“There is one clause in this formulation sometimes misunderstood and mis-applied. It is the clause ‘the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture’. This does not refer to the internal testimony of ‘the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts’. With this the [Westminster] Confession had dealt in section v, which is concerned with the agency by which ‘our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority’, of Scripture are induced. But in section x the Confession is dealing with the Scripture as canon, and uses the expression ‘the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture’ to remind us that Scripture is not a dead word but the living and abiding speech of the Holy Spirit” (John Murray, Collected Works, Vol. 1, 16-17).
Uniqueness of Scripture
“Of course, the Scripture is not God and to give Scripture the place of God would be idolatry. Of course, Christ is Christianity and saving relation to him as Lord and Saviour is the only hope of lost men. But the absolute uniqueness of Scripture is not impaired. Scripture is unique, not because it takes the place of God, nor the place of Chrsit, but because of its relationship to God, to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit” (John Murray, Collected Works, Vol. 1, 12).
Corporate and Cosmic Regeneration, and Individual Regeneration
“Our father Adam plunged us into a condition of death. Jesus entered into that Adamic death, and was born again from that death. The apostle Paul quotes the second Psalm (“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”) and applies it to the resurrection (Acts 13:33). Because Jesus was born again from the dead, everything else can be born again from the dead. . . . Without the resurrection, without the transformation of the heavens and earth, without the reconstitution of the new Israel, there is no such thing as individual regeneration. We do not say that corporate regeneration makes individual regeneration superfluous, but rather we say that corporate and cosmic regeneration makes individual regeneration both possible and mandatory. The world has been reconciled to God through Christ. Therefore, Paul presses the point. Be therefore reconciled” (Douglas Wilson, Against the Church, 104-105).
WCF. VII. Of God’s Covenant with Man – 2-3. Q & A
Blogging through and answering the questions from G. I. Williamson’s The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes for personal review and comprehension.
WCF. VII. Of God’s Covenant with Man.
Sections 2-3.
1. Why is it proper to speak of the “covenant of works” as a biblical teaching though it is not technically designated as such in Scripture?
It is proper because it is clearly implied in Genesis 2:17, as well as the hypothetical situation raised by Paul in Galatians 3:12, that man in Eden had “the alternative of obedience and life, or disobedience and death” (84).
2. What reasons are given by those who object to speaking of a covenant of works?
It is generally objected for two reasons: first, that it is not formally stated in Scripture (in a syntactical sense), and, second, that this erroneously suggest that the work’s of a man would merit (read: necessitate) the blessings of God.
3. What answers may be given to these arguments?
The first argument is not convincing because a great deal of orthodox Christian belief is not “formally stated in Scripture”, e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity. The second argument is not convincing because the “Confession carefully guards against the very danger that is being warned about” (84); the terminology of the former covenant (covenant of works) is used to distinguish it from the latter covenant (covenant of grace). Both covenants were sovereignly imposed by God, but the conditions in the former were the obedient works of man, but the latter is not a covenant between God and man, it is a covenant between the persons of the Godhead (a covenant between mutual parties, oftentimes called a parity covenant).
4. What merit has this designation (covenant of works)?
As stated above, the obedient works of man were the conditions (means for) the gracious provisions (covenantal promises).
5. What is meant by saying that the covenant was sovereignly imposed?
God consults Himself and nothing else.
6. State the Arminian conception of the condition of the covenant of grace.
The Arminian conception of the condition of the covenant of grace teaches that Jesus died for all men, i.e., “procured their removal from the covenant of works and introduced them into the provisions of the covenant of grace.” In this new arena, salvation is made possible… man can attain eternal life on a “new and easier basis than that of the covenant of works.” Why put it that way? Because, according to the former covenant, God required absolute, perfect obedience, but now God requires an abridged version of obedience–faith, repentance, and evangelical obedience. Like the former covenant, rewards and provisions are conferred upon the basis of man’s works, but only because Jesus has made this a possibility. Note: salvation according to the Arminian conception is not really a gift of a parity covenant of grace between the persons of the Godhead.
