a Church.

“As Night Follows Day? (Part 2)

David Phillips
January 28, 2010

(Editor’s note: The following article was written by David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical organization in the Church of England. The article originally appeared in its entirety here . Part 1 is available here .)

But is it fair to argue that the acceptance of one will lead to the acceptance of the other? What grounds are there for asserting this?

That is a good question. It is good to see that Phillips does not see his introduction as giving grounds for believing that one follows the other. Not sure why he had his introduction…

First, there are the facts of history. There are now too many cases to ignore – national denominations which have embraced the ordination of women which then went on to embrace homosexual practice. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of the US is the most recent casualty which in August voted to permit sexual immorality amongst its clergy.”

There is no doubt that in liberalism has taken over churches by changing one thing and then another. Societies and communities do not always find change easy, so it usually happens in steps. The question is, does the history argument point to ordination of women leading to ordination of homosexuals or is the reality that when someone throws out the Bible they will work to make the church what they want it to be, one step at a time?

As it is, history tells us that one does not always lead to the other. There are too many examples for the comps to ignore that show patriarchal societies where homosexuality is accepted. There have been patriarchal churches where homosexuality has been an issue. There have also been egal denominations that have not confined the role of women who have stood firm against homosexuality.

History alone, especially when viewed completely, does not provide grounds for one leading to the other.

“Secondly, the shift seems inevitable because unbiblical innovation necessarily leads to division. When pretty much all of Christendom has been united in saying that the Bible says one thing and then people start arguing that it says something different there are bound to be some who disagree.”

Hmmm…Is this where Phillips is going to tell us we should not have abolished slavery…

“Some inevitably will feel unable to remain when a Church seeks to legitimize what they believe to be error. It is well known that more than 20 members of the General Synod left the Church of England after the 1992 decision to ordain women as priests. In total more than 500 clergy left, although some later returned and a few may have used it as an excuse to get out with compensation. There were not a few members of Church Society among them. What was left was therefore weaker and more liberal. The same things happened years ago in the US Episcopal Church. Indeed most of the protestant, reformed, evangelicals left a generation or more ago often turning to Presbyterianism. Things are different in the Church of England because it is our national and established church so fewer people have left over recent decades but the general point is valid, the ordination of women in the Church of England has weakened the ‘conservative’ voice. Furthermore, the women so appointed are more likely to be liberal because a woman who accepts the classical evangelical or Anglo-Catholic position is not going to seek such a role.”

So how did we go from talking about evidence for one leading to another to talking about disagreement? Because when someone believes in the ordination of women, conservatives leave and those who are left are more liberal and want to accept homosexuality. This certainly did not happen in the Presbyterian Church of Australia where the more ‘conservative’ stayed and the more ‘liberal’ left!

But how, when it happens, does this show one leads to the other? Phillips explanation would show that church splits lead to weaker churches. I agree! It would also suggest that it is the fault of the more conservative that leave! But none of this is evidence that one leads to the other!

“Thirdly, the pressure from outside the Church increases. My experience, and I think that of others too, is that it is often outsiders who spot the flaws in our cherished ideas. Media interviewers are particularly good at this. Some in the church have elaborate arguments as to why Scripture does not say what it appears, but interviewers cannot see how this differs from arguments about sexual conduct, they are quick to see the gaps and pounce. In contrast when we stick doggedly with what the Bible actually teaches they may think we are mad (though they don’t usually say so on air) but they also see that we are being consistent. Moreover, they can see that whatever else might be said Christians through history have held both issues to be wrong.”

Hmmm…this is a hard paragraph to follow. Phillips seems to be saying that those outside the church, such as the media, put pressure on us to move from one to the other. But – he also seems to be saying that if we don’t even start ordaining women, or homosexuals, then we are recognized as consistent with ourselves and with history and there is less pressure to change.

It should be noted that this is apparently Phillips experience…that he has stuck doggedly with what (he thinks) the Bible teaches, and people have not pressured him. But when has he experienced the pressure? Surely he did not start agreeing with the ordination of women and homosexual at some stage. This is the only way that this example of his could actually have been his experience as he claims. Hmmm?!?!

I must say that my experience (as I have also been a comp) is that people see that the comp view is not consistent with scripture and the Gospel of being one body in Jesus Christ. The media would not care if we were being consistent with hundreds of years of church history and practiced slavery. They would put pressure on us to stop! The media, in Australia at least, is very pro equal rights. They do apply pressure to the church to change already in areas where they recognize discrimination.

Phillips has failed to provide evidence for one leading to the other and his arguments to this stage have not been logical or consistent. The third installment is coming soon…perhaps he will finish well?

This is part one of a three part series that CBMW have done at their blog. My thoughts are included. I did not really enjoy reading it…I just have an issue with letting this thinking go unchallenged.

“As Night Follows Day? (Part 1)

David Phillips
January 26, 2010

(Editor’s note: The following article was written by David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical organization in the Church of England. The article originally appeared in its entirety here .)

