Poll - How Do We Know?
- Thread starter Magma2
- Start date
- Status
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Anthony,
I looked over Robbins’ essay, “In Christ”. Although he is well to the point as regards Gaffin’s assault on Biblical (& Reformed) doctrine, particularly Justification, as well as blurring the “order of salvation”, I find it a bit strained when explicating the uses of the term, en Christou. As though there were an aversion to anything that was not exclusively rational.
Like the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil 4:7), so the love of God passes our knowledge of it (Eph 3:19). Without doubt I can talk rationally about the union of a husband and wife, depicting the oneness of their flesh and the relations of their hearts as they abide in the Word of God, but I think it is beyond my ability – even as a poet – to put my finger on the quality of the affection they have for one another, and how this ineffable quality, which is, after all, the spirit that quickens the flesh of their bond, as it were….how this intangible could be captured in language I do not know. Is this intangible invalid because it cannot be completely depicted by reason?
When Paul says, “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” what is he saying? And when, after saying in the next verse, of the husband and wife, “they two shall be one flesh”, he declares, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:30-32), what is he talking about?
We know that in the New Testament, “mysteries” are unpacked. How would you unpack that?
Or in Ephesians 1:4, when the apostle says, “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”, it will not do to translate en as “by” or “through” as Clark prefers in other places. We were chosen in Christ. What does that mean? In Christ? Are we in some sense in Him? This pertains to something God has done, and not our experience. Can you do justice to the explication of this verse, this concept?
Steve
I looked over Robbins’ essay, “In Christ”. Although he is well to the point as regards Gaffin’s assault on Biblical (& Reformed) doctrine, particularly Justification, as well as blurring the “order of salvation”, I find it a bit strained when explicating the uses of the term, en Christou. As though there were an aversion to anything that was not exclusively rational.
Like the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil 4:7), so the love of God passes our knowledge of it (Eph 3:19). Without doubt I can talk rationally about the union of a husband and wife, depicting the oneness of their flesh and the relations of their hearts as they abide in the Word of God, but I think it is beyond my ability – even as a poet – to put my finger on the quality of the affection they have for one another, and how this ineffable quality, which is, after all, the spirit that quickens the flesh of their bond, as it were….how this intangible could be captured in language I do not know. Is this intangible invalid because it cannot be completely depicted by reason?
When Paul says, “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” what is he saying? And when, after saying in the next verse, of the husband and wife, “they two shall be one flesh”, he declares, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:30-32), what is he talking about?
We know that in the New Testament, “mysteries” are unpacked. How would you unpack that?
Or in Ephesians 1:4, when the apostle says, “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”, it will not do to translate en as “by” or “through” as Clark prefers in other places. We were chosen in Christ. What does that mean? In Christ? Are we in some sense in Him? This pertains to something God has done, and not our experience. Can you do justice to the explication of this verse, this concept?
Steve
Last edited:
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Steve:
Since you've read it, can you tell me what "starkly rational" means? Is it something like "brute facts"? Or is that another complexly fine technical term that you cannot know what it means unless you first imbibe the whole system?
By the way, your response is excellently done.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
It depends on what you are asking "to know".
The bible is not exhaustive in all things but the revelation of Christ for salvation. The Bible for example doesn't teach me not to stick my finger in a power socket because >1 amp of electricity will kill me, there science and experience unfortunately are sources for knowledge. The Scriptures teach of Christ revealed but they don't mathematics nor how to read language itself.
The bible is not exhaustive in all things but the revelation of Christ for salvation. The Bible for example doesn't teach me not to stick my finger in a power socket because >1 amp of electricity will kill me, there science and experience unfortunately are sources for knowledge. The Scriptures teach of Christ revealed but they don't mathematics nor how to read language itself.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think the question to ask is: what is the difference between knowing about Jesus and knowing Jesus? Can you say you love Jesus if you do not know Him? And can you say you know Him if you do not love Him? And is not spiritual contact with Jesus necessary to be able to say that you know and love Him?
Not mystical contact, but spiritual contact. But if the two are the same thing, then is it not true that only knowing about Jesus is possible? Is that what makes a Christian a Christian, knowing about Jesus but not knowing Him personally?
Historically Christians have always maintained a difference between the mystical and the spiritual. And the difference has centred on the verifiable content which contact with the Spirit maintains through the Word, and in line with the communal witness of the Church. Historically, there has been a clear delineation between the mystical and the spiritual. But what I get from this is that to claim to know Jesus and be loved by Him, and to love Him in return, is mysticism, eradicating the difference between the spiritual union and mysticism.
