# BTS (Bahnsen Theological Seminary)



## VanVos (Jan 3, 2006)

I was wondering if any one on this board has any inside info on this Seminary. The reason I ask is because I'm looking for a Seminary via correspondence to enroll in and need to know if I need scratch this one out. I've seen a few teachers from the Federal Vision theology involved with BTS so I'm slightly hesitant to be associated with such a controversial/erroneous doctrine. Does the school endorse or promote Auburn Avenue theology?

VanVos

[Edited on 1-3-2006 by VanVos]


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 3, 2006)

just the name shows you shouldnt go there.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 3, 2006)

... and you'd enjoy debating him Andrew .

The reports I've gotten is that BTS does *not* promote Auburn Avenue/FV Theology.


----------



## Presbyrino (Jan 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> just the name shows you shouldnt go there.



Huh?


----------



## VanVos (Jan 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Presbyrino_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Romans922_
> ...



Yes, please explain?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ... and you'd enjoy debating him Andrew .
> 
> The reports I've gotten is that BTS does *not* promote Auburn Avenue/FV Theology.



There are good reasons to doubt such reports. 

See this essay by a BTS instructor where he quotes another BTS instructor in favor of the FV and the NPP. I won't comment on the egregious errors of fact and logic herein. 

http://www.cmfnow.com/AAPC/controversy.html

Contrast this approach with that of WSC:

http://69.59.173.95/faculty/wscwritings/testimonyjustification.php

rsc


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 3, 2006)

Thanks Dr. Clark,

I'm currently not a student at BTS or any other Seminary's distance program. I do listen to the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen quite a bit on .mp3 as well as reading some his books. I would describe myself as having Theonomic "leanings" but not willing to commit fully to Theonomy simply because I don't have a solid enough grasp of Reformed Theology and Church History to do so. I'm currently studying the Westminister Confession and do enjoy Bahnsen's exposition of it. 

After listening to Greg Bahnsen teach on the WCF as well as preach on "The Reformation" - available for download (I believe for free) at Covenant Media, I cannot imagine him (if he were alive today) compromising the classical Reformed view of Justification. His many, many plain statements in his books also supported his undying loyalty to this doctrine on which "the Church stands or falls".

I will say that after 10-15 years of Dispensational/charismatic anti-nomian "higher-life doctrine", I'm far less confused now that I've had some time to hear someone (e.g. Bahnsen) actually correlate Biblical regeneration with a Christian life of growth in sanctification and obedience - rather than a constant conflict between "position in Christ" and "extra-Biblical standards" as in the standard fare taught be so many Dispensational/fundies.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by BrianBowman]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Thanks Dr. Clark,
> 
> I'm currently not a student at BTS or any other Seminary's distance program. I do listen to the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen quite a bit on .mp3 as well as reading some his books. I would describe myself as having Theonomic "leanings" but not willing to commit fully to Theonomy simply because I don't have a solid enough grasp of Reformed Theology and Church History to do so. I'm currently studying the Westminister Confession and do enjoy Bahnsen's exposition of it.
> ...



Dear Brian,

Welcome to the Reformed faith!

I'm glad you're enthused, learning, growing. 

I came out of broad evangelicalism too. We're both "wild olive branches" grafted on to the people of God, as it were.

Still, as one new to the Reformed faith, I think you would do better to read more mainstream Reformed writers, e.g., Berkhof, Hodge, and Horton, and the older theologians such as Olevianus, Urinsus, Owen, Witsius, Turretin, Wollebius and the like. 

I'm glad for Bahnsen's support of Van Til (I'm a big fan of CVT) but even CVT made mistakes (e.g., his account of the theological history of the Western church is misleading; his claim in his Systematic Theology syllabus that God is one person and three persons is, well, dangerous at best and heretical at worst. It certainly cannot be squared with Scripture as confessed by the catholic/universal church in the Athanasian Creed for example) but the confessional Reformed faith is about more than apologetics and ethics, the two things on which Bahnsen spent most of his time. 

His ethical system has been, to put it mildly, highly controversial not just because his critics are all antinomian or rationalist as theonomists like to suggest, but because his peculiar language and formulations are virtually unprecedented in the history of the Reformed churches and those formulae peculiar to Bahnsen find no support in the confessions of the Reformed churches. Who else spoke of the abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail? 

I don't see anything of the sort in the 16th and 17th century Reformed theologians I read. They were, most of them, theocrats (they believed the state should enforce ecclesiastical law) even though, in principle, they believed the church and state to represent two distinct kingdoms. I see that as a tension in their ethics. It was virtually impossible for them to see the world in any other way.

It only became possible to see the world differently when the ancient world finally collapsed in the 30 years war. Theonomists scream and holler when I make this argument, but it's true. Theology doesn't drop out of the sky. After Europe beat itself to death for 30 years, confessional Reformed and Lutheran folk were more open to considering whether theocracy was a mistake. Sometimes history and circumstances can change our interpretation of Scripture by changing "plausibility structures." That's why none of us are geocentrists any more. Not because our hermeneutic changed, but the physics we assumed for so long became impossible to hold any longer. It took us a while to realize that Calvin's principle of accomodation meant that we don't have to be geocentrists to be faithful to Scripture, that Scripture doesn't mean to teach us any particular physics or astronomy.

One last thing, the fact that Bahnsen's most devoted followers and friends cannot agree as to where he stood on the doctrine of justification exactly, should give one reason for pause. 

After all, it isn't as if Bahnsen was unaware of the controversy. We know exactly where he stands on the validity and application of the Mosaic civil penalties. Why aren't we as clear regarding his stand for the gospel of justification sola fide, sola gratia? 

Where was he on the dichotomy between law and gospel in justification?

Where was he on the covenants of redemption, works, and grace?

Where was he on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ?

What _exactly_ was his definition of faith in the act of justification? 

How _exactly_ do works relate to justification? Are they logically and morally necessary fruit or are they more than that?

I'm not asking you to answer all these questions, I'm only giving them as examples of questions I think are far more important to Reformed theology than the question of the abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail. 

Roger says "Greg's with us (FV, NPP)" and you say, "No he isn't." I say, "It's interesting that it's unclear."

You might say, but I when I read him or listen to him, he uses orthodox language. That's well and good. The question isn't whether Bahnsen used orthodox language on justification, the question is what did he mean by it? Is it possible he meant by it what Shepherd meant by it?

You might object, but he never criticized the traditional formulae. Well, Shepherd never says, "The traditional formulae are wrong" he simply goes about re-defining the traditional formulae so that "faith" in justification now means "trust and obey." So, folks read Norm talking about "faith" and they say, "what's all the fuss?" Well, if one knows what Norm means by "faith," there's quite a lot to fuss about.

Things to ponder.

rsc


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 4, 2006)

Thanks Dr. Clark for your kind and thorough resonse!

I've actually read Horton's "Putting Amazing Back in Grace", am currently reading Owen's "Death of Death ...", have read some of "Bondage of the Will, and frequenty reference Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Witsius and Turretin are high on my list to read in the next few months.

Although I'm not in Seminary. My plan is to throughly study these works and summarize them in writing.

... there is just SO much to learn (and in my case UNLEARN from the prior decades of Dispensational confusion).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Thanks Dr. Clark for your kind and thorough resonse!
> 
> I've actually read Horton's "Putting Amazing Back in Grace", am currently reading Owen's "Death of Death ...", have read some of "Bondage of the Will, and frequenty reference Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Witsius and Turretin are high on my list to read in the next few months.
> ...



Dear Brian,

I understand. 

You seem to be reading mostly soteriology. Great stuff, the best really, but try reading some Reformed amillennial writers such as Dennis Johnson (Triumph of the Lamb) , Ed Clowney (The Unfolding Mystery), and work toward folks such as Vos (Biblical Theology "“ if you can read Owen, you can read Vos) and Witsius (I keep coming back to him!). 

