Over the last few weeks, the internet has seen several discussions on infant salvation. Some of those discussions were started, oddly enough, as ways of launching assaults against Reformed Baptists. I’ve been reading from Loraine Boettner recently and came across the following and thought some might find it helpful. It addresses, among other things, charges that the Westminster Confession of Faith and/or Calvin himself taught that some children who die will not be saved, and whether or not there is room in Reformed theology to believe that infants who die will be saved. Boettner argues that not only is there room in Calvinism for this view, only Calvinism can consistently teach that children who die will be saved.

The following comes from Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner, from his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, and deals with the question of infant salvation: Read the rest of this entry »

It is not unusual for me to get agitated at something I read on blogs. It happens just about every day. But it is unusual for me to respond. Nonetheless, I decided to respond to an article by Steve Lemke, reposted by Tim Rogers and reported at SBC Today.

Take a moment to go read Lemke’s article on Age of Accountability then come back for my responses. Be warned: mine is a fairly long response to a fairly short article. Feel free to just jump around.

On the whole, I am perplexed by this article. Lemke claims to be presenting the argument for an age of accountability but what he actually does is to argue against other doctrinal claims, particularly original sin and infant baptism. Nowhere does he lay out the case for age of accountability (I will present my tentative arguments for it at the end of this entry). Instead, he presents bad arguments and distorted facts to rail against certain Reformed beliefs.

In this entry I will not deal much with arguments for or against original sin and infant baptism. I do believe in original sin, but I do not believe infant baptism is biblical. But my greater issue with Lemke’s article is not with what he believes but in how he argues for what he believes.

The problems

Foundational?

Lemke starts by saying that the belief in the age of accountability is “one of the most foundational Baptist beliefs.” This in itself is peculiar – foundational to what? Certainly many if not most Southern Baptists believe in some sort of age of accountability, but the belief is not central to our identity as Baptists, nor is the belief foundational to any other doctrine. Some of Lemke’s later arguments do touch on foundational issues, but an age of accountability is not one of them.

From there Lemke presents four arguments in favor of an age of accountability (or state of being accountable, to use his suggested term). But as mentioned before, his arguments really do nothing to make the case for an age of accountability but are rather Lemke’s arguments against beliefs regarding original sin and infant baptism. These arguments are absolutely rