Monthly Archives: September 2007

$*%@

Justin Taylor linked to an interesting article on swearing by none other than Dan Wallace, the author of “fat Wallace” aka. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, aka, my New Testament exegesis textbook. The article by Wallace is called “Pauline Scatology” a play on Vos’ The Pauline Eschatology. Wallace’s thesis is that Paul swore (yes, that kind of swearing) when it came to disclaiming false-teachers.
This reminds me of a similar article by Peter Leithart called “On Vulgar Language” which makes the same point.
I personally don’t have a problem with swearing. I can’t stand the senseless swearing of today where every other word is the f-word. But when I’m around other guys and they swear (even if they’re Christians) I don’t really bat an eye. Of course, if it becomes gratuitous, I might have to tell them to chill out. I like Wallace’s piece because it connects swearing to Paul’s expression of emotion regarding false-gospels. He hates them that much.
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Until We Rest In Thee": The Eschatological Nature of New Covenant Rest

In Sunday school this morning we discussed the chapter in the Second London Confession of Faith (1689) concerning the Sabbath/Lord’s Day. It reminded me of a paper I wrote two years ago for my systematic theology course I did with Prof. Kirk Wellum. It is on the Sabbath as it pertains to Hebrews 3 and 4. So I thought I would post it for your reading pleasure.
The following paper seeks to address the question of rest found in Hebrews 3:7-4:11. The purpose for this evaluation is to understand rest as a present reality that anticipates eschatological fulfillment. The result of this evaluation will have ecclesiastical application for an understanding of Sabbath rest as an indicative and imperative for the church. This essay will first briefly outline the theme of this section in Hebrews as it relates to the topic. An explanation of rest as it fits the structure of the passage will follow accompanied by an application for the New Covenant community.

Hebrews 3:7-4:11
Pervading this passage, and the entirety of the epistle, is a theme of exhortation (3:8, 12; 4:1, 11; cf. 13:22). Positively believers are exhorted to enter rest by obedience (4:2, 11); negatively they are warned that lack of obedience will prohibit such entrance (3:18-19; 4:2). Wilderness-Israel’s disobedience is frequently pointed to as the prime example of failure to enter rest (3:7b-11; 15-19; 4:8).
Typologically the comparison between believers and wilderness-Israel is significant. The already/not yet condition of the church is characterized by Israel’s wandering subsequent to their release from Egypt and before entrance into Canaan; theirs was a “between the times” condition. Likewise, the church is comprised of “wanderers” who have been released from sin yet are on the verge of entering into final rest.[1] Richard Gaffin illustrates this well by referring to the church as “the new and final wilderness community.”[2]
Three examples are given to show that true rest had not been attained in the epoch before the advent of Christ. In the case of Moses, Israel did not enter into rest because of disobedience (3:16-19); their “bodies fell in the wilderness” and they did not physically enter the land (v. 17; cf. Num. 14:29). In the case of Joshua, Israel physically entered Canaan although they did not enter true rest. That Joshua had not given them true rest reveals it was yet to come (4:8). David, the final example chronologically speaking, confirms that Israel did not have rest, though his kingdom was established in the promised land (3:7b-11, 15; 4:3, 5 and 7). This does not negate the promise of God to give Israel rest. The land functioned as a type, not the ultimate reality; it foreshadowed the rest to come at both advents of Christ.
[3]
Present Rest
That these three Old Testament figures did not provide true rest is significant. Upon reading this, a Jew might have asked, “If Moses, Joshua and David failed to give us rest, who can?” Of course, the answer is found in Christ whom Moses, David and Joshua typified.
[4] They could not provide true rest, but the one whom they foreshadowed did.
Verses such as Matthew 11:28, where Jesus claims to provide rest to the weary and heavy-laden, can be cited as evidence of present rest. This is what Robert Murray M’Cheyne, in his sermon Entering Into Rest, called “the gospel rest of a believing soul.”
[5] It is a state of being that is the result of the Christian ceasing from his labours to rest in Christ for salvation.
Subtly, Hebrews 3:7-4:11 is Christocentric, as indicated both by its location between Hebrews 3:1-6 and 4:14-5:11, as well as the indicative in 3:14. In 3:1-6, the writer focuses on Jesus as greater than Moses; in 4:14-5:11 Jesus is honoured as the Great High Priest. It is no accident that a discussion of rest is couched between these two great passages. The indicative in 3:14 states that believers currently share in Christ provided that they hold fast their original confidence that same confidence spoken of in 3:6. This is further indication that Christ is the final rest anticipated by Moses, Joshua and David.
As well, the opening of this section explains that believers can obtain true rest at present. In 3:7b-8a the writer quotes Psalm 95, written by David, who says, “today, if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts.” The adverb “today” (semeron) points to the current opportunity for rest for the readers of Hebrews, it is the “already” in the “already/not yet” paradigm. Again Gaffin is helpful,