It's my perception, For what it's worth, that folks coming out of Dispensationalism/fundamentalism tend to be most attracted to movements such as preterism and theonomy.

A profound change in one's theology (such as realizing that Christ, and not national Israel is at the center of God's plan and redemptive history -- http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Israel.htm) is very unsettling. 

The tendency is to look for resolution for these tensions and both theonomy and preterism offer absolute certainty. Preterism cleans up all the messiness of not knowing exactly where we are, when Jesus will return. He's already returned or at least the Revelation is entirely fulfilled so, no worries mate! 

In theonomy, I think the attraction, for folks who are used to thinking in "Israeleo-centric" terms, is that by turning to abiding validity of the civil law, one can remain, in a way, Israeleo-centric while formally abandoning the dispensational hermeneutic. It allows the a sort of re-establishment of an earthly kingdom prior to the return of Christ. 

In this regard, Vos says somewhere, premillennialism and postmillennialism are the same. In different ways the achieve a similar result. So there is a natural attraction between the two.

Another attraction to dispensationalists is that, despite their eschatology, they tend to be think of "Christian America" and want to recover a lost golden age. Theonomy, and particularly Christian Reconstructionism, offers a coherent way to do that. 

The final attraction for folks in transition is that the movement is controlled by (or was) very distinct (Bahnsen, North, Rushdooney) and very strong personalities. They became rabbi's to a lot of folks. Not sure what to do with this civil law in Deut? Ask Rabbi Gary! Of course, Rabbi Rousas has a different view and Rabbi Greg another. Hmm, this sounds familiar. Ever read the Talmud? Compile the Institutes of Biblical law (2 vols) with TiCE and Gary's prodigious output (including a repudiation of Van Til's eschatology!) and there it is, a modern day Talmud.

This is the problem with Reformed amillennialism, it can´t offer any of these things, only Christ crucified for sinners, raised for their justification, ascended and ruling now (and not postponed until a golden age, when he really begins to rule) and shall return at his good pleasure to consummate all things. Until then, we´re left with the church as the only earthly manifestation of the kingdom of God (contra the neo-Kuyperians who make everything Christians do into "œkingdom work," thus marginalizing the only visible institution Jesus actually established) tension with a hostile culture (and civil magistrate), struggle, frequent failure, small victories, waiting for death or Christ´s return. 

I can see why many folks don´t find this package, if you will, attractive, but this sort of foolishness (1 Cor 1-2) will have to do in this age. Luther called it the theology of the cross (http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Suffering.html)

rsc


----------



## VanVos (Jan 4, 2006)

Interesting comments Dr Scott. It is a bit unclear at times as to where he stood on these issues. Although I personally believe he would stick to the reformed confession if he were alive today. (see teaching The Road to Rome, Was the Reformation Right?, by Greg L. Bahnsen) . Also you are exactly right when comes to Bahnsen clarity on Theonomy and Postmillennialism. I wish he had given as much attention to the doctrine of Justification as he did the Mosaic Law. 

VanVos

P.S. Does Westminster Seminary California offer correspondent courses?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 4, 2006)

> ...P.S. Does Westminster Seminary California offer correspondent courses?



Funny you should ask! We've discussed this on this board a few times. I'm sure you can find the threads, probably under the "colleges and seminaries" heading. 

Here's my approach to DE: 
http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Seminary.html

The short answer is that we've decided, on principle, not to offer DE. We don't think we can properly educate pastors by distance. 

My _personal_ view, not speaking for WSC, is that when reputable law schools and medical schools start offering DE and when you and I are willing to trust our health and legal affairs to folks so trained, then we'll think about it. I don't see that happening any time soon, however. It seems to me that the ministry is concerned with matters much weightier than even health and our estates. If so, we should be all the more diligent to get ministers the very best training possible.

As you may find out, there are many on this board who take strong exception to my criticisms of DE. You may hear from them too.

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 4, 2006)

I would just point out the BTS was formed after the death of Dr. Bahnsen. He has no control over the makeup of the faculty, the content of the courses, or the theological positions that are endorsed today.

I have great respect for Dr. Bahnsen. I'm in the process of listening to a series of messages he gave at the Christian Reconstruction Leadership Conference held in 1994 at Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Georgia. (I had the privilige of attending that conference.) After taking Antinomian opponents to task by asking, "so how is it going among you who do not care for the law", and upbraiding his fellow reconstructionists for the uncharitable way they treat each other, he did an excellent job of relating the graciousness of God's law-word in the context of the gospel.

I know people who were part of Dr. Bahnsen's flock in California. I had the opportunity to meet him a few years before his death. He always came across to me as a warm and sincere Christian, vitally concerned with the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only hope for mankind. I've read many of his books and listened to and read many of his other messages. I have never found anything in his theology to be beyond the pale of confessional presbyterianism. His critics -- and there are many -- have tended to focus of catch phrases and missed the overall message and context. It was rare that they would face Bahnsen head on, preferring to avoid debate and other scholarly discourse.

Bahsen was an apologist and linguist. He took his use of language very seriously. Unlike many of those in the FV camp, he did not equivocate, but tended to be very precise in his formulations.

Bahnsen remained a minister in good standing of the OPC until his death in 1995.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> His ethical system has been, to put it mildly, highly controversial not just because his critics are all antinomian or rationalist as theonomists like to suggest, but because his peculiar language and formulations are virtually unprecedented in the history of the Reformed churches and those formulae peculiar to Bahnsen find no support in the confessions of the Reformed churches. Who else spoke of the abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail?



How close is Bahnsen to Gillespie in "Wholesome Severity"? My current understanding is that they are so close that some people deny Gillespie the authorship because it would give Theonomy confessional footing.



> I don't see anything of the sort in the 16th and 17th century Reformed theologians I read. They were, most of them, theocrats (they believed the state should enforce ecclesiastical law) even though, in principle, they believed the church and state to represent two distinct kingdoms. I see that as a tension in their ethics. It was virtually impossible for them to see the world in any other way.
> 
> It only became possible to see the world differently when the ancient world finally collapsed in the 30 years war.



Doesnt this argument look just like the anti six day creation argument?



> Theonomists scream and holler when I make this argument, but it's true.



Don't just worry about theonomists, the theocrats will be after you as well. I'm going to go call Andrew and it won't be pretty 



> Theology doesn't drop out of the sky. After Europe beat itself to death for 30 years, confessional Reformed and Lutheran folk were more open to considering whether theocracy was a mistake.



Ive seen the same argument using the Civil war as an example. After being bled to death by the North, the South decided, "Maybe our view of the Bible and Slavery ain't so hot." Minus Dabney of Course.

Next, thing anyone knows, you are for framework hypothesis and a lot of other nutty things.



> Sometimes history and circumstances can change our interpretation of Scripture by changing "plausibility structures." That's why none of us are geocentrists any more.



Speak for yourself, Dr.

The history of Geocentrism is pretty interesting. Aristoleian Physics had the earth at the center. Galileo and Copernicus wrote checks with their mouths that their science could not cover. Followed by Newton presenting science that ended the debate in favor of the anti-geocentric camp..... Or so they thought. A few centuries later, Einstein overthrows Newton, (in the revelant areas) and geocentrism was again allowed to be resurrected.

Next, I would like to know how one could introduce plausibility structures into theological thought, without allowing them to run amock; and without having to say, "Everyone had things wrong until we came along."

Next, I would like to know the history of the interpretation of the revelant "geocentric" passages. How did the orthodox theologians interpret them, before and after Galileo and Copernicus?



> Not because our hermeneutic changed, but the physics we assumed for so long became impossible to hold any longer.



I thought this was the area of hermeneutics? At the very least it assumes the introduction of a new hermeneutical tool?



> It took us a while to realize that Calvin's principle of accomodation meant that we don't have to be geocentrists to be faithful to Scripture, that Scripture doesn't mean to teach us any particular physics or astronomy.



Did Calvin know to use his own tool in support of interpreting the relevant passages in a non literal way? Or are we out Calvining, Calvin?