My personal tutor at theological college was Michael Vasey. Michael was, I believe, opposed to the ordination of women as presbyters (priests). But when the General Synod voted in favor of this he is reported to have said that if the Church could do so despite the teaching of Scripture then it must follow that it could not object to homosexual practice. Accordingly in his book ‘Strangers and Friends’ published three years later he set out to argue from Scripture that the Church should change its mind.”

Michael Vasey is certainly entitled to his opinion, just as David Phillips is, but this does not count for evidence that one does lead to the other. It would appear that Vasey thought that both the ordination of women and homosexual practice went against scripture. I am not sure how this contributes to Phillips case.

“In a similar vein in 2003 the then Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, argued in an article in the Daily Telegraph that “The Church has got it wrong in the past – there’s no doubt about it. I think you can take the view that, just as the Church eventually abolished slavery, so they ended up in favor of votes for women, so they voted for the ordination of women, and this is just one more issue where the Church has got it wrong.” His argument was that the Church had got it wrong on homosexual conduct.”

I tried to find this article but could not. At the same time I am amazed that Phillips looks to the extreme liberal section of the church to support his own thinking – perhaps they have something in common?!? Harries in a later article in the Daily Telegraph makes it very clear that he thinks homosexuality fits in with the deeper truths of the Bible. There are many egals who do not believe this is true. Has Harries really moved along a slippery slope, or is he merely trying to create an argument to back up a lifestyle that he wishes to condone? Harries and what he says is not evidence for a slippery slope.

So is slavery a good thing or a bad thing in Phillips opinion…or does it not matter as long as it proves a slippery slope? I thought the idea of the slippery slope was the transition from bad to worse. Does Phillips believe abolishing slavery was bad?

“There are many who sincerely believe that it is right for the Church to ordain women as presbyters, and wrong for it to endorse homosexual practice. Although some have argued this distinction forcefully I am convinced that the acceptance of one almost inevitably leads to the acceptance of the other. Some will find this conclusion offensive but I find it rather obvious.”

I think it is offensive to common sense that Phillips can say this conclusion is obvious!

“The same argument?

First then, are the cases different? Some argue that the ordination of women is a ‘second order’ issue because it concerns church order whilst sexual conduct is a ‘first order’ issue because it concerns salvation. I am far from comfortable with this distinction because I believe that the ordination of women as presbyters is contrary to Scripture and I am not willing to suggest that it is therefore unimportant or less important. Nevertheless, I do think many see the two issues as differing in degree. The distinction of first and second order is also not shared by those in favour of both. They see both as fundamental matters of justice and of the openness of the gospel. They therefore consider both to be first order issues and they are not going to rest having achieved one without achieving the other.”

Surely the issue is what the Bible does or does not say. My view on homosexuality does not come from how important I think it is, but rather what the Bible actually says. Phillips has not dealt with what the Bible actually says…perhaps he will? This does not build his case…even the scare tactics that there are people out there who are in favour of ordination of women and homosexuality who “are not going to rest having achieved one without achieving the other”. The fact that some people want both does not give evidence that one leads to the other. It certainly does not deal with the fact that some people do not want both.

“Some do argue the case as to why the Bible supports one and not the other, but I find the arguments badly lacking. I simply cannot see that the passages to which they plead actually support what they claim. For example some use the long list of women who are engaged in the Lord’s work in Scripture to claim that women should be involved in the Lord’s work, but none of these roles are as presbyters. The jump to say that they should be presbyters, when the Bible itself confines it to men is unwarranted.”

The question is, ‘Does the Bible confine the role of presbyter to men?’ I cannot find evidence that it does. I assume if it was that clear, then Phillips would have provided evidence from scripture for this confined role.

“Others sadly seem to set up a straw man. They argue as if only Anglo-Catholics are against women priests and because Anglo-Catholics have a defective view of ministry then the opposition to women as presbyters must be wrong. This conveniently but disingenuously ignores the fact that evangelicals argue from Scripture that women should not be presbyters. It is also unfair to Anglo-Catholics many of whom do also argue from Scripture that women should not be presbyters (priests).”

“Others sadly seem to set up a straw man”…sounds like a straw man!! The issue needs to be determined from scripture. I guess the question is, “Do those who confine the role of presbyter to men have a defective view of scripture?” Phillips claims evangelicals argue from scripture that women should not be presbyters. His time would be better spent doing that than discussing the slippery slope, as this is the heart of the issue. Phillips also claims that many Anglo-Catholics argue from scripture that women should not be presbyters (priests). I assume that means that they have a scriptural argument for male priests today? If this is the case then I would suggest that their view of scripture is defective, as I see no evidence for priests in the church today from within scripture!

Stay tuned for the next instalment soon!

On another blog I read the following comment;

“…egals believe in democracy when it comes to Christianity… .”

It seems to me that the discussion over the role of women in the church and home is confused by the terms that are used to describe the various positions. I have made some of these comments before, but the comment above has convinced me all the more that Patriarchalists do not understand what us “egals” believe, and our name does not help the issue.

The jump from “egalitarian” to democratic” is easy to make. Egalitarian has to do with equality of people. Democracy has to do with equality of power.

One dictionary defines democracy as, “A form of government in which political power resides in all people and is exercised by them directly or given to elected representatives”

Christianity is NOT about everyone having power, but rather everyone submitting to (loving) others. Power is not in the picture. It is about following Jesus, not because we elected him but because he died for us.

The same dictionary supplied a second translation as, “The spirit or practice of political, legal, or social equality.”

But once again, does Jesus tell his followers to be equal with each other, or does he tell them to place themselves BELOW each other? Christianity is far more radical than democracy. In fact it is far more radical than egalitarianism. Jesus did not simply make himself equal with creation. He died on a cross for creation, effectively placing himself below the created.

What should we be called? Why sit around and wait for another name from CBMW to be thrown at us, such as “Biblical feminists”? I have said I prefer the name “Interdependant” before, but it is a mouthful, especially if you talk about “interdependantism” or “interdependability” or “interdependabalistic” (I am not convinced the last one is a word).

Any ideas?

If you were following the discussion I was having with Steve Coxhead, there is a lot more going on at his blog here. Due to a family holiday and lots to do at work I have not had the time to continue the discussion or contribute to the blog for some time. Hopefully things will get back to normal again soon!

The Ice Festival in Harbin taken during our holiday. It was cold!!

The conversation I have been having with Steve Coxhead and his understanding of justification by faith has been rolling along! Please note that although I intiated the discussion with my critique of his 32 Theses Steve has been discussing the issues at his blog. I have been transferring his comments over to here, and transferring my comments over to his blog. It helps make it more interesting for me!!

Below is the most recent post at Steve’s blog which came from a question asked by a blogger going by the name Sujomo. The question was, 

“Lots of thoughts for us all to meditate on. Would you like to post a comment on Romans 15:26 and the juxtapostion of ‘obedience’ and ‘faith’? You have also sought to explain how you see Paul using ‘law’ in his epistles. Would you care to comment on the wider NT corpus, especially Hebrews 7:12ff?
cheers, sujomo”

Steve responded with the post below…

“The Obedience of Faith in Romans 16:26

Sujomo has asked me about how I understand the expression the obedience of faith in Rom 16:26.

In Rom 16:26 I prefer the interpretation the obedience which is faith, i.e., faith is an epexegetic or appositional genitive.

I prefer this interpretation on the basis that Paul in Rom 16:25-26 is reflecting on God’s plan of salvation as revealed through the Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets saw the new covenant as being a time of the circumcision of the heart (Deut 30:6), when the law would be written on the heart in a comprehensive way (Jer 31:33), a time when the Spirit would move Israel and the nations to keep torah (Isa 2:1-4; Ezek 36:26-27). In sum, the Old Testament prophets look forward to the new covenant as being a betrothal of Israel (and the nations) in faith to God (Hos 3:20), i.e., a time when God would work through Christ and the Spirit to bring about the renewal of covenant faithfulness (as per Hab 2:4), not only on the part of Israel, but also the nations.

So the epexegetic genitive makes most sense as being consistent with this Old Testament vision. I also think that that is how the same phrase in Rom 1:5 should be interpreted. This interpretation is also consistent with Paul’s language in Rom 15:18 where he talks about his mission as bringing the Gentiles to obedience.

The obedience of faith contrasts with the obedience of the works of the law (i.e., Jewish obedience to the law of Moses), which Gentiles could not participate in (at least not without giving up their Gentile citizenship). So the phrase the obedience of faith has a polemic edge to it in the historical context of Paul’s day. It is new covenant obedience: the obedience of submission to the lordship of Christ. ”

Below is Steve’s response to the first three of my ten points critiquing his 32 Theses. I will respond in the comments section. Perhaps, when Steve has dealt with all 10 of my points I will look as posting a response, but we will see where the comments section and discussion takes us first!

“A Response to Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification: Part Two

This post intends to respond to points 1-3 in Dave Woolcott’s critique of my view of justification. Dave’s critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification, or on his blog in his post entitled A response to Steven Coxhead’s “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled”.

In point no. 1, Dave states that I believe that “there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam.” Yes, that is what I believe. God’s law as revealed to Adam (before he was kicked out of the garden) effectively contained two laws that we know of: (1) the law permitting him to eat food from all plants and trees with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 1:29; 2:16-17); and (2) the creation mandate (Gen 1:28). There was also no provision built into these laws for the forgiveness of sin. The law of Moses on the other hand contained many laws (most of Exod 20–Deut 30), and a large number of these laws had to do with the sacrificial system that offered the forgiveness of sins to the people (e.g., Lev 1-7).

Dave states that I am seeking to reconcile God’s covenant with Adam and the law of Moses, but that is not correct. The point of the 32 theses is to reconcile the Old Testament teaching concerning absolute righteousness and covenant righteousness, not the Adamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant. The focus is on the Mosaic covenant, and the two strands of righteousness that emerge there. The question that I am addressing in the 32 theses is: How does the need for the absolute righteousness provided through sacrifice fit in with the divine requirement for covenant commitment on the part of Israel?

The reason I distinguish between God’s law in the garden and God’s law to Israel is because many people fail to see the way in which grace was inbuilt into the Mosaic law as seen in the laws regarding sacrifice and atonement. Or to put things in terms of the Westminster Confession of Faith, our (i.e., Presbyterian Church of Australia) confessional standard: the Mosaic covenant belongs to the administration of the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works. The Confession teaches that “perfect and personal obedience” was required of Adam in the covenant of works (WCF 7.2), which contrasts with the requirement of faith under the covenant of grace. In other words, the Confession teaches that absolute obedience was required by Adam, which implies that there was no inherent provision for the forgiveness of sins under the covenant of works, otherwise the requirement would have been something other than absolute obedience.

Dave has understood me correctly in his point no. 2. The covenant with Adam did not contain provisions to deal with sin. That is why it is called a covenant of works (WCF 7.2). But the Mosaic covenant did contain provisions for the forgiveness of sin. That is why the Confession groups the Mosaic administration as part of the covenant of grace (see WCF 7.5). The Confession includes the laws that make provision for sin within the category of ceremonial laws: “God was pleased to give to the people of Israel … ceremonial laws … prefiguring Christ” (WCF 19.3). Notice that the Confession states that such laws were given to (old covenant) Israel. The Confession also acknowledges that grace was offered to Israel through the sacrificial system (and through other things, such as promises and prophecies), and that all of these were “sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit” for the “full remission of sins, and eternal salvation,” because they foresignified Christ (WCF 7.5). In speaking of Mosaic law as including atoning grace to the extent that the sacrificial system prefigures Christ, and in distinguishing this from Adamic law, I believe I am being completely consistent with our confessional standard.

I also have to disagree with Dave’s interpretation of Ps 40:6 and Hos 6:6. The Old Testament doctrine of obedience rather than sacrifice was used by the Old Testament prophets not to devalue the need for sacrifice, but to point out that offering ritual sacrifice without covenant obedience is hypocrisy. Concerning Heb 10:1-10, my response is: Yes and no to Dave’s suggestion that the Mosaic sacrificial system couldn’t deal with sin. In and of itself the blood of bulls and goats cannot bring about the forgiveness of sins, but (as the Confession teaches) to the extent that the sacrifices were a proleptic presentation or prefiguring of Christ to the people of Israel, the sacrifices were “sufficient and efficacious” for atonement. The only sacrifice that counts is the perfect sacrifice of Christ, but the benefits of that were genuinely offered to old covenant Israel through the Mosaic sacrificial system.

Regarding the issue of immediate death for Adam, what I am referring to there is what God says in Gen 2:17: that in the day when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he would die. The death referred to there by God was primarily the spiritual death of separation from God. This death took place when Adam was kicked out of the garden, which happened almost immediately upon his being convicted of sin (Gen 3:21-24).

Regarding Dave’s argument in his point no. 3, I think Dave is referring to thesis 16 when he says that “Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law … but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied.” I think further thinking is required on Dave’s part here. He is using his either-or (more Lutheran-type) thinking to critique my (more Reformed) both-and type system. From the beginning of the Reformation, the Reformed side of Protestantism (as against the Lutheran side) has always acknowledged that there is a kind of righteousness that comes from obeying God’s law in a genuine but imperfect way in the context of covenant grace. Calvin, for example, holds that after being justified by faith, when God considers our works he does so through the prism of Christ and God’s work of sanctification in us through the Holy Spirit such that “the good works which are done by believers are deemed righteous, or, which is the same thing, are imputed for righteousness” (see Institutes 3.17.8). Calvin could actually speak of the imputation of good works as righteousness! I invite people to look it up for themselves if they don’t believe it.

For anyone further interested in what is called Calvin’s doctrine of double justification, you can read my two articles on the righteousness of works in Calvin’s system: “John Calvin’s Interpretation of Works Righteousness in Ezekiel 18,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 303–16; and “John Calvin’s Subordinate Doctrine of Justification by Works,” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 1–19; or else read Mark Garcia’s book Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology. I am also working on a third article on Calvin’s doctrine of double justification, and I’ll let you know when and where that may be published.

Regarding Dave’s comments on Paul’s use of Abraham in Rom 4, I think that the salvation-historical or covenantal interpretation of Paul makes a lot of sense here. If Paul’s argument here is salvation-historical, his point is that Abraham is an example of a person who was right with God before anything like the works of the law (i.e., a faith response to the Mosaic revelation) was on the scene. In other words, in Gen 15 Abraham was right with God when he was a Gentile! If Gentiles could be right with God before the Mosaic covenant existed (or anything approximating it, circumcision being the key identifier), then what is to stop Gentiles being right with God now that the Messiah has come? Covenant righteousness (i.e., the right response to God) in the new covenant age effectively reverts back to the kind of righteousness that Gentile Abraham showed as he responded positively to God’s (non-Mosaic) revelation. The righteousness of a positive response to the law of Moses (i.e., the works of the law) is, therefore, seen to be a temporary kind of righteousness, a possibility that applied only as long as the Mosaic covenant was operative. What once was gain—notice that Paul claims in Phil 3:6 that he possessed a blameless righteousness according to the Mosaic law, and he describes such righteousness as gain in Phil 3:7, i.e., it was a true form of righteousness as long as the Mosaic covenant was in operation—what once was gain is, after the coming of the new covenant in Christ, then seen to be loss in comparison with the righteousness that we can possess through faith in Christ. Paul came to understand that the new covenant righteousness of faith in Christ far surpasses the righteousness that Moses was on about in Deut 6:25.

But even if you don’t go for a covenantal interpretation of Rom 4, it is wrong to take verses such as Rom 3:10, 20 and make them contradict Rom 10:5, Deut 6:25, and Ezek 18:5-9. Please look at how Calvin interpreted Ezek 18. Calvin doesn’t go for the covenantal interpretation of Paul, but he doesn’t go for a Lutheran interpretation either. In other words, Calvin acknowledged that after justification by faith has been established, a legitimate form of justification or righteousness on the level of works also exists.

All in all, we who claim to be Reformed really need to understand that the Reformed side of the Reformation has a more nuanced or balanced view on righteousness than exists on the Lutheran side of the Reformation. Luther, for example, acknowledged the righteousness of faith, whereas Calvin acknowledges the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works in a subordinate sense. In other words, Calvin acknowledged that righteousness language is used in the Bible of the covenant obedience of believers. Think about the righteousness of Noah (Gen 6:9), the righteousness of David (Ps 18:20-24), the righteousness of the author of Ps 119 (Ps 119:30, 56), the righteousness of Zecharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). In Calvin’s system, this is the righteousness of obedience, the righteousness of people who responded genuinely and positively, albeit imperfectly, to God’s word in the context of grace, where the righteousness of faith is already presupposed. If we claim to be Reformed, we seriously need to make sure that we understand Calvin’s doctrine of double justification before suggesting that someone’s view of justification is deficient simply because it links righteousness with the good works of believers.

Calvin could speak of justification by faith alone and of the imputation of the good works of believers as righteousness. When Dave suggests, therefore, that I have forgotten that Jesus is the only one to whom the righteousness of works applies (because I admit that there a legitimate form of law righteousness under the Mosaic covenant to those who had torah written in their heart by the Holy Spirit), to be fair he should also accuse Calvin of having a deficient view of justification as well. In fact, Calvin doesn’t just limit law righteousness as applying solely under the Mosaic covenant (which I think is Paul’s preferred way of thinking), but he sees law righteousness as applying across salvation history!

Now if Dave is really means to say in his point no. 3 that the righteousness of absolute obedience only applies to Christ, I thoroughly agree with him. But this does not rule out the fact that in the Bible covenant obedience, which is a genuine, albeit imperfect, positive response to the word of God that is worked in believers by the Spirit of God, is also called righteousness. Jesus came not only to be our righteousness, but also to make us righteous; and both of these types of righteousness are mentioned in the Scriptures.”

Below is Steven Coxhead’s response to my critic of his 32 Theses, part one. I will be responding to this in the comments section. Enjoy!

“A Response to Dave Woolcott’s Critique of Steven Coxhead’s View of Justification: Part One

Dave Woolcott has recently posted on his blog a response to the 32 theses listed in my website article Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled. Dave’s critique can be found on my blog in the post entitled Dave Woolcott’s Critique of My View of Justification, or on his blog in his post entitled A response to Steven Coxhead’s “Absolute and Covenant Righteousness Reconciled”.

Dave is a student of mine from a few years ago, but I don’t think he has fully understood my views on justification. The best critiquers of a system are those who are can develop an empathy with the system that they’re critiquing. Otherwise there’s the problem of the straw man, and I think a bit of that is happening here. That Dave hasn’t fully understood my view is partly understandable, as I think my teaching of him was primarily limited to the Old Testament prophets and wisdom literature. The Old Testament concept of covenant righteousness would have been explained in that class, but the ins and outs of my view of justification would not have been explained there in great detail, as they are not part of the syllabus. Anyway, Dave has expressed in his post that he is keen to be corrected if he has misunderstand my view in any way, so I’ll respond to Dave’s critique bit by bit and point by point over the next few days or so, but I’ll start off with a response to his introductory comments.