It refers to the time, any time, in which “good news,” “the
word of hearing” is being proclaimed (4:2), in which “the promise of entering
his rest remains” (4:1). It is the time of summons to faith and obedience, when,
correlatively, unbelief and apostasy are present and very real threats (3:12,
13, 15; 4:6-7).
[6]


The point here is to show that rest is a current possibility and requires faith in Christ to be obtained.
The Christ-centred nature of this passage, coupled with the already indicative of the “between the times” tension, reveals that true rest is presently to be found in Christ. Does this mean that the rest believers now have in Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of rest?
[7] The answer, found distinctly in this passage, is negative. To quote Hebrews 4:9, “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.”

Future Rest
As essential as it is that believers have current “gospel rest” in Christ, the here-and-now is not the only facet of rest. Thus far we have argued that rest has an “already” component that is found soteriologically in Christ. Correspondingly, there is a “not yet” component that is found eschatologically in the return of Christ — the inauguration of the new heavens and new earth (2 Pet. 3:13). Therefore, there is still an ultimate and final rest to be looked forward to.
This “eschatological Sabbath” is rooted in two future perspectives in Hebrews 3:7-4:11. The first is the phrase “my rest” (katapausin mou) that indicates that rest is potential and future (3:11, 18; 4:1, 3, 5).[8] The second is the unique word used for rest (sabbatismos) in 4:9 that indicates an ongoing form of celebration.
First, in Psalm 95:11, quoted in Hebrews 3:11; 4:3 and 5, God calls the land of Canaan “my rest.” John Murray struggles with this characterization, arguing that it can’t merely refer to the provision of rest by God. Rather, as Murray argues, it is called God’s rest because Canaan is patterned after God’s own resting at creation, “it partook of the character of God’s rest.”
[9]
One of the arguments proffered by challengers of a New Covenant Sabbath-keeping is that the Sabbath is not a “creation ordinance.”[10] Meaning, that unlike marriage or labour, Sabbath resting was not instituted at creation.[11] They argue that the Sabbath institution first appeared when Moses delivered the Law at Sinai. Yet the author of Hebrews has drawn a connection between God’s rest at creation and the rest yet to be entered into by believers (Heb. 4:4, 6 and 9; cf. Gen. 2:2). The Genesis account of creation that finds its only quotation in the New Testament in this passage is both prescriptive and descriptive. It is the support for 4:6 that says, “it remains for some to enter it.” Gaffin argues, “as the writer sees it, the fulfillment of the church’s hope…represents nothing less than the fulfillment of the original purpose of God in creation.”[12] Commenting on the eschatological character of the Sabbath found in the Decalogue, Geerhardus Vos says,

Man is reminded in this way that life is not an aimless
existence, that a goal lies beyond. This was true before, and apart from,
redemption. The eschatological is an older strand in revelation than the
soteric.
[13]


The fact that “my rest” is intrinsically linked to creation speaks of its eschatological nature.[14] The intended aim of Adam’s test in Eden was to usher in the new heavens and new earth. Because he disobeyed, the adverse course of human history played out as it did. The new heavens and the new earth are now looked forward to by Christians, and will be ushered in by the Second Adam. Therefore, when thinking of “my rest” as creation rest, Christians are also to think in terms of the new creation that is entirely forthcoming.
As Richard Gaffin explains, “‘My rest,’ as rest, stands in pointed contrast to the believer’s present circumstances.”
[15] Christians do not have complete rest from sin and will not until they enter the new heavens and new earth.
Secondly, The word for rest that has been used in this section is katapausin (3:11, 18; 4:1, 3, 5, 10 and 11). Yet in 4:9 the word used for rest is sabbatismos that can be defined as “Sabbath keeping”;
[16] it is the only New Testament occurrence of this word. The sudden use of sabbatismos has deliberate authorial intent.[17] It may be that a nuance was missing from katapausin that sabbatismos better expressed.[18] That nuance is likely the difference between a state of being and a form of action.[19] Lane argues that “it appears to have been coined from the cognate verb sabbatizein, ‘to observe/to celebrate the Sabbath.’” As well, its usage in subsequent ancient literature contains the notion of active observance.[20]
The use of sabbatismos points not only to the coming new creation, but also to the current practice of weekly Sabbath observance. But in what sense?

