When Being a Christian Is Like Being a Californian

By J. Warner Wallace 3/25/2015

     I live in California; that makes me a Californian. I’ve lived here in gorgeous, temperate, beautiful Southern California my entire life (are you jealous yet?) I’ve got a right to call myself a Californian, even though I often take it for granted. After all, without doing some research online, I’d have great difficulty telling you when the state of California was even established or what that historic process looked like. I really don’t know the precise structure of California state government (i.e. how many members are in the state legislature). I also have no idea how the state government operates (i.e. the rules that govern how a bill is turned into a law), or the content of any of its core value or mission statements (if it even has such things). I barely know the names of the counties in my area, let alone the northern part of the state. I’m a rather poorly informed Californian, I will have to admit. But I do know that I like it here. It’s comfortable. It’s familiar. It’s sunny.

     So if you ask me why I’m a Californian, I guess I’d really have little to offer you aside from the fact that I was born here, am comfortable here, enjoy my proximity to the beach and the beautiful weather. While those are good reasons to live here, they have nothing to do with the rich history of our state, the way the state operates or the objective truth of its propositions. I have very selfish reasons for living here and I will readily admit them.

     As I travel and speak at churches around the country, I’ve come to realize that many of us are Christians in the same way I am a Californian. Maybe we have parents that were Christians and we’ve been a part of the Church for as long as we can remember. Maybe we like the Church because it’s comfortable, familiar or helpful. As a result, we haven’t really taken the time to understand what the Church truly claims about Jesus or about the nature of the world around us. We haven’t even taken the time to study the history of the Church or how the truth has been handed down to us. In many ways our membership in the Church is a lot like my citizenship in California; we’re just here because we were born here, it’s comfortable and it serves our purposes.

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

Ceremonial and moral regulations Leviticus 24

By F. Duane Lindsey

1. THE DAILY AND WEEKLY MINISTRY IN THE TENT OF MEETING (  24:1–9)

     Two subordinate articles of furniture in the Tent of Meeting’s holy place involved Aaron and his sons in daily and weekly ministry — the daily maintenance of the lamps of the pure gold lampstand (  vv. 2–4 ) and the weekly preparation and replacement of “the bread of the Presence” (  Ex. 25:30) on the table of pure gold (  Lev. 24:5–9 ).

     The transition from the festival calendar which climaxed in the magnificent Feast of Tabernacles (  23:33–43 ) to the mundane maintenance of the lesser articles of furniture in the Tent of Meeting is difficult to explain but certainly illustrates the New Testament believer priest’s faithfulness to God in the daily routine of life and not just during spiritual mountaintop experiences. Perhaps the purpose of this seeming digression (before matters pertaining to the holy calendar resume in chap. 25) was to dispel the notion that God’s presence might be limited to special occasions of worship, since both articles of furniture were closely related to the continual presence of God in Israel’s midst. Between the great festival occasions, unbroken daily fellowship in the Tent of Meeting was to continue without interruption.

a. The daily care of the lampstand (  24:1–4)

       24:1–4. The golden lampstand was described by Moses as to its design (  Ex. 25:31–39), its construction (  Ex. 37:17–24), and its placement (  Ex. 40:24–25). The fuel for its lamps was to be clear oil of pressed olives (cf.  Ex. 27:20–21; it was purer and of better quality than boiled olive oil), which was to be provided in such a way that the lamps would be kept burning continually since they provided the only light in the holy place.

b. The weekly care of the table (  24:5–9)

       24:5–9. The bread set on the table of pure gold before the LORD was called “the bread of the Presence” (  Ex. 25:30). This paragraph supplements the account in  Exodus 25:23–30 (cf.  Ex. 37:10–16) which says little about the bread itself. The bread consisted of 12 loaves, apparently of considerable size based on their recipe (  Lev. 24:5), and so were probably placed in two piles (NIV, two rows). Incense was placed on the table beside the bread to be burned on the altar as a memorial portion (cf.  2:2, 9, 16) each Sabbath when the old bread was replaced and given to the priests as their regular share.

2. AN INCIDENT OF BLASPHEMY AND THE DIVINE LAW BASED ON THE CASE (  24:10–23)

     This brief narrative section (which along with chapters  8–10 comprise the only purely narrative portions of  Lev.) is a reminder that the legislation of  Leviticus was given in a specific historical context to meet particular historical situations.

a. Blasphemy by a half-Israelite (  24:10–12)

       24:10–12. A son of a mixed marriage (an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father) quarreled with an Israelite and blasphemed the name of the LORD with a curse. Apparently his sin was not merely uttering the covenant name of the Lord (Yahweh), but misusing the Lord’s name in a curse (  Ex. 20:7). Because of uncertainty regarding either his status under the Law as a resident alien or the exact punishment for his sin, they put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. This is one of four such cases where Moses had to await further divine revelation before a situation could be properly handled (cf.  Num. 9:6–14; 15:32–36; 27:1–11).

b. The revelation of God in the matter (  24:13–22)

       24:13–14. In this case of blasphemy God Himself pronounced the sentence, capital punishment by stoning (cf.  1 Kings 21:10, 13; Matt. 26:65–66; Acts 6:11–15; 7:54–58). All those who heard the man blaspheme were to lay their hands on his head, either as a witness against him or to rid themselves of any guilt incurred in merely hearing the blasphemy (cf. Wenham,  Leviticus, p. 311). The entire assembly was to stone him, a procedure that is not clearly described in the Old Testament (see the suggestion of Harrison,  Leviticus, pp. 221–2).

 24:15–16. The divine law based on this case is specified to apply equally to an alien or native-born person. Those aliens who lived in Israel and so enjoyed certain covenant blessings were not to repudiate the Author of that covenant.

       24:17–22. This digression prescribed other situations which applied alike to Israelite and alien, another connecting link being the application of the death penalty in the case of murder (vv.  17, 21). The so-called lex talionis (law of the talon [lit., claw or hand]—fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth) indicates that a punishment should be gauged by the offense (cf.  Ex. 21:23–25; Deut. 19:21; but cf.  Matt. 5:38–39). Except in the case of killing someone, the restitution may have been understood in the sense of equivalent compensation.

c. The execution of the blasphemer (  24:23)

       24:23. The Israelites obeyed the Lord’s command as mediated by Moses and took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him.