7. State the Reformed conception of the condition of the covenant of grace.
The Reformed conception is that all of the conditions of the parity covenant of grace between the persons of the Godhead are fulfilled explicitly and solely by God! Thus, “the life and salvation offered sinners in the Reformed version of the gospel is actual, because it depends upon God alone not only for the end to be attained, but also for the creation of those attitudes and actions in us that are necessary for receiving of that end” (85). The conditions of the covenant of grace are “conditional only in the sense that it depends upon certain effects of the work of the holy Spirit in the hearts of God’s elect,” i.e., regeneration, sanctification, etc.
Note the key difference between the two: the Arminian conception of God’s plan of salvation for man is merely a possibility, while the Reformed conception of God’s plan of salvation for man is an actuality.
Scripture’s Self Witness
“On the question of warrant for the proposition that Scripture is infallible, what are we to say? The only ground is the witness of Scripture to itself, to its own origin, character, and authority” (John Murray, Collected Works, Vol. 1, 10).
The Beginning of the Cure
“The regeneration that happens in conversion is a fundamental change, but not an exhaustive one” (Douglas Wilson, Against the Church, 96).
Eternity As Vantage Point
“This vantage of eternity (and only this) gives us genuine perspective of our lives. We may affirm other doctrinal truths alongside this one, but we may never mute or diminish the absolute necessity of the new birth for every son or daughter of Adam. If we lose that battle, we lose the war” (Douglas Wilson, Against the Church, 88).
“This Atmosphere of Moral Fear” Created by the Condemning and All-Destroying Moralism of Progressive Social Justice
R.R. Reno in First Things (March, 2015), again.
Recently, the Mount Holyoke College women’s-studies department reported that it will not longer stage an annual performance of The Vagina Monologues, having felt its feminism outflanked by the exclusion of “women” who lack the body part so prominently put forward by the play. The transgendered will feel oppressed! All withers before the condemning and all-destroying moralism of progressives social justice.
It Is About People
“But the antithesis is not a theological form of A and not A. It is not the contrast between right and wrong. it is not between righteousness and unrighteousness. The antithesis divides people–the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We are talking about billions of personal names–mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, and daughters” (Douglas Wilson, Against the Church, 87).
Conviction and Loyalty
Insights by R.R. Reno in First Things (March, 2015).
Old-fashioned Marxists read deeply in philosophy and history. an earlier generation of progressives cared about literature. Irving Howe was wrong about political economy, but he knew things. That’s not true of today’s progressives. They’re intelligent and in many respects well trained. But they’re de-cultured. And cultural illiterates, however powerful they become, cannot lead. They can only bribe, seduce, intimidate, and coerce.
Great Books and classical education are largely Christian projects in America today. Christian colleges are the institutions most likely to encourage a sustained engagement with Western history, literature, and philosophy. To have an influential and lasting say in the living future, one must have a deep knowledge and love of what one has inherited. That’s something that can’t be transmitted through TED talks. The authority that comes with cultural literacy won’t be superseded by brain science. Which is why we’re far more likely to shape the future of the West than are de-cultured secular progressives.
. . .
As radical Islam so clearly shows, the global future we face involves conflicts with convictions, not race, class or gender. This is not a future that secular progressives are well equipped to face. . . . As a result, we cannot count on the de-cultured elites of the West to defend Western culture. (European populists are coming to recognize this.) At the same time, non-Westerners see Western progressivism less as a rival for men’s souls than as an attack on all cultures of conviction, including their own. It is paradoxical that today’s Western imperialism denies its loyalty to the West, posing instead as a globalized benevolence and universal dispenser of justice.
We need a global culture of truth, in which conviction and loyalty have scope for their full expression. But this same culture needs to encourage peace. Here we have a great advantage. We have a humility born of our knowledge that original sin limits our grasp of truth and taints our motives for public engagement. The commandment to love our neighbors nurtures civility.