Eschatological Sign
The relationship between the current character of “my rest,” the appeal to creation and the ongoing nature of Sabbath-keeping points to a connection between Sabbath observance and the anticipated Sabbath of the new heavens and new earth.[21] Gaffin has called it “a sign of hope.”[22] Robert Martin explains it as a pledge or promise of the final rest that Christians are currently awaiting.[23] Functioning eschatologically, it is anticipatory of the second coming of Christ. “The weekly Sabbath is the promise, token, and foretaste of the consummated rest; it is also the earnest.”[24]
Throughout the course of redemptive history, beginning at creation, the Sabbath functioned as a weekly sign. As a remembrance, it looked back to creation and redemption from Egypt. But it was also forward looking, anticipating the coming Messiah. The church, in similar existence to wilderness-Israel, still has a Sabbath to keep in anticipation of the rest that they await.
It is curious that the writer to the Hebrews does not mention the abrogation of the Sabbath if it had in fact been abrogated. Sabbath abrogation would deeply impact his argument that rest is eschatological. If Sabbath observance were no longer necessary under the New Covenant, it would be necessary for the author to provide a redemptive-historical reason for this. Rather, the Sabbath functioning as an eschatological sign fits nicely into the flow of the writer’s argument that links the Sabbath to creation and the new creation.

Conclusion
The great North African church father Augustine of Hippo once wrote, “O, Lord, thou has made us, and our spirits are restless until we rest in thee.” This is true regarding both the already and the not yet of Sabbath rest. As Christ is true rest, the tumult of a sinful soul will remain until the burden of sin is set before him. Yet, as Christians who are resting in Christ, there is still the destination of their sojourn to arrive at, like wilderness-Israel before Canaan. Until that great Day when Christ returns, final rest will not be found.
As a sign of both the rest currently possessed in Christ and the rest still looked forward to at his coming, the Christian has the weekly, one in seven Sabbath. However it may be celebrated, may it be done with Christ as the focus so that he might receive all the glory. Amen.

[1] Richard B. Gaffin Jr, “A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God,” in eds. Charles G. Dennison and Richard C. Gamble, Pressing Toward The Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), 37-39. William Lane explains that the church, like Israel, experiences “the tensions of an interim existence between redemption and rest, between promise and fulfillment,” in William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC 47a (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 89.
[2] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Westminster and the Sabbath” in ed. Ligon Duncan, The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2004), 133.
[3] Philip Hughes argued, “[t]his land…was a visible and tangible token which, like a sacrament, pointed beyond itself to a far more wonderful reality…the eternal rest of God himself,” in Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1990), 143.
[4] Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 104.
[5] Robert Murray M’Cheyne, Sermons on Hebrews ed. Michael D. McMullen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2004), 20.
[6] Gaffin, “Sabbath Rest,” 38; cf., his “Westminster and the Sabbath,” 133.
[7] Various critics of the so-called “Christian Sabbath” argue persuasively for the “already” indicative, yet fail to do justice to the “not yet.” For instance, see Andrew T. Lincoln, “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament,” in ed. D.A. Carson, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 177-201. Also, Tom Wells and Fred C. Zaspel, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick, Maryland: New Covenant Media, 2002), 232-233.
[8] Gaffin, “Sabbath Rest,” 38. See also his “Westminster and the Sabbath”, 133.
[9] John Murray, “The Pattern of the Lord’s Day,” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 223. Fred Zaspel agrees, “This is in every sense God’s rest (Ps. 95:11), his delighted rest in his finished work. The creation narrative climaxes in God’s contentment,” in Zaspel and Wells, New Covenant Theology, 212.
[10] For an argument in favour of the Sabbath as a “creation ordinance,” see John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1957), 30-35.
[11] Zaspel and Wells, New Covenant Theology, 214 n. 292.
[12] Gaffin, “Westminster and the Sabbath,” 136.
[13] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 156-157.
[14] Lane observes, “[o]ver the course of time a distinctly eschatological concept of rest developed…An eschatological understanding of ‘my rest’ in Ps 95:11 is presupposed in v 1 and is fundamental to the exhortation to diligence to enter God’s rest in 4:1-11,” in Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 98.
[15] Gaffin, “Sabbath Rest,” 38.
[16] Robert P. Martin, “A Sabbath Remains: The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament’s Witness to the Lord’s Day,” in Reformed Baptist Theological Review (July 2004): 1.2, 5-6.
[17] Lincoln, “Sabbath, Rest and Eschatology,” 213.
[18] Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 101.
[19] Martin, “A Sabbath Remains,” 5-6.
[20] Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 101; see also Hughes, Commentary, 162 n. 67. See also Joseph A. Pipa, The Lord’s Day (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2001), 115.
[21] Gaffin, “Sabbath Rest,” 41.
[22] Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “A Sign of Hope,” available from New Horizons 3, http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH03/03a.html. Internet; accessed 02/12/04.
[23] Martin, “A Sabbath Remains,” 8.
[24] Murray, “Pattern of the Lord’s Day,” 223. See also Gaffin, “Sign of Hope,” 3 (of printout) and his “Westminster and the Sabbath,” 137.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Pneumatology of Ignatius of Antioch