Variations and Doublets as Criteria for Source Division

By Gleason Archer Jr.

The Variation between Yahweh and Elohim

     Although the Documentarians belong to a school of thought that scornfully rejects any attempt to establish Christian doctrines by proof texts, they have occasionally become stalwart champions of the proof text method themselves; that is, insisting on a literal interpretation of the words of a single verse or two quite irrespective of context or of the analogy of scriptural teaching elsewhere. In no instance is this more striking than in their treatment of  Exodus 6:2–3 : “I am Yahweh: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as El Shaddai; but by my name Yahweh I was not known (lônôda˓tɩ̂) to them.” This is pressed to mean that according to this author (E), the name Jehovah was first revealed to Moses. (J, however, did not know about this later tradition and mistakenly assumed that Jehovah was appropriate for the pre-Mosaic narrative as well.) But this in point of fact involves a very superficial analysis of the Hebrew verb to know (yāda˓) and of the implications in Hebrew of knowing a person’s name. That it could not be meant in a baldly literal sense is shown by the absurdity of supposing that the entire ten plagues were necessary to convince the Egyptians (  Ex. 14:4 : “And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah”) that the God of the Hebrews was named Yahweh. Obviously both in  Ex. 6:7, “Ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,” and in  14:4 the implication is that they shall witness God’s covenant faithfulness in delivering His people and destroying or punishing their foes. They will thus come to know Him by experience as Jehovah, the covenant God. The expression “to know that I am Jehovah” occurs at least twenty-six times in the Old Testament, and in every instance it conveys this same idea. Hebrew usage therefore indicates clearly enough that  Ex. 6:3 teaches that God, who in earlier generations had revealed Himself as El Shaddai (God Almighty) by deeds of power and mercy, would now in Moses’ generation reveal Himself as the covenant-keeping Jehovah by His marvelous deliverance of the whole nation of Israel. As Orr points out, the “name” (shēm, Hebrew) denotes the revelation side of God’s being.

     It is quite significant that in recent years even some of the leading Liberal scholars in Europe have surrendered the traditional Wellhausian exegesis of  Exodus 6:3 . Thus Ivan Engnell says, “The different divine names have different ideological associations and therewith different import. Thus, Yahweh is readily used when it is a question of Israel’s national God, indicated as such over against foreign gods, and where the history of the patriarchs is concerned, while on the other hand Elohim, ‘God,’ gives more expression to a ‘theological’ and abstract-cosmic picture of God in larger and more moving contexts.… So then, it is the traditionist, the same traditionist, who varies in the use of the divine names, not the ‘documents’.” So also Sigmund Mowinckel: “It is not E’s view that Yahweh is here revealing a hitherto unknown name to Moses. Yahweh is not telling his name to one who does not know it. Moses asks for some ‘control’ evidence that his countrymen may know, when he returns to them, that it is really the God of their fathers that has sent him … the whole conversation presupposes that the Israelites knew the name already.”

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

Atheism is a Worldview

By Roger Browning 2/1/2017

If I’m going to say that atheism is a worldview, I better start defining terms before I find myself on the wrong side of my own issue. So, the first part of this post will be defining “atheism” and “worldview.” Once I do that, I’m going to give an analogous depiction of life incorporating the definitions and then draw a conclusion to affirm the title.

     Atheism. Two distinct definitions come to mind. The first is the literal definition based on the original Greek. ‘a’, meaning ‘no’ and ‘theos’, meaning ‘god’. In the strictest sense, atheism literally means no-god. But, literal translations don’t always carry over to current word usage. The word “joystick” for example, hardly means rejoice peg. The second definition is more popular with a lot of atheists at the moment, and that is: a disbelief in god or gods. I’ve written a lot on why I think these two definitions are the same (here and here). Nate has also discussed this here and here, and there are some great external links for good measure here and here). Since a lot of ground has already been covered on the second definition, I’m going to move on.

     Worldview. Until about 6 months ago, I didn’t really think this word needed a definition; it’s pretty straightforward, actually. The word “worldview” is simply a view of the world. But, in good faith, we will grab a more accurate definition for our friends at Google: “a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.” This definition actually works to my advantage, but we’ll get to that.

     As a quick recap, atheism is either a belief in no god or a non-belief in god (because these are not the same?? I digress) and worldview is the perception of reality as it pertains to origins of the world. Can we agree to these two points? Leave some feedback below.

     Now, an analogous incorporation of these two terms.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 18

37 I pursued my enemies and overtook them,
and did not turn back till they were consumed.
38 I thrust them through, so that they were not able to rise;
they fell under my feet.
39 For you equipped me with strength for the battle;
you made those who rise against me sink under me.
40 You made my enemies turn their backs to me,
and those who hated me I destroyed.
41 They cried for help, but there was none to save;
they cried to the LORD, but he did not answer them.
42 I beat them fine as dust before the wind;
I cast them out like the mire of the streets.
43 You delivered me from strife with the people;
you made me the head of the nations;
people whom I had not known served me.

People criticize pro-lifers for focusing so much on abortion. But there’s a reason we do.

By Matthew Lee Anderson 2/3/2017

I have been pro-life for as long as I can remember. My family were not culture warriors: We never picketed, and I’m not sure we ever discussed the subject at home. My only memories of anything close to activism are of occasional appeals to our church to donate diapers to a local crisis pregnancy center. I was impressed by the urgency of the requests, which focused almost exclusively on the burdens disadvantaged single mothers faced and the opportunity we had to aid them. That somewhat idyllic approach impressed on me the vague but definite intuition that life in the womb was worth preserving and the woman who bore it worth supporting. This impression that being pro-life means supporting the people whose wombs bear life as much as the life itself has never left me.