CT


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 4, 2006)

Coming out of 20 years in the Southern Baptist Convention, Louis Berkhof's _Systematic Theology_ has been the most clear, helpful and treasured book in my library. Anyone who is new to the Reformed faith should read it cover to cover.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Don't just worry about theonomists, the theocrats will be after you as well. I'm going to go call Andrew and it won't be pretty
> 
> CT


----------



## crhoades (Jan 4, 2006)

For what it's worth, quotes from Bahnsen on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. 


Greg Bahnsen: By This Standard pg. 86 from the website http://www.freebooks.com where the book in its entirety is available in html- the actual page number in the book is: 59-60. (Actually the whole chapter 7 The Son's Model Righteousness nails the coffin shut...) 

*Imitating Christ * 

Christians should therefore be the last people to think or maintain that they are free from the righteous requirements of God's commandments. Those who have been saved were in need of that salvation precisely because God's law could not be ignored as they transgressed it. For them to be saved, it was necessary for Christ to live and die by all of the law's stipulations. *Although our own obedience to the law is flawed and thus cannot be used as a way of justification before God, we are saved by the imputed obedience of the Savior (1 Cor, 1:30; Phil. 3 :9). Our justification is rooted in His obedience (Rem. 5:17-19). By a righteousness which is alien to ourselves "” the perfect righteousness of Christ according to the law "” we are made just in the sight of God. * "He made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5: 21). 

It turns out, then, that Christ's advent and atoning work do not relax the validity of the law of God and its demand for 
righteousness; rather they accentuate it. Salvation does not cancel the laws demand but simply the law's curse: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3 :13). He removed our guilt and the condemning aspect of the law toward us, but Christ did not revoke the law's original righteous demand and obligation. Salvation in the Biblical sense presupposes the permanent validity of the law. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit indwelling all true believers in Jesus Christ makes them grow in likeness to Christ unto the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13, 15; cf. Gal. 4:19).

*Another quote from chapter 9 - A Motivational Ethic Endorses the Law, pg. 71 (page 98 on the online edition)*


Those who are genuine believers in Christ know very well that their salvation cannot be grounded in their own works of the law: "œ. . . not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us, . . . that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7).* The believer´s justification before God is grounded instead in the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:11; Rem. 5:19); it is His imputed righteousness that makes us right before the judgment seat of God * (2 Cor. 5:21). "œA man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28).


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> How close is Bahnsen to Gillespie in "Wholesome Severity"? My current understanding is that they are so close that some people deny Gillespie the authorship because it would give Theonomy confessional footing.



I'm afraid that many puritans, Gillespie included, would never make it through a theological exam in a modern "conservative" presbytery that has gotten a whiff of what it thinks is "theonomy". 

Having sat on our presbytery's theological examing commitee for almost 7 years, I can't begin to tell you how many men came before the committee and insisted they were not "theonomists", which I think meant they were declaring they were not Greg Bahnsen.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> For what it's worth, quotes from Bahnsen on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.....



Chris,

This is encouraging. 

Where was he on the definition of faith? Is faith, in the act of justification, "resting and receiving" or is it "trusting and obeying?"

I'm asking because I wonder what gives some of his supporters the idea that he was a Shepherdite?

rsc


----------



## crhoades (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



I'll look into it. I'm a big fan of innocent until proven guilty in regards to elders.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> For what it's worth, quotes from Bahnsen on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.
> 
> 
> ...




Nice Work !!


----------



## crhoades (Jan 4, 2006)

From: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt153.htm
All italics in original. Bolding and underlining mine. Please take time to read ...it took forever to format!
________________________________
The theological perspective of the Biblical writers, prophets and apostles both being witness, is that one who was perfectly righteous stood in the place of those who are unrighteous in God's sight, bearing the curse or penalty of their sin by dying in their place, in order to set them free from condemnation and secure their eternal benefit. There is no other way, as Peter indicates, for sinners to be "brought back to God." *This makes maintaining the purity and truth of the gospel as the good news about judicial and substitutionary atonement a matter of infinite personal importance. * It makes the self-conscious rejection of this central Biblical theme a matter of dreadful consequence. "For we know Him who said 'Vengeance belongs unto Me, I will recompense'.... It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:30-31). Our only hope is that Christ's saving death is received by God precisely as a "sacrifice for sins" (cf. v. 26).

_Justification: God's Judicial Declaration of Righteousness_

The judicial (penal) and substitutionary death of Christ for our _redemption_ is set forth in the Bible as the necessary prerequisite for sinners gaining a _right standing_ before the judgment of God. We are "justified freely by His grace _through the redemption_ that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24). But how may a righteous God "justify the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5)? *God's verdict that the unrighteous are judged as righteous in His sight depends on His looking upon the person and work of Jesus Christ instead of the sinner's own record. *This is how He can remain "just as well as being the justifier" of those who have faith in Christ (Rom. 3:26). 

God's favorable verdict upon us of justification instead of condemnation requires that He take into account the work of Christ, first that we may be acquitted. This is contained in Paul's short but unforgettable expression, "_justified_ by His _blood, _" which is the means by which believers are "saved from the wrath of God" (Rom. 5:9). Without gaining pardon for their offenses, sinners cannot receive a favorable judgment from God; thus the penalty of sin was discharged by Christ shedding His blood in their place. God's written indictment against us has been blotted out; Christ has "taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14). But there is more. God's favorable verdict of justification requires that He take into account the person of Christ, as well as His sacrificial work.

Justification is not simply God's decision to treat the sinner as innocent (acquitted) for the sake of Christ's redemptive work. It also entails the judgment that we are deemed positively righteous in His sight -- appraised and declared to be just. This is what it means "to justify." But how can that be a judgment which is according to truth, unless Christ has become the object of God's assessment _as our substitute_ -- that is, unless Christ is judged in our place? Paul explains that "of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who was made for us... righteousness" (1 Cor. 1:30). Despite the unrighteousness of our internal character, when God looks at our _legal record_ He finds the righteousness of Christ which is substituted and treated as genuinely our own. *It seriously misconstrues the Biblical testimony to think of this as a some kind of "legal fiction."* Although the righteousness by which we are justified is an "alien righteousness" because it is that of Christ -- certainly not our own accomplishment and not our actual character -- it is nevertheless constituted as our very own. God does not see sin and call it righteousness (which would be a lie), but rather when He looks at our record He sees not sin but righteousness, *this being the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.* The status of our substitute has actually _become our own_ status according to the judgment of God. "The one who experienced no sin was made sin on our behalf so that we might in Him become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). In this assertion the substitutionary nature of our salvation stands out boldly, speaking of our sin being imputed to the Savior, while His righteousness is imputed to us.

*In this verse, to "become righteousness" cannot by any stretch of the imagination mean that our internal nature has been replaced, "elevated," or "infused" with the actual, sin-free purity, confirmed obedience and just disposition of Christ Himself.* The disappointing personal experience of believers, not to mention the unfailing word of God (e.g., Gal. 5:17; 1 John 2:1), reveal how preposterous a notion that is. Even more, if 2 Corinthians 5:21 means that our internal character has been made over into one which is actually righteous, then by parallel the verse would mean "“ *heretical horror!* -- that Christ lost His holy virtue and righteous disposition when He was "made sin"; He would be construed to have actually, personally become a sinner (or be "infused" with sin).

God's word consistently portrays the judicial or forensic character of justification. The Greek verb ("to justify") itself indicates this. In secular Greek literature it takes the sense of "to account or deem as righteous," and in the Septuagintal Old Testament it is never chosen in those rare cases where the Hebrew word had a causative meaning (rather than declarative). In New Testament literature, no verb which has the same kind of Greek ending and which denotes moral qualities carries a causative force (i.e., "to make" devout, holy, etc.), but uniformly the sense of "to deem" or assess (as devout, etc.). "To justify" means to _declare_ a verdict or _demonstrate_ (vindicate) that someone is just. Earthly judges are required to "justify the righteous and condemn the wicked" (Deut. 25:1), which can hardly mean that the judge "makes" or "causes" the innocent defendant to be righteous. Rather, "to justify" stands in contrast with "to condemn" -- to render a negative verdict. When judges "condemn," they do not "cause" the guilty to be made wicked. 

