God is the Principium Essendi.  This is equivalent to saying that all our knowledge of God has its origin in God Himself.  God possesses a complete and in every way perfect knowledge of Himself.  He knows Himself in the absolute sense of the word, not only as He is related to His creatures, nor merely in His diversified activities and their controlling motives, but also in the unfathomable depths of His essential Being.  His self-consciousness is perfect and infinite; there is no sub-conscious life in Him, no subliminal region of unconscious mentality.  And of that absolute, perfectly conscious self-knowledge of God, the knowledge which man has of the divine Being is but a faint and creaturely copy or imprint.  All human knowledge of God is derived from Him, Matt 11:27; 1 Cor 2:10 f.  And because there can be no knowledge of God in man apart from self-consciousness in God, Pantheism spells death for all theology.  It is impossible to deduce a conscious creature from an unconscious God, a creature that knows God from a God that does not know Himself.  We can find the principium of our theology only in a personal God, perfect in self-consciousness, as He freely, consciously, and truly reveals Himself.

 

Louis Berkhof, The Idea and History of Dogmatic Theology

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE (529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

3. If being born again is a pre-requisite to entering the kingdom of God, what does this suggest about the nature of this kingdom?

 

 

As we continue to consider the discourse that our Lord engaged in with Nicodemus, we want to explore the implications it has on our understanding of the kingdom of God.  Although, not the primary emphasis of the discussion, the kingdom of God is at least a consequence of our Lord’s teaching here.  Thus, the discussion at least implicitly has some implications on how we define the nature of God’s kingdom.  In this task we will be focusing on the following verses of the text:

3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

 

There are divergent opinions in the Church about the nature of the kingdom of God.  As noted previously in our treatment of Christ as king the author’s views on this issue have evolved in hopes of becoming more consistent with all the biblical testimony on the matter.  The verses of concern in this particular text are indicative of the primarily spiritual nature that the kingdom of God has in this present evil age.  This seems to be fairly evident since the condition of regeneration is required prior to entering or even seeing the kingdom of God, according to our Lord.  Thus, in formulating a view of the kingdom of God it should be heavily influenced by this notion that the kingdom of God is distinct from this present evil age.

Initially, it would be appropriate for us to consider the concept of the kingdom of God to Nicodemus during his time in the nation of Israel.  The theocratic nation of Israel as an earthly institution was the kingdom of God in this world where the cult (religious) and culture (state) were ruled under the law of God. This kingdom occupied the territory of Palestine where the Davidic King who was God’s anointed ruled from Zion.  Upon Israel’s obedience to the stipulations of the Sinaitic covenant the Lord would bless this kingdom causing its enemies to flee before them (Deuteronomy 28:7).  As they brought the entire Promised Land under the dominion of God’s rule, expelling the wicked and maintaining holiness they served typologically as the kingdom in the age to come.  Nonetheless, Israel never achieved this obedience, the Davidic line failed to enforce the covenant and they were exiled from the Promised Land.  Although, the theocracy did not endure God promised a restoration to Israel and they accordingly returned to the land of promise.  The restoration of the theocracy, however, would elude them until the coming of the Messiah. 

It was perceived in Israel during this time that when the Messiah arrived the Davidic dynasty would be reinstated and the earthly institution would be reestablished (Amos 9:11-15).  This expectation would not be fulfilled as it was the Lord’s plan to send the Messiah as a suffering servant (Isaiah 53) who would accomplish redemption (John 17:4-5) instead.  The explanation of this “unexpected” coming and subsequent promised return has been manifested by three different types of eschatological views.  These three different eschatological views can be categorized into three different headings an under realized eschatology, an over realized eschatology and the biblical view of eschatology. It is not the intent of this study to perform an in depth examination of each of these views, however, we will seek to summarize the strengths and weaknesses relative to a biblical view of the kingdom of God.

Under realized eschatology

An under realized eschatology is best represented by pre-millenarians, especially the Dispensational version.  Essentially they are anticipating the same thing that Israel was expecting 2000 years ago.  This will be manifested by the return of Christ to the physical land of Palestine who will assume the throne of David in Zion.  His rule will last for 1000 years on the earth and will be a restoration of the theocracy where cult and culture are ruled by God’s law.  The present age, known as the Church age, is just a parenthesis until God fulfills in a strict literal sense His promises to Israel.  The kingdom of God in this scheme is entirely in the future and will commence upon Christ’s return. 

The strength of this view is that it takes the biblical material seriously that suggests that we do not live in the age to come, however, are living presently in an evil age.  Also, this view properly views the full consummation of the kingdom of God arriving in a cataclysmic event in lieu of a gradual or incremental realization.  Nonetheless, it has several weaknesses especially the Dispensational version of the view summarized as follows:

•      It misunderstands the redemptive historical purpose of the nation of Israel, which was typological in nature.  It wrongly identifies the Church as the parenthesis in lieu of the nation of Israel.  This incorrect understanding stems primarily due to an inaccurate view of the covenants revealed in the Bible.
•      The hyper literalistic hermeneutic also persuades them to conclude that the kingdom of God is not currently present on the earth in any form.  It must await the return of Christ to have any presence in our age, remaining only spiritually in heaven.  Chafer would even go so far as saying that Christ is currently not a king⁸.   
•       It’s hyper literalistic hermeneutic applied to the Scriptures emphasizes that God’s promise was to give the physical land of Palestine to Israel, in lieu of the heavenly Canaan.  When Christ returns they indicate that the theocratic government will resume, as it was revealed in the Mosaic Law, including the resumption of the sacrificial system.