Dave says that “[f]or a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching.” I’m not sure if he means by this that “all students” or “students generally” or “some students” have been confused by my views, but I am aware that there are some in the wider church who are suggesting that a disconcertingly significant number of students have been confused by my teaching. However, my experience, gleaned through interaction with the students in class, outside of class, through assessment tasks, and formal student feedback, is that the majority have had no major problem. Indeed, a significant number are keen to hear more. So if Dave means by his statement that “some students have been confused,” I’d agree with that as being accurate. If I come into the classroom with set views about certain things, which are then challenged by God’s word, then confusion can result; but it is always my hope and prayer that any reshaping or remoulding that takes place in my classes happens in accordance with the whole counsel of God. We could conduct a poll in relation to this point, but since it doesn’t lie at the heart of Dave’s critique I’ll leave the comments section below open to any former or current students of mine to comment upon as they see fit.

It should also be kept in mind that the 32 theses in question are not meant to be a comprehensive statement as to what I believe concerning justification. These theses emerged in the context of staff development at the PTC [Presbyterian Theological Centre] involving a paper of mine on the Old Testament, and were placed on my website for easy access for those students who wanted to find out more regarding righteousness concepts in the Old Testament. As I state in the introductory paragraph to the theses, they are primarily an attempt to describe the relationship between the righteousness of covenant obedience and the righteousness of sacrifice as they functioned under the Mosaic covenant. The 32 theses, therefore, are not a comprehensive statement regarding my views on justification; so I hope that is kept in mind.

Dave also asks the question: Is there a difference between a covenantal definition of faith and works, and an anthropological one? The simple answer is: Yes. The distinction has to do with understanding what the Apostle Paul meant by the term faith in contrast to the works of the law. In particular: what did Paul mean by the term the works of the law?

The classic anthropological definition of faith and works has been in operation since the time of the early church, but in Protestant circles it goes back to Luther. Luther effectively divides the human person into two parts: body and soul. Faith is the action of the soul, whereas works are the action of the body. See his discussion of this in the first few paragraphs of The Freedom of the Christian. It is a strongly dualistic distinction, akin to what is found in classic Greek philosophy. Perhaps most Reformed systematic theologians do not hold to such a crassly dualistic anthropological distinction between faith and works in the way that Luther does, but I would hazard a guess that for most of us the distinction between faith and works that we operate with is nonetheless an anthropological one. Faith is an action of the heart, from which works flow as fruit. This is a valid distinction psychologically and biblically. James’s teaching in Jam 2:14-26, for example, involves an anthropological distinction between faith and works.

But the problem we have is that we have assumed that that is how Paul was using these terms. It has not dawned upon the vast majority of Christian theologians that a covenantal reading of faith and works in Paul is a genuine possibility that deserves to be investigated and debated. This lack of awareness to the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul is primarily due to the influence of Greek philosophical categories on our reading of Scripture, which have assumed the place of more organic Old Testament and Jewish ones. For example, how many people are aware of the idea that the phrase the works of the law solely denotes the requirements of the Mosaic law? Likewise, how many people are aware of the idea that doing the works of the law is Jewish idiom for faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant? Combine this with a face-value reading of Deut 6:25, Ezek 18:5-9, and Paul’s statement in Rom 10:5 that Moses spoke about a righteousness that comes from doing torah, and you start to get a different take on what Paul was on about. Is there actually a genuine concept of law righteousness in the Old Testament? And could it possibly be in the light of this that the issue for Paul was not primarily one of legalism, but the specific issue of Christian Judaizers trying to force Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision (if male) and to keep the law of Moses “in order to be saved” (see Acts 15:1, 5), all in the name of faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, on the mistaken assumption that the Mosaic covenant continued on as is and was still normative for salvation as it had been since Sinai (despite the coming of Jesus)? Just imagine if Paul was arguing for the primacy of Christ and the new covenant over against the traditional Jewish commitment to Moses and the Mosaic covenant as the way of covenant righteousness before God? Is that not a strong possibility in the historical context of his day and the primarily Jewish nature of this dispute? I believe that this view deserves some genuine investigation. To find the accused guilty before the investigation has been finished and all the evidence has been tabled is not an honorable form of justice.

Concerning Dave’s last point in his introductory comments, it is true that Paul is not explicitly concerned to teach such a distinction, but this is not to say that such a distinction is not relevant to how Paul uses these terms. The main problem is that it has been assumed in Christian theology that the anthropological distinction is the only one that exists. In an effort to understand God’s word with greater precision, are we willing to investigate whether or not a covenantal reading of Paul makes sense, or do we think we already know all the answers? Dave says he’s willing to debate this, and that’s a good thing. But the best way to review a car is to take it for a test drive. You have to get in the system and see how it works, not just give an opinion as you see it driving by. Are we willing to seriously investigate this issue, and to grow in our understanding of God’s word as a result of the process? I say this not so much to Dave, but to others out there who (from my point of view) have come to radical conclusions about my orthodoxy without seriously investigating the possibility of a covenantal reading of Paul in an empathetic way. This may very well be the new wave in Pauline research; and my humble opinion is that we need to investigate it in a genuine, open, honest, and charitable manner.

I’ll endeavor to deal with points 1-3 from Dave’s critique in my next post, and I thank him for being willing to discuss the issue in a good spirit. I hope that charitable discussion will always be a hallmark of the debates conducted in the Berith Road Blog.”

Now for something completely different! This is a bit heavy, I guess, but I believe important to discuss.

Steven Coxhead has posted on his website these 32 Theses regarding what is essentially his understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. Steven is a lecturer at our theological college, the PTC, and a link to Steven’s website can be found at the PTC Blog. For a number of years students at the PTC have been confused by Steven’s teaching, and I appreciate his attempt to publicise what he believes so that is can be weighed against scripture. You might like to read Steven’s Theses before reading my response, otherwise it will not make much sense!

My Response!

In his introduction Steven claims that he is not denying that justification is by faith alone. This is because he is using the terms “faith” and “works” covenantly, rather than anthropologically. The question needs to be asked though, “Is there a difference?” In my view, what Steven writes does undermine justification by faith alone, no matter how he claims to be using the terms “faith” and “works”, especially because he has not clarified the difference that this ‘covenant’ view has to the ‘anthropological’  when Paul does not appear to make such distinctions.

I believe there are a number of errors in Steven’s thinking. The major flaws are outlined below.

1 – Steven claims that there is a fundamental difference between the law of Moses and God’s covenant with Adam (pt 3). In many ways, this difference is at the heart of what Steven is trying to reconcile, but is there anything to reconcile? As we continue hopefully we will see that what Steven tries to reconcile is the same thing.

2 – The main difference that Steven is referring to is that the covenant with Adam did not deal with sin, but that the sacrificial system under the law of Moses did. The problem with this thinking is that the sacrificial system never dealt with sin (c.f. Psalm 40:6, Hosea 6:6, Hebrews 10:1-5). It should be noted that death was the result of sin for Adam, and Paul reminds us in Romans that the wages of sin are still death. At the same time, the Covenant with Adam did not refer to “immediate” death as claimed by Steven (pt 3).

3 – Steven believes that righteousness comes through works of the law (pt 6), but seems to forget that Jesus is the only one to whom this truth can be applied (pt 2). Paul himself uses Abram as an example against this very thinking. Abram, before the law of Moses (and after Adam), was considered righteous by God because he believed God (Genesis 15:6).

4 – Steven believes that there is more than one type of justification and more than one type of righteousness that need to be reconciled (pt 7). This is due to the difference Steven sees in the Adamic Covenant and the Mosaic law (pt 3, 4, 5). As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe the difference he claims is there, and in the same way I believe that Steven is mistaken if he believes there is more than one type of justification or righteousness. It is difficult for me to prove that something does not exist, and so the burden of proof is on Steven to produce evidence for this. My understanding of Scripture is that we are either absolutely of the light or absolutely of the darkness. We cannot be partially justified.

5 – Steven speaks as though it is our relationship with the covenant that is important in the OT (pt 8, 9, 10). In actual fact it is our relationship with God that is important. The covenant simply defines to some degree what the relationship is. It is a covenant relationship.

6 – Steven is under the impression that works of the law come before “absolute justification/righteousness” (pt 12, 22). Scripture gives a different understanding. Biblically it is always as a result of salvation that good works are performed. God certainly appears to work from this understanding in Exodus 20:2, when before the 10 commandments are given God reminds Israel that he is the God who has saved them. In Romans 12:1 Paul exhorts the church in Rome to be living sacrifices in view of God’s mercy.

7 – No one has ever kept covenant with God. Even Moses failed to enter the promised land. In point 19 Steven suggests that the key difference between the old covenant and the new is that the mediator was Moses in the old, and is Jesus in the new. Moses, however, was a failed leader, an unworthy mediator. Jesus is the perfect prophet, priest and king, and ultimately the prophet, priest and king that Israel, even Moses, was waiting for.

8 – It is not an issue of correctly balancing two types of justification/righteousness, or for that matter, balancing the right combination of works and faith in Christ (pt 32). Even if you say that greater weight should be given to righteousness through faith in Christ, it is not about a balancing act. Rather it is about one coming before the other (though in the reverse order to what Steven claims in pt 28). It is through what God has done in Christ that believers are empowered to do good works – to become slaves to righteousness. John reminds us that we love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19). In Christ we are taught how to love – how to fulfil the law (1 Thessalonians 4:9). With regards to the law, Paul says in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set you free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Through Ezekiel God made it clear that he would work in our heart with a new Spirit and that this would incline our hearts to follow his commands (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

9 – Steven does not realise that being under the law increases sin. Steven is working with a paradigm that suggests that being under the law will increase good works and even play a part in the process of salvation. Paul is very clear in Romans 7:7-11. When the law is combined with our flesh, sin and death are the result. How can Steven say that the law will bring the opposite BEFORE salvation? As a result, there is no good pastoral reason to point people towards works completely outside of the context of grace (pt 30, 31, 32).

