Peter Barnes writes an interesting article in the Presbyterian Pulse published last May. You can find if here. His article is on the very last page of the publication so scroll to the very end. Peter believes that perhaps Tamar, who was raped by her half brother, some how contributed to the situation that resulted in the rape. If you were to go back to our discussion with Peter nearly a year ago with regards to the “slippery slope” you would see that Peter believes that being egalitarian leads to homosexuality. I do not believe the slippery slope argument is valid, but if I did…I think this article would speak volumes!

My thoughts about Peter’s article are below:

2 Samuel 13 is a sad story. It is the story of destructive relationships and actions. The saddest part of the story to my mind is the rape of Tamar. It is at the centre of the chapter in both structure and plot. She was lusted after, used, and then discarded. The passage calls it rape (v. 15 – it says literally that Amnon was stronger than her and humbled her and lay with her). It makes it clear that Tamar resisted (v. 15). Not only that, but Tamar also clearly stated her unwillingness to consent to Amnon’s request (v.12). She tries to reason with him (v. 13), even to the extent of saying that if he goes through the proper channels perhaps David will let him have her as his wife (v. 13). Tamar calls Amnon’s actions out for what they are – a crime (v.16).

 In light of all of this it is hard to understand why Peter Barnes feels it necessary to suggest that Tamar is at some fault in the situation. Whether or not she was naïve has little to do with what happened. For some reason Barnes avoids the use of the word “rape” and instead suggests that Amnon was rushing “into a forbidden relationship” with Tamar. Peter cites Lev. 18:11. It should be noted though that this was never a relationship that was being rushed into. It was rape. Secondly, according to Peter Barnes the relationship was forbidden because Tamar was Amnon’s half sister (Lev. 18:11). The truth is it was forbidden because it was rape. It was never an issue of consensual sex, which is what Lev. 18 is referring to.

 I am not sure why Barnes has painted the story in the light that he has. Barnes is concerned about what a movie director would do with this chapter, and yet I am concerned with what he has done to it. Please understand that a man forcing himself on a woman is not ok in any situation. Also note that NOTHING excuses the aggressor in this situation and that it is unhelpful (to put it mildly) to suggest that the woman has contributed to the situation when there is NO evidence to suggest as much. Barnes has certainly failed to point us to any evidence within the text to back up his understanding of the story. Barnes suggests that Tamar should have smelled a rat, and yet NOTHING in the text suggests anything other than her being deceived.

 In Leviticus 18 it provides the reason why you should not have sex with your half sister – because “she too is your sister”! Why should Tamar have been suspicious of her brother? This was not a stranger to her, this was family. She was deceived.

The following is a draft of what it is that we expect from our Elders at rpc. Any feedback would be most welcome! 

The elders work together to form a leadership team that:

*Exercises Spiritual oversight of the congregation.

*Makes various practical decisions – such as church times, communion times etc.

*Oversee a number of ministry areas within the church, such as evangelism, works of mercy, missionary support etc.

*Support and keep each other accoutable with regard to the points below.

Individually Elders are mature Christians who:

*Proclaim the Good News in their daily lives at every opportunity.

*Encourage others through mentoring, visiting/hospitality, conversation and prayer – actively pursuing deeper relationships founded on the love of Jesus.

*Understand and defend the Good News of Jesus Christ, and continue to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling.

*Actively committed to and involved in the day to day life of rpc.

*Committed to speaking the truth in love at all times.

“Fourthly, as Michael Vasey demonstrates, evangelicals are not immune to misreading Scripture in order to conform to their own desires or to the spirit of the age. There are increasing numbers of people claiming to be evangelical who are arguing publicly that the Bible has been misunderstood and it really supports homosexual conduct. Whatever the details we have seen an apparent instance of this over the summer. A vicar of a church in Chelmsford Diocese who after only a few months left his apparently evangelical parish after the uproar when he preached that homosexual practice is wrong. Likewise when Jeffrey John was appointed as Dean of St. Albans we found that some who claimed to be evangelical were not only unconcerned but apparently welcoming of the fact that he teaches that homosexual practice is acceptable. For myself I think the matter is so clear that anyone who can read the Bible as permitting such sin is not an evangelical because they have a distorted way of approaching Scripture”.

Neither of Phillip’s examples above have shown evidence of people misreading scripture. It simply shows that some people support homosexuality. I do not know if they have misread scripture or if they have decided to ignore parts of scripture. I guess I agree with Phillips that this is a distorted way of approaching scripture (ignoring sections of it), but I am at a loss as to what this fourth point has to do with the argument concerning one following the other. He does not even mention women’s ordination in this point. Perhaps he is suggesting that those who are happy to ordain women become people who are happy to accept homosexuality, but he has not said this, nor has he provided evidence for it.