There are many difficulties with the hyper literalistic hermeneutic employed in this view, which leads to most of the incorrect positions.  This is especially evident in its understanding of the theocratic nation of Israel.  Although this view is correct in concluding that the kingdom of God in this age is spiritual, to say that it is not present in this age and Christ in no manner whatsoever is ruling in this age is problematic (Acts 17:7; Mark 1:14-15).  Since the kingdom of God has in some sense been established on earth, this view must be rejected.

Over realized eschatology

An over realized eschatology is best represented by the post-millennial or transformationalist views.  Essentially the post-millennial position promotes the notion that the kingdom of God has been realized, since Christ’s ascension.  Most modern post-millennialist, similar to transformationalist, believe that the kingdom of God will have gradual success overtime until the entire world will be under the dominion of the kingdom of God.  The goal of Christianity in this age is to advance the kingdom of God into all aspects of the culture.  Thus, kingdom work is defined as any effort to transform the culture for Christ ranging from politics, business, education, entertainment, and social action.  Although there are certainly slight variations amongst this group, they would all be unified in the notion that the role of the kingdom of God is to expand and take dominion over the created order until Christ returns.  An extreme form of this is seen in theonomy, which seeks to bring all of life (cult and culture) under the law of God as expressed in the Pentateuch (except for the sacrificial system).

The strength of this view is that it takes seriously Christ’s ascension and corrects the error of the previous in acknowledging that Christ is currently king (Matthew 28:18-20; Revelation 1:5).  However, this strength ultimately turns into a weakness and its reaction overcompensates for the errors of Dispensationalism.  The main weaknesses can be summarized as follows:

•       Its desire to emphasize the establishment of the kingdom of God and advance the kingdom in all aspects of life does not account for the spiritual nature that the kingdom has in this age.  Rather than taking dominion over the world the New Testament characterizes the life of the Christian in this age as exiles, sojourners or pilgrims.  These two principles are fundamentally opposed to each other.
•      The already and not yet nature of the kingdom of God in this age derived from apparently competing biblical passages (Matthew 6:10; Matthew 4:17) is not dealt with.  This view emphasizes only the already aspect of the kingdom being imminent, manifested in its idea that the Church will dominate and be successful.  This does not take into account the biblical notion that in this age we suffer for the name of Christ.
•      The view that the kingdom will be realized incrementally does not conform to the biblical passages that report this transformation will be instantaneous instead.  This most probably stems from confusion over the role the Church plays in cult and culture during this age.  It incorrectly sees continuity with the theocratic nation of Israel’s charge to purge evil out of land, which is thought to be normative for the Church in this age.
•       An undeveloped doctrine of common grace seems to be responsible for this views desire to classify kingdom work beyond the limits of the Church.  The desire to credit God’s sovereignty and grace with the benefits realized in society is confused with finding its source from the kingdom work transforming culture for the good.  This is a confusion of the roles that common grace and special grace serve, which should be differentiated.

The roots of this view go deep into the history of Christianity where the role of the Church or individual Christian was confused.  This led to many grievous sins committed in the name of the Church or Christianity in Europe during the Middle Ages.  As a former proponent of this view it is our belief that many of the modern proponents of this view are simply reacting to the popularity of Dispensationalism and simply overcorrect their errors arriving at the opposite extreme.  However, as noted above there are several formidable reasons that make this view problematic including the spiritual nature of the kingdom in this age inferred by our passage.  It is difficult to affirm this view and still affirm the Beatitudes of our Lord (Matthew 5:1-12).

Two kingdoms

The solution to the errors or weaknesses found in the above mentioned positions, we believe is found in the two kingdoms model.  Essentially, the two kingdoms view rests upon two different biblical covenants.  These two covenants are the Noahic and the Abrahamic, which are different in nature as summarized in the following;

•      Noahic:  This covenant is made with all of creation, thus it is common to all.  God promises not to destroy the earth by means of a flood and to restore the natural order of the seasons.  The benefits of rain and sun will be common to all for the blessing and sustenance of life to continue.  God also entrusts the state with the power of the sword to administer justice on the earth.  Thus, we conclude from the mandate to the state and the blessings of common grace that they are universal to all and for the benefit of all creation. 
•      Abrahamic:  This covenant unlike the Noahic is selective in the extent that it applies not to all humanity, but is specifically limited to Abraham and his seed.  The benefits of this covenant are redemptive in nature categorized under the label of special grace as opposed to common grace in the Noahic.  Although the promise includes the benefits of being a blessing to all the families of the earth, this is further defined later in the New Testament to mean the salvation of the Gentiles from every tribe, nation and tongue.   

The kingdoms of this world have been granted authority by God to administer justice within the culture (Romans 13:1-7).  Moreover, the gifts of science, education, music, medicine and other cultural benefits are produced by the natural man endowed by his Creator.  The people of God who comprise the citizenship of His kingdom are pilgrims in this world and live peaceably under the rule of the state (or are otherwise persecuted) and participate in the benefits of common grace.  This is evident from the life of Abraham who according to our passage, met the condition of entering into the kingdom of God in being regenerate, yet he lived as a sojourner in the kingdom of this world looking forward to the age to come (Hebrews 11:8-10). 

This distinction between cult and culture, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world have been normative for mankind since the fall.  The only unique circumstance where God initiated the elimination of this distinction was the theocratic nation of Israel where the cult and culture was ruled under one kingdom.  This is not to say that this one distinction has not been perverted by man where the one kingdom model has been employed.  In the past this is seen in “Christianized” Europe during the Middle Ages and presently is manifested in the religion of Islam.  However, once theocratic Israel was brought to cessation this assimilated rule of cult and culture will not resume in God’s kingdom until the age to come, which is what Israel foreshadowed.  It is our contention that this view finds overwhelming support from the biblical text, which also makes the other paradigms problematic. 

When John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod, he doubted if Jesus was the Messiah to come who would restore God’s earthly kingdom.  The physical evidence pointed against the fact that the kingdom of God was at hand.  Nonetheless, our Lord’s response to John did not appeal to the imminent overthrow of the Roman Empire, but to spiritual signs and wonders performed in his midst (Matthew 11:1-6).  Thus, we submit that the presence of the kingdom of God on earth in this present age will be manifested in a spiritual manner, not physical.  We look not to the things seen (2 Corinthians 4:17-18) or seek the ordinary signs of a worldly kingdom to identify the kingdom of God.  In this age the kingdom is primarily concerned with the salvation of sinners, transferring them from the dominion of darkness into the spiritual kingdom of the Son (Colossians 1:13-14).  This is why we are referred to as aliens and exiles (1 Peter 1:2) in the world, which still remains under the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19). 

Although there remains the blessing of God’s common grace that restrains evil and maintains a relative peace and order, the worldly system will see corruption falling under the influence and control of the evil one.  In instances where this perversion of justice is systemic the seed of the serpent will war against the seed of the woman and persecute her.  However, our response is not to call down thunder from the heavens (Luke 9:51-56) nor to take up arms and fight.  Our response is to take up our cross (Luke 9:23-27) and not repay evil for evil (1 Peter 3:9).  We are to endure these suffering for we know that this world is passing away (1 John 2:17; 1 Corinthians 7:31).  Before the end, however, the kingdoms of this world will rise up against each other and we will be persecuted (Luke 21:10-12).  This is a quite different picture than the global supremacy of the Church prior to our Lord’s return as the post-millenarian would suggest.  Our Lord likened the days of His return to the time of the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:20-37), which were periods of great wickedness and depravity.

It is evident from the testimony of the Scriptures that the Church in this age is not going to be the bastion of the successful, the powerful, the famous, nor the wise.  The more appropriate depiction is that of the pilgrim dwelling in a foreign land until we have been called home to that eternal city.  Yet, we are not helpless during our temporary stay, but have been equipped with every spiritual blessing (Ephesians 1:3).  Those who call on the name of the Lord, who have been entrusted as stewards of the heavenly faith on earth, are nourished during their journey with Word and Sacrament.  These signs are the evidence that the kingdom of God does have presence on this earth, despite what the Dispensationalist would say.  The preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are the in breaking of the age to come on this present evil age.  They sustain the redeemed of our Lord who are citizens of the heavenly city and have been spiritually reborn, yet dwell on earth in the Church.       

In conclusion, we concede that we were barely able to scratch the surface on this significant topic, which has such a great influence over our faith and practice.  Nonetheless, it is our contention that a biblical view of the kingdom of God in this age will be marked by the following:

•      Although the kingdom of God is present in this age, it is a spiritual kingdom concerned with spiritual things.  Essentially the Church is the kingdom of God on earth entrusted with the signs of the kingdom (Word and Sacrament) and comprised of the spiritually re-born citizens of the heavenly country.
•      The realm of culture is not under the control or jurisdiction of the Church or the kingdom of God in this age.  These are distinct kingdoms, however under the sovereign control of the Lord Jesus Christ.
•      The transformation of the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of our God and of His Christ will be a cataclysmic event at the consummation of the age.  In the age to come the realms of cult and culture will once again be under the dominion of the kingdom of God.  All those who do not met the condition to enter this kingdom, namely be born again, will not dwell within this kingdom.  They will be cast out of the heavenly Jerusalem with the dogs and suffer eternal torment.  

  

Thus, we submit that the two kingdoms model provides the most accurate reflection of what the Scriptures teach.  It provides the proper balance that is lost in the other paradigms, providing the proper perspective for the Christian life. 

8 Keith A Mathison, Dispensationalism Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ, P&R, 1995) p 111

Eighthly, I shall add but one place more, of the very many more that might be cited to this purpose, and that is 2 Cor 5:21, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”  The purpose of God in making his Son to be sin is, that those for whom he was made sin might become righteousness; that was the end of God’s sending Lord did not purpose what is not fulfilled, yea, what he knew should never be fulfilled, and what he would not work at all that is might be fulfilled (either of which are most atheistical expressions), then he made Christ sin for no more than do in the effect become actually righteousness in him: so that the counsel and will of God, with the purpose and intention of Christ, by his oblation and blood-shedding, was to fulfil that will and counsel, is from these places made apparent.

From all which we draw this argument: - That which the Father and the Son intended to accomplish in and towards all those for whom Christ died, by his death that is most certainly effected (if any shall deny this proposition, I will at any time, by the Lord’s assistance, take up the assertion of it; ) but the Father and his Son intended by the death of Christ to redeem, purge, sanctify, purify, deliver from death, Satan, the curse of the law, to quit of all sin, to make righteousness in Christ, to bring nigh unto God, all those for whom he died, as was above proved: therefore, Christ died for all and only those in and towards whom all these things recounted are effected; - which, whether they are all and every one, I leave to all and every one to judge that hath any knowledge in these things.

John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Book II, Chapter III)

Gnosticism – Part 2

 

Endemic to all forms of Gnosticism is a notion of hyper-spiritualizing, however the implications of this principal among the different strands was interpreted differently.  Most Gnostics believed this physical world needed to be transcended and that it was in some sense a place of training or rehabilitation prior to entering the real world.  In light of the fact that the spiritual is the ultimate and the material is to be transcended the question became how to react to the material.  Many forms of Gnosticism embraced a form of asceticism when it came to the elements of the physical world.  The ascetic overcame the material by denying it and abstaining from it as much as humanly possible.  These ideas ultimately do perpetuate themselves into the rise of monasticism within the more orthodox expressions of the Christian faith.  The way to transcend the physical was to discipline the body, affirm the spirit and suppress the desires of flesh. 

 

On the other hand, there were some Gnostics who proceeded to the opposite end of the spectrum from that of the ascetics.  They concluded that since the body is fundamentally temporary and unimportant it doesn’t matter what you do with the body.  A relatively small number within this group would have even promoted the notion that excess in the life was a way of demonstrating the independence one had over the body.  Thus, they perceived that they were free to indulge in gross immorality, although defiling the body, would leave the spirit intact.          

 

In almost all instances the Gnostic took the liberty of reinterpreting the faith in fundamental ways, especially in the account of the fall of Adam.  Some of the most notable ways were through the identification of the serpent in the garden as the bearer of divine truth.  He is primarily classified as a hero in some Gnostic circles due to his promotion that Eve, partake of the tree of the “knowledge” of good and evil.  In many forms of Gnosticism, the Triune Covenant Lord Yahweh, is seen as an evil character who wants to keep people in ignorance.  In these instances we find a radical revision of the biblical account, in order to make them more consistent with Gnostic worldview.  When the Church sensed the seriousness of this problem posed by the Gnostics, it began to confront it in the second and third century.  It is indicative of the fact that the Church, since its inception has always had to be discerning about the truth of its doctrine. 

 

An early Gnostic teacher, Basilides, received critical responses from various Christians and apologists about the error of his views.  In Basilides in particular we are exposed to the complicated nature that the Gnostic mythology tended to be.  The over-arching Gnostic principle, which evidently was the source of the convoluted mythology, was the quest to make God as transcendent as possible.  For many of the Gnostics the great problem with the material world is that it is ever changing.  In order to remain consistent with their radical interpretation of Platonic philosophy they seek to distance God from the material to preserve the notion of an unchanging truth.  Thus, they seek to define God as a being as far removed from this material changing world as much as possible.  This results in a God who has no possible direct contact with the material world, and must have a series of intermediate beings or archons with a diminishing scale.  This scale ever so slightly becomes more and more contaminated by the material world until eventually direct contact is made.

 

The following provides an illustration of this concept:

 

Divine being (pure spirit)

            Archon 1

                        Archon 2

                                    Archon 3

                                                Archon 4

                                                            Archon 5

                                                                        Archon 6 (God of the Bible could possibly at this level)

                                                                                    Archon 7

                                                                                                Archon 8

                                                                                                    Physical world

 

Of course, the Gnostics would probably have a much more complex illustration to convey their view.  Nonetheless, hopefully this is sufficient to illustrate the point we are trying to articulate.  As we can gather from this process of separating the Divine with the physical world, an attempt is being made to eliminate any defilement of the spirit with the physical world.  The problem is that no matter how many intermediate beings are inserted into the equation there will always be a percentage of contact with the physical.  It actually ends up falling into an infinite regress that is irreconcilable with the Gnostic view unraveling like pulling the string on a cable net sweater.

On a recent White Horse Inn broadcast they discussed the topic of Pelagianism and provided a historical overview.  They also read the Canons of the Council of Orange, which was an ecumenical council in the 6^th century that condemned Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.  It was quite surprising and impressive.  So, in the next several weeks we will be posting the canons from this council for reference.

 

This is very timely considering the passage we are currently working through in the Gospel of John.

2. Why must we be born again?

The hearts of men were known by our Lord as indicated by the apostle John in the previous chapter.  In this chapter the apostle records the words of our Lord that prescribe the remedy to this dilemma.  This prescription is described by our Lord as being “born again” as we find in the following verses:    

3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

The words of Jesus to Nicodemus recorded in the verses above must have come as a complete surprise.  It is evident from the response that Nicodemus was either befuddled or perturbed by the response that Jesus gives to his initial statement.  We can certainly read the response either way, which can be associated with astonishment or sarcasm towards our Lord.  However, since the doctrine our Lord is proclaiming here to Nicodemus was uncommon to the Old Testament Scriptures it seems more fitting to classify the response as one of bewilderment. 

The closest possible parallel in the Old Testament to this concept is probably Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37.    A valley of dry bones is encountered representative of the fallen house of Israel and Ezekiel is commanded to prophesy (preach) to them.  Upon preaching the word of God the bones are transformed into living bodies again.  This is analogous to the previous chapter when God promises to return Israel from exile and renew their hearts (Ezekiel 36:25-27).  It is apparent though, that Nicodemus did not make the connection between these prophetic writings and our Lord’s words on that evening.

Our Lord here clearly is expressing a condition or prerequisite that is necessary for entrance into His kingdom.  This condition as He states is one of being born again or “regenerated”, which necessarily implies that men are naturally unworthy to enter the kingdom by birth or generation⁶.  This is further Scriptural support for the doctrine of original sin that accounts for man’s fallen nature transmitted through their federal head Adam.  Thus the conclusions articulated at the Synod of Dort are a helpful summary of this Scriptural teaching in the following:

Article 2: The Spread of Corruption - Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants — except for Christ alone — not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature.

Article 3: Total Inability - Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

In the second article the synod refers to Pelagianism, which is an ancient heresy named after the British monk Pelagius who denied the doctrine of original sin.  Although this heresy has been condemned by numerous Church councils, including the council of Trent, it is alive and well in many forms of Christianity today.  Essentially, it teaches that man did not inherit a fallen nature from Adam and has the moral ability, apart from God’s grace, to earn salvation on his own.  Thus, denying the biblical concept of sola gratia, which affirms that salvation is by God’s grace alone.  Although, a clear departure from biblical redemption, Pelagianism is consistent with the religion of natural man who thinks that he can improve his life or attain salvation simply by sheer will power. Unlike the Scriptural teaching that describes man’s condition as a result of the fall as corrupt (Romans 5:12), the religion of man perceives humanity to be truly good deep within.

The Pelagian tendency within the religion of man denies the need for the Gospel, honoring Jesus only as a great moral example who should be followed.  Man is seen as basically good and only needs to tap into that goodness through the right techniques of self-improvement.  The fundamental goal of man- made religion is self-improvement through the right methods or rules for living. Thus, there is a great amount of harmony amongst the different world religions, which essentially agree on the appropriate moral behavior.  Why is this?  As the Scriptures proclaim the law is universal to all, being proclaimed to Adam in the beginning.   This general revelation is now written on the hearts of all his progeny revealed in the conscience (Romans 2:14-16).  An excellent example of this is manifested in the similarities between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses.

Despite the general unity among all religions when it comes to the law and morality, Christianity is unique in the possession of the Gospel.  The law is in us by nature.  The Gospel, however, is foreign to us and foolishness to us in our natural state.  This natural instinct causes man to seek his solution through the law and is manifested in the Pelagian perversion of Christianity.  The problem with Pelagianism that makes it incompatible with Christianity is its inadequate understanding of the cross.  In rejecting the notion that a substitution was occurring on the cross, they seek to minimize it to being the ultimate moral example that man must imitate.  Their view purports that Christ did not actually save anyone, however, man must follow Christ’s example of obedience.  The predicament that is confronted with this view is its inability to be reconciled with the Scriptures.  The Scriptures teach that if it were possible for salvation to be achieved through the law then Christ died needlessly (Galatians 2:19-21).  Moreover, Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).  If God punished Jesus for no particular reason, least of all our sins, wouldn’t this be demonstrable of a horrific cruelty? Essentially, there is no good explanation of the cross in this form of religion, which fundamentally denies its necessity and power.

 

The vital flaw with Pelagianism that was the source of this false view of the cross was a denial of the biblical doctrine of original sin.  As discussed in the previous chapter, this is a biblical doctrine affirmed by Jesus Himself.  Here in these verses further support is found by our Lord’s articulation of the condition of being born again.  This renewal is indispensable for our entrance into the kingdom of God due to the fallen nature we are born with, as Calvin indicates in the following comments on this verse: 

 

So the meaning is, that no man can be truly united to the Church, so as to be reckoned among the children of God, until he has been previously renewed.  This expression briefly what is the beginning of Christianity, and at the same time teaches us, that we are born exiles and utterly alienated from the kingdom of God, and that there is a perpetual state of variance between God and us, until he makes us altogether different by our being born again; for the statement is general, and comprehends the whole human race…By the phrase born again is expressed not the correction of one part, but the renovation of the whole nature.  Hence it follows, that there is nothing in us that is not sinful; for if reformation is necessary in the whole and in each part, corruption must have been spread throughout⁷.

