Considering the Twelve Statements, Part 2

As we move into the second half of the 12 Statements of the PCA Report on Human Sexuality we find a little more controversy than in the first half. These statements, as we noted before, address the concerns of those afraid of theological compromise, and the concerns of those afraid of pastoral cruelty. As Arsenio Hall used to say, “Let’s get busy!”

Sanctification

We affirm that Christians should flee immoral behavior and not yield to temptation. By the power of the Holy Spirit working through the ordinary means of grace, Christians should seek to wither, weaken, and put to death the underlying idolatries and sinful desires that lead to sinful behavior. The goal is not just consistent fleeing from, and regular resistance to, temptation, but the diminishment and even the end of the occurrences of sinful desires through the reordering of the loves of one’s heart toward Christ. Through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, we can make substantial progress in the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Rom. 6:14-19; Heb. 12:14; 1 John 4:4; WCF13.1).

This positive statement of our doctrine is right on target and expresses well what it does say. It is addressing Christians, people who’ve been justified on account of the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. Our justification is not measured by our degree of sanctification. As people who are united to Christ we are united to Him in His death and resurrection unto new life. As people who are united to Christ, we all have a responsibility to flee immoral behavior, not just SSA. We all have a responsibility to not yield to temptation, including but not limited to SSA. This is clear. This is no “cheap grace”.

How does this happen? Through the work of the Spirit through the ordinary means of grace. This is important. There is no special second blessing for those struggling with SSA (or porn or alcohol or…) that renders them perfectly sanctified. There are no special means just for those who suffer from SSA or gender dysphoria. The discussions will be different, but the means of grace the same.

The people in question will want to experience less temptation, not more if the Spirit is at work in them. Christians want to sin less. And the Christians in question are no different. Their loves are being reordered. This is happening because He who begins good works in Christ brings them to completion in Christ.

Nevertheless,this process of sanctification—even when the Christian is diligent and fervent in the application of the means of grace—will always be accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections (WCF16.5, 6), with the Spirit and the flesh warring against one another until final glorification (WCF13.2). The believer who struggles with same-sex attraction should expect to see the regenerate nature increasingly overcome the remaining corruption of the flesh, but this progress will often be slow and uneven. Moreover, the process of mortification and vivification involves the whole person, not simply unwanted sexual desires. The aim of sanctification in one’s sexual life cannot be reduced to attraction to persons of the opposite sex (though some persons may experience movement in this direction), but rather involves growing in grace and perfecting holiness in the fear of God (WCF13.3).

Now comes the necessary counter-balance. “Sanctification … will always be accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections.”  This is true, even when we are diligent. Though, due to the conflict between flesh and Spirit none of us is as diligent as we ought to be. In Gal. 5 Paul mentions sexual sin as one of the works of the flesh with which the Galatians were tempted. We are no different. Rare is the Christian who has no sexual temptations and struggles. To hold those with SSA to a higher and different standard than ourselves is cruel. This portion of the statement guards against such cruelty.

It is not soft on sin (both original and actual) by any stretch of the imagination. It is realistic about our remaining corruption. We should see progress. But the word is progress, not perfection. Due to that warring progress is often slow and uneven. The Report doesn’t fall into the trap of saying sanctification is about having heterosexual desires or getting married. It is about holiness, the growth of grace.

I’ve seen too many comments (imply or state) that do assume that in this area real Christians don’t experience temptation, or that some switch is flipped and they become attracted to people of the opposite sex. That doesn’t happen for everyone, and by holding out false expectations (that it should, not could, happen) much damage is done.

Impeccability

We affirm the impeccability of Christ. The incarnate Son of God neither sinned (in thought, word, deed, or desire) nor had the possibility of sinning. Christ experienced temptation passively, in the form of trials and the devil’s entreaties, not actively, in the form of disordered desires. Christ had only the suffering part of temptation, where we also have the sinning part. Christ had no inward disposition or inclination unto the least evil, being perfect in all graces and all their operations at all times.

There is an element of controversy here. Yes, “the incarnate Son of God neither sinned (in thought, word, deed or desire)”. The question is, “Was it possible for him to sin?”. The Report says He couldn’t. In the footnote they quote from Berkhof about the “essential bond between the human and divine natures.” This, to me sounds like mixture and close to violating the Chalcedonian formula. We still, confessionally, distinguish between the two complete natures while affirming one person. Monothelitism (one will) was condemned as well. The road of orthodoxy seems narrow between the two ditches error.

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. WCF VIII

We clearly do not believe that Jesus had a fallen nature like us. There was no sin original nor actual of His own which blemished and disqualified Him as the Lamb of God. The temptation He experienced was from outside of Himself, not due to an inward inclination to disobey. This the Report rightfully guards.

Monophysitism (one nature) <======> Chalcedonian Orthodoxy <=====> Nestorianism (2 persons)

Charles Hodge

The Report reflects Kevin DeYoung’s article from 2019 on the Gospel Coalition blog which may have resulted from his work on this committee. He focuses on the work of W.G.T. Shedd. The focus is on the inability of Christ to sin. This is the majority report from the Church.

It has been increasingly questioned in the last few hundred years, including by esteemed theologians like Charles Hodge. DeYoung notes that Shedd likely wrote in response to Hodges’ views. In his work The Person of Christ, Donald Macleod posits that Jesus was free from actual sin, and from inherent sin (corruption). This focuses on a biblical and not speculative position since he was not born of Adam.

The late R.C. Sproul was a PCA theologian who also surmised that Jesus, pertaining to His humanity, was able to sin while also affirming that Jesus never did.

“But if Christ’s divine nature prevented him from sinning, in what sense did he obey the law of God as the second Adam? At his birth, Jesus’ human nature was exactly the same as Adam’s before the fall, with respect to his moral capabilities. Jesus had what Augustine called the posse peccare and the posse non peccare, that is, the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. … Satan was not trying to get God to sin. He was trying to get the human nature of Christ to sin, so that he would not be qualified to be the Savior. …. I may be wrong, but I think it is wrong to to believe that Christ’s divine nature made it impossible for him to sin. If that were the case, the temptation, the tests, and the assuming of the responsibilities of the first Adam would have all been charades. This position protects the authenticity of the human nature because it was the human nature that carried out the mission of the second Adam on our behalf.” Sproul, Truths We Confess, Vol. 1, pp. 251

As a result, I think that asking us to affirm that Jesus could not sin, in addition to did not sin, may be an overreach. The Confession reflects the Chalcedonian Formula and doesn’t seem to directly address this issue. I agree with Sproul’s point even if I don’t like his articulation at all points. We don’t want to sound (or be) Nestorian. But Jesus was fully man as well as fully God. Not having inherited corruption, Jesus as the second Adam likely was in the same state as the first Adam. His perfect obedience for us should draw wonder and amazement (as Sproul notes on the next page) because he succeeded where Adam the first failed. A man not only had to die, but also perfectly obey. We don’t say that Jesus wasn’t able to die by virtue of the essential bond of his nature.

Nevertheless, Christ endured, from without, real soul-wrenching temptations which qualified him to be our sympathetic high priest (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). Christ assumed a human nature that was susceptible to suffering and death.He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief (Isa. 53:3).

They seek to emphasize the reality of Christ’s suffering in temptation and in death which makes Him perfect for being our Mediator. Hebrews wants us to know of the reality of His temptation, as well as His sinlessness, so we are encouraged to draw near to Him as our Great High Priest who alone is able to help us.

Identity

We affirm that the believer’s most important identity is found in Christ (Rom. 8:38-39; Eph. 1:4, 7). Christians ought to understand themselves, define themselves, and describe themselves in light of their union with Christ and their identity as regenerate, justified, holy children of God (Rom. 6:5-11; 1 Cor. 6:15-20; Eph. 2:1-10). To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term “Christian”is inconsistent with Biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

This is one of the issues that arose due to the Revoice Conference and caused a stir when TE Greg Johnson stated he was a “gay Christian” on the floor of General Assembly. We’ll return to the latter reference in a moment.

Yes, our most important identity is found in Christ. I’ve preached on this a few times in recent years, including in January and on Pentecost. We don’t cease to have other identities, but our “most important identity” is found in Christ, through our union with Him. Ordinarily we should not “juxapose identities rooted in sinful desire” as the Report states. Generally it does create confusion because it is inconsistent with biblical language. This is at least part of why I thought it was unwise for Greg Johnson to make the statement.

Is it always wrong to do so? You might think “yes” based on the above. However:

Nevertheless, being honest about our sin struggles is important. While Christians should not identify with their sin so as to embrace it or seek to base their identity on it, Christians ought to acknowledge their sin in an effort to overcome it. There is a difference between speaking about a phenomenological facet of a person’s sin-stained reality and employing the language of sinful desires as a personal identity marker. That is, we name our sins, but are not named by them. Moreover, we recognize that there are some secondary identities, when not rooted in sinful desires or struggles against the flesh, that can be legitimately affirmed along with our primary identity as Christians. For example, the distinctions between male and female, or between various nationalities and people groups, are not eradicated in becoming Christians, but serve to magnify the glory of God in his plan of salvation (Gen. 1:27; 1 Peter 3:7; Rev. 5:9; 7:9-10).

They don’t make it an absolute prohibition, as some in our denomination seek to. It is a statement that involves context- “What is that person mean by it?” TE Johnson did not mean he was a practicing homosexual. He was not making an identity statement. Earlier in his statement he made clear that he has been and is celibate. He was “being honest” about his on-going sin struggle. This is not simply some ivy tower discussion but involves men in the room. He does not “embrace it or seek to base [his] identity on it.

We shouldn’t just go along with someone’s statement. We should ask what they mean. That should have been clear to the Assembly by the rest of TE Johnson’s comments. I understood it but unfortunately some either didn’t or refused to take those qualifiers into account. We can extend charity instead of jumping all over a brother for using a phrase we don’t like or find inappropriate. This distinctions should matter to us. Charity helps us to maintain the bond of peace while not driving strugglers into the dark. We should reject the use of shibboleths as ways to “ferret out” theological enemies. This is why I will oppose any Overtures that seek to ban phrases outright.

Language

We affirm that those in our churches would be wise to avoid the term “gay Christian.” Although the term “gay”may refer to more than being attracted to persons of the same sex, the term does not communicate less than that. For many people in our culture, to self-identify as “gay”suggests that one is engaged in homosexual practice. At the very least, the term normally communicates the presence and approval of same-sex sexual attraction as morally neutral or morally praiseworthy. Even if “gay,”for some Christians, simply means “same-sex attraction,”it is still inappropriate to juxtapose this sinful desire, or any other sinful desire, as an identity marker alongside our identity as new creations in Christ.

This covers much of the same ground as the statement on identity. I agree with the wisdom of the statement. We should be wise in our use of language, keeping our context in mind. When examining another person’s language we should keep their context in mind instead of imputing our understanding. We are not deconstructionists, but hold to authorial intent.

Nevertheless, we recognize that some Christians may use the term “gay”in an effort to be more readily understood by non-Christians. The word “gay”is common in our culture, and we do not think it wise for churches to police every use of the term. Our burden is that we do not justify our sin struggles by affixing them to our identity as Christians. Churches should be gentle, patient, and intentional with believers who call themselves “gay Christians,” encouraging them, as part of the process of sanctification, to leave behind identification language rooted in sinful desires, to live chaste lives, to refrain from entering into temptation, and to mortify their sinful desires.

The balancing statement recognizes that “gay” is a term more readily used and understood by non-Christians. Use of same sex attraction can create unnecessary barriers in evangelism and apologetics. They rightfully warn about turning into the language police as though we gladly lived in Orwell’s 1984. Yes, we don’t want to justify struggles with sin. We want to continue to encourage growth in sanctification.

Friendship

We affirm that our contemporary ecclesiastical culture has an underdeveloped understanding of friendship and often does not honor singleness as it should. The church must work to see that all members, including believers who struggle with same-sex attraction, are valued members of the body of Christ and engaged in meaningful relationships through the blessings of the family of God. Likewise we affirm the value of Christians who share common struggles gathering together for mutual accountability, exhortation, and encouragement.

This statement reverses the order, addressing the need for compassion first. We affirm the need for healthy, God-honoring relationships. There is an admission that the Church generally struggles to honor singleness. As one who did not marry until I was in my mid-30’s it was not an act of rebellion or due to a lack of interest. God’s providence is part of marriage. I know many whom in the providence of God are not married, though they would like to be. They are not attracted to people who are attracted to them, and the ones to whom they are attracted are not attracted to them. A person with SSA may be providentially hindered from marriage. They shouldn’t “fake it”. But God can and has given some sufficient attraction to a friend of the opposite sex.

Marriage should not be entered into wantonly, and if one person has SSA this should be discussed precisely because at some point it will matter. Most of the times I’ve known men to leave their wives, this was not disclosed prior to marriage. They thought or hoped that marriage would fix them.

The Church needs to do a better job of enfolding single people into the life of the church. In this way people will walk with them through the ups and downs of life. There can be loving accountability in sexual issues. We can affirm common struggles. Too often people struggling with sexual issues, including SSA, can feel excluded and/or hounded as if that was the only issue of sanctification in their live. This can be due to shame on their part, or rejection on the part of others due to their struggle. They will need extra encouragement to be involved.

Nevertheless, we do not support the formation of exclusive, contractual marriage-like friendships, nor do we support same-sex romantic behavior or the assumption that certain sensibilities and interests are necessarily aspects of a gay identity. We do not consider same-sex attraction a gift in itself, nor do we think this sin struggle, or any sin struggle, should be celebrated in the church.

In light of the direction some in the Revoice movement have taken, this is an important counterbalance. The covenant relationship between church members is good. The covenant relationship of marriage, between one man and one woman, is good. Having something akin to a same-sex, non-sexual marriage is not good. We should not encourage “romantic” relationships even if their are promises of chastity. These relationships are driven by their inner corruption and are therefore sinful. Their longing for romance should not be satisfied with such an exclusive  relationship.

Yes, we should not consider SSA itself to be a gift, though it may be something God uses (as part of the “all things”) to make us more like Jesus (this is one of those gospel tensions). The gospel, not sin, should be celebrated in the Church and by churches. This should serve as a caution to some elements of Revoice.

Repentance and Hope

We affirm that the entire life of the believer is one of repentance. Where we have mistreated those who struggle with same-sex attraction, or with any other sinful desires, we call ourselves to repentance. Where we have nurtured or made peace with sinful thoughts, desires, words, or deeds, we call ourselves to repentance. Where we have heaped upon others misplaced shame or have not dealt well with necessary God-given shame, we call ourselves to repentance.

As you can see, this is not about the doctrine of repentance but a call to repentance on the part of the PCA and its churches. We have often stressed the sinfulness of homosexuality without also holding out hope in the gospel. They recognize that some have made peace with sin of various kinds. Honestly, some of our churches have ignored other sins much to their detriment. This is a good reminder that repentance is for us, not just those sexual sinners.

Nevertheless, as we call ourselves to the evangelical grace of repentance (WCF15.1), we see many reasons for rejoicing (Phil. 4:1). We give thanks for penitent believers who, though they continue to struggle with same-sex attraction, are living lives of chastity and obedience. These brothers and sisters can serve as courageous examples of faith and faithfulness, as they pursue Christ with a long obedience in gospel dependence. We also give thanks for ministries and churches within our denomination that minister to sexual strugglers (of all kinds) with Biblical truth and grace. Most importantly, we give thanks for the gospel that can save and transform the worst of sinners—older brothers and younger brothers, tax collectors and Pharisees, insiders and outsiders. We rejoice in ten thousand spiritual blessings that are ours when we turn from sin by the power of the Spirit, trust in the promises of God, and rest upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life (WCF14.2).

It ends on the note of joy for those who have repented and now struggle. Those who are obedient and chaste. We are thankful for ministries and congregations that serve those that struggle with sexual issues. We should be grateful for the realities of the gospel and the transformation it produces.

It is my hope that the Twelve Statements unify our denomination, or rather help us to see that we are largely united on these issues. We recognize that same sex attraction and activity are sins original and actual, but that the gospel holds out the offer of forgiveness, justification & sanctification through union with Christ and therefore fellowship with God. There is hope.

My hope, in part, is that we see that the areas of difference are not significant, should not prohibit fellowship and are not cause for schism. Let’s leave room for the church discipline of the unrepentant as we ought.

Next we’ll move through the supporting arguments for these statements.

Read Full Post »

Considering The Ascension: Humanity in the Presence of God

I came home from vacation to find a box of books I had forgotten that I had ordered. There was a clearance sale. Some had arrived before I left for vacation and this was the balance of the order.

Since I’ve chosen to read The Works of John Newton this year, I decided to read some shorter books on a variety of subjects to broaden my reading for the year.

I decided to begin with The Ascension: Humanity in the Presence of God by Tim Chester and Jonny Woodrow. I don’t think I’ve ever read a book on the subject of the ascension. This is generally a neglected doctrine, at least among Protestants.

Yet, I thought this an unusual book for Tim Chester. I’ve liked other books of his, but this seemed to be a less practical and more theological topic. Robert Letham? Sure, I can see him writing a volume on the ascension. Tim Chester? Not so much.

This is not just a different subject than usual for Chester but also writing style. Perhaps it is the presence of Woodrow. It is not written in the more popular style that Chester typically uses. It is not quite academic either. It draws a good balance.

The book is a mere 3 chapters and 92 pages long. Don’t confuse that with being shallow or superficial. It certainly isn’t exhaustive, but it handles what it does cover well. There are some good footnotes with resources to use for further reading. Some may be hard to find. My first attempt at finding an older volume by Derek Thomas was futile, but there are other places for me to look.

The first two chapters cover Jesus as Ascended Priest and Ascended King. They anticipated my (and other’s) critique regarding the final chapter which was not Ascended Prophet but Ascended Man. I believe they could and should have added a 4th chapter covering the missing office of Christ. It bears discussion. This is one way in which the present volume is not exhaustive.

“Let’s be honest: the ascension of Jesus is weird.”

It is a nearly unique event that makes it difficult for us to talk about with people. We struggle to understand it, so how can we explain it to non-Christians. But we must for there is no Christianity without it!

I say nearly unique because in one of the few points of disagreement, I think God prepared us with taking up of Enoch and then Elijah.

In the introduction they address a few of the objections people may have to the idea of an ascension. Things like “Wouldn’t evangelism be a whole lot easier if Jesus was still on earth?”

“The ascension seems a bad strategy. It removes the key piece of evidence that substantiates the claims of Christianity.”

And so we see the struggle we can often experience as we consider the ascension. It is not simply the reward for a righteous man like Enoch (though it is that too). This is the removal from earth of the most important person who ever lived, the object of our faith. And that perhaps is the point- He’s an object of our faith, not our sight. But it is more significant that simply that.

“The ascension is the enthronement of Jesus. He receives all authority and sends us out to declare that authority to the world. The ascension is the beginning of mission.”

I thought the first chapter, Ascended Priest, was the best chapter. It moved me to worship as I read of Christ ascended as my Great High Priest carrying my name (among others) into the presence of the Father. A good amount of theology is covered in a short space. This is good biblical theology as they moved through the Old Testament to show greater fulfillment and types revealed in Jesus’ ascension.

They frequently connect this doctrine with our union with Christ. We are present before the Father because we are united to the Son who is physically present before the Father.

“Our presence before God is as certain as Christ’s presence before God. Our salvation is safe and secure as long as Christ is in heaven.”

Jesus is there, as our Priest, not only interceding for us but leading our worship. We worship not only on earth but in heaven because of our union with Christ. The Father hears our voice!

The authors then move to the subject of Jesus as our Ascended King who is currently subduing His enemies while we wake and sleep. He is re-establishing God’s rule on a rebellious planet from His seat at the right hand of the Father. He has and is accomplishing what no mere son of David could do.

They look at the Ascension “from above” by tying it into Daniel 7 as the Son of Man appears before the Ancient of Days in the heavenly court. This is legal coronation as He is invested with authority to rule. Earthly kingdoms are being superceded by the kingdom as the gospel is announced and trusted.

“If he’s enthroned in Jerusalem then He is just Israel’s king. No, Jesus is enthroned in heaven as the king of the whole world.”

The new Adam is not merely the son of God but the Son of God who comes “as the world’s king to rescue the world.” He reigns thru His people as they continue with the mission He gave in the Great Commission. In this they want us to see a bigger gospel than the individualized one. We do believe as individuals, but we become part of a bigger Story, a bigger Body and an everlasting kingdom. We are citizens of heaven, and citizenship is not a private thing but a public one.

They spend some time on the necessity of a bodily ascension instead of a spiritualized one. He is both King by virtue of divinity but also a human king sitting on the heavenly throne. He rules not only over “spiritual” realms but the material realm as well. Rather than immediately establish the kingdom in its fulness, Jesus left “earth to allow those who belong to the old age time to repent.” They explain the already/not yet aspects of Jesus’ reign well. The new age has begun while the old age continues until Jesus does return. We live within a great tension.

We can see this tension in a number of ways. Personally: we are at the same time righteous and sinners. We partake of the new age thru justification and sanctification. But we are not yet glorified until we are in His immediate presence. Justified by faith alone we not only seek to become righteous but thru the proclamation of the gospel bring others into the new age. We work to change the societies in which we live, reflecting the rule of Christ. But this won’t be completed apart from His return. We should neither “give up” because it will all “burn anyway” nor expect to usher in some golden age before the return of Jesus. We work for righteousness though we know it won’t be accomplished (there will still be poor, still be famine, still be racism etc.).

The third chapter, Ascended Man, was probably the least focused. It contains some important material. But the lack of an office creates a broader stroke. In some ways they try to cover too much territory and engage in some philosophical speculation.

The begin with the scandal of the ascended man by taking a look at John 6. He see a Messiah who came down from heaven, who promises resurrection to those who partake of Him, and the disciples will “see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!”. In the Ascension, the Son of Man is not going someplace He’s never been. He’s returning to His glory. But, He goes as Man blazing a trail for humanity. They express it as ‘making a place for humanity in heaven’. This idea of eternal bodily existence was scandalous to the Greeks who generally had a view of the body as a prison for the soul which is escaped in “salvation.” Our understanding of salvation is bodily.

“The ascension is the story of a body moving to heaven. It is not escape from the bodily realm, but the entry of humanity- in our physical-ness- into the heaven, the sphere of God.”

Here they get into discussing heaven and earth as “two separate planes that intersect” rather than heaven being “above” earth. He reminds us of Narnia, another world that intersected with ours so that at times people could move between them. In unpacking this they bring up theoretical physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Space, time and motion are about the relationships between things. This could be difficult for some to wrap their minds around.

Next they address how the “absent Christ is present through the Spirit.” The ascension results in the outpouring of the Spirit as Jesus now engages in His heavenly ministry on earth. The humanity of Christ has not been transformed and omnipresent but is available thru the Spirit who dwells in His people making Christ present to them, preserving our union with Christ. This plays out in the Reformed understanding of Communion. Rather than confuse the natures of Christ, nor transfer attributes creating one new nature, we uphold the two natures of Christ but recognize how the Spirit mediates His presence with us and our presence with Him. Following Calvin they say: “It is not that Christ comes down to us in the Lord’s Supper. Rather, by the Spirit, we ascend to be with Christ in the Lord’s Supper.”

In ministry we are people in two places (earth and heaven) and two times (present age and age to come) through Christ. They differentiate between an ascensional ministry and an incarnational ministry. Like J. Todd Billings in his book Union with Christ, they critique incarnational ministry. There is a way to affirm this as loving people as Jesus did and serving them in their context. But we are not to think of ourselves as His presence on earth, as though He re-enters creation through us. They note: “Christ does not need a replacement body because He is still embodied.” We do not complete the Messianic task, He does.

Lots of distinctions are made in this section as they deal with some concepts common in evangelicalism. They want us to properly understand kingdom growth, not in spatial terms, but in the number of people who gladly enter His rule. Here they also discuss the “pilgrim principle” for our remaining time on earth prior to His return.

I found this to be a helpful book to introduce the meaning and implications of the bodily ascension. I am surprised that Tim Chester wrote a book on this subject (with Jonny Woodrow), but I’m mighty glad he did. Aside from some of the theoretical physics and their application in the Lord’s Supper via Calvin, this is an accessible book for normal people. They connect all this to our salvation, mission and Christian life such that this is not ivory tower navel gazing.

“Christ has taken our nature into heaven to represent us; and has left us on earth, with his nature, to represent him.” John Newton

Read Full Post »

Considering the Creedal Imperative, Part 3

Carl Trueman is an historian by trade (do you like the Anglicisation in his honour there?). After a chapter on the contemporary impulses against the uses of creeds and confessions and another on the foundations for using them, he returns to his trade. In the 3rd and 4th chapters of The Creedal Imperative Trueman looks at the early church and the Reformation & post-Reformation period respectively to trace the development and use of creeds and confessions at those times.

In the 3rd chapter most of the time is spent looking at what are commonly called the “ecumenical councils” and the documents they produced. But the use and development of creeds and confessions didn’t start there. As he mentions in the 2nd chapter, the New Testament has an expectation for “forms of doctrine”. We see some of those forms in places like Romans 10, Philippians 2 and others. Trueman forgot to include the OT shema from Deuteronomy 6. There is a long history among God’s people of using confessions of faith, one that pre-dates the creeds of Christendom by over a 1,000 years.

In the early church, Trueman shows the development of “the rule”. A number of authors talk about a rule known to the audience of their letters. We see said mention in the letters of Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenaeus and others. This Rule typically functioned as the method for catechizing converts prior to their baptism. The “spontaneous baptisms” that thrill Mark Driscoll did not happen in the early church. People were catechized before, not after baptism (I’m sure their instruction didn’t cease, you get my point, maybe).

Trueman notes, based on a letter from Ambrose who was Bishop of Milan, that by 389 the Apostles’ Creed was not only in use but seemed to have been in use for some time. He enters into a very brief discussion about “descended into hell” to instruct us that we should not abandon or criticize a creed too quickly. It may not mean what we initially think it means. In other words, beware the knee jerk reaction. Knee jerk reactions typically produce bad theology.

Read Full Post »