     My activist impulses have grown since my youth, and those instincts have been sharpened. The reasons for this are complex, and personal: Like many people, I have been intimate with those struggling to conceive and with those desperately seeking to avoid doing so. The heart-wrenching pain of infertility and miscarriage, the struggles of teenage motherhood, the fears and anxieties of an unwanted pregnancy — as I have grown older, such experiences have deepened my sense that human life is a wonderful, tragic mystery. Whatever else we think about it, the drama of conception leads to the most profound joys and sorrows, the most ardent hopes and expectations, and the most visceral fears and anxieties. In college, I would describe myself as pro-life; I now joke that I am rabidly pro-life. Only it’s not really a joke.

     Yet what it means to be “pro-life” is, these days, hotly contested — and, I think, often misunderstood. The question has been unavoidable in 2017: The Women’s March was dominated by headlines about whether the “pro-life feminist” is a viable species; the March for Life was accompanied by the annual hand-wringing about news outlets naming us “anti-abortion”; the refugee ban was met by denunciations framed by pro-life concerns; and the president’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court justice prompted dismissive charges of hypocrisy for the movement’s narrow focus.

     Beneath these disputes lies a simple charge: Pro-lifers care about what happens in the womb, and nothing beyond it. Such a depiction is almost certainly a caricature. And yet it aggravates a real phenomenon: The pro-life movement has emphasized embryos in the womb for reasons that go to the heart of being “pro-life” itself. Without grasping the peculiar ethos that animates this emphasis, the decision by pro-lifers to succumb to the temptation of Donald Trump for the sake of a Supreme Court justice will remain an unintelligible mystery and degradation.

     The ethos of the pro-life movement, which unabashedly emphasizes life in the womb, is not precisely its beliefs: Those are well-known enough, even if controversial. Ask a pro-lifer why they object to abortion, and you are likely to get a hodgepodge of reasons appealing to God, to science, and to claims about human dignity or rights.

Neglected Big Problems

By Robin Hanson 2/5/2017

Some problems are often mentioned in media, such as global warming, war, medical funding, political conflicts. Some problems are less often mentioned in media, but still often discussed in academic publications: encouraging innovation, managing large organizations, extending lifespans, and setting the right amount of regulation. But some problems are obviously big, yet rarely much discussed in media or academia as problems to solve. They are neglected. Oh people on occasion lament such problems, but they don’t often talk seriously about how we might think systematically about solving or mitigating them.

     In this post I’d just like to remind folks of a few big neglected problems. I’m not going to propose solutions to them here, though I wouldn’t mind inspiring others to think more about them. Most of them have to do with ancient inherited habits that don’t seem to work that well in the modern world.

     Relearn Every Generation – We must each relearn many basic life lessons during our individual lifetimes, lessons that millions or billions of others already learned in their previous lifetimes, or that millions or billions of others are currently learning in parallel with us. There seem huge potential gains from finding better ways to learn from our ancestors and colleagues.

     Changing World – Early in life we read the world around us and choose life plans and paths matched to that world. During our life the world around us changes, and we make some adaptations to that, but they seem insufficient. For example, we often seek to achieve in ways that were awarded with high status when we were young, to find that our achievements are much less valued by the new world.

     Poor Matching – We match people as friends, lovers, spouses, and workers. Our distant ancestors only had a few available options for matches, and we inherited many intuitive mechanisms appropriate for that situation. But we now have a vast world with far more matches possible, and it seems like we don’t use that larger scope very well. We still rely heavily on inherited informal mechanisms. I see so many lonely and otherwise mismatched people.

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

III. SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF JE: PLACE OF ORIGIN AND EXTENT (cont)

It is beyond doubt, at least, that, in the separation of the sources in Joshua, the critics continually find themselves involved in inextricable difficulties. With respect particularly to J and E, it has become not simply a question of whether J and E can be severed (admittedly they can not), but of whether J and E are present in the book at all. Wellhausen came to the conclusion that J was wholly absent, and Steuernagel more recently has affirmed the same opinion. “The original scope and significance of E” are admitted by Carpenter to be “hardly less difficult to determine.” The high-water mark of his assurance is reached in the statement: “Budde, Kittel, Albers, and Bennett have all concurred in believing that the main elements of J and E are not disguised beyond recognition, though their results do not always run side by side.” The separation of the P sections in Joshua at first sight seems easier, but in detail the difficulties are nearly as insuperable, and of a kind that set theorising at defiance. “The inquiry” (as to “the relation of the P sections to the rest of the book”), Carpenter admits, “is full of difficulty, and the seemingly conflicting facts have been differently interpreted in different critical schools.” The language, as already said, is markedly different. “In chaps. 1–12; 23; 24,” says Professor Bennett, “there are only a few short paragraphs and sentences in the style of P, and most of these are rather due to an editor than derived from the Priestly Code.” Still more instructive is the fact, pointed out by Professor G. A. Smith, that “in the Book of  Joshua P does not occupy the regulative position, nor supply the framework, as it does in the Pentateuch.” As Wellhausen puts it: “Without a preceding history of the conquest, these [P] sections are quite in the air: they cannot be taken as telling a continuous story of their own, but presuppose the Jehovistic-Deuteronomic work.… We have already shown that the Priestly Code in Joshua is simply the filling up of the Jehovistic-Deuteronomic narrative.” As interesting illustrations of the stylistic perplexities, reference may be made to the two important chapters — 22 and 24. The phraseology in chap.  22:9–34, “is in the main that of P,” says Dr. Driver (“almost a cento of P’s phrases,” says Carpenter), “but the narrative does not display throughout the characteristic style of P, and in some parts of it there occur expressions which are not those of P.” He proceeds: “Either a narrative of P has been combined with elements from another source in a manner which makes it difficult to effect a satisfactory analysis, or the whole is the work of a distinct writer, whose phraseology is in part that of P, but not entirely.” Wellhausen, on the other hand, thinks it is P’s wholly (but not the P of the earlier books). Addis, with Kuenen, assumes that “it is a late production in the school and after the manner of P.” Chap. 24, in turn, is assigned generally to E; yet, says Dr. Driver, “it might almost be said to be written from a standpoint approaching (in this respect) that of D2.”3 Addis assumes a Deuteronomic revision, and abundant interpolation. What, one is tempted to ask, can such criteria avail?

Not much support, we think it will be felt, is to be got from the Book of  Joshua for an original distinction of J and E — if for their existence in that book at all. When it is added that the Samaritans seem from the beginning to have had, in Buhl’s words, “outside of the Canon an independent reproduction of the Book of  Joshua, ” it may be realised that the reasons for affirming a “Hexateuch” are not so conclusive as is generally assumed.

The Problem of the Old Testament

Sola Scriptura Then and Now

By Don Carson 10/31/2017

     The setting here is important. Moses envisages a time, long after his own death and after the people have settled into the Promised Land, when they will ask for a king to rule over them. The people are to ensure that the man they appoint is the one “the LORD your God chooses” (14:15). He is to be a fellow Israelite, i.e., a member of the covenant people of God, not a stranger. Then the king is told what he must not do as he launches into this new role. This list includes four things:

     He must not acquire a great number of horses (v. 16). For “horses,” read “tanks”: the king is not to build his power by military might. The lust for power recurs in every age. The apostles themselves, misunderstanding the nature of the kingdom, sought the places of privilege and perceived power next to Jesus (Matt. 20:20–28), not discerning that the Master himself came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

     He must not make the people return to Egypt (v. 16). The prohibition reflects Israel’s political realities. God saved Israel by enabling her to escape slavery in Egypt. Sadly, Israel kept trying to play power politics, pitting friendship with Egypt over against friendship with one of the regional superpowers to the north (first Assyria, then Babylon). The desire for political security was something Israel valued more highly than the promises of God.

     The king must not take many wives (v. 17). The issue was not just sex; it was networking. To marry one of the daughters of every regional two-bit city-monarchy meant it was far less likely that these tiny city-states would rebel against the king. Solomon became a master of such networking, the size of his harem simultaneously establishing his sexual prowess and securing his borders. Sadly, as God warned, his wives led his heart astray: pretty soon he was building pagan temples for them, even within Jerusalem itself. The desire for the kind of networking that guarantees social approval has not faded in the centuries since then.

     And finally, he must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. Jesus himself insists that one cannot serve both God and money. What we must passionately desire becomes god for us. Money regularly signals freedom, prestige, power—and idolatry.

     Look again at these four prohibitions: power, false security, desire for social approval through compromised networking, the pursuit of wealth—very much among the false gods still cherished and worshiped today.

     So what, then, should the king make his top priority when he first assumes the royal throne? Should he audit the books of his predecessor? Rapidly form his cabinet, or at least appoint a secretary of state and a minister of defense? No, the first thing he is to do concerns the priority that God gives to Scripture. The king is to write out, by hand, a copy of “this law” (v.18). This is not a matter of downloading a text from the cloud to the hard-drive of a laptop without it going through anyone’s brain. This is laborious copying by hand.

     What is included in the expression “this law” is disputed: it may be part of Deuteronomy, or all of Deuteronomy, or all of the Pentateuch. Whatever the size of text to be copied, the work is to be done so carefully that it becomes the king’s personal reading copy — a reading copy to be read and pondered by the king  every day for the rest of his life.  God provides three reasons for this priority: (1) the king will thereby learn to revere the Lord and his words; (2) he will thus be protected from thinking of himself as superior to others; and (3) he will not turn aside from God’s ways, to the right or to the left (17:18–20).

     This passage indicates how highly the Word of God is valued, even at this early stage of canonical history. Joshua is told much the same thing: this book of the law shall not be tossed aside; rather, Joshua is to keep the Book of the Law on his lips, and meditate on it day and night, carefully doing everything written in it; for then he shall enjoy good success (Josh. 1:7–8).

     The opening psalm in the Psalter declares, in the second verse, that the righteous person delights in the law of the Lord, and meditates on it day and night (Ps. 1:2). It takes constant meditation on holy Scripture to train one’s mind to think God’s thoughts after him. The point, in part, is that we are not what we think we are, but what we think, we are. That is why Paul tells the Romans that they must be transformed by the renewing of their minds (Rom. 12:1–2). So important is the valuation of Scripture that it trumps even our necessary food: God takes pains to teach Israel that “man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD” (Deut. 8:3) —a lesson the Lord Jesus has already absorbed when he faces his own Satanic temptations (Matt. 4).

     Sola scriptura is no mere slogan, a creedal point to be checked off with approval from a list. Either Scripture establishes what the gospel is, calls people back to the gospel, and transforms God’s people with his Spirit-anointed gospel truth, shaping them into conformity with his Son, or it is but an empty boast. Sadly, some affirm sola scriptura in a sloganeering way, but rarely read Scripture and never meditate on it; or, worse yet, they thoughtlessly defy it. Against all such failure, Deuteronomy 17:14–20 stands as a powerful bulwark. If these seven verses from Deuteronomy had been followed in the centuries before Christ, all of Old Testament history would have been different. Scripture — and, as we shall see, Scripture alone — is that important.

     Here are eight reflections on sola Scriptura, reflections that are variously historical, theological, and pastoral.

1. Truthful and Reliable

2. Context of the Debate

3. Recovery of Early Theology

4. Sola, Not Solo or Nuda

5. For Ordinary Christians

6. Developed Over Time

We have already asserted that the Reformers were not so much innovators in their emphasis on sola scriptura as men who were recovering ancient doctrine. But now we must go further and insist that their heirs and successors often became more detailed and skilled in the articulation of this doctrine than were the initial Reformers themselves. In another paper,[7] also unpublished, written by another distinguished colleague, John Woodbridge discusses in some detail the work of William Whitaker (1547–1595), master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, as he engaged in debate with Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542–1621), Catholicism’s ablest apologist of the day. Whitaker’s major work is titled A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (Classic Reprint) (1588). Woodbridge calls it “the most comprehensive Protestant defense of biblical authority and sola scriptura in the English language during the Reformation era.”[8]

     Moreover, it would be easy to demonstrate that the commitment to Scripture’s authority was not some aberrant stance that flared up in the 16th century and then fizzled out. The historical papers in a recent volume nicely lay that canard to rest.[9]