What replaces it is the trust in the senses in reading the words on the page that make up the Bible, being mystically implanted into the belief system of the Clarkian. He has to believe his physical eyes, but that's because the Scripture is contained in the propositional communication between the words and the thought process behind the physical eyes. It's mystical all the same because it claims knowledge of God, but only to the end of knowing about God, about Christ; but there is no hope of knowing God and knowing Christ personally. That now is defined as mysticism, eradicating the spiritual union with Christ the person, and replacing it with a mystical union with the Scripture. One can love the Scripture, but loving Christ the person because of an actual relationship is not possible.
At least, that's what I get out of this.
So the question to ask, it seems to me, is:
Can one truly be loved by Christ, and love Him in return?
Not mystical contact, but spiritual contact. But if the two are the same thing, then is it not true that only knowing about Jesus is possible? Is that what makes a Christian a Christian, knowing about Jesus but not knowing Him personally?
Historically Christians have always maintained a difference between the mystical and the spiritual. And the difference has centred on the verifiable content which contact with the Spirit maintains through the Word, and in line with the communal witness of the Church. Historically, there has been a clear delineation between the mystical and the spiritual. But what I get from this is that to claim to know Jesus and be loved by Him, and to love Him in return, is mysticism, eradicating the difference between the spiritual union and mysticism.
What replaces it is the trust in the senses in reading the words on the page that make up the Bible, being mystically implanted into the belief system of the Clarkian. He has to believe his physical eyes, but that's because the Scripture is contained in the propositional communication between the words and the thought process behind the physical eyes. It's mystical all the same because it claims knowledge of God, but only to the end of knowing about God, about Christ; but there is no hope of knowing God and knowing Christ personally. That now is defined as mysticism, eradicating the spiritual union with Christ the person, and replacing it with a mystical union with the Scripture. One can love the Scripture, but loving Christ the person because of an actual relationship is not possible.
At least, that's what I get out of this.
So the question to ask, it seems to me, is:
Can one truly be loved by Christ, and love Him in return?
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Larry, I explained exactly what I meant by "to know" in my opening post.
Hope that helps. Thanks.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
John V,
Yes, I knew when I wrote it that the phrase "starkly rational" was wanting, but I had to go. Re-thinking it a while now, I first opted for "merely rational" and then "strictly rational" but have settled for "exclusively rational," and which I shall amend the post in question to. I realize I may have to qualify even that.
What I mean to say is, Of the mind -- the intellect alone -- apart from spiritual understanding, or "cold reason" unillumined by heart. There is a discernment which is of the mind alone, and a discernment which is of the mind illumined by the Spirit through the Word. This can, of course, be "gainsayed" by those to whom these terms have different meanings. So I will have to let the Scripture, and exposition thereof, do the clarifying.
This using of common signifiers (words) which refer to different things signified (meanings) engenders a sort of mini-insanity, or at the best, confusion. The Scripture is the standard of clarity, when wielded by the Spirit of Christ. In this I rest my trust.
Steve
Yes, I knew when I wrote it that the phrase "starkly rational" was wanting, but I had to go. Re-thinking it a while now, I first opted for "merely rational" and then "strictly rational" but have settled for "exclusively rational," and which I shall amend the post in question to. I realize I may have to qualify even that.
What I mean to say is, Of the mind -- the intellect alone -- apart from spiritual understanding, or "cold reason" unillumined by heart. There is a discernment which is of the mind alone, and a discernment which is of the mind illumined by the Spirit through the Word. This can, of course, be "gainsayed" by those to whom these terms have different meanings. So I will have to let the Scripture, and exposition thereof, do the clarifying.
This using of common signifiers (words) which refer to different things signified (meanings) engenders a sort of mini-insanity, or at the best, confusion. The Scripture is the standard of clarity, when wielded by the Spirit of Christ. In this I rest my trust.
Steve
Last edited:
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think an aversion to anything that is not exclusively rational is quite healthy. It means that one will not assert or assume that Scriptures are saying anything irrational or contradictory. We may not always understand every verse in the Bible, but we know that what God is revealing to us in the Word is going to be fully coherent and intelligible. God does not speak nonsense - He is not ineffable. Just saying "God is ineffable" is a contradiction.