*Likewise, when Paul sets God's "condemnation" of sinners over against "justification" (Rom. 5:18; 8:33-34), the latter cannot mean making sinners righteous, unless to be consistent (and blasphemous) God is said to cause the condemned to be unrighteous!* Justification is God's legal judgment -- His pronouncement of the verdict that someone is just in His accounting. The blessing of justification rests "upon the man unto whom God imputes [reckons] righteousness" (Rom. 4:6). And as indicated above, such a pronouncement or reckoning envisions a true change, specifically here, of objective legal status for the sinner *(not a change of internal moral character or subjective transformation).* *It is by faith that the sinner has imputed to his account the righteousness of Christ (faith-righteousness) and henceforth is "reckoned" as righteous* (Rom. 4:3; cf. 3:22; 9:30; Phil. 3:9). This is "the gift of righteousness" spoken of in Romans 5:17, which must in the nature of the case denote objective bestowal and *not inward renewal*. Paul subsequently refers to the same theological truth when he affirms: "Through the obedience of the one [Christ] shall the many be _constituted_ righteous" (Rom. 5:19) -- that is, appointed to the standing (status) of righteous (cf. Paul's use of this verb in Titus 1:5, which has numerous N.T. parallels).

From these considerations we learn the *distorted character* and *deadly danger* of suppressing the judicial or forensic nature of justification. *It refers not to the inward regeneration or sanctifying renewal of the believer (infusion of righteousness), but to God's declaration that the ungodly stands before Him now as just.* This verdict comprehends both the acquittal of the sinner's guilt through substitutionary bearing of the condemnation due and God's accounting of Christ's righteousness as the believer's own new legal status. Since Scripture asserts that God "justifies the ungodly," we know that justification cannot be based on anything in the sinner by which he might boast, whether his faith or his works (cf. Eph. 2:8-9), both of which are imperfect and tainted in this life. The only hope we can have is that God would look to the righteousness of Christ Jesus our Lord as the ground of His justifying declaration. 

The "irreformable" decree of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent pronounced anathema upon anyone who teaches that in justification the justice of God (as "formal cause") looks upon the vicarious righteousness of Christ, rather than the inwardly just character of the believer (infused with sanctifying grace). God's own word, by contrast, anathematizes any such teaching -- whether promulgated by Rome or by an angel from heaven -- which so thoroughly falsifies _both_ the _nature_ and the _ground_ of justification. It is natural that the grace of God and the believer's assurance are so pervasively missing in the Roman Church since it has lost the judicial and substitutionary character of salvation. In short, it has lost the good news (gospel). Praise God for "the abundance of grace, even _the gift of righteousness"_ by which believers may enjoy "the justification of life" (Rom. 5:17-18). *Because justification is not grounded in our faith or works, but rather the perfect righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith,* we may be confident that "those whom He justified, them He also glorified" (v. 30) -- in which case nobody can lay anything to the charge of God's elect or ever separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 33-39).

*More Than Justification*

We recognize, then, that to eradicate the judicial or forensic nature of salvation would be to *distort* and *misrepresent* the grace of God in the gospel. Maintaining salvation's judicial character has first-order importance for Biblical orthodoxy. Gloriously, the good news proclaimed in God's word is news about judicial pardon, about a substitute undergoing our condemnation, and about God graciously effecting a legal exchange between the righteous one and the unrighteous many. This is not at all to say, however, that God's "saving" work for sinners is _restricted _to judicial concerns -- that God's only concern is to deliver His people from a guilty verdict and eternal condemnation. Salvation also brings renovation, regeneration -- veritable re-creation.

As we noted before, the richness of God's mercy is realized in the fact that Christ saves us from sin _and its consequences. _ Man's moral dilemma encompasses not only the guilt of sin but also its _pollution_ of his character: his waywardness, evil desires, disinclination to good, slavery to sin, or depravity. When our first parents transgressed God's law, sin entered the world, bringing "judgment _unto condemnation"_ upon all their posterity (Rom. 5:12, 16, 18). But more: with the guilt of this sin came spiritual death upon all men. "As through one man sin entered into the world _and death through sin_.... by the trespass of the one the many died" (5:12, 15). Our objective, judicial problem before God brings with it a subjective, internal corruption which is nothing less than complete spiritual deadness. To use Paul's words, prior to God's gracious salvation, we "were dead through trespasses and sins" and were like the rest of mankind "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:1-3). In our natural state we are slaves to sin (John 8:34), unable to submit to God's law (Rom. 8:7-8), and unable to receive the things of God's Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14).

God's grace in Christ saves sinners not only from the objective guilt of their sin, but also from the internal pollution and power of their sin as well. Discussion of this latter blessing would take us beyond the scope of our study into an exploration of regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. Suffice it to say that when God's saving work is finally done, His people will have been delivered from sin _and all of its consequences! _

The point which needs to be made is simply that, while acknowledging (praise God) that salvation has _more_ than a judicial character as presented in the Scriptures, we are untrue to the gospel if we portray salvation as having _anything less_ than a judicial character or treat it as somehow a trivial or peripheral concern in the Biblical perspective. *Those who are guilty of breaking God's holy law are nevertheless forgiven and declared righteous before the judgment seat of God by faith in Jesus Christ, who bore in their place the condemnation they deserved.* How can any true believer be unmoved, indifferent or lack passion about that amazing truth?

The judicial and substitutionary nature of salvation is at the very heart of the Biblical gospel. Around this truth evangelicals must unite at the end of the twentieth century if we would perpetuate the purity and glory of the good news that "Jesus saves."


----------



## Saiph (Jan 4, 2006)

Thank you Chris. I believe this forever silences the absurd accusations against Bahnsen in this area.


----------



## crhoades (Jan 4, 2006)

For the sake of overkill...

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt184.htm
*Highlighting the Reformation While Pondering a Supposed Protestant-Romanist "Truce"*

... Accordingly the Reformers warned God's people against the soul-destroying errors of Rome. *To take but one crucial illustration (of many which could be mentioned): consider the Romanist error of taking justification to be God's making a person just by inner spiritual renewal, infusing him with righteousness -- thus confounding justification and sanctification.* The Council of Trent (1547) declared that "in new birth there is bestowed upon them... the grace whereby they are made just."

Thus Trent condemned to everlasting damnation those who do not look partly to their own inherent merit to be right with God. It promulgated: "If any one saith that the good works of one that is justified are... not also the good merits of him..." or "if any one saith that men are justified by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ... to the exclusion of ...[anything] inherent in them..., let him be anathema." The Council of Trent absolutely insisted that "life eternal is... faithfully rendered to their good works and merits."

The Reformers likewise renounced the Roman Catholic idea that man's will can "cooperate toward disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification" (to use the words of Trent) -- which implies synergism, rather than salvation by grace alone. 

Again, the Council of Trent consigned Protestants to hell on this point: "If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ's sake alone... let him be anathema." "If any one saith that by faith alone the impious is justified... [so] that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining of the grace of justification... let him be anathema."

*Has Romanism Reformed?*

Some readers might be tempted to dismiss the above evidence that Romanism perverts the gospel and condemns Protestants to hell, thinking "Well, that was way back then; this is now." But that would be simplistic and fallacious reasoning, resting as it does on the all-too-common scuttlebutt that the Roman Catholic communion has changed on this (and other) important points. It has not. Indeed, it cannot.

The Council of Trent (which ended in 1563) affirmed the sole right of the Roman church (through its leaders) to interpret the Bible, declared that as a council it could not be in error, placed the tradition of the church on the same level as Scriptural authority, and concluded that what the Council taught was in itself "irreformable" -- thus precluding any possibility of its "reformation."

The First Vatican Council (1870) as well as the Second Vatican Council (ended 1965) both affirmed that the doctrinal content of the church remains unchanged and unchangeable, being "irreformable." Protestants who ignore the anathemas of Trent against evangelical faith have lapsed into counter-historical wishful thinking.

We would rejoice (of course!) if Roman Catholicism would change. But as John Calvin said long ago, this would require it to repent of its previous, arrogant, and heretical decrees. It hasn't.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> How close is Bahnsen to Gillespie in "Wholesome Severity"? My current understanding is that they are so close that some people deny Gillespie the authorship because it would give Theonomy confessional footing.



I don't see either he or Rutherford arguing anything but theocracy.



> RSC: It only became possible to see the world differently when the ancient world finally collapsed in the 30 years war.





> CT: Doesnt this argument look just like the anti six day creation argument?



I have used a version of this argument not so much against the six-day view per se, because that is an biblical-exegetical argument, but to contextualize the discussion.



> Next, thing anyone knows, you are for framework hypothesis and a lot of other nutty things.



Actually, I hold an even nuttier view, that the six-days are analogical to our days but discontinuous in certain ways. We are certainly meant to think in rough terms of six days, but without sun they weren't like our days exactly and even E J Young admitted that the first few days weren't 24 hours long. I think the Israelites would have noticed the discrepancy between sunless days and their days when they first heard this account read to them by Moses. 

I'm not particularly wound up about the length of the days since Scripture doesn't make it an issue. I'm much more wound up about folks teaching justification by faith and works.



> RSC: Sometimes history and circumstances can change our interpretation of Scripture by changing "plausibility structures." That's why none of us are geocentrists any more.
> 
> CT: Speak for yourself, Dr. The history of Geocentrism is pretty interesting. Aristoleian Physics had the earth at the center.
> 
> Galileo and Copernicus wrote checks with their mouths that their science could not cover. Followed by Newton presenting science that ended the debate in favor of the anti-geocentric camp..... Or so they thought. A few centuries later, Einstein overthrows Newton, (in the revelant areas) and geocentrism was again allowed to be resurrected.



Really? Could you elaborate. I'm not familiar with this version of the history of science.

So, you think the earth is at the center of the universe and that the Bible means for us to think of things thus? When Scripture speaks of the sun rising, it intends for us to draw astronomical/physical inferences?



> CT: Next, I would like to know how one could introduce plausibility structures into theological thought, without allowing them to run amock; and without having to say, "Everyone had things wrong until we came along."



Subjectivism is a danger in any enterprise. The controlling factor is the principle on which one operates. I think we today are more consistent with Calvin's principles than he was. It is the same principle, accommodation -- Scripture was not intended as a science text -- but a more consistent application of it.



> Next, I would like to know the history of the interpretation of the revelant "geocentric" passages. How did the orthodox theologians interpret them, before and after Galileo and Copernicus?



By email/on the web? That's a large typescript for which you're asking. You'll have to buy my book when it comes out.

rsc


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



I was speaking of wholesome severity in particular. I asked for I know more than one theocrat, who do not like what he says there. I guess you and theocrats disagree on more than one point.


> > RSC: It only became possible to see the world differently when the ancient world finally collapsed in the 30 years war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no problem with attempting to add context. The issue for me is the seeming attempt to say, "Oh looking here, we know more than they did about X, Y and Z. Now its time to change the interpretation." That looks like nothing but a recipe for disaster.



> > Next, thing anyone knows, you are for framework hypothesis and a lot of other nutty things.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I hold an even nuttier view, that the six-days are analogical to our days but discontinuous in certain ways.



Like Collins? Who in the 16th and 17th Century was saying anything like that?



> We are certainly meant to think in rough terms of six days, but without sun they weren't like our days



So for God to tell us that it was six regular days, he would have had to create the sun earlier? The days before and after the sun were described in the same way, right?

[/quote]
exactly and even E J Young admitted that the first few days weren't 24 hours long.
[/quote]

In last year's issue of the confessional Presbyterian, Prof. Shaw of Greenville, said that he thought Young's argumentation was exegetically weak when written and hasn't aged well. Next, if Young admits such, then it has to be taken as true?



> I think the Israelites would have noticed the discrepancy between sunless days and their days when they first heard this account read to them by Moses.



And pretty much everyone in church history has missed what the Israelites easily saw?



> I'm not particularly wound up about the length of the days since Scripture doesn't make it an issue. I'm much more wound up about folks teaching justification by faith and works.



There is a time and a place for everything. We are about the whole counsel. No one is saying that justification is not a huge issue. However, there is more than one issue worth talking about. Or in other words, there is a time for the Cha-cha and a different time for the Waltz.



> > RSC: Sometimes history and circumstances can change our interpretation of Scripture by changing "plausibility structures." That's why none of us are geocentrists any more.
> >
> > CT: Speak for yourself, Dr. The history of Geocentrism is pretty interesting. Aristoleian Physics had the earth at the center.
> >
> ...



My core point is that science hasnt refuted the geocentric position. So if you want to reject geocentrism due to other scriptural concerns, go ahead. Just don't drop it because scientists are making fun of you.



> > CT: Next, I would like to know how one could introduce plausibility structures into theological thought, without allowing them to run amock; and without having to say, "Everyone had things wrong until we came along."
> 
> 
> 
> Subjectivism is a danger in any enterprise. The controlling factor is the principle on which one operates. I think we today are more consistent with Calvin's principles than he was. It is the same principle, accommodation -- Scripture was not intended as a science text -- but a more consistent application of it.



It is not a science text, but what it does speak is authority, if its science that is spoken on an issue then so be it. We can't let scientists tell us what we do and don't believe about the Bible.



> > Next, I would like to know the history of the interpretation of the revelant "geocentric" passages. How did the orthodox theologians interpret them, before and after Galileo and Copernicus?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote]

You have another book coming out? I wasnt asking for a lot of details, more along a summary paragraph.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 4, 2006)

> I have no problem with attempting to add context. The issue for me is the seeming attempt to say, "Oh looking here, we know more than they did about X, Y and Z. Now its time to change the interpretation." That looks like nothing but a recipe for disaster.



Well, then Rome sweet Home is waiting for you! That's her argument. Luther was the first to articulate the law/gospel dichotomy and the sola's. There isn't a single patristic or medieval or theologian or council who said unequivocally what we confess.

How, unless circumstances changed enabling Luther to see what even Wycliffe did not, did Luther see what we confess to be the gospel?



> Like Collins? Who in the 16th and 17th Century was saying anything like that?



No, more like Godfrey - which view he stole from me!

I doubt anyone in the 16th or 17th century propounded an analogical view. It wasn't an issue. So what?




> So for God to tell us that it was six regular days, he would have had to create the sun earlier? The days before and after the sun were described in the same way, right?



For us to know with certainty that the pre-solar days were 24 hours, then yes, there could be no pre-solar days. 

There are lots of other indicators in Gen 1 and 2 that the days are not meant to be taken as 24 hours. 

Did God "rest" for 24 hours?



> In last year's issue of the confessional Presbyterian, Prof. Shaw of Greenville, said that he thought Young's argumentation was exegetically weak when written and hasn't aged well. Next, if Young admits such, then it has to be taken as true?



Weak by what standard? (I love that one!) Actually, EJY didn't do justice to the Framework in his '64 monograph. The OPC report was much fairer to all the views in question. 



> And pretty much everyone in church history has missed what the Israelites easily saw?



No, there is a history of non-6-day views. Letham has chronicled these. 



> there is more than one issue worth talking about. Or in other words...



Not when folk are denying the gospel.

6-day creation is not the article of the standing or falling of the church, justification is. 

I know 6-day-24-hour creationists who deny the gospel. If they do not repent, I fear for their souls. I might be wrong about creation or my exegesis of Gen 1, but its not of equal importance.