10 – Under the ‘system’ that Steven proposes I wonder who it is that judges the correct balance between faith in Christ and works of the law. How does one know if they have the balance right? What assurance is there when it is not simply salvation/righteousness/justification through faith in Christ alone? I ask the question from both a covenantal and anthropological perspective.

In Conclusion, if I have misunderstood Steven or been unfair to him I would love to be corrected. I believe that this whole topic is central to our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and well worth discussing!

I have been off wandering the Blogosphere over the last couple of weeks and discovered that it was a dangerous place to be. I visited two blogs that were discussing issues related to gender. At just one of the blogs I was told the following:

I must submit
I am skating on thin ice
I must be quiet or I will be commanded to be silent
I was then commanded to be silent!
My thoughts and views are heretical
I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth
My words border on deception regarding the meaning of God’s word
I will not listen to god’s word
I am fundamentally opposed to God’s word and mock it
I only pay lip service to submission to the Word
I don’t like what the Word says and use arguments and exegesis to reject it’s clear teaching
I mimic Satan
I have given into temptation
I continue to promote rebellion
I need prayer (very true!)
I am not a sincere seeker of the truth
I hate the truth…I hate it sir!
If I was truthful I could not make a living as a pastor
I am a wolf in sheep’s clothing
May God bring me to repentance or expose me to my presbytery and flock so they’ll remove me from my pulpit.
My words are heretical and will destroy God’s sheep
I was to be silent…sir!
I distort the truth and devour the sheep
I am not interested in arguments but rather moulding scripture around my own cultural mores
I am a product of the reigning culture
I add to the words of scripture

Throughout the conversation I was polite, even though the very first sentence of the very first comment directed at me attempted to mock me. Being polite did not help. Readers were warned that my polite and nice manner was deceptive, just like the old wolf in sheep’s clothing trick!

I will not direct you to the blog. I do not believe that they deserve the attention. What I will say is this. Whether someone is Egalitarian, Complementarian, or Vegetarian, Christ calls us to love them. The church has been so sidetracked with issues time and again. When will we simply get on with loving others? When will we get on with loving ourselves?

I need to get out of the habit of looking at the CBMW website…this is their latest at Gender Blog with my thoughts underneath…

Is There Mutual Submission in Ephesians?

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Jeff Breeding
November 27, 2009

Here’s the question – in Ephesians 5:21, Paul writes that Christians are to “submit to one another.” So, do complementarians hold to “mutual submission?” Piper and Grudem provide a helpful answer:

Yes, we do. But “the way Paul teaches” mutual submission is not the way everyone today teaches it. Everything depends on what you mean by “mutual submission.” Some of us put more stress on reciprocity here than others. But even if Paul means complete reciprocity (wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives), this does not mean that husbands and wives should submit to each other in the same way. The key is to remember that the relationship between Christ and the church is the pattern for the relationship between husband and wife. Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ’s headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.

What is interesting here is that there is some willingness to admit that “mutual submission” might mean “complete reciprocity”. What Grudem and Piper now claim is that husbands and wives do not submit to each other in the same way. This is very different to Grudems article that I responded to during our Blog Conference. In that article he claimed that “one another” did not mean “one another”, but rather “some to others”, i.e. some do not submit to others.

Thankfully G & P are here to set us right! They point us to the example of Christ and the Church and ask, “Are Christ and the Church mutually submitted?” Answer, according to G & P is…very confused! Look at their answer carefully – I will break it down for us!

“Are Christ and the Church mutually submitted?”

“They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church”.
The silly thing about this statement is that it suggests that there is authority involved…but who came up with that? The term ‘authority’ is not used.

“But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead.”
G & P want to use authority to distinguish between Christ’s submission and the submission of the church. There are several problems with this. Again, it has introduced ‘authority’ into the discussion. According to Grudem’s own research ‘origin’ is a valid meaning of ‘head’ – just as valid as ‘authority’. But the question remains, is this how the church submits to Christ – by affirming his authority? There is no doubt that the church recognise who Christ is – as the Son of God – but the church submits to Christ through loving (c.f. John 15:12, 17, 23-24, Romans 13:8-10, Philippians 2:1-2, 1 John 4:7-21). In regard to Christ’s authority, amazingly he has set it to one side preferring to be our friend (c.f. John 15:13-15) and brother (c.f. Galatians 3:25-29).

These statements  do not back up G & P’s point! But further to this is how G & P have included authority into the issue. Authority is not mentioned in the passage, but rather how Jesus loved the church to the extent of laying down his life (Ephesians 5:25). This is submission (as admitted by G & P in what they have written), and this is what is expected of husbands. Should wives who have been asked to simply submit to their husbands be willing to lay down their lives for their husbands? I would imagine so. After all, Christ’s example to the church (not just husbands) is that we should all lay down our lives for others…Christ’s example is surely for all of us.