God Spirit does give us a sense of peace. Although this sense is not intelligible, the idea that God gives us a sense of peace is fully intelligible. That's evident in the fact that I we read about it in Scripture and understand it.
We are talking about Christ's relationship to the Church. We are His bride is not a literal state. We can not attribute more to this relationship than is intended. And God certainly did not intend up to understand more than we can intelligibly understand. Analogy's have limits. Jesus is the good shepherd has limited application.
Flesh and bones are reinforcing each other, the way saying "spirit and soul" is a way of adding emphasis. It doesn't mean we have both souls and spirits. So "body, flesh, bones, is emphasizing his point.
Maybe he's saying just what I said, we are not to make more of the analogy than what is clear. His is saying that we are not to make the relationship between Christ and the Bride identical in every way to the relationship between a husband and wife.
We know that in the New Testament, “mysteries” are unpacked. How would you unpack that?
Or in Ephesians 1:4, when the apostle says, “he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world”, it will not do to translate en as “by” or “through” as Clark prefers in other places. We were chosen in Christ. What does that mean? In Christ? Are we in some sense in Him? This pertains to something God has done, and not our experience. Can you do justice to the explication of this verse, this concept?
Steve[/QUOTE]
Sure it "will do". He has chosen us through/by Christ makes sense to me. We are elect to salvation before the world was created. Our salvation is only possible by Christ's death on the cross for our sins. This is exactly the kind of example I'm talking about. When the Bible uses the phrase "in Christ" it is not some sort of mystical "ineffable" state. The in implies causality in the Greek. The reason it seems to mystical is because the English modern "in" is more restricted in meaning than the Greek. But we can avoided these kinds of irrational mystical conclusions when we remember that God is not a god of mystery and secrets, by the God of revelation and knowledge - who speaks to us with intelligible ideas.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'm the one honest guy.
But anyway, concerning "the scientific method" and "all of the above" (which would include the scientific method), what if I were to say that since there is no such thing as an exact measurement, science can therefore only provide beliefs but not true knowledge? What I mean is, if I were to ask you how long something is, you could never tell me exactly how long it is because you'd only be able to tell me using the most accurate instrument currently available. You may be able to tell me a reasonable guess that's practically useful, but never an absolute length.
Does this disprove science's ability to give true knowledge?
Yes, and the Bible's ability to speak infallibly when it gives measurements.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'm not sure where you're going with that. Do you mean that what I said proves too much? I assure you it's an honest question and I'm just trying to learn.
There's no doubting your integrity. I doubt the integrity of philosophical skepticism. The world moves, so there is no such thing as exact measurement; and yet the Bible provides us with exact measurements. Presupposing the infallibility of the Bible, we are bound to conclude an error must lie in the idea that there can be no such thing as exact measurement on the basis that the world is in constant motion.
I was just thinking about this except along differing lines. False weights are condemned and God commands specific measurements (ephah's, talents, cubits, etc.) Philosophical skepticism undermines that man can even comprehend or obey basic measurements. Of course, it's quite like Adam blaming Eve for sinning. God's not fooled by our sophistries.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Dr. Robbins says, “There is a sense, actually two senses, in which the phrase ‘united to Christ’ may be accurately and Biblically used. Both senses are quite distasteful to proponents of Neo-medievalism. Believers are united to Christ intellectually and legally.” And he goes on in his article (linked above by Anthony) to elaborate on these.
I would like to posit a third sense, the ontological (which pertains to the nature or ground of being).
Apart from being “united” to Christ in a legal and intellectual sense, have we a relation to Him – and to the Father through Him – as regards our ontologic state, our state of being?
“…if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” (new creation -NKJV) 2 Cor 5:17. We are considering the change of the nature of the very being of the Christian. We assert is that he (or she) has been incorporated into Christ, given a new life-principle, and that more than merely intellectually and legally, though not less than these.