It's a matter of priorities. I've been arguing about creation with folks who can't read Hebrew and don't know anything about the history of exegesis for 20 years. I'm tired of it and don't have any interest in doing it. It's like sweeping the floor when the house is on fire. It's not only strange, it's dangerous.






> My core point is that science hasnt refuted the geocentric position.



What qualifies as proof?

Just about every astronomer and physicist since the 17th century has been a heliocentrist. I know of one fellow, Dr. Gerardus Bouw (Ph.D. Astronomy from Case Institute of Technology) who is supposed to be a geocentrist.



> So if you want to reject geocentrism due to other scriptural concerns, go ahead. Just don't drop it because scientists are making fun of you.



Have you read the history of Copernicus' discovery and Galileo's refinement? 



> It is not a science text, but what it does speak is authority, if its science that is spoken on an issue then so be it. We can't let scientists tell us what we do and don't believe about the Bible.



You haven't answered the questions.

Are you a geocentrist? If not, why not?

Do you think the Bible means to teach us physics or astronomy? If so, where? Can you justify such a claim exegetically?

The traditional argument was a deduction fueled by poor exegesis. It failed to understand that Scripture uses observational language. It was speaking in terms of universal sense perception. 


rsc


----------



## BrianBowman (Jan 5, 2006)

Dr Clark,

Regarding: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Suffering.html

I'm not aware of any eschatological statements made by Greg Bahnsen (or Kenneth Gentry) that suggest that Christians somehow escape suffering in the present age because of their post-millennial views. If anything, their teachings on the sufferings of saints in The Revelation are held up as examples to the present-day Church to take being Christ's disciples seriously, and being willing to suffer and even die for His cause. I base this on listening to Bahnsen's series "Revelation" and on Gentry's series on Revelation entitled "The Divorce of Israel", as well other sermons and readings by these men. Both are available at Covenant Media. I'm not familiar with the works by Chilton, North, Demar, or Rushdoony.

In spite of Bahnsen's controversial views on Christian Ethics, he is certainly an example of a Christian who suffered for his faith. Although many may disagree with aspects of Greg's Theology, etc., I've never head a single disparaging comment about his Christian service ethic, manner-of-life, or personal testimony for the Lord Jesus Christ. Greg endured a chronic life-threatening illness which ultimately caused his death, an ex-wife who was unfaithful multiple times and finally abandon him - leaving 4 kids behind, etc. Still, he tirelessly labored to teach and preach God's Word before, during, and after being cleared of any marital wrong doing by the OPC Presbytery of S. California.

Since God has seen fit to providentially call Greg L. Bahnsen home, we will never know if he would have sided with the AA/FV/NPP folks of today. Yet, in his ministry of over 20 years, I cannot see how he was ever found conclusively in want of the historical Reformed standards of doctrine.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by BrianBowman]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with attempting to add context. The issue for me is the seeming attempt to say, "Oh looking here, we know more than they did about X, Y and Z. Now its time to change the interpretation." That looks like nothing but a recipe for disaster.
> ...



Ah so Sola Scriptura etc. are Protestant concoctions, just as Rome says? I do not know very much about Luther, but I am shocked that I did not run into his, "Everyone got it wrong before me" speech or argument.
Re-reading the church fathers did not speed the Reformation along, it was just, a paradigm shift.

Our fellow board member, Rev. King, must have just wasted his time in the defense of the history of Sola Scriptura. He could have saved time by just saying, the history of it begins with Luther.



> How, unless circumstances changed enabling Luther to see what even Wycliffe did not, did Luther see what we confess to be the gospel?



There is a long distance between saying that Luther lead the systematizing of important doctrines, and saying that the Gospel was not preached anywhere previous to Luther. The Faith delivered once and for all spoken of in Jude, finally hit us around the 1500s. Yep.



> > Like Collins? Who in the 16th and 17th Century was saying anything like that?
> 
> 
> 
> No, more like Godfrey - which view he stole from me!



I'm not really concerned over whence it came, I'm more concerned over when it will return to whence it came. I said, Collins because he is the biggest proponent of this view, or something similar to it.



> I doubt anyone in the 16th or 17th century propounded an analogical view. It wasn't an issue. So what?



Six Day Creation is/was. It was big enough that Westminster turned its guns on Augustine. Calvin did as well. So the issue of rival views is an issue.



> > So for God to tell us that it was six regular days, he would have had to create the sun earlier? The days before and after the sun were described in the same way, right?
> 
> 
> 
> For us to know with certainty that the pre-solar days were 24 hours, then yes, there could be no pre-solar days.



why? If God describes the days before and after the same way, then that should be enough and the burden of proof should be on those who would like to see more, to answer why.



> There are lots of other indicators in Gen 1 and 2 that the days are not meant to be taken as 24 hours.
> 
> Did God "rest" for 24 hours?



I will just refer you to "Did God Create in 6 Days", edited by Joseph A. Pipa & David W. Hall.

If you really want to go into a debate on this issue on this board, right now, we should go to another thread.



> > In last year's issue of the confessional Presbyterian, Prof. Shaw of Greenville, said that he thought Young's argumentation was exegetically weak when written and hasn't aged well. Next, if Young admits such, then it has to be taken as true?
> 
> 
> 
> Weak by what standard? (I love that one!) Actually, EJY didn't do justice to the Framework in his '64 monograph. The OPC report was much fairer to all the views in question.



By what standard of exegesis? The standard that is confessional etc.?
The framework is bad no matter how fair one wants to be to it.




> > And pretty much everyone in church history has missed what the Israelites easily saw?
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is a history of non-6-day views. Letham has chronicled these.



Dr. Hall has chronicled the lack of such views. I would be interested in seeing what Letham has to say for the non historical viewpoints.



> > there is more than one issue worth talking about. Or in other words...
> 
> 
> 
> Not when folk are denying the gospel.



Oh I'm sorry. I assumed that seminaries had more than one class on Justification in their catalogs. I did not know that every message spoken in every orthodox pulpit was on justification. I was under the mistaken view point, that there was more to the whole counsel than the important issue of justification.



> 6-day creation is not the article of the standing or falling of the church, justification is.
> 
> I know 6-day-24-hour creationists who deny the gospel. If they do not repent, I fear for their souls. I might be wrong about creation or my exegesis of Gen 1, but its not of equal importance.



I do not remember saying it was of equal importance. I am saying that it is of serious importance, for Genesis is the foundation of the whole shooting match. You muck it up and a lot of bad comes out. Belief in the tradition understanding of Genesis is not perfectly correlated to orthodox beliefs elsewhere, but where it is rejected, you mainly find a huge mess of unorthodoxy at best and heresy at worst.



> It's a matter of priorities. I've been arguing about creation with folks who can't read Hebrew and don't know anything about the history of exegesis for 20 years. I'm tired of it and don't have any interest in doing it. It's like sweeping the floor when the house is on fire. It's not only strange, it's dangerous.



You have the right to discuss and argue with anyone or not to do so as you feel necessary. But we will just agree to disagree on how important the defense of the traditional reading of Genesis is.



> My core point is that science hasnt refuted the geocentric position.



What qualifies as proof?

Just about every astronomer and physicist since the 17th century has been a heliocentrist. I know of one fellow, Dr. Gerardus Bouw (Ph.D. Astronomy from Case Institute of Technology) who is supposed to be a geocentrist.
[/quote]

Last time, I checked, scientific validity is not substantiated by head counting.


And as I said, Newton's viewpoint had been the nail in geocentrism's coffin, but that nail was removed when Einstein et. al came back against some of Newton's views. So saying that no one since 17th century, is not saying all that much.

There are other geocentric friendly folks besides Dr. Mouw but he publishes a journal so he gets all the pub. 

Lastly, what qualifies as proof is very hard to come by in scientific theorizing. Usually being able to explain things by one theory that cannot be accounted for by another, is a big key. But even then, the proof could be overthrown with the introduction of more data. I pretty much view it as an impossible and unnessary goal. Just go with what works and change when it stops working. This viewpoint allows science to advance quicker than it does/has in the past/present.



> > So if you want to reject geocentrism due to other scriptural concerns, go ahead. Just don't drop it because scientists are making fun of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the history of Copernicus' discovery and Galileo's refinement?



I have not read full books on the two topics, but I am familiar with them both. The issue is that all Galileo did was produce a heliocentric model that was able to explain more than the current geocentric one. The geocentric Brahe updated the model and it became observationally equivalent. What does one do then?




> > It is not a science text, but what it does speak is authority, if its science that is spoken on an issue then so be it. We can't let scientists tell us what we do and don't believe about the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm presently considering it. I don't see science as having a say, so I am starting to look at the exegesis of the passages in question. If no one has anything better than, "science has refuted that position", then I will become one.



> Do you think the Bible means to teach us physics or astronomy? If so, where? Can you justify such a claim exegetically?



Actually that is a hermenuetical question and not exegetically (you may be using exegesis to mean them both?). It is not like all the fathers of the faith, lost their training in the Biblically languages when the passages in question came along. They also knew that not everything was literal (for example the apolcalyptic langague of the Old testament helps us to understand its use in the new)

I see it as a the question of, "When science is not saying anything, can we properly understand Biblical passages?" If I answer yes, then I am okay with the exegesis.



> The traditional argument was a deduction fueled by poor exegesis. It failed to understand that Scripture uses observational language. It was speaking in terms of universal sense perception.
> 
> 
> rsc



And you know that the exegesis was poor due to a poor philosophy of science.

CT

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 5, 2006)

Dear Hermonta,

I really don't want to have an argument about creation. Yes, I've read Joey's book. I read it before it was book, when it was unpublished paper when he was on faculty here 8-9 years ago. I've read all the popular creation related stuff. I've read David Hall's book and essays. I understand the arguments. I've also read Will Barker's reply to Hall and I've read the 3 Views book and I've huge hard copy files and electronic files. 

I've also read Kline's essay (which many 6-day'ers have yet to do after 50 years! and Futato's follow-up expanding the argument) and the PCA report and the OPC report and the RCUS papers and on and on. I'm sure you have or will read all these with great care. 

Yes, the divines (with Calvin) rejected what they understood to be Augustine's view of instantaneous creation but it's also quite possible that the widely held view of Augustine was at least partly incorrect. 

How could they have misread Augustine? Well, Turretin cites a place in Thomas as the source for a medieval definition of theology. He cites a place in the Summa. The problem is the slogan isn't there! This was something that, by Turretin's time, "we all know." Well, it was wrong. 

The same thing may be true re Augustine. They all "knew" Augustine's view, but they may not all have read Augustine with equal care.

More to the point, as Will Barker noted, the divines had the opportunity to say something like "6 24 hour days" and they chose not to do it. 

I've also read those articles noting, and David hasn't accounted for this, the _animus imponentis_ in the adopting of the Standards. 

I teach medieval and Reformation history. For 1000 years, the church read Paul to say that we're justified by the infused grace of Christ and cooperation with that grace. 

Luther gradually came to reject that reading of Paul. 

It wasn't just by reading the Bible by itself. He read the Bible before he was a Protestant and after. Same Bible. Same reader. What changed? 

Yes, reading Greek did help, but there's no evidence that learning Greek really changed his mind about what "justice" and "justify" mean. 

Yes, A E McGrath has argued that it was Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum which influenced Melanchthon who in turn may have influenced Luther, but there is good reason to doubt this argument. 1) the semantic range of reputatam is not significantly different from imputatam. 2) Luther continued to use them interchangeably for the rest of his life. 

So what changed?

The dominant medieval assumption had been that God says what he says because we are what we are.

In principle, however, the nominalists had challenged that construction, even though they conceded the conclusion -- because any other way of being justified was unthinkable to them -- by raising questions about whether things are the way they are because God is what he is or whether things could be different than they are? If they could be different than they are, then perhaps things aren't as we thought they were?

It wasn't just Luther. This fundamental question made a variety of changes possible. In principle it made modern science possible. If we "know" that our head will explode if it travels more than 35 MPH then one had better not do that. Now, suddenly, it's possible that it might not explode. It's possible that humans can be airborne by getting the right arrangement of thrust and aerodynamics. So DaVinci sketches a helicopter. Before the nominalists, we "knew" too much about the world to allow such investigation.

I can't tell the whole story here, but I have it in a paper I expect to publish, but as Luther lectured in the psalms, romans, hebrews etc, his nominalist education at Eurfurt allowed him to begin to question the conclusions he had been taught. The strong Augustinianism of his Father confessor also began to trouble him. So a whole series of factors influenced Luther's reading of Scripture.

The point is that I think you have a misunderstanding about sola scriptura. As Mike Horton has frequently said, sola scriptura is not solo scriptura, i.e., I and my Bible in the closet. 

We read the Bible in time and space, in a culture, in a setting. Those things necessarily influence us. 

Yes, we believe in perspicuity, and the wonder of it is that the objective truth of Scripture overcomes our subjective difficulties. Perspicuity, however, has not meant in Reformed theology, as the WCF 1.7 says, that " All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all...".

Yes, the Reformers did read the Fathers to support their doctrine of justification, but it is far from clear that the Reformation claim to the Fathers was well-grounded. Tom Oden says, yes, absolutely, but he seizes on formal agreement while possibly ignoring substantive disagreement. T F Torrance, when he was a young evangelical scholar, argued quite persuasively in the '40's that most of the Fathers were moralists. My reading tends to agree with his. I argue this in the upcoming (May, '06) book on covenant and justification from P&R.

It's not that the gospel disappeared for 1500 years but it was considerably veiled. I argue this at length in the upcoming justification/covenant book but most everyone read the bible as containing old and new law. 

Augustine did suggest a slightly different reading of 2 Cor 3:6 and a hermeneutical trajectory, on which he himself did not capitalize, but on which Luther and the Protestants did.

What happened for 1500 years? That's a long story. It takes about 6 weeks of lectures to tell it. The debate over the Trinity or inerrancy are analogies. We didn't formulate inerrancy exactly as we do now, until the 19th century. Why not? Did no one believe it until then? No, we did, but circumstances didn't demand it until Modernity. The same is true with the Trinity. Tertullian´s formulation is not as developed as Nicea's. The same is true with justification. 

I'm confident that, as Warfield said, everyone is a Calvinist on his knees. So, I think that most folks know intuitively that their cooperation with grace (hence the nominalists stressed congruent merit, because they knew that we're not intrinsically just) is insufficient. That no one formulated the doctrine of justification just as Luther before him did is a wonder but not unprecedented in the history of doctrine. 

Luther's Protestant conclusions do have medieval and patristic roots. They did not spring de novo in the 16th century, but there's no evidence that anyone prior to Luther had put all the pieces together in the same way.

That does not trouble me because my dogmatic theology is normed by Scripture. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures are the sole, primary authority at the end of the discussion. Scripture is un-normed. It norms all other norms. The Scripture forms the church, the church does not form the scripture. We've never taken this principle, however, to mean that we simply sit down, read the Bible in English translation, by ourselves, without reference to it's cultures or our culture, or science. 

Such a hermeneutic is known as biblicism. Your proposal to figure out physics and astronomy from the Bible is biblicism. It's asking the Bible to answer questions it does not intend to answer. Moses was not intending to teach physics. He was intending to teach theology. The God who made the world ex nihilo is One. He is not complex. He is not a creature, but the Creator. He is not like the gods of the nations. The Yahweh who saved you is the Elohim who created the Word. The God who created and who redeems, has established a pattern for creation of working 6 days and resting the 7th. He has entered into a covenant of works with Adam and a covenant of grace with Adam's fallen children. 

That's the intended message of the early chapters of Genesis. Its the history of redemption not the history of physics.

I think I understand the difference between exegesis and hermeneutics. The creation discussion involves both questions. I don't believe, however, that it is fundamentally a hermeneutical question. I think most of the well-intentioned folk in this debate are using a substantially similar hermeneutic. As I've written in print, I doubt the assumption that the same hermeneutic necessarily produces the same exegetical results. 

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/wars.html

I used to hold the six-day view, but my mind was changed not by any hermeneutical shift but by exegetical arguments. Arguments from the Hebrew text, set in its original context, with its original audience in view.

The argument that "a bad hermeneutic leads to other bad things" doesn't wash. Petitio principii it assumes the conclusion. It has yet to be shown that MGK used a bad hermeneutic. He accounted for the setting, the grammar, the authorial intent. Aren´t those the basic elements of grammatical, historical hermeneutics. 

Folks who use the same or a similar hermeneutic don't like his conclusions, I agree, but they haven't shown his hermeneutic to be faulty. 

BTW, here is my geocentrism essay:
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Geocentrism.html

As to the history hermeneutics and the interpretation of Gen 1-2, the main thrust of the patristic understanding of creation and Gen 1-2 was to deny the eternality of matter and cosmic dualism. The medieval church produced many studies on the days of creation reflecting a variety of points of view. Yes, the six-day view, or some version thereof was dominant, but it was Thomas Aquinas who (perhaps) first formulated a version of the Framework, while holding the six-day view.

The Protestants emphasized the six-days to the degree they did, not, obviously, with liberalism or evolution in view, but as a response to perceived hermeneutical subjectivity and the abuse of the quadriga.

Despite their rhetoric, however, the Reformers continued themselves to practice a version of the quadriga, so we cannot pay attention only to what they said, but to what they actually did in hermeneutics. 

I really think these discussions are much too involved to be conducted usefully on the web. 

My reluctance to debate the details of the creation argument is not because we can only do one thing at a time, but because I can only do so many things at one time. I choose to work on justification and leave the creation debate to others. 

As to the importance of the creation debate, I wish some one would give me a cogent argument as to how, e.g., the framework affects my system of doctrine. I know frameworkers who are completely orthodox in every locus and I know 6-day'ers who are not. 

Are those 6-day'ers who deny justification sola fide victims of their hermeneutic or something else?

As to the history of science, I don't know what to say. I don't know any history of science agrees with you that quantum mechanics and developments since have taken us back to geocentrism. I think the astronomy departments at most universities would be surprised to learn that they are geocentrists.

Whatever the scientific case, it is an historical fact that in the 17th century many of our theologians held to geocentrism. Today they do not. We did not change our views on exegetical grounds. That doesn't mean that the change was correct, but it does indicate that we have not thought that looking at the world around us is an illegitimate consideration in hermeneutics. It says something about the orthodox practice of sola scriptura.

blessings on your studies,

rsc


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 5, 2006)

*Opportunity, but no motivation*



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> More to the point, as Will Barker noted, the divines had the opportunity to say something like "6 24 hour days" and they chose not to do it.



With all due respect to Will Barker, isn't this merely asserting an expectation that 17th century men speak and write like 21st century men? Where did any 17th century divine use a phrase like "a 24 hour day", much less "6 24 hours days", to speak of ordinary days? 

The fact is they did not use such language -- language to which we have become so accustomed. However, it's clear we only use phrases like "six literal days" or "six twenty four hour days" precisely because of the post Darwin views running around today about creation. 

Historically speaking, the language of the confession is clear and unambiguous. One must treat it as a "living document" to allow other interpretations and meanings.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Read the article before you judge its merits. His argument is that, in committee, a proposal was made to make the language of the WCF more explicit about the length of the days. As I recall, the article shows that the proposal was defeated. It's an interesting case. It's not definitive, but it goes some way toward taking some of the steam out of David's arguments. 

It's one thing to say "we reject instantaneous creation" and it's another to say, "they all believed 6-24 days (which may not be true), that' what they meant by "in the space of six days" and that's what we're all required to believe as a matter of confessional fidelity.

First of all, that's a non sequitur. What they believed personally and what they intended to require are two distinct things. There is still the question of the animus imponentis. David hasn't addressed this in his arguments.

The divines may have thought all sorts of things, and that is a very important historical question. E.g., Some of them denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. The divines clearly adopted compromise language that satisfied the pro-imputation majority and the anti-imputation minority, i.e., it allowed the pro-imputation folks to say, the confession teaches IAO. I think that's correct, but they also allowed the anti-IAO folk to say that the confession doesn't require IAO. 

The fact of that compromise doesn't settle the "meaning" of the WCF or what it obligates us to confess.

Now we're back to animus imponentis and subscription. 

I don't think I can support the "living document" approach. The quatenus approach to subscription has created significant problems for every church that has ever taken this route, since the 18th century (the English, the Irish, the Dutch - HKN) American Presbyterianism not excepted.

The confessions were all originally subscribed quia - because they're biblical. 

If we can't confess our confessions anymore, then we need a confession we can confess without equivocation or unhelpful distance between the Scripture and what we confess Scripture to teach.

rsc


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> As to the history of science, I don't know what to say. I don't know any history of science agrees with you that quantum mechanics and developments since have taken us back to geocentrism. I think the astronomy departments at most universities would be surprised to learn that they are geocentrists.



I said Einstein et. al resurrected geocentrism, not that they made it anywhere near dominant. Previous to General Relativity etc. all people would have to do is say, "read Newton". Refutation by dirty looks is still prevalent today, however now, but the door is ajar. Far less than 1% of practicing physicists hold to geocentrism in any form.



> Whatever the scientific case, it is an historical fact that in the 17th century many of our theologians held to geocentrism. Today they do not. We did not change our views on exegetical grounds. That doesn't mean that the change was correct, but it does indicate that we have not thought that looking at the world around us is an illegitimate consideration in hermeneutics. It says something about the orthodox practice of sola scriptura.



Or perhaps how it has changed since then the 17th century? Maybe the orthodox of the 17th century had it right, but people since then have had it wrong? I know Turretin was offered a shot at changing his approach and wanted no parts of it.

But again to stress, "what observations refute geocentrism"? I am a science grad student so I have no issue with taking observations and using them to induce some theory or idea on things. But if one wants me to change my view of Bible from the traditional one, you are going to have to bring it. Yes, I do sound a lot like Bellarmine responding to Galileo.



> blessings on your studies,
> 
> rsc



Blessings on your book. 

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by ChristianTrader]

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



I think David Hall's reply to Dr. Barker should help in understanding the issue. http://snipurl.com/lc4i


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> As to the importance of the creation debate, I wish some one would give me a cogent argument as to how, e.g., the framework affects my system of doctrine. I know frameworkers who are completely orthodox in every locus and I know 6-day'ers who are not.
> 
> Are those 6-day'ers who deny justification sola fide victims of their hermeneutic or something else?



The main issue is why someone rejects the traditional six days understanding. An analogy is a child coming home from school hungry, and tells his parents that its because he did not eat lunch. They ask why and he says he gave his lunch money away. They again ask why. He could give a few answers. 1)Because the school bully threatened to beat him up if he did not give the money to him. 2)A poorer kid looked hungrier so he decided to give the money to him.

The first reason is going to get mom and pop upset, while the second one is alright.

The vast majority of people reject the traditional understanding because they got beat up by the "bully" aka science and got tired of looking dumb. That means they have accepted another final authority, which is almost instant death to the whole Christian worldview. At that point, the problem is getting close the level of mucking up justification.

And those who say that they did not get bullied into their position, have the interesting case to make about how their position did not exist previous to science starting to bully but they were not actually bullied.

Now concerning, accepting your position based on the original hebrew, context and the original audience; Are you saying that up until recently, no one cared or knew the original hebrew, context and the view of the original audience?

Lastly, you say that the change from geocentrism was not based on exegesis. I agree. But then you also say that the geocentric position was a bad deduction fueled by poor exegesis. If the change to the "correct" position was not based on exegesis, then how can you say that the "wrong" position was fueled by bad exegesis?

CT

[Edited on 1-7-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------