Of the three persons of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit appears less frequently than the Father or the Son in the letters[1] of Ignatius of Antioch. The words pneuma, pneumatikos, pneumatikos and their cognates appear over thirty-five times, yet only seven refer explicitly to the Holy Spirit (Eph. 9.1; 18.2; Magn. 13.1, 2; Phld. Intro; 7.1, 2) while one other may possibly be related (Smyrn. 3.3). All of the other uses of this word group are in relation to the incorporeal aspect of a physical person, often referred to by Ignatius as “flesh and spirit” (For example Smryn. 1.1; 13.2).
The following essay will address those verses in Ignatius’ writings that relate specifically to the Holy Spirit. By doing so it will be observed that as a Trinitarian, the bishop of Antioch considers the Spirit to be equally God alongside the Father and the Son. Also, Ignatius’ understanding of the function of the Spirit within the lives of his people in relation to soteriology and ecclesiology will be examined.

Spirit as God
There are four Trinitarian statements found in the letters of Ignatius (Eph. 9.1; 18.2; Magn. 13.1-2; Phld. 7.2). In each, the Holy Spirit is afforded a place alongside the Father and the Son as a member of the Godhead. There is no doubt that he believes that the Father and the Son are both God. The introduction of his letter to the Ephesians bears this out where Ignatius refers to both “God the Father” and “Jesus Christ, our God.” Therefore the inclusion of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son in the Trinitarian statements demonstrates that he also is God.
Magnesians 13.1 is a clear Trinitarian statement where Ignatius, after exhorting the church to “stand securely” in the faith, tells them that they will prosper in everything done “in faith and love, in the Son and the Father and in the Spirit.” The use of the word faith is significant because God is the only person that Christians are to place their faith in (Cf. Eph. 9.1). It would therefore be idolatry if one were to place their faith in the Spirit were he not God. Following this, in Magnesians 13.2, Ignatius continues this Trinitarian thinking by exhorting the church to submit to their leaders as the apostles submitted “to Christ and to the Father and to the Spirit.” Again, it would be idolatrous to expect his readers to submit to the Spirit in such a way alongside the Father and Son were he not God.
Ignatius views the Spirit as God, but he also understands him as a person, as in Philadelphians 7.1. Here Ignatius refers to those who may seek to deceive him according to the flesh. In contrast to this, he notes that the Spirit cannot be so deceived because “it comes from God.” He then says that the Spirit “knows whence it comes and where it is going.” The Spirit also “exposes the things that are hidden.” By attributing to the Spirit the ability to know, to not be deceived and to expose hidden things, Ignatius personifies him. A non-personal entity would not have the ability to know. Nor would it be possible to either deceive or not deceive something that is not a person; the idea of attempting to deceive an inanimate object is absurd. Finally, only a person can do the work of exposing things that are hidden. Later in 7.2 Ignatius speaks of the Spirit preaching about Christian unity. Only a person can preach. He then fills out the Trinitarian nature of devotion by saying, “Keep your flesh as the Temple of God; love unity; flee divisions; be imitators of Jesus Christ as he is of his Father.” Essentially, the Spirit says to imitate the Son who imitates the Father.
In each of these attributes, Ignatius is showing that the Spirit is a person who thinks, communicates and acts. Ontologically speaking the Holy Spirit is fully God. He is a person who shares equally in the divinity of the Godhead just as the Father and Son. Therefore, the Spirit is one to whom faith and submission are due.

