Cross on Denominational Renewal

Bryan Cross and Todd Gwennap have engaged in a fantastic discussion here. I recommend that anyone considering conversion between a Protestant denomination and Roman Catholicism give it a read, especially those from (or inclined toward) a Reformed background.

Bryan, now a Roman Catholic, graduated from my denomination’s seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary. Todd is currently a student at that institution. I have relatives with strong ties, seminal even, to Covenant, so I have taken particular interest in Bryan’s story, and now this discussion between these two.

I will not spoil the plot, but Todd takes up some arguments on the nature of “church” with vigor. Bryan responds with aptitude. I hope to see the conversation continue. [Omitted.]

From what I've seen, I have developed a deep admiration of him. It is an exceedingly rare thing to see someone take Bryan up in learned dialogue. Bryan is logical and methodical in his approach, in a way that I surmise may intimidate the typical antagonists and Johnny-come-latelies of blogosphere spats. Todd is above that, and brave to boot. He enters the discussion graciously and thoughtfully. I continue to *hope* that these brothers (or brethren) will run the conversation to ground, as I stand to benefit. Besides being more theologically educated than I am, Todd has fuel to critique Catholicism that I depleted long ago.

A last substantive thought: Todd brings up an argument that has been central in my thoughts about how Christ has constituted His Church, and I believe its resolution would be meaningful to a great many seekers. To what extent is the parallel between the Old and New Testaments (Covenants) valid? Put another way, is the Church Era a recapitulation of the Jewish Era, or is it a whole novus ordo? Should we expect to see a division amongst Christ’s Covenant People as the Jewish people divided into a Northern and Southern Kingdom (see my post touching on this parallelism here)?

If the Church Era is a whole new order, such that the Holy Spirit would prevent such division, obviously the Reformation fails. If it is not so new (as human sinful nature may not have changed), and a recapitulation is possible then the Reformation could be proper (indeed, the Old Testament experience would serve as a “preview” warning to those of us in the New).

God's People One Whole Garment

God's people of the New Covenant are like one seamless garment, untorn.

In 1 Kings 11:29ff, we read that Solomon would lose his kingship of the 12 tribes of Israel. There would be a tear in God's chosen race, as Israel and Judah would divide into separate kingdoms.

"About that time Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh met him on the way, wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone out in the country, and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. Then he said to Jeroboam, "Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon's hand and give you ten tribes... I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my statutes and laws as David, Solomon's father, did. (NIV)"

Compare this pericope with John 19:23-24:

"When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

""Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it."
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said,
"They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did. (NIV)"

The old Prophet tore his garment to symbolize the division of God's chosen people, caused by their rebellion. But the garment of our Prophet, Christ the King, was seamless and remained untorn.

There is a tendency within Protestantism to read the account of the division of the Jews as prophetic of the New Covenant and the Reformation -- to liken Catholicism to the Israelites. But if the garment typology of 1 Kings and John bears merit, such a likening is no cause for comfort. God's people are no longer a divided garment or a divided kingdom, broken into pieces. We are called to be one (John 17:11), seamless, undivided. This would be ecumenicity.

Christ have mercy.

Laying On Of Hands

[Thank you for your patience as I've been trying to intentionally slow down blogging a little bit to allow me to focus on the remainder of the Fall semester.]

Here's a simple thought. I was struck today by Deuteronomy 34:9. This culmination of the Pentateuch has Moses passing on his positional authority to Joshua:

"Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses. (NIV)"

I see that Numbers 27 gives us a fuller account:

"Moses said to the LORD, "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd."

"So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in."

"Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses. (vv. 15-23, NIV)"

The Spirit filled Joshua because Moses had laid his hands on him. This occurred to Joshua, so the Israelites listened to him. I find this most ancient account of laying on of hands, filling with the Spirit, and the passing of authority to be fascinating.

Our belief is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (at least, all but its last chapter). Does the fact that the Israelites followed an ordained leader when they had the first iteration of the "Bible" in hand tell us anything about the Catholic-Reformation debate?

The Canonicity of Esther

Taylor Marshall over at Canterbury Tales has a challenge for Protestants: why is Esther Canonical? A better than average discussion follows (for Blogs touching on Catholic-Protestant debates).

I have been re-reading R. Laird Harris' Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures: An Exegetical and Historical Study. I believe it expresses a normative PCA view, as it is written by an ordained PCA minister and career Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA) professor, who was also a charter member of the NIV translation committee. From his discourse, I have not been persuaded that there is a good reason to include Esther in the Canon.

I believe the party line is as follows: 1) what was considered to be canon at the Temple in Jerusalem would be normative/definitive for all Jews at the time of Christ, 2) the Jewish canon at the time of Christ should be our O.T. canon, 3) omissions of Esther from the oldest extant list of canon (Melito) was possibly by mistake, 4) the later testimony of Josephus (Jewish scholar), Jerome and Origen (both of whom studied under Jewish scholars) indicates Esther was accepted with the "Prophets" texts in the Jewish canon, so 5) Esther is canonical. As reinforcement (or a substitute argument), 6) those books referred to directly or by category by Christ in the N.T. are canonical, 7) and since Christ referred to the "Prophets" category, and Esther is likely in that category, it is canonical.

I really struggle with his reasoning and these arguments overall, and would appreciate hearing from anyone who can back it up.

First, this suggests that the Jews at the Temple in 90 A.D. [for the canon was not actually formed at Christ's arrival even in Jerusalem, but was only later settled] have the authority to definitively define canon. Since the Protestant says we cannot trust (or do not need) Christian authority to define canon, why am I to trust the Jews of Jerusalem after Christ's death?

Second, I fail to grasp why we should accept the rule I've given under #6 and #7 above over a rule that says 'if Christ and the Apostles quoted the N.T. in Septuagint, then the Septuagint is more reliable than what the Temple Jews of 90 A.D. thought'. [The Septuagint has the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon - think about that!]

Third, Harris leans very much on early writing by those who studied under Palestinian Jews, so were naturally persuaded by their view of canon, and denies that other early church fathers' testimony points otherwise than the accounts of Origen, Jerome and Josephus (re: their not including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon). One doesn't have to search far on Google to find evidence to the contrary.

This is a complex issue, so I am amply prepared for reproof.

re-Formed Reformed view on 1st Commandment

The latest word out of a Covenant Seminary (PCA) Associate Professor, Michael Williams, leaves a strong Anabaptistic flavor in my mouth, and I probably just need some educatin'. I fail to see the breath of a Reformed (Calvinistic) view in this writing. The article is entitled No Other Gods: The First Commandment. By staying brief, I may do his work some injustice, but this is the flavor of it (all emphases mine):

"The Law is an Expression of God’s Grace."

- God's Grace comes as a reaction to our repentance. You cannot be penitent until you break the law. Grace flows from transgression, so only indirectly from the law - this statement therefore seems misleading.

"I would like to suggest that the emphasis in the first commandment does not only protect the singularity and sovereignty of God, but also tells the people of God—each and every one of them—their true worth."

- I don't see that God's jealousy for our affection, his hatred of idolatry, is an expression of our true worth. If it is, it's because he has to fight for our affection - to woo us (more to come).

"A paraphrase of Exodus 20:2,3, the prologue and the first commandment, makes this point. “I, Yahweh, am your God. I saved you, I made you my own, my children. Do not waste your precious time on misplaced worship. I value you too much to see you court and run after the futile, the empty, the foolish, the detestable.”"

- I dislike paraphrases of Scripture, and dislike seeing a Professor at a major evangelical seminary using such in his exegetical writing. I suppose this is just a matter of my personal taste... But this type of love language from God the Father, who delivered the Ten Commandments to His people, is a re-write of history. It places the efficaciously gracious role of the Mediator-Messiah onto the Father. It makes the God of now look different from the God of the Old Testament (and I've heard non-believers use this opinion as proof against the truth of Scripture).

"To be sure, God calls us to be God-centered. But that does not mean that He is as well. If God were God-centered, wouldn’t that make Him self-centered, even narcissistic? I have heard Reformed Christians speak as if God is precisely that. He does all things to glorify Himself..."


- Williams here seems oddly out of step with the Westminster Confession of Faith, and this is where I must need some educatin'. The sole purpose of man is to glorify God (Q #1 of the Westminster Longer Confession). God's purpose is not to woo us. If He does woo us, it is solely for His glory. That is self-centered. God, in my lowly opinion, is perfectly entitled to be self-centered. He is entitled to have hated Esau. How can you reconcile a Predestinarian view with a notion that God is not self-centered?

"Why do we study the O.T.?"

At a Presbyterian college, my wife had an Old Testament professor ask why we study the Old Testament. His answer?

"Because it's two-thirds of the Bible." Do check out a great post at Canterbury Tales that points in another, more meaningful direction. Reading outside the pond of Presbyterian thought has brought to my attention the wealth that is typological exegesis.

I do have lingering doubts and concerns, however. When I start piecing together what this or that in Daniel or Revelation "really" means, I get that sinking feeling - do I sound like that guy on Channel 99 talking about how Russia will attack Israel from the North before the Savior's return? I guess I'll just have to stay in line.