how do you know? So long as substitution is possible, certainty is impossible...
The status of common opinion is not fixed until a theory has been accepted. One may admit that a number of propositions commonly believed are true; but no one can deny that many such are false. The problem is to elaborate a method by which the two classes can be distinguished. Plato too granted a place to opinion as distinct from knowledge; he even admitted that in some circumstances opinion was as useful as knowledge with a capital K. (Clark and His Critics, 2009, pgs. 75-76)Here already we see several reasons why Clark would not have been an externalist. For him, knowledge at least entailed the possibility of certainty. For externalists who believe one's justification for knowledge is located in a causal process, a person experiencing this process need not be aware of it, let alone certain of the resultant belief.
Further, Clark is obviously interested in a "method" by which classes of beliefs like opinion and knowledge can be distinguished in practice. Two externalists with contradictory beliefs could both appeal to a causal process (like that the Holy Spirit caused their belief) to justify their beliefs without a method for distinguishing who to believe. Right or wrong, then, it looks like Clark believed that such a situation would amount to ignoring the problem rather than confronting it. Any time a so-called Scripturalist externalist attempts to defend his "case" exegetically as if it contributes one iota towards one's epistemic justification, he is ironically probably presupposing an internalist framework. For it is not the work of the Holy Spirit that he considers his epistemic justification, it is the actual content of or reasoning from one's first principle, both of which he is aware.
Finally, Clark believed that not only is the axiom of revelation self-authenticating but also that all first principles 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)I once discussed with someone who thought that Clark meant that the axiom of revelation is self-authenticating merely in that the Holy Spirit caused our beliefs. I pointed out that this quote shows that Clark's understanding of self-authentication can't be meant in that way. The Holy Spirit does not bear witness to logical positivism! Instead, Clark means that for a first principle to be "self" authenticating (e.g. the Bible) means that it shouldn't require verification by something else (e.g. the Spirit) for its epistemic justification. So too with any other alleged first principle, including that of the logical positivist - although they are wrong to think so. For Clark, self-authentication as such has nothing to do with causation.
Another person once mentioned they couldn't understand how I could be an internalist due revelation being external to us. Unfortunately, this betrays a lack of understanding of what the debate between epistemic internalism and epistemic externalism is all about, i.e. whether we can be aware of or reflect on all of the factors which contribute to our epistemic justification. Since we can be aware of or reflect on God's revelation to us, what other justificatory factor do we need? While Scripturalists seems to be starting to follow the advice I gave many years ago in discussing issues in contemporary epistemology (link), that includes having a proper understanding of what those issues are in the first place. Using key terms in a non-standard way is a non-starter.
So while debate can continue about whether or not Scripturalism should be developed along externalist or internalist lines (or both), the preceding indicates that Clark himself would probably have given primacy to epistemic internalism.
Monday, November 25, 2019
A New Master, A New Father
The new life in which we can walk (Romans 6:4) as new creatures, slaves
to God and righteousness, in turn presupposes being set free from slavery to
sin (6:18). Thanks be to God for that (6:17), because it is He, not we, who
made such both possible and actual through the work of His Son. How have we
been set free from sin? We have been crucified with Christ and raised with Him
(6:5). His death and resurrection have defeated sin (6:9-11), and only by being
united with the righteous Messiah by grace, through faith, and in His Spirit, are we now able to obey and do good works as slaves to a new and infinitely
better Master. In short, our justification precedes our sanctification, and as
we are united to the Son who is Lord over all facets of our salvation, we will
experience all facets. As facets of our salvation, sanctification and eternal
life are fruits of a life of slavery to God, of obedience and good works. Thus,
the latter necessarily follow the former, although they do not function as the
meritorious ground for such ends.
So being under grace rather than law does not mean we should
live lawlessly (6:15). We should present our members or persons as slaves to
righteousness – which implies obedience (6:16) to some standard or law – and if
we do not, we are living a life which has not been set free from sin, a lawless
life which ironically keeps us under “the law” and its demand for sinless
perfection. Just as union with Christ pervades the life of believers, union
with sin pervades the life of unbelievers. Practicing sin evidences a life
which has not been freed from sin (John 8:34). A life of practiced love for the
greatest and second greatest commandments is a life that fulfills the law
(Romans 13:8-10) and can do so precisely because it is not attempting to be
justified by it – to live under it.
Now, while Paul speaks in “human terms” (6:19) when he talks
about our slavery, it is also clear that he also considers us free. To be a
slave to one master is to be free from another. When we are slaves to sin, we
are free from righteousness (Romans 6:20). Is that the sort of freedom we want?
Paul speaks of our slavery as either to sin, leading to death, or to God, leading to
eternal life (6:16). To which of these ends does pretending to be our own,
“free” masters lead?
We should then endeavor to be free from sin just as we were
free from righteousness, for this freedom is deeper. Elsewhere, both Paul and
Jesus contrast slavery to sin with freedom in sonship:
John 8:34-36 Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I
say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave
does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if
the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Galatians 4:21-26 Tell me, you who desire to be under
the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had
two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the
son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the
free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted
allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount
Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount
Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in
slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she
is our mother.
So in Romans 6, slavery to God and righteousness corresponds to sonship. As slaves to God, we are
sons of God, and our sonship gives us an inheritance (Galatians 4:30) that
slavery to sin and sonship to the devil (John 8:44) cannot. Our new life of “slavery”
is not only freedom from sin but also the freedom of a gifted promise (Romans
6:23), because our new Master is really a new Father. Or, in divine rather than
human terms:
Galatians 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son,
and if a son, then an heir through God.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Update on the Podcast and Reflection
Two new podcasts - one on textual criticism, the other on prayer - have been uploaded in the past few months, and I'm happy to say that, starting with the most recent one, we have been and should from now on be able to record in person with better audio equipment, with plans to go live on camera in the near future and, with it, the possibility of answering live questions, which I would look forward to.
Thus far, it has been an interesting, enjoyable process. I've already written about textual criticism (link) and prayer (link) in the past, but this has been an opportunity to talk out loud about them with friends I've known over half of my life. Before we started the podcast, we agreed its goal should just be that we enjoy each other's company while focusing on books that, with a little critical thinking, will help to sanctify our minds. If the only people who benefit from it is us, that's fair enough, and thank God for it. That's basically how I approached this blog, and I haven't ever regretted it.
At the same time, I wonder where this can lead. Right now, my friends and I know our shortcomings. Personally, I still rely too much on having pre-written material at my disposal while recording. If we were to transition from this to video or to something more ambitious, I need to work on internalizing material in such a way as to recall or speak to it organically. That probably requires a degree of intentionality I can't expend right now, with a new job licence and a wedding in the next few months. But I do look forward to what God has in store, even if it is just many more episodes of getting to chat theology with my friends.
The next episode will be a book of my choosing: David A. Dorsey's "The Literary Structure of the Old Testament."
Thus far, it has been an interesting, enjoyable process. I've already written about textual criticism (link) and prayer (link) in the past, but this has been an opportunity to talk out loud about them with friends I've known over half of my life. Before we started the podcast, we agreed its goal should just be that we enjoy each other's company while focusing on books that, with a little critical thinking, will help to sanctify our minds. If the only people who benefit from it is us, that's fair enough, and thank God for it. That's basically how I approached this blog, and I haven't ever regretted it.
At the same time, I wonder where this can lead. Right now, my friends and I know our shortcomings. Personally, I still rely too much on having pre-written material at my disposal while recording. If we were to transition from this to video or to something more ambitious, I need to work on internalizing material in such a way as to recall or speak to it organically. That probably requires a degree of intentionality I can't expend right now, with a new job licence and a wedding in the next few months. But I do look forward to what God has in store, even if it is just many more episodes of getting to chat theology with my friends.
The next episode will be a book of my choosing: David A. Dorsey's "The Literary Structure of the Old Testament."
Monday, February 18, 2019
The Sleep Podcast
Boy, we are long-winded. Here's the recent discussion between my friends and I about Gordon Clark's book, "In Defense of Theology." Hour and a half for a 60 page book... enjoy a nap while you listen! Hopefully, some of what we talk about osmosis-es into your minds, but if nothing else, it was highly enjoyable for me to revisit my long lost blog muse, Gordon Clark.
Up next is "Text and Time," by Edward Hills.
Up next is "Text and Time," by Edward Hills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