The concept of being reborn implies the radical operation that the Spirit’s regeneration applies to us.  This work of regeneration is described as making a spiritually dead sinner alive (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13-14).  In our fallen state we are unable to respond to the call of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7), because we are at enmity with God (Colossians 1:21; Romans 1:18-25).  However, when the Spirit performs His work of revivification (Titus 3:4-7) it transforms a spiritually dead sinner enabling him to respond to the call of the Gospel positively in faith.

It is the Gospel that is the only power of salvation for those who believe (Romans 1:16) and those who believe are synonymous with those who are born again.  This is truly good news.  Although, men are guilty by nature, hate God and would remain rebellious to His rule unto eternal damnation, He chose not to leave us in this state of misery.  He would have been perfectly justified to leave us in Adam, dead in sin and unable to save ourselves.  However He sent His Son, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, to bring redemption and reconciliation to us.  This work is then applied to us by the Holy Spirit who intrudes into our darken hearts granting us the ability to receive this good news through faith.

The Gospel grants us life where there was only death and damnation apart from Christ.  Thus, being “born again” is the description given to the process where we are transferred from death to life.  This shift from life to death is so radical that it requires the analogy of being re-born to accurately describe its significance.  As Jesus indicates it distinguishes those who are worthy to enter the kingdom of God from those who are not.  The intensity of this label may not affect us today as it should, since it became a buzzword in the modern evangelical movement.  (More than likely understood improperly by many of those who used the phrase).  However, the drastic nature of this label is indicative of Nicodemus’ response whose reply is illustrative of its extreme description.

The error of Pelagianism denies these fundamental biblical truths, beginning with its denial of original sin.  This natural tendency with fallen man to deny the biblical diagnosis of being dead in sin through Adam is the starting point.  The emphasis then leads to denying the Gospel and emphasizing moral improvement through man’s own volition.  When the Gospel is denied it no longer needs to be preached and is replaced with sermons focused solely on the law.  (Or the law-light indicative of the popular terminology of tips, keys or purposes)  There is nothing distinctively Christian about this point of view, yet finds its way into Church through men such as Charles Finney.

 

Fortunately, men like Finney and Pelagius were wrong and there is good news for us to be found in the wonderful redemption that Christ has earned.  We do not need to rely on our efforts to fulfill the law, since Christ has obeyed the law completely in our stead.  Faith comes by hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which we believe through the aid of the Holy Spirit who causes us to be born again.  This intrusion or in breaking of the Spirit grants us access into the kingdom of God.  The kingdom of God, which is breaking in on this age every time the Word is properly preached, the Sacraments are rightly administered, and a spiritually dead person is born again into this covenant community. It is this topic that we will explore in our next question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elentic Theology (Phillpsburg, NJ, P&R 1992) p 534

 

7 John Calvin (1550) Commentary on the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to John (Calvin’s Commentaries, 17; Baker, 2005) p 108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.  God is the principium essendi.  God is the source and fountain of all our knowledge.  He possesses an archetypal knowledge of all created things, embracing all ideas that are expressed in the works of His creation.  This knowledge of God is quite different from that of man.  While we derive our knowledge from the objects we perceive, He knows them in virtue of the fact that He has from eternity determined their being and form.  While we attain to a scientific insight into things and relations only by a laborious process of discursive thought, He has an immediate knowledge of all things, and knows them not only in their relations but also in their very essence.  And even so our knowledge is imperfect, while His knowledge is all-comprehensive and perfect in every way.  We are only partly conscious of what we know, while He is always perfectly conscious of all His knowledge.  The fulness of the divine knowledge is the inexhaustible source of our knowledge, and therefore God is the prinicipium essendiof all scientific knowledge.  Naturally, Pantheism with its impersonal and unconscious Absolute cannot admit this, for a God, who has no knowledge Himself, can never be the principle or source of our knowledge.  In fact, all absolute Idealism would seem to involve a denial of this principle, since it makes man an autonomous source of knowledge.  The origin of knowledge is sought in the subject; the human mind is no more a mere instrument, but is regarded as a real fons or sources.

b.  The world as God’s creation is the principium cognoscendi externum.  Instead of “the world as God’s creation” we might also say “God’s revelation in nature.”  Of His archetypal knowledge God has conveyed an ectypal knowledge to man in the works of His hands, a knowledge adapted to the finite human consciousness. This ectypal knowledge is but a faint reproduction of the archetypal knowledge found in God.  It is on the one hand real and true knowledge, because it is an imprint, a reproduction, though in temporal and therefore limited forms, of the knowledge of God.  On the other hand it is, just because it is ectypal, no complete knowledge, and since sin put its stamp on creation, no perfectly clear nor absolutely true knowledge.  God conveyed this knowledge to man by employing the Logos, the Word, as the agent of creation.  The idea that finds expression in the world is out of the Logos.  Thus the whole world is an embodiment of the thoughts of God or, as Bavinck puts it, “a book which He has written with large and small letters, and therefore not a writing-book in which we, as the Idealists think, must fill in the words.”  God’s beautiful creation, replete with divine wisdom, is the principium cognoscendi externum of all non-theological sciences.  It is the external means, by which the knowledge that flows from God is conveyed to man.  This view of the matter is, of course absolutely opposed to the principle of Idealism, that the thinking man creates and construes his own world: not only the form of the world of thought (Kant), but also its material and contents (Fichte), and even the world of being (Hegel).

Louis Berkhof,   The Idea and History of Dogmatic Theology

Gnosticism – Part 1

 

What we know about ancient Gnosticism is that it was a very complicated movement.  There were lots of different teachings, different directions, and lots of different teachers who did not agree with one another.  Gnosticism is a big label to put on something to describe a phenomenon that has some similarities, but also has many distinctions amongst the various different sects.  Although this is a diverse phenomenon, it shares in common a vision of Christianity that is really concerned about a spiritual reality.  This spiritual reality is the true world, which is a distinction that binds all Gnostics together.  All forms of Gnosticism are driven by a conviction that the great religious task is to come to understand the spiritual world, so that you can relate rightly to it.  This is the source of the label Gnostic, those who “know”, from the Greek word gnosis.  Those who “know” the spiritual world and how things are put together will arrive at salvation.  This knowledge that is directed primarily towards the spiritual world is the concern of Gnosticism.

 

The Valentinian Gnostic, Theodotus, once stated that they were concerned with questions such as:

 

·         Who were we?

·         What have we become?

·         Where were we?

·         Wither have we been cast?

·         Wither do we hasten?

·         From what will we become free?

·         What is birth?

·         What is rebirth?

 

These are questions of origin, of meaning, of purpose, of future and the great concern is where we come from.  This was a great concern that led Gnostics to believe that we existed before we existed in our bodies, because we are ultimately spirit beings.  Since all really real things are fundamentally and ultimately spiritual.  The physical world is seen as either illusory or is temporary, thus to find real meaning one must find the deeper spiritual reality. 

 

Gnosticism reveals itself in the ancient world as a movement influenced much more by Greek than Jewish beliefs.  On the best historical evidence does the Gnostic version of Christianity or the apostolic version seem to be more genuine?  The answer would have to be the apostolic version of Christianity, since it has more in common with the Jewish roots of the faith than Gnostic Christianity.  Although, we are not deciding who is right on this basis, however on apologetic grounds this is a useful question to ask.  This radical spiritualizing notion that is characteristically integral to the Gnostic belief system is just worlds away from the Jewish roots of Christianity.  For most Gnostics, the physical world and creation is a bad thing.  The material things are evil, or at least problematic, which stands at fundamental odds with the Old Testament view of creation.  The world that God made was a physical world, which He identified as good. It is not incidental that many of the earliest creeds of the Church begin with some confession that God is Creator or maker of heaven and earth.  This is done very clearly as an anti-Gnostic apologetic, since God is good and spiritual and made the physical realm.

1. Who are authorized persons (or beings) that can perform miracles?

 

There is much confusion, speculation and manipulation when we consider the topic of miraclous works of the Holy Spirit.  As we consider this topic we will seek to bring clarity and convey the biblical view of miracles, which is conveniently manifested in our passage.  As we proceed to perform this task we will remain focused on the following verses:

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

2This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

As we gather from the text, a significant and influential person approaches Jesus during the night to engage in a dialogue.  Nicodemus is reported to be a Pharisee and a member of the ruling class in Jerusalem.  The Pharisees were considered the conservative party in Israel during this time and were known for their scrupulous observance of the Mosaic Laws.  This observance comprised subscription to first five books of Moses and the traditions or interpretations of these laws handed down orally by the elders (Mark 7:3, 5) ³.  They differed with the Saducees, who were the priestly class on several points of belief (Acts 23:8), however shared the rule of the nation with them in the body known as the Sanhedrin.  The Sanhedrin was comprised of seventy elders who were the native ruling authority, granted limited autonomy by the Roman overlords.

Thus, we should recognize that Nicodemus is an individual in an esteemed position in the Israelite society.  As an elder of the people he would have been respected and feared.  In such a position we must recognize that it would have at least been a matter of interest for him to seek out and to visit a controversial figure who had just challenged the authority of the temple leaders.  This is further reinforced by the apostle’s mention of this visit taking place at night, under cover of darkness, which would have been ideal to maintain privacy and prevent the knowledge of this visit being discovered.

There are a few different reasons that may have motivated Nicodemus to trouble himself to make this visit.  Whether the nature of the trouble was that of a risk to his reputation or just taking the time to associate himself with Jesus, the motivation had to be fairly significant.  The following reasons or alternatives are those that we believe present the most viability:

 

·         Nicodemus was sent by his party as representative to make a formal inquiry into who Jesus was and who He specifically claimed to be.  His motivation was thus out of loyalty to his party.

·         Nicodemus was sympathetic to Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and restoring the purity and dignity of covenant worship in Israel.

·         Nicodemus was eagerly awaiting the advent of the Messiah of Israel, the promised seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent.  In hope that Jesus may be that promised seed was the motivation to make this visit.

·         Nicodemus was witness to the miracles that Jesus performed during the Passover festival.  His understanding of the role that miracles played in redemptive history validated that Jesus was preaching with the authority of God.

·         A combination of some or all of the above mentioned items.

We can never really ascertain the true motivation that caused Nicodemus to approach Jesus for a discussion.  His later sympathetic references in the fourth Gospel (John 7:50; 19:39 ) are not necessarily indicative of what his feelings were towards Jesus prior to the encounter.  Nonetheless, his statement recorded in the subsequent verse at least provides strong evidence that the fourth bullet above was a factor.

As a man who must have been conversant in the Law and Prophets, which comprised the Old Covenant canon, Nicodemus would have understood the role that miraculous signs and wonders played in redemptive history.  In redemptive history, miracles tend to cluster during periods of new revelation that God provides to His covenant people.  The primary examples of this in the Old Covenant are the miracles of Moses that occurred during the exodus from Egypt and wilderness wanderings.  God’s revelation of Himself to His people followed these signs and wonders, culminating in the compilation of it in the Pentateuch as a written record.  Upon the deliverance of this law and the conquest of the land through Joshua the occurrences of revelation and miracles were not as prevalent ultimately ceasing after the time of Malachi.   It should be noted that miracles were not normal or common occurrences in redemptive history, especially when one considers the Old Testament period was over 1500 years. 

This view of miraculous signs and wonders must be the implication of the statement made by Nicodemus here to our Lord.   The purpose of miracles are to manifest the authority of the representative who is speaking on behalf of God (John 5:36; 9:33; Acts 2:22).  Thus, Nicodemus could be confident that Jesus was a teacher who had come from God.  The advent of our Lord begins the most significant period of revelation in redemptive history and included a multitude of miraculous acts to substantiate it.  This was followed by the apostolic age, which continued to display a similar amount of miracles.   

Certainly, one can point to the content thus far and note that these are the words of Nicodemus who did not speak for God.  Thus, for us to rely on his statements to support our point would be problematic.  However, this is an instance where Nicodemus is consistent with the inspired testimony of the New Testament authors (Hebrews 2:4; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:5).  These miraculous signs (and gifts of the Holy Spirit) were extraordinary acts that defied the laws of nature, which necessarily required the intervention of the God who is above the creation to endow men with the ability to execute them.  Thus, the power over these ordinances of nature manifests a special authority that can only come from God.  These signs can then serve to authentic the new revelation being spoken from the person performing these miracles as being from God and not a spurious source.

As we established in previous lessons, Christ is the climax of revelation and God has completely spoken in Him (WCF 1.1).  The completion of God’s special revelation in Christ, thus, has direct ramifications on the continuation of miraculous signs and wonders in history.  Since miracles were essentially the visible evidence to establish the authority and credentials of the words of God’s earthly representatives, the completion of God’s revelation in Christ eliminates the need for their continuation.  In fact the cessation of special revelation with the completion of the canon of Scripture included the cessation of the miraculous signs and wonders that accompanied it.  Although, there are many who claim the continuation of these mighty acts and signs, when they are brought under closer scrutiny they fail the test of authenticity. Moreover, even enthusiasts who claim the continuance of these signs and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit concede that they passed out of use in the Church until the “latter days”.  Thus, Warfield argues the best biblical and historical explanation of this is the doctrine of cessation after the passing of the Apostolate in the following:

This deeper principle may be reached by us through the perception, more broadly, of the inseparable connection of miracles with revelation, as its mark and credential; or, more narrowly, of the summing up of all revelation, finally, in Jesus Christ. Miracles do not appear on the page of Scripture vagrantly, here, there, and elsewhere indifferently, without assignable reason. They belong to revelation periods, and appear only when God is speaking to His people through accredited messengers, declaring His gracious purposes. Their abundant display in the Apostolic Church is the mark of the richness of the Apostolic age in revelation; and when this revelation period closed, the period of miracle working had passed by also, as a mere matter of course. It might, indeed, be a priori conceivable that God should deal with men atomistically, and reveal Himself and His will to each individual, throughout the whole course of history, in the penetralium of his own consciousness. This is the mystic’s dream. It has not, however, been God’s way. He has chosen rather to deal with the race in its entirety, and to give to this race His complete revelation of Himself in an organic whole. And when this historic process of organic revelation had reached its completeness, and when the whole knowledge of God designed for the saving health of the world had been incorporated into the living body of the world’s thought–there remained, of course, no further revelation to be made, and there has been accordingly no further revelation made. God the Holy Spirit has made it His subsequent work, not to introduce new and unneeded revelations into the world, but to diffuse this one complete revelation through the world and to bring mankind into the saving knowledge of it⁴.

Jesus demonstrated through His earthly ministry the authority from God that He possessed by performing miracles.  The prophets of the old covenant and the apostles of the new covenant demonstrated these same signs and wonders, to authentic the authority they had been given to speak on behalf of God to the people.  How else are we to explain Nicodemus’ statement?  It is evident from this text that this was the purpose for miracles, which protected the people of God from being deceived and led astray.  As Calvin points out in his comments on this verse:

And he had good grounds for thinking so, because God always intended that miracles should be seals of his doctrine.  Justly therefore does he make God the sole Author of miracles, when he says that no man can do these signs, unless G