When I spoke about the passage in Ephesians 5:30-32 above, Anthony, you replied,
If human marriage is an analogy – however limited – of the divine union, we are to expect an insight from it into the divine. It does seem clear that Paul is talking – as he does explicitly in the next line – of a “one flesh” / “one body” mutual cleaving, not as regards sexual union, but ontologic. In human marriage there is a change in the very beings of the two partners: the two are now one flesh. I take this bodily union of human marriage – including the sexual aspect – to be a primitive analogy of the ontologic union of Christ and His bride, the church. I hesitate to say merely spiritual union, because Scripture makes it clear that there is a bodily union as well, albeit not sexual (human sexual union being but a faint analogy of the intimacy, pleasure, and joy involved in the divine union). The marriage motif of God as husband to His people is seen throughout Scripture, though I will focus on the NT here. In Matthew 22:1 we read, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son…” That Paul’s reference to marriage as a type of Christ’s union with His Church is not the minor factor you would make it is seen in those visions of the great consummation of things in Revelation; in 19:7 we read of “the marriage of the Lamb” and of “his wife”! And in verses 8 and 9 we read of the fine raiment his wife is clothed in, and of “the marriage supper”. That what is spoken of here is far more profound and glorious than a mere human marriage is beyond question. In Rev 21:2, 9 and 10 (etc) we have another vision of the Lamb’s wife, and I think it is clear that Scripture is indeed talking of an actual marriage, but one far beyond our ken in the implications of the glory and joy involved. Herein is the “love of Christ which passeth knowledge” seen, for the infinite One is joined to His finite bride, He being her joy for eternity.
When I spoke, indicating an aspect of our union with Christ, of Ephesians 5:30 “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”, you said,
This seems sort of lame, given the wealth of supporting Scriptures to the contrary. I think it is clear the Word of God speaks of us as actually being the body of Christ. Romans 12:4, 5:
1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, 27:
Ephesians 1:22, 23:
There are many types by which we understand the nature of the union, vine and branches, God and temple, Lord and house, Father, Brother, children, brothers and sisters, but the most intimate is the marriage type.
To the contrary, we are to make far more of the analogy than what at first may appear to us, with our little minds and stunted reason. According as Scripture illumines the analogy we may see more. Did 7 years pass as a few days for Jacob, for the love he had to Rachel? A paltry figure of the love of Jesus for His bride. Commenting on Ephesians 5:27, Wm. Hendriksen says, “is not this marvelous welcome which the bride will receive also her supreme honor? Does it not indicate that she is and forever will remain the object of his everlasting delight? Cf. Zeph. 3:17.” (Comm. on Ephesians, p. 254) We are so slow-witted, so dull of understanding – of apprehending! – the love our Savior and our God has for us. We judge His love through knowing how unloveable we truly are; but we err in this, for He loves the unlovely, and this love transforms us, as the kiss of the princess transformed the frog.
I repeat now, this third aspect of our union with Christ, the ontologic, is as important as the former two Dr. Robbins elucidated. We have been “translated (conveyed –NKJV)…into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col 1:13), and where is this kingdom into which we have been placed by the decree and the operation of God? It is “en Christou”. But how can we be “in” another?
The same God who created the physical heavens, earth, and all that in them is, created a spiritual realm we could enter and live in; one may call it “the Kingdom of Christ,” or “in Christ”: He purposed to “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him” (Eph 1:10).
One might ask, What are the borders – the boundaries – of this Kingdom? It is clear it is His word. Notice how great emphasis Jesus puts on abiding in His word:
When Jesus speaks like this He is saying that in Him – and in the words He speaks, for they are one – is the Kingdom and the life-giving Spirit of God.
In Hebrew usage, the “name” of God is not merely an appellation by which He is called – as it is among men – but refers to His nature, His character, His Person, indeed, His very presence. When we use His name, we are invoking Him Himself. Psalm 138:2 says, “…thou has magnified thy word above all thy name”, and Proverb 18:10: “The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”
How can we run into the name of the LORD? When we are baptized according to Christ’s command we receive the sign of what the Spirit has already done for us, placing us “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt 28:19), and when Jesus prays in John 17:11, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” He is committing us into the keeping power of the omnipotent Sovereign, into whose name we have fled for refuge at His Son’s behest.
How do we enter “into Christ”? By taking Him at His word, as when He says, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Matt 11:28; John 6:37). It is more (but not less) than just taking us into His heart; it is taking us into His body – for it is written, “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”.
I realize there is an aversion to the words “mystical” and mysticism” in Reformed circles, and no doubt that is well, seeing as our forebears escaped the delusional mysticisms of Rome, the effete imaginations that men could enter into God’s presence apart from a robust faith and according to His word. But what I see here, in some, is the calling “mystical” anything where the supernatural confounds the natural explanation of a thing. I do not say – please note, Anthony – it cannot be explained, but rather it cannot be explained naturally. Doing a Google search of the words “mystical body Christ presbyterian” I saw in a number of Presbyterian churches (including the OPC and PCA – which I know are in Robbins’ doghouse!) the phrase, describing the Church, “the mystical body of Christ”.
To deny the concept of the mystical Body of Christ, not because it cannot be rationally explained but because it offends ones’ intellectual paradigm, is an invalid denial. That the church is the bride of Christ cannot be denied, for the Scripture has spoken clearly. Human marriage is but a shadow to the glory of the marriage of the Son of God.
Paul uses the expression in Romans 6:3 (with a similar usage in Galatians 3:27), “baptized into Jesus Christ”. To dispense with the discussion of whether the baptism is of water or the Spirit, let me say it is of the Spirit and signified by water (I can let the water go if it gives anyone problems – for the sake of this discussion). I would agree with Robbins that the death of Christ is legally imputed to us, not experientially known to us, and yet…there is a command (Romans 6:11) to reckon ourselves dead, not only to sin (the power and the guilt of it), but likewise to the law (the authority of it) in Romans 7:4 and Galatians 2:19. Apart from a spurious mystical “dying with Christ” there is an actual spiritual phenomenon we undergo as we are placed “into Christ” by the Holy Spirit. This is certainly not irrational, though it is not “natural”. There is a distinct dying of us in the death of Christ, and a distinct rising with Him in newness of life in the power of His resurrection, although now the latter is primarily spiritual for us, and not yet bodily in the full sense. This identification with Christ in His death and resurrection is not to be confused with the forensic declaration of God that we are justified by virtue of the substitionary atonement of Christ, which is apart from us and outside of us. All these aspects of our salvation need to be carefully delineated. The simplistic views I have been hearing in this discussion are truncated theologically.
This has not been as ordered as well as I would like, but I can only rewrite it so many times! And I need to get onto other things. I hope I have made somewhat of a case for the 3rd category of what en Christou means. This is nothing novel, but familiar to many, and clearly stated numerous times in Scripture.
----------
HIS BRIDE
even the angels are astonished, wide-eyed
at a beauty beyond what they see in themselves
and seeing such mysteries desire to delve
into how it could be, this shining like deity
in one once consort with the dark prince, in infamy
before she was redeemed, and party to the deicide.
The price He paid to win her back was steep,
a horrid cost much wondered at in glory’s Keep,
but He got her, and led her through the wilderness
of hearts, through enemies and great distress;
He taught her to stay near to Him,
hold to His word and heart when the way grew dim,
to trust Him, her friend in trouble, her guard in sleep.
It is the story of God the Son’s bride;
she is many, male and female, for whom He died;
she is rugged soldier, little child, woman fair,
all one they are, all dependent on His care.
Safe now in the Kingdom, His glory their reward,
she shines full back the glory of her Lord,
He who ever lives, and for her was crucified.
Steve
I would like to posit a third sense, the ontological (which pertains to the nature or ground of being).
Apart from being “united” to Christ in a legal and intellectual sense, have we a relation to Him – and to the Father through Him – as regards our ontologic state, our state of being?
“…if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” (new creation -NKJV) 2 Cor 5:17. We are considering the change of the nature of the very being of the Christian. We assert is that he (or she) has been incorporated into Christ, given a new life-principle, and that more than merely intellectually and legally, though not less than these.
When I spoke about the passage in Ephesians 5:30-32 above, Anthony, you replied,
We are talking about Christ's relationship to the Church. We are His bride is not a literal state. We can not attribute more to this relationship than is intended. And God certainly did not intend us to understand more than we can intelligibly understand. Analogy's have limits. Jesus is the good shepherd has limited application…
If human marriage is an analogy – however limited – of the divine union, we are to expect an insight from it into the divine. It does seem clear that Paul is talking – as he does explicitly in the next line – of a “one flesh” / “one body” mutual cleaving, not as regards sexual union, but ontologic. In human marriage there is a change in the very beings of the two partners: the two are now one flesh. I take this bodily union of human marriage – including the sexual aspect – to be a primitive analogy of the ontologic union of Christ and His bride, the church. I hesitate to say merely spiritual union, because Scripture makes it clear that there is a bodily union as well, albeit not sexual (human sexual union being but a faint analogy of the intimacy, pleasure, and joy involved in the divine union). The marriage motif of God as husband to His people is seen throughout Scripture, though I will focus on the NT here. In Matthew 22:1 we read, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son…” That Paul’s reference to marriage as a type of Christ’s union with His Church is not the minor factor you would make it is seen in those visions of the great consummation of things in Revelation; in 19:7 we read of “the marriage of the Lamb” and of “his wife”! And in verses 8 and 9 we read of the fine raiment his wife is clothed in, and of “the marriage supper”. That what is spoken of here is far more profound and glorious than a mere human marriage is beyond question. In Rev 21:2, 9 and 10 (etc) we have another vision of the Lamb’s wife, and I think it is clear that Scripture is indeed talking of an actual marriage, but one far beyond our ken in the implications of the glory and joy involved. Herein is the “love of Christ which passeth knowledge” seen, for the infinite One is joined to His finite bride, He being her joy for eternity.
When I spoke, indicating an aspect of our union with Christ, of Ephesians 5:30 “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”, you said,
Flesh and bones are reinforcing each other, the way saying "spirit and soul" is a way of adding emphasis. It doesn't mean we have both souls and spirits. So "body, flesh, bones, is emphasizing his point…
This seems sort of lame, given the wealth of supporting Scriptures to the contrary. I think it is clear the Word of God speaks of us as actually being the body of Christ. Romans 12:4, 5:
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, 27:
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body….Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Ephesians 1:22, 23:
[Christ]…the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
There are many types by which we understand the nature of the union, vine and branches, God and temple, Lord and house, Father, Brother, children, brothers and sisters, but the most intimate is the marriage type.
Maybe he's saying just what I said, we are not to make more of the analogy than what is clear. His is saying that we are not to make the relationship between Christ and the Bride identical in every way to the relationship between a husband and wife…
To the contrary, we are to make far more of the analogy than what at first may appear to us, with our little minds and stunted reason. According as Scripture illumines the analogy we may see more. Did 7 years pass as a few days for Jacob, for the love he had to Rachel? A paltry figure of the love of Jesus for His bride. Commenting on Ephesians 5:27, Wm. Hendriksen says, “is not this marvelous welcome which the bride will receive also her supreme honor? Does it not indicate that she is and forever will remain the object of his everlasting delight? Cf. Zeph. 3:17.” (Comm. on Ephesians, p. 254) We are so slow-witted, so dull of understanding – of apprehending! – the love our Savior and our God has for us. We judge His love through knowing how unloveable we truly are; but we err in this, for He loves the unlovely, and this love transforms us, as the kiss of the princess transformed the frog.
I repeat now, this third aspect of our union with Christ, the ontologic, is as important as the former two Dr. Robbins elucidated. We have been “translated (conveyed –NKJV)…into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col 1:13), and where is this kingdom into which we have been placed by the decree and the operation of God? It is “en Christou”. But how can we be “in” another?
The same God who created the physical heavens, earth, and all that in them is, created a spiritual realm we could enter and live in; one may call it “the Kingdom of Christ,” or “in Christ”: He purposed to “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him” (Eph 1:10).
One might ask, What are the borders – the boundaries – of this Kingdom? It is clear it is His word. Notice how great emphasis Jesus puts on abiding in His word:
“Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them…If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you…If a man love me, he will keep my words…Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you…Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”
When Jesus speaks like this He is saying that in Him – and in the words He speaks, for they are one – is the Kingdom and the life-giving Spirit of God.
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:6-8)
In Hebrew usage, the “name” of God is not merely an appellation by which He is called – as it is among men – but refers to His nature, His character, His Person, indeed, His very presence. When we use His name, we are invoking Him Himself. Psalm 138:2 says, “…thou has magnified thy word above all thy name”, and Proverb 18:10: “The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.”
How can we run into the name of the LORD? When we are baptized according to Christ’s command we receive the sign of what the Spirit has already done for us, placing us “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt 28:19), and when Jesus prays in John 17:11, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” He is committing us into the keeping power of the omnipotent Sovereign, into whose name we have fled for refuge at His Son’s behest.
How do we enter “into Christ”? By taking Him at His word, as when He says, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Matt 11:28; John 6:37). It is more (but not less) than just taking us into His heart; it is taking us into His body – for it is written, “…we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”.
I realize there is an aversion to the words “mystical” and mysticism” in Reformed circles, and no doubt that is well, seeing as our forebears escaped the delusional mysticisms of Rome, the effete imaginations that men could enter into God’s presence apart from a robust faith and according to His word. But what I see here, in some, is the calling “mystical” anything where the supernatural confounds the natural explanation of a thing. I do not say – please note, Anthony – it cannot be explained, but rather it cannot be explained naturally. Doing a Google search of the words “mystical body Christ presbyterian” I saw in a number of Presbyterian churches (including the OPC and PCA – which I know are in Robbins’ doghouse!) the phrase, describing the Church, “the mystical body of Christ”.
To deny the concept of the mystical Body of Christ, not because it cannot be rationally explained but because it offends ones’ intellectual paradigm, is an invalid denial. That the church is the bride of Christ cannot be denied, for the Scripture has spoken clearly. Human marriage is but a shadow to the glory of the marriage of the Son of God.
Paul uses the expression in Romans 6:3 (with a similar usage in Galatians 3:27), “baptized into Jesus Christ”. To dispense with the discussion of whether the baptism is of water or the Spirit, let me say it is of the Spirit and signified by water (I can let the water go if it gives anyone problems – for the sake of this discussion). I would agree with Robbins that the death of Christ is legally imputed to us, not experientially known to us, and yet…there is a command (Romans 6:11) to reckon ourselves dead, not only to sin (the power and the guilt of it), but likewise to the law (the authority of it) in Romans 7:4 and Galatians 2:19. Apart from a spurious mystical “dying with Christ” there is an actual spiritual phenomenon we undergo as we are placed “into Christ” by the Holy Spirit. This is certainly not irrational, though it is not “natural”. There is a distinct dying of us in the death of Christ, and a distinct rising with Him in newness of life in the power of His resurrection, although now the latter is primarily spiritual for us, and not yet bodily in the full sense. This identification with Christ in His death and resurrection is not to be confused with the forensic declaration of God that we are justified by virtue of the substitionary atonement of Christ, which is apart from us and outside of us. All these aspects of our salvation need to be carefully delineated. The simplistic views I have been hearing in this discussion are truncated theologically.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This has not been as ordered as well as I would like, but I can only rewrite it so many times! And I need to get onto other things. I hope I have made somewhat of a case for the 3rd category of what en Christou means. This is nothing novel, but familiar to many, and clearly stated numerous times in Scripture.
----------
HIS BRIDE
a man…shall be joined to his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak
concerning Christ and the church.
She is the knock-out of the ages, His bride;and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak
concerning Christ and the church.
— Paul to the Ephesians
even the angels are astonished, wide-eyed
at a beauty beyond what they see in themselves
and seeing such mysteries desire to delve
into how it could be, this shining like deity
in one once consort with the dark prince, in infamy
before she was redeemed, and party to the deicide.
The price He paid to win her back was steep,
a horrid cost much wondered at in glory’s Keep,
but He got her, and led her through the wilderness
of hearts, through enemies and great distress;
He taught her to stay near to Him,
hold to His word and heart when the way grew dim,
to trust Him, her friend in trouble, her guard in sleep.
It is the story of God the Son’s bride;
she is many, male and female, for whom He died;
she is rugged soldier, little child, woman fair,
all one they are, all dependent on His care.
Safe now in the Kingdom, His glory their reward,
she shines full back the glory of her Lord,
He who ever lives, and for her was crucified.
Steve
Last edited:
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Could you explain what you mean by "false weight"?
I'm the one honest guy.
But anyway, concerning "the scientific method" and "all of the above" (which would include the scientific method), what if I were to say that since there is no such thing as an exact measurement, science can therefore only provide beliefs but not true knowledge? What I mean is, if I were to ask you how long something is, you could never tell me exactly how long it is because you'd only be able to tell me using the most accurate instrument currently available. You may be able to tell me a reasonable guess that's practically useful, but never an absolute length.
Does this disprove science's ability to give true knowledge?
Good point and I think you are on the right track.
The reason measurements are not exact is not due to movement. It's due to the limitations of physics. All measurements are approximate.
It's known (within the system of science) that science does not give exact measurements. And the scientific method itself only produces possibilities - not absolute truths. I believe science may or may not produce true conclusions. It certainly produces very useful conclusions, so I do not discount science's abilities to be extremely useful for secular things. And it helps up obey the biblical mandate subdue the created world.
The bible does not give any absolute measurements of physical objects. For example, the Bible says the ratio of a circles circumference to it's radius it 3. Clearly not an exact measurement or even an attempt at much precision (a 5% error). I don't think Hebrew numbers included decimal point anyway. The Bible does affirm that counting and basic mathematics are valid and sound. But counting and measuring are two different processes.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm the one honest guy.