Spirit and Salvation
Economically speaking, the Holy Spirit plays an important role in relation to the created order. With the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit has a specific part to play in the outworking of salvation, both historically and personally. Ignatius’ letters reveal certain aspects of this role in terms of salvation.
Theologians have recognised two aspects of the plan of salvation and referred to them as redemption accomplished (historia salutis) and redemption applied (ordo salutis).[2] The former has to do with the historical outworking of this plan of the Father to redeem a people to himself primarily through his Son, Jesus Christ. The latter is the application of the finished plan to this people both as individuals and as a collective whole. In Ignatius’ letters, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in reference to aspects of both the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. In terms of the historia, the Spirit is spoken of in relation to Christ’s earthly life, especially his birth. In the ordo he places particular focus on the doctrine of sanctification.
The way that Ignatius speaks of the Spirit’s work in the history of redemption is the birth of Christ. In Ephesians 18.2, Ignatius speaks to the human and divine nature of Jesus. He was “conceived by Mary according to the plan of God” and “he was from the seed of David, but also from the Holy Spirit.” Not only does Ignatius argue for the reality of the incarnation, he does so by explicitly stating its Trinitarian nature. The plan of Mary’s conception originated with God. God here is to be understood as the Father, distinct from the other use of the word God in reference to Jesus Christ. It could literally be read, “God the Son was conceived by Mary according to the plan of God the Father.” By being born of Mary, Jesus was of the Davidic line (Cf. Eph. 20.1; Trall. 9.1; Rom. 7.3; Smyrn. 1.1). But Ignatius also points out that Jesus was “from the Holy Spirit” reflecting the teaching in Matthew 1:18 as well as Luke 1:35. In the latter the Holy Spirit is said to have come upon Mary and the power of the Most High would overshadow her allowing her to conceive the Son of God as a virgin. Therefore, one aspect of the Spirit’s role in redemptive history is the incarnation of the Messiah.
In regard to the ordo salutis, Ignatius pays specific attention to the work of the Spirit in sanctification. Just as Ignatius framed the incarnation in Trinitarian categories, in Ephesians 9.1 the progress of sanctification also involves all three members of the Godhead. He says,
You are stones of the Father’s temple, prepared for the building of God the Father. For you are being carried up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a cable the Holy Spirit; and your faith is your hoist, and love is the path that carries you up to God.

Ignatius writes this after having expressed his concern over those “with an evil teaching” who had “passed through” and his pleasure that the Ephesians “did not allow them to sow any seeds” among them. Vivid imagery is used to explain the Christian life, utilizing a crane as an illustration. The cross is the “crane of Jesus Christ” that carries Christians up to the heights of God by the hoist of faith along the path of love. Interestingly, the Holy Spirit is referred to as a “cable” or “rope.” The idea is that the Holy Spirit carries a person to God by faith based upon the saving power of Christ’s cross.
Another redemptive-historical theme in Ignatius that likely relates to the Holy Spirit is that of Christ’s spiritual union with the Father. In Smyrneans 3.3, when explaining Christ’s post-resurrection appearances, Ignatius points out that the Lord ate and drank with his disciples as a “fleshly being.” This was in contrast to the docetic teaching that Jesus never assumed a physical body. Yet all the while that “he was in the flesh even after the resurrection” (3.1) “he was spiritually united with the Father” (3.3). It is this spiritual union between Christ and the Father that has a potential link to the Spirit. The adverb “spiritually” (pneumatikos) used to explain this union may have reference to the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 the apostle Paul speaks of the “natural person” who “does not accept the things of the Spirit of God.” This is the case because such things are “spiritually discerned.” The word translated “spiritually” is pneumatikw/j the same used by Ignatius in 3.3. Only the “spiritual person” can discern such things (2:15) because he or she has “received the Spirit” (2:12) and is “taught by him” (2:13). Pneumatikos is to be understood in relation to the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:14; therefore it is a good possibility that Ignatius is using it in the same manner. If this is the case, the implication is that the Holy Spirit united Jesus Christ to the Father while he ministered on earth.