7. Important Today

8. The Eschatological Dimension

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

The Pilgrim's Progress From This World To That Which Is To Come;
Delivered Under The Similitude Of A Dream

By John Bunyan 1678

THE SEVENTH STAGE

Now I saw that, just on the other side of this plain, the pilgrims came to a place where stood an old monument, hard by the highway-side, at the sight of which they were both concerned, because of the strangeness of the form thereof; for it seemed to them as if it had been a woman transformed into the shape of a pillar. Here, therefore, they stood looking and looking upon it, but could not for a time tell what they should make thereof. At last Hopeful espied, written above upon the head thereof, a writing in an unusual hand; but he being no scholar, called to Christian (for he was learned) to see if he could pick out the meaning: so he came, and after a little laying of letters together, he found the same to be this, “Remember Lot’s wife.” So he read it to his fellow; after which they both concluded that that was the pillar of salt into which Lot’s wife was turned, for her looking back with a covetous heart when she was going from Sodom for safety.    Looking back with a covetous heart ... the message is she did not want to leave. So where your heart is your treasure will be, in this case herself.

Gen. 19:26 But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.   ESV

Which sudden and amazing sight gave them occasion for this discourse.

     CHR. Ah, my brother, this is a seasonable sight: it came opportunely to us after the invitation which Demas gave us to come over to view the hill Lucre; and had we gone over, as he desired us, and as thou wast inclined to do, my brother, we had, for aught I know, been made, like this woman, a spectacle for those that shall come after to behold.

     HOPE. I am sorry that I was so foolish, and am made to wonder that I am not now as Lot’s wife; for wherein was the difference betwixt her sin and mine? She only looked back, and I had a desire to go see. Let grace be adored; and let me be ashamed that ever such a thing should be in mine heart.

     CHR. Let us take notice of what we see here, for our help from time to come. This woman escaped one judgment, for she fell not by the destruction of Sodom; yet she was destroyed by another, as we see: she is turned into a pillar of salt.

     HOPE. True, and she may be to us both caution and example; caution, that we should shun her sin; or a sign of what judgment will overtake such as shall not be prevented by this caution: so Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with the two hundred and fifty men that perished in their sin,

Numb. 16:31-32 31 And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart. 32 And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods.   ESV

did also become a sign or example to others to beware. But above all, I muse at one thing, to wit, how Demas and his fellows can stand so confidently yonder to look for that treasure, which this woman but for looking behind her after, (for we read not that she stepped one foot out of the way,) was turned into a pillar of salt; especially since the judgment which overtook her did make her an example within sight of where they are; for they cannot choose but see her, did they but lift up their eyes.

     CHR. It is a thing to be wondered at, and it argueth that their hearts are grown desperate in the case; and I cannot tell who to compare them to so fitly, as to them that pick pockets in the presence of the judge, or that will cut purses under the gallows. It is said of the men of Sodom, that they were “sinners exceedingly,” because they were sinners “before the Lord,” that is, in his eyesight, and notwithstanding the kindnesses that he had shown them; for the land of Sodom was now like the garden of Eden as heretofore.

Gen. 13:10–13 10 And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other. 12 Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the valley and moved his tent as far as Sodom. 13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD.   ESV

This, therefore, provoked him the more to jealousy, and made their plague as hot as the fire of the Lord out of heaven could make it. And it is most rationally to be concluded, that such, even such as these are, that shall sin in the sight, yea, and that too in despite of such examples that are set continually before them, to caution them to the contrary, must be partakers of severest judgments.

     HOPE. Doubtless thou hast said the truth; but what a mercy is it, that neither thou, but especially I, am not made myself this example! This ministereth occasion to us to thank God, to fear before him, and always to remember Lot’s wife.

     I saw then that they went on their way to a pleasant river, which David the king called “the river of God;” but John, “the river of the water of life.”

Psa. 65:9  You visit the earth and water it;
you greatly enrich it;
the river of God is full of water;
you provide their grain,
for so you have prepared it.   ESV

Rev. 22:Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb   ESV

Ezek. 47:1–9  Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar. 2 Then he brought me out by way of the north gate and led me around on the outside to the outer gate that faces toward the east; and behold, the water was trickling out on the south side.
3 Going on eastward with a measuring line in his hand, the man measured a thousand cubits, and then led me through the water, and it was ankle-deep. 4 Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was knee-deep. Again he measured a thousand, and led me through the water, and it was waist-deep. 5 Again he measured a thousand, and it was a river that I could not pass through, for the water had risen. It was deep enough to swim in, a river that could not be passed through. 6 And he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen this?”
Then he led me back to the bank of the river. 7 As I went back, I saw on the bank of the river very many trees on the one side and on the other. 8 And he said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, and enters the sea; when the water flows into the sea, the water will become fresh. 9 And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the sea may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes.   ESV

Now their way lay just upon the bank of this river: here, therefore, Christian and his companion walked with great delight; they drank also of the water of the river, which was pleasant and enlivening to their weary spirits. Besides, on the banks of this river, on either side, were green trees with all manner of fruit; and the leaves they ate to prevent surfeits, and other diseases that are incident to those that heat their blood by travel. On either side of the river was also a meadow, curiously beautified with lilies; and it was green all the year long. In this meadow they lay down and slept, for here they might lie down safely.

Psa. 23:2  He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.   ESV

Isa. 14: 30  And the firstborn of the poor will graze,
and the needy lie down in safety;
but I will kill your root with famine,
and your remnant it will slay.   ESV

When they awoke they gathered again of the fruit of the trees, and drank again of the water of the river, and then lay down again to sleep. Thus they did several days and nights. Then they sang;

“Behold ye, how these Crystal Streams do glide,
To comfort pilgrims by the highway-side.
The meadows green, besides their fragrant smell,
Yield dainties for them; And he that can tell
What pleasant fruit, yea, leaves these trees do yield,
Will soon sell all, that he may buy this field.”

     So when they were disposed to go on, (for they were not as yet at their journey’s end,) they ate, and drank, and departed.

     Now I beheld in my dream, that they had not journeyed far, but the river and the way for a time parted, at which they were not a little sorry; yet they durst not go out of the way. Now the way from the river was rough, and their feet tender by reason of their travels; so the souls of the pilgrims were much discouraged because of the way.

Numb. 21:4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way.   ESV

Wherefore, still as they went on, they wished for a better way. Now, a little before them, there was on the left hand of the road a meadow, and a stile to go over into it, and that meadow is called By-path meadow. Then said Christian to his fellow, If this meadow lieth along by our wayside, let’s go over into it. Then he went to the stile to see, and behold a path lay along by the way on the other side of the fence. It is according to my wish, said Christian; here is the easiest going; come, good Hopeful, and let us go over.

     HOPE. But how if this path should lead us out of the way?

     CHR. That is not likely, said the other. Look, doth it not go along by the wayside? So Hopeful, being persuaded by his fellow, went after him over the stile. When they were gone over, and were got into the path, they found it very easy for their feet; and withal, they, looking before them, espied a man walking as they did, and his name was Vain-Confidence: so they called after him, and asked him whither that way led. He said, To the Celestial Gate. Look, said Christian, did not I tell you so? by this you may see we are right. So they followed, and he went before them. But behold the night came on, and it grew very dark; so that they that went behind lost the sight of him that went before.

     He therefore that went before, (Vain-Confidence by name,) not seeing the way before him, fell into a deep pit, which was on purpose there made, by the prince of those grounds, to catch vain-glorious fools withal, and was dashed in pieces with his fall.

Isa. 9:16  for those who guide this people have been leading them astray,
and those who are guided by them are swallowed up.   ESV

Now, Christian and his fellow heard him fall. So they called to know the matter, but there was none to answer, only they heard a groaning. Then said Hopeful, Where are we now? Then was his fellow silent, as mistrusting that he had led him out of the way; and now it began to rain, and thunder, and lighten in a most dreadful manner, and the water rose amain.

     Then Hopeful groaned in himself, saying, Oh that I had kept on my way!

     CHR. Who could have thought that this path should have led us out of the way?

     HOPE. I was afraid on’t at the very first, and therefore gave you that gentle caution. I would have spoke plainer, but that you are older than I.

     CHR. Good brother, be not offended; I am sorry I have brought thee out of the way, and that I have put thee into such imminent danger. Pray, my brother, forgive me; I did not do it of an evil intent.

     HOPE. Be comforted, my brother, for I forgive thee; and believe, too, that this shall be for our good.

     CHR. I am glad I have with me a merciful brother: but we must not stand here; let us try to go back again.

     HOPE. But, good brother, let me go before.

     CHR. No, if you please, let me go first, that if there be any danger, I may be first therein, because by my means we are both gone out of the way.

     HOPE. No, said Hopeful, you shall not go first, for your mind being troubled may lead you out of the way again. Then for their encouragement they heard the voice of one saying, “Let thine heart be toward the highway, even the way that thou wentest: turn again.”

Jer. 31:21  “Set up road markers for yourself;
make yourself guideposts;
consider well the highway,
the road by which you went.
Return, O virgin Israel,
return to these your cities.   ESV

But by this time the waters were greatly risen, by reason of which the way of going back was very dangerous. (Then I thought that it is easier going out of the way when we are in, than going in when we are out.) Yet they adventured to go back; but it was so dark, and the flood was so high, that in their going back they had like to have been drowned nine or ten times.

     Neither could they, with all the skill they had, get again to the stile that night. Wherefore at last, lighting under a little shelter, they sat down there till the day brake; but being weary, they fell asleep. Now there was, not far from the place where they lay, a castle, called Doubting Castle, the owner whereof was Giant Despair, and it was in his grounds they now were sleeping: wherefore he, getting up in the morning early, and walking up and down in his fields, caught Christian and Hopeful asleep in his grounds. Then with a grim and surly voice, he bid them awake, and asked them whence they were, and what they did in his grounds. They told him they were pilgrims, and that they had lost their way. Then said the giant, You have this night trespassed on me by trampling in and lying on my grounds, and therefore you must go along with me. So they were forced to go, because he was stronger than they. They also had but little to say, for they knew themselves in a fault. The giant, therefore, drove them before him, and put them into his castle, into a very dark dungeon, nasty and stinking to the spirits of these two men. Here, then, they lay from Wednesday morning till Saturday night, without one bit of bread, or drop of drink, or light, or any to ask how they did; they were, therefore, here in evil case, and were far from friends and acquaintance.

Psa. 88:18  You have caused my beloved and my friend to shun me;
my companions have become darkness.   ESV

Now in this place Christian had double sorrow, because it was through his unadvised counsel that they were brought into this distress.

     Pilgrim's Progress (Illustrated): Updated, Modern English. More than 100 Illustrations.

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 9

Be strong!
We are not here to play, to dream, to drift,
We have hard work to do, and loads to lift;
Shun not the struggle; face it. Tis God’s gift.

Be strong!
It matters not how deep entrenched the wrong,
How hard the battle goes, the day, how long.
Faint not, fight on! Tomorrow comes the song.
--- Maltbie D. Babcock

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

      3. Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory. Those, therefore, who rob Christ of divinity or humanity either detract from his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness. On the other hand, they are no less injurious to men, undermining and subverting their faith, which, unless it rest on this foundation, cannot stand. Moreover, the expected Redeemer was that son of Abraham and David whom God had promised in the Law and in the Prophets. Here believers have another advantage. Tracing up his origin in regular series to David and Abraham, they more distinctly recognise him as the Messiah celebrated by so many oracles. But special attention must be paid to what I lately explained, namely, that a common nature is the pledge of our union with the Son of God; that, clothed with our flesh, he warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father.

4. He who considers these things with due attention, will easily disregard vague speculations, which attract giddy minds and lovers of novelty. One speculation of this class is, that Christ, even though there had been no need of his interposition to redeem the human race, would still have become man. I admit that in the first ordering of creation, while the state of nature was entire, he was appointed head of angels and men; for which reason Paul designates him "the first-born of every creature," (Col. 1:15). But since the whole Scripture proclaims that he was clothed with flesh in order to become a Redeemer, it is presumptuous to imagine any other cause or end. We know well why Christ was at first promised--viz. that he might renew a fallen world, and succour lost man. Hence under the Law he was typified by sacrifices, to inspire believers with the hope that God would be propitious to them after he was reconciled by the expiation of their sins. Since from the earliest age, even before the Law was promulgated, there was never any promise of a Mediator without blood, we justly infer that he was destined in the eternal counsel of God to purge the pollution of man, the shedding of blood being the symbol of expiation. Thus, too, the prophets, in discoursing of him, foretold that he would be the Mediator between God and man. It is sufficient to refer to the very remarkable prophecy of Isaiah (Is. 53:4, 5), in which he foretells that he was "smitten for our iniquities;" that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him;" that as a priest "he was made an offering for sin;" "that by his stripes we are healed;" that as all "like lost sheep have gone astray," "it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief," that he might "bear our iniquities." After hearing that Christ was divinely appointed to bring relief to miserable sinners, whose overleaps these limits gives too much indulgence to a foolish curiosity.

Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death unto life. To the same effect was the testimony of the Apostles concerning him (John 1:9; 10:14). Thus John, before teaching that the Word was made flesh, narrates the fall of man. But above all, let us listen to our Saviour himself when discoursing of his office: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Again, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." "The Son of man is come to save that which was lost." Again, "They that be whole need not a physician." [241] I should never have done were I to quote all the passages. Indeed, the Apostles, with one consent, lead us back to this fountain; and assuredly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his priesthood would fall, seeing it was his office as priest to stand between God and men, and "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins," (Heb. 5:1); nor could he be our righteousness, as having been made a propitiation for us in order that God might not impute to us our sins (2 Cor. 5:19). In short, he would be stript of all the titles with which Scripture invests him. Nor could Paul's doctrine stand "What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8:3). Nor what he states in another passage: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared to all men," (Tit. 2:11). In fine, the only end which the Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming our nature, and even receiving it as a command from the Father, is, that he might propitiate the Father to us by becoming a victim. "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer;"--"and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name." "Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again."--"This commandment have I received of my Father." "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." "Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name." [242] Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to take away sin. For the same reason Zacharias declares (Luke 1:79), that he came "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers," "to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death." Let us remember that all these things are affirmed of the Son of God, in whom, as Paul elsewhere declares, were "hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and save whom it was his determination "not to know any thing," (Col. 2:3; 1 Cor. 2:2).

5. Should any one object, that in this there is nothing to prevent the same Christ who redeemed us when condemned from also testifying his love to us when safe by assuming our nature, we have the brief answer, that when the Spirit declares that by the eternal decree of God the two things were connected together--viz. that Christ should be our Redeemer, and, at the same time, a partaker of our nature, it is unlawful to inquire further. He who is tickled with a desire of knowing something more, not contented with the immutable ordination of God, shows also that he is not even contented with that Christ who has been given us as the price of redemption. And, indeed, Paul not only declares for what end he was sent, but rising to the sublime mystery of predestination, seasonably represses all the wantonness and prurience of the human mind. "He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved: In whom we have redemption through his blood," (Eph. 1:4-7). Here certainly the fall of Adam is not presupposed as anterior in point of time, but our attention is directed to what God predetermined before all ages, when he was pleased to provide a cure for the misery of the human race. If, again, it is objected that this counsel of God depended on the fall of man, which he foresaw, to me it is sufficient and more to reply, that those who propose to inquire, or desire to know more of Christ than God predestinated by his secret decree, are presuming with impious audacity to invent a new Christ. Paul, when discoursing of the proper office of Christ, justly prays for the Ephesians that God would strengthen them "by his Spirit in the inner man," that they might "be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge," (Eph. 3:16, 18); as if he intended of set purpose to set barriers around our minds, and prevent them from declining one iota from the gift of reconciliation whenever mention is made of Christ. Wherefore, seeing it is as Paul declares it to be, "a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," (1 Tim. 1:15), in it I willingly acquiesce. And since the same Apostle elsewhere declares that the grace which is now manifested by the Gospel "was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (2 Tim. 1:9), I am resolved to adhere to it firmly even to the end. This moderation is unjustly vituperated by Osiander, who has unhappily, in the present day, again agitated this question, which a few had formerly raised. He brings a charge of overweening confidence against those who deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not fallen, because this notion is not repudiated by any passage of Scripture. As if Paul did not lay a curb on perverse curiosity when after speaking of the redemption obtained by Christ, he bids us "avoid foolish questions," (Tit. 3:9). To such insanity have some proceeded in their preposterous eagerness to seem acute, that they have made it a question whether the Son of God might not have assumed the nature of an ass. This blasphemy, at which all pious minds justly shudder with detestation, Osiander excuses by the pretext that it is no where distinctly refuted in Scripture; as if Paul, when he counted nothing valuable or worth knowing "save Jesus Christ and him crucified," (I Cor. 2:2), were admitting, that the author of salvation is an ass. He who elsewhere declares that Christ was by the eternal counsel of the Father appointed "head over all things to the church," would never have acknowledged another to whom no office of redemption had been assigned.

6. The principle on which Osiander founds is altogether frivolous. He will have it that man was created in the image of God, inasmuch as he was formed on the model of the future Messiah, in order to resemble him whom the Father had already determined to clothe with flesh. Hence he infers, that though Adam had never fallen from his first and pure original, Christ would still have been man. How silly and distorted this view is, all men of sound judgment at once discern; still he thinks he was the first to see what the image of God was, namely, that not only did the divine glory shine forth in the excellent endowments with which he was adorned, but God dwelt in him essentially. But while I grant that Adam bore the image of God, inasmuch as he was united to God (this being the true and highest perfection of dignity), yet I maintain, that the likeness of God is to be sought for only in those marks of superiority with which God has distinguished Adam above the other animals. And likewise, with one consent, acknowledge that Christ was even then the image of God, and, accordingly, whatever excellence was engraven on Adam had its origin in this, that by means of the only begotten Son he approximated to the glory of his Maker. Man, therefore, was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), and in him the Creator was pleased to behold, as in a mirror, his own glory. To this degree of honour he was exalted by the kindness of the only begotten Son. But I add, that as the Son was the common head both of men and angels, so the dignity which was conferred on man belonged to the angels also. For when we hear them called the sons of God (Ps. 82:6), it would be incongruous to deny that they were endued with some quality in which they resembled the Father. But if he was pleased that his glory should be represented in men and angels, and made manifest in both natures, it is ignorant trifling in Osiander to say, that angels were postponed to men, because they did not bear the image of Christ. They could not constantly enjoy the immediate presence of God if they were not like to him; nor does Paul teach (Col. 3:10) that men are renewed in the image of God in any other way than by being associated with angels, that they may be united together under one head. In fine, if we believe Christ, our felicity will be perfected when we shall have been received into the heavens, and made like the angels. But if Osiander is entitled to infer that the primary type of the image of God was in the man Christ, on the same ground may any one maintain that Christ behoved to partake of the angelic nature, seeing that angels also possess the image of God.

7. Osiander has no reason to fear that God would be found a liar, if the decree to incarnate the Son was not previously immutably fixed in his mind. Even had Adam not lost his integrity, he would, with the angels, have been like to God; and yet it would not therefore have been necessary that the Son of God should become either a man or an angel. In vain does he entertain the absurd fear, that unless it had been determined by the immutable counsel of God, before man was created, that Christ should be born, not as the Redeemer, but as the first man, he might lose his precedence, since he would not have been born, except for an accidental circumstance, namely, that he might restore the lost race of man; and in this way would have been created in the image of Adam. For why should he be alarmed at what the Scripture plainly teaches, that "he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin?" (Heb. 4:15). Hence Luke, also, hesitates not to reckon him in his genealogy as a son of Adam (Luke 3:38). I should like to know why Christ is termed by Paul the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:47), unless it be that a human condition was decreed him, for the purpose of raising up the ruined posterity of Adam. For if in point of order, that condition was antecedent to creation, he ought to have been called the first Adam. Osiander confidently affirms, that because Christ was in the purpose of God foreknown as man, men were formed after him as their model. But Paul, by calling him the second Adam, gives that revolt which made it necessary to restore nature to its primitive condition an intermediate place between its original formation and the restitution which we obtain by Christ: hence it follows, that it was this restitution which made the Son of God be born, and thereby become man. Moreover, Osiander argues ill and absurdly, that as long as Adam maintained his integrity, he would have been the image of himself, and not of Christ. I maintain, on the contrary, that although the Son of God had never become incarnate, nevertheless the image of God was conspicuous in Adam, both in his body and his soul; in the rays of this image it always appeared that Christ was truly head, and had in all things the pre-eminence. In this way we dispose of the futile sophism put forth by Osiander, that the angels would have been without this head, had not God purposed to clothe his Son with flesh, even independent of the sin of Adam. He inconsiderately assumes what no rational person will grant, that Christ could have had no supremacy over the angels, so that they might enjoy him as their prince, unless in so far as he was man. But it is easy to infer from the words of Paul (Col. 1:15), that inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God, he is the first-born of every creature, not because he is created, or is to be reckoned among the creatures, but because the entire structure of the world, such as it was from the beginning, when adorned with exquisite beauty had no other beginning; then, inasmuch as he was made man, he is the first-born from the dead. For in one short passage (Col. 1:16-18), the Apostle calls our attention to both views: that by the Son all things were created, so that he has dominion over angels; and that he became man, in order that he might begin to be a Redeemer. Owing to the same ignorance, Osiander says that men would not have had Christ for their king unless he had been a man; as if the kingdom of God could not have been established by his eternal Son, though not clothed with human flesh, holding the supremacy while angels and men were gathered together to participate in his celestial life and glory. But he is always deluded, or imposes upon himself by this false principle, that the church would have been akefalon--without a head--had not Christ appeared in the flesh. In the same way as angels enjoyed him for their head, could he not by his divine energy preside over men, and by the secret virtue of his Spirit quicken and cherish them as his body, until they were gathered into heaven to enjoy the same life with the angels? The absurdities which I have been refuting, Osiander regards as infallible oracles. Taking an intoxicating delight in his own speculations, his wont is to extract ridiculous plans out of nothing. He afterwards says that he has a much stronger passage to produce, namely, the prophecy of Adam, who, when the woman was brought to him, said, "This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," (Gen. 2:23). But how does he prove it to be a prophecy? Because in Matthew Christ attributes the same expression to God! as if every thing which God has spoken by man contained a prophecy. On the same principle, as the law proceeded from God, let Osiander in each precept find a prophecy. Add, that our Saviour's exposition would have been harsh and grovelling, had he confined himself to the literal meaning. He was not referring to the mystical union with which he has honoured the Church, but only to conjugal fidelity, and states, that the reason why God declared man and wife to be one flesh, was to prevent any one from violating that indissoluble tie by divorce. If this simple meaning is too low for Osiander, let him censure Christ for not leading his disciples to the hidden sense, by interpreting his Father's words with more subtlety. Paul gives no countenance to Osiander's dream, when, after saying that "we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," he immediately adds, "This is a great mystery," (Eph. 5:30-32). For he meant not to refer to the sense in which Adam used the words, but sets forth, under the figure and similitude of marriage, the sacred union which makes us one with Christ. His words have this meaning; for reminding us that he is speaking of Christ and the Church, he, by way of correction, distinguishes between the marriage tie and the spiritual union of Christ with his Church. Wherefore, this subtlety vanishes at once. I deem it unnecessary to discuss similar absurdities: for from this very brief refutation, the vanity of them all will be discovered. Abundantly sufficient for the solid nurture of the children of God is this sober truth, that "when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law," (Gal. 4:4, 5).

__________________________________________________________________

[241] John 3:16; 5:25; Mt. 18:11; 9:12.

[242] Luke 24:46; John 10:17; 3:14; 12:27, 28.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion