“T. F. Torrance castigates the Assembly for what he considers to be a medieval conception of the ordo salutis, with various stages of grace leading to union with Christ. Superficially, it might seem so, since there is no chapter on union with Christ in the Confession, nor is union with Christ significant in the discussion of the elements of salvation. However, Torrance’s thesis is shattered by Larger Catechism 65-90, where all of God’s grace is said to be found in union and communion with Christ. The two documents need to be taken together, for their lines of approach are different but complementary. Torrance refers to the alleged revival of the medieval ordo salutis by William Perkins (1558-1602), and claims the support of an article by his brother, James B. Torrance –whose argument Richard Muller had destroyed in one of his early publications. Torrance completely ignores Muller, rather like missing the proverbial elephant in the room” (Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology In Historical Context, 242-243).
Monthly Archives: November 2016
“Apt to teach,” Indeed.
“While catechizing was a familiar part of church life in both England and Scotland, English pastors were particularly adept in their composition and use. At least twelve [Westminster] Assembly members had published catechisms in England before 1643, and every clerical member was thoroughly acquainted with the duty and art of catechizing” (John R. Bower, The Larger Catechism: A Critical Text and Introduction, 4).
Poetry
Last month’s published poem at the Paper Mill.
Do Your Duty First
“What age, what place was there ever, which has not just cause to complain of subjects’ rebellion, children’s disobedience, and wives’ presumption? Therefore, the apostle does not without cause first declare the duties of subordinates [see Ephesians 5:22ff]. Besides, the apostle teaches those who are under authority, how to influence those in authority over them to deal equally and kindly, not harshly and cruelly, namely, by endeavoring to perform their own duty first. For what provokes wrath, rage, and fury in governors? What makes them that have authority deal roughly and rigorously? Is it not for the most part disobedience and stubbornness in those that are under government? Though some in authority are so proud, so savage, and inhumane, that no honor done to them, no performance of duty, can satisfy and content them. They will reward evil for goodness, like David’s enemies (Ps. 38:20). Yet, the best general direction that can be prescribed to subordinates to provoke their governors to deal well with them, is that subordinates themselves be careful and conscientious in doing their duty first. Even if their governors on earth are not moved by that, the highest Lord in heaven will graciously accept it” (William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 1, 26).
All Service Should be Limited by the Fear of God
“There is a great reason that all service should be limited by the fear of God. God is the highest Lord to whom all service primarily and principally is due; whatever service is due to any man, high or low, is due in and for the Lord. The Lord has set superiors in the high places where they bear the image of God. The Lord also has set subordinates in their places, and commended them as His charge to the government of those who are over them. He that does not obey those who are over him in the fear of God, shows no respect of God’s image, and he who does not govern those who are under him in the fear of God shows no respect for God’s charge” (William Gouge, Building a Godly Home, Vol. 1, 15).
Origin of Union with Christ
“The fountain of salvation itself in the eternal election of the Father is “in Christ.” Paul says: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:3, 4). The Father elected from eternity, but he elected in Christ. We are not able to understand all that is involved, but the fact is plain enough that there was no election of the Father in eternity apart from Christ. And that means that those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love apart from union with Christ–they were chosen in Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain we find “union with Christ”; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset” (John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 162).
Union With Christ
“Nothing is more central or basic than union or communion with Christ. . . . Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ. Indeed the whole process of salvation has its origin in one phase of union with Christ and salvation has in view the realization of other phases of union with Christ. This can be readily seen if we remember that brief expression which is so common in the New Testament, namely, “in Christ.” It is that which is meant by “in Christ” that we have in mind when we speak of “Union with Christ.” It is apparent that Scripture applies the expression “in Christ” to much more than the application of redemption” (John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 161).
On Being Part of an Exegetical Tradition
“After rehearsing the story of the decision to produce a new set of annotations and of the formation of their committee, the English annotators go on to clarify the nature of their efforts and the relation of their work to several sets of eminent earlier annotations, namely Diodati’s Italian Annotations, the Dutch Annotations arising out of the Synod of Dort, and Geneva Annotations. So also, in the case of the Geneva Annotations, the annotators indicate their respect for this revered running commentary and state that they view it as entirely orthodox, free from theological errors–yet they have worked as the “builders of a new house,” not merely patchign up an old edifice, but taking it down and replacing it with a new one. Then they rather carefully note . . . their reliance on these previous expositions of the text. They have indeed used texts,
yet so, that if we have borrowed aught of either, as they have done of those, who did precede them, in the like Observations, we shall desire but to take it to usury, and to make our returne of what we receive, farre above the rate of ordinary interest: And in this holy businesse we have no other ambition than to give better satisfaction to an apprehensive Reader, for the sense of the whole Bible, then (in this kinde) we have met withall, in any one Worke of what Authors soever.
“In their method, therefore, they have followed the advice of the apostles, recognizing that no Scripture is “of private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20) and also that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 13:42)–accordingly, the “private dictates” of the annotators have been “submitted . . . to the censure and correction of [their] Colleagues in this Service daily assembled together, for the perusal of every ones parts.” Clearly, then, there were borrowings: the new house was not erected out of entirely new brick and lumber–but the annotators not only assumed this background in the earlier tradition, both by their admission and explanation and by their anonymity, they refrained from taking personal credit for what they perceived to be the propounding, not of personal opinion, but of the results of an exegetical tradition of which they were a part” (Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Worship, 28-29).
Two Remarkable Things
“Two things are remarkable, at least to the modern observer, about this list [of the author-annotators] and the Annotations–on the one hand, the list was broadly constructed, drawing not only on the Presbyterian and independent constituencies of the Parliament that would be called together into the Westminster Assembly, but also on the Episcopalian, and indeed, Royalist constituency that would not contribute to the Assembly and its standards. In the latter group we count Ussher and Richardson, both bishops in Ireland; Featley, and Smallwood. On the other hand, the annotators remained anonymous in the published text: despite the eminence of many of the contributors, their names were not listed in the prefaces, nor were they affixed to the commentaries on the various books of the Bible”(Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Worship, 21-22).
Not Original, But Rather A Standard
“Their [the annotators] intention had not been to produce an original work, but rather a standard commentary that drew on the already sizable and significant Reformed exegetical tradition (Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Worship, 19).