But anyway, concerning "the scientific method" and "all of the above" (which would include the scientific method), what if I were to say that since there is no such thing as an exact measurement, science can therefore only provide beliefs but not true knowledge? What I mean is, if I were to ask you how long something is, you could never tell me exactly how long it is because you'd only be able to tell me using the most accurate instrument currently available. You may be able to tell me a reasonable guess that's practically useful, but never an absolute length.
Does this disprove science's ability to give true knowledge?
I think you answered your own question.
Good post.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Reminds me of an old Bill Cosby bit about Noah and the Ark and Noah asks God: "What's a Cubit?"
[bible]Proverbs 11:1[/bible]
Say you're selling grain and the price is $3/lb and you use a scale to weigh it out. Some merchants will create weights that appear to be normal weights but they're really fake. It might be clay painted to look like metal so the person gives you $18 to buy 6 lbs of grain but you actually sold him 5.
There is certainly a sense in which all weights are only approximate but we're not condemned for having a weight in accordance with the U.S. standards and measures where a lb weight is to within a percentage of a gram. Nevertheless, when I measure out grain to sell to my neighbor, I know in my heart whether I am being honest in my sale to him or not.
The point is that mathematical or philosophical certainty is impossible for an exact measurement given gaussian distributions even for precise manufacturers but obedience to the command is not.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
False weights has to do with the intent of those fixing the scales, not that an ephah, talent or cubit are somehow more exacting than a pound, dollar or centimeter. OK, the dollar excepted because fiat money and shell games like indexation, not to mention the government's ability to print money while outlawing private tender, all of which devalues the currency in the interest of government is theft. There's your false weights and measures.
But the point is that intent is only an opinion, is it not, because this relies on senses to determine whether what you're holding in your hand or measuring with has any real certainty. My problem with the conflation of language is that something that is mere "opinion" (I don't really know I'm cheating my neighbor because ephah relies on my senses) is something that God Himself calls abominable if we're not honest about.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's the key! It's the intent of the heart that makes the difference, not the epistemic value of a cubit. I'm also reminded here of Christian liberty (1 Cor. 8) and how we're to deal with weaker brothers who consider this or that sin. Even when we know something is not sinful, we're to take special care not to wound the conscience of a weaker brother. If we don't, then we're the one's guilty of sin.
Sean,
I think you're missing my point.
If I cannot trust my senses for knowledge then I don't understand how I could know whether or not I'm being honest. I've been told, earlier in this thread, I can't even be certain who my parents are much less whether I'm measuring out 6 lbs of grain to my neighbor!
You don't need to have epistemic certainity in order to be sure you are cheating your neighbor. All you need to have is the belief that you are cheating - even though it doesn't rise to the level of epistemic justification or knowledge - and you can be know you have sinned.
Also, inability of sensation to produce knowledge does not apply here. It has nothing to do with the efficacy of understanding that when you use a false measure, you have sinned. You can use experience to produce reasonable beliefs about when you are sinning or not. But knowing you have sinned depend on having the knowledge of God's law. Without that un-experienced knowledge, you could not say you have sinned at all.
Again, "know" in the epistemic sense and "know" in that assured sense are not the same thing. But if one simply believes they have cheated their neighbor, then they have sinned. (This assumes they a sure and did not correct the situation).
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
From my reading of the thread as a newbie to all this, it seems like a lot of the strong reactions against what you're saying stem from the idea that something has to be "knowledge" in the way that term is being used in order to be useful (or would "knowing" in the epistemic sense and "knowing" in the assured sense be better?). In other words, for some it seems like it has to be all or nothing. If something isn't "knowledge" but only "belief," then it's worthless. It would be helpful, for me at least, to have some clear definitions of knowledge and belief and some statements about why, for instance, what you're saying about not needing epistemic knowledge but only assured belief being a reasonable and acceptable way to view certain issues, particularly important ones like this one currently being discussed. Should I make my own thread about true knowledge and belief? Or perhaps there are already some which I can peruse.
Which is it? Does it rise to the level of knowledge so I can know whether I have sinned or not?
Granted that you cannot know you have sinned without God's Law but you cannot know you have a false measure if you have no experience of a true measure. One you say you have knowledge of, the other you state you have no knowledge of. I think you create problems for yourself when you insist on philosophical definitions of commonly used terms.
My question is whether they know they have sinned or not. I believe they do. I want to know if your epistemology allows a man to know whether or not he has obeyed God.
Incidentally, it's 2250 here (approximately). I'm pretty tired so you guys have fun...
- Status