“Fifthly, the nature of the arguments used in favor of both are disturbingly similar. I have already mentioned the trumpeting of justice and equality. It ought to be sufficient to say that it cannot be just to encourage people to disobey the Word of the Lord, but apparently our ideas of justice trump His. Others argued that the ordination of women is a ‘gospel imperative’ and in the last few weeks this has been articulated again amongst the largest of the break-away Anglican churches in the US which now wants to ordain women and so follow the same disastrous route as the body they left. The argument is that without this change the gospel we preach will not be taken seriously. Not only is this nonsense, it suggests that the gospel is not the power of God unto salvation and it is exactly the same argument some use in favor of accepting homosexual practice.”

As an egal I believe that the issue of the ordination of women has everything to do with the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. It is not about my understanding of justice trumping God’s, but rather living as a part of the Kingdom of God that has come with Christ’s death and resurrection, where the effects of the fall are dealt with in Christ. After all, scripture is clear that one of the consequences of the fall was that man would rule over his wife. Sin entering the world has meant that the stronger have abused the week. The fall was about human desire for power and control. Yes, the gospel – God’s justice – deals with these things.

But what evidence is there here for one leading to another? None.

“Then there are spurious arguments about words. The interpretation of the word ‘head’ is the most celebrated. People became convinced that ‘head’ did not mean what Christians had previously thought it meant. Indeed I have heard it said that those of us who read it as such are ‘uneducated’. The ‘educated’ view is apparently that there are a couple of readings in ancient Greek where it means something different and therefore these must be the meaning in the Bible. I find it hard to credit that people can take such an argument seriously yet it seemed to sweep all before it. Now we are seeing the same thing with arguments about words in Romans or Leviticus concerning sexual immorality. Many seem convinced that the real sin of Sodom was anything but Sodomy. The arguments can sound clever, even bamboozle people, but they are feeble and so devoid of any real evidence that unless people were obsessed with proving their argument it is hard to see why they would give them any credence, but alas they do.”

I suggest Phillip’s do some proper research into the use of the word ‘head’ and perhaps try and understand what egals are saying, or perhaps he is only pretending to be ignorant. This, I believe, has little to do with some arguing that sodomy was not the sin of Sodom (it would seem strange that they named the sin after the city…or the city after the sin if there was no connection!). Phillips has unfairly represented the egal argument so as to draw similarities with the homosexual argument. Once again, no evidence of a proper argument is provided that shows how one leads to the other.

“I believe the same can be said of other arguments. For example it is argued that Mary Magdalene was sent by Jesus to tell the disciples of the resurrection. She was thus sent and so can be called an Apostle (which means one sent). Therefore women can be presbyters. This is a string of non sequiturs - they do not follow logically from one another. Moreover, it ought to be obvious that the argument is wrong because it reaches a conclusion that is contrary to what Scripture actually teaches. If this sort of argument can be allowed it is hardly surprising to find others saying that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers and therefore homosexual practice is acceptable. The premise is wrong, the logic is wrong and the conclusion is wrong, but who cares so long as we can make the Bible say what we want it to say? The damage has been done because people have been encouraged to mishandle the Word of Truth.”

So, Phillips can recognise a string of non sequiturs. Perhaps he should have proof read his own article! Phillips once again fails to accurately represent the egal argument and once again makes a connection where there is no connection. I do not believe that David and Jonathan had a love affair. The only connection between these two arguments is in Phillip’s mind because he sees them both as contrary to scripture. As an egal I see them very differently. One is contrary to scripture, but the other is in harmony with scripture. This is why we have to deal with what the Bible says, not go on and on about slippery slopes.

“Therefore, recognizing that many will be far from pleased with the conclusion, I am forced to say that the acceptance of the presbyteral ministry of women within a Church more or less inevitably leads to the acceptance of homosexual practice. I hope this is not so, but I fear it will be.”

No one is forcing you here Mr Phillips. The evidence certainly is not! And yet,  look at the force of Phillip’s conclusion, “more or less inevitably leads to…”! Hardly convincing.

“Nevertheless there is still hope, hope that some will see the mistakes and that enough remain to argue the case. But, if other churches are anything to go by, without the Lord’s intervention the outlook is bleak”.

I agree that we needs the Lord’s intervention!

I always find Cheryl’s discussions thought provoking and Cheryl works hard on maintaining a good natured debate!

“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?

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. ”

“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.”