Spirit and Church
Besides soteriology, the Spirit’s role in ecclesiology is also noteworthy in the letters (Magn. 13.2; Phld. Intro;7.2). As the bishop of Antioch, Ignatius has a very high view of his office and frequently admonishes the recipients of his letters to submit to the authority of their church leaders. In a number of places he referenced the Spirit as added weight to his argument. For instance, in the introduction to Philadelphians, Ignatius claims that the bishop, presbyters and deacons were “securely set in place” by the Holy Spirit. These church officers had also been “appointed in accordance with the mind of Jesus Christ.” At the very beginning of the introduction Ignatius calls the Philadelphians “the church of God the Father.” Although not a formal Trinitarian statement, the church is founded upon the unity of purpose between the three members of the Godhead. It is within this schema that the Holy Spirit’s own role is explained, that of securely setting in place the three offices of the church.
Another text outlining the relationship of the Spirit to ecclesiology is Philadelphians 7.2. Here Ignatius makes the claim that the Spirit preached to him saying, “Do nothing apart from the bishop…” and continues on to explain the Trinitarian nature of devotion noted above. It is this appeal to Spirit’s authority for the establishing of a specific form of church government that is important to note. For Ignatius, submission to the bishop is not a mere human requirement and comes not from a “human source” but from the Spirit of God himself. To deny the bishop is essentially to deny the Spirit.

Conclusion
The Spirit of God does not appear as frequently as the other members of the Trinity, but his role is significant none-the-less. According to Ignatius, the Holy Spirit is an equal member of the Godhead and plays an important role in relation to God’s people. In terms of salvation, the Spirit was an active agent in redemptive history, especially regarding the incarnation. He also plays an important role in the process of sanctification. As for ecclesiology, Ignatius argues that the Spirit, as with the rest of the Godhead, played a vital part in the establishment of the three church offices.
Although Pneumatology is not a prominent theme in Ignatius’ letters, they do contain a high view of the Holy Spirit and are a helpful resource when considering this foundational Christian doctrine.


[1] Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers Volume 1 Loeb Classical Library 24 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005), 202-321.
[2] See John Murray, Redemption Accomplished Applied (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., ) and Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, ).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Michael Iafrate and the Priesthood

Michael Iafrate & the Priesthood is one of many musical projects involving a friend and co-worker of mine. Though Michael and I disagree on a number of important issues – he’s a Roman Catholic, I’m Reformed; he’s anarcho-socialist, I’m libertarian, etc – I really like him and I think we get along quite well. We do have a lot of similar interests, music being one of them, which I’m thankful for. We also love books.

Anyways, I just downloaded a bunch of Michael’s music and thought I’d highlight it here. Michael has been in bands that have played with such acts as Zao (a favourite metal-core band of mine). But don’t limit his musical sensibilities to such brutal extremes. Michael is also a huge fan of bluegrass, as am I, and his more folky music reflects that. His lyrics are thoughtful and intelligent and he incorporates a lot of different styles. Michael and some other friends of mine will be playing at Leonard Hall, Wycliffe College at U of T this coming Tuesday. It’ll be in celebration of our new Crux wares to be released. If you get the chance, you have to check it out. Also check out Michael’s blog Catholic Anarchy.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Review: Art and the Christian Mind by Laurel Gasque

Discerning Reader has posted the review I submitted of Laurel Gasque’s excellent little biography of Hans R. Rookmaaker called Art and the Christian Mind. I thoroughly enjoyed her book and now hope to delve more into the writings of her subject. Rookmaaker was quite a profound Christian man. I’m very thankful to Gasque for introducing contemporary readers to Rookmaaker. Thanks also to Tim Challies for allowing me to send him reviews.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

RTS iTunes

Reformed Theological Seminary has uploaded all of their lectures onto iTunes for free. This is a tremendous resource! On my way to work in the morning I have been enjoying John Frame’s lectures on the History of Philosophy and Christian Thought – it’s great (although I do prefer Bahnsen’s lectures on a similar topic). They have New Testament, Old Testament, Church History, Systematic Theology, Apologetics, chapel lectures, special lectures and more.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Capitalism and Pseudo-capitalism

My friend Mark posted a helpful comment on my previous post about fair trade and I thought I would put it up here for all to read. I think he is right when he says that most socialists who hate capitalism are actually opposed to “pseudo-capitalism.” Thanks Mark!
Woah, do you realize that you’ve played hackey-sack with a “fair trade” hackey sack? :)What I’ve found is that the term they use to describe what they do (namely ‘fair trade’) is loaded and sort of making a moral judgement about some of the dynamics. And yes, that moral judgement is based firmly on socialist economics.I’m reading “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Friedman. Pretty good stuff so far! I think I’m going to read that and also “Libertarianism” by Hospers and then decide once and for all whether I’m totally comfortable with giving myself the label “libertarian”. I’m probably more comfortable with it than any other political label, though. So in that sense I’m sort of already libertarian. I’m definately not a socialist nor a communist. I’m definately a capitalist and I think some of the common complaints “against” capitalism are actually complaints about pseudo-capitalism. Often, what we see, is not really pure capitalism (because that would be a little too ‘free’ for some peoples likings). Radical capitalism could lead to radical freedom in certain senses, and that scares many people. So, in many senses, pure capitalism has only been around only as much as the powers that be have allowed it, which depending on the place and time may not even be very often. I believe the classical use of the terms “liberal” and conservative” are pretty good, but I’ve never associated myself with modern liberalism, and I’m increasingly distancing myself from much of what passes for “conservative” now-a-days. As loudly as the pundits harp on the other side, I think the real difference in political philosophy between a typical conservative and a typical liberal today is quite small. Yes, there may be differences on an isolated moral stand or two, but those are exceptions to a general agreement in philosophy (once some of the differences in partisan lingos are overcome). This sort of thing is to be expected when votes, not principles, are what drive a campaign.You said: “..you cannot legislate morality”.Sheesh! What were you thinking when you said this..If our government doesn’t ingrain morality into our society, who will??? Let me guess, you’re thinking of something crazy like: The church, or the parents?

Leave a comment

Filed under capitalism, economics, friends

The Fairness of Fair Trade

I don’t at all doubt the good intentions of those who promote the use of fair trade products, such as tea, coffee, clothing, etc. But as an ethical question, is fair trade really that fair? According to an article by Leo McKinstry in the British periodical The Spectator, the answer is no. In The Iniquities of Fair Trade (April 2005) McKinstry makes the point that “there is nothing particularly fair about ‘fair trade.'”
An enlightening quote that demonstrates his assertion concerns the actual impact of fair trade market values on the very farmers they are hoping to aid:
Because fair trade subsidies ignore market realities and guarantee prices, they encourage overproduction of certain goods, just as the wretched Common Agricultural Policy has done in the European Union. In the coffee market — where the British fair traders are most active — the central problem at present is oversupply, which has forced down prices. So by propping up unwanted production the fair traders are actually driving down prices even further, which increases the economic damage to farmers and workers. It is especially misguided for fair traders to underwrite inefficiencies and poor quality, when the major, low-cost, highly mechanised plantations of Brazil and Vietnam or the specialised, high-quality farms of Central America can meet the world’s coffee demands so much more effectively. Campaigners would do better to encourage inefficient, small-scale coffee producers, especially in Africa, to diversify into other areas.
People have failed to realise that you cannot legislate morality, and when the European Union has set regulations in place informing buyers who they can and can’t buy from they are in effect harming both the farmers and the consumer.
What is interesting to note is that the fair trade advocates are generally of a more socialist or left-wing perspective. This means that they are against a market driven economy. The irony is that they have to utilise the very market they are against to promote fair trade wares.
Another helpful article, that places the fair trade trend in perspective is Katharine Winans Fair Trades Dirty Secret hosted at Lew Rockwell’s site.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Reformed Baptist Church in Lethbridge, AB

For any of you out there who may be going to Lethbridge, Alberta, check out Grace Community Reformed Baptist Church of Lethbridge, now pastored by a good friend of mine, Ryan Case. Ryan is an excellent preacher (in one sermon he brought me to tears twice!) and a strong Christian. I don’t think you would be sorry attending a service!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Which School to Choose

Which School to Choose is the manuscript of a talk that my friend Clint Humfrey gave to a group of hopeful Boyce College students. Very practical and insightful, highly recommended!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Global Warming Consensus?

Apocalyptic scientists and alarmist politicians (not to mention eco-friendly celebs) have been getting us reg’lar people “in the know” about global warming for a few years now. The line given is that there is a consensus in the scientific community about the earth’s warming and man’s influence upon said warming. Daily Tech has an article detailing a recent study (or re-study) done by Klaus-Martin Schulte that shows that there is no consensus and that the likelihood of a global catastrophe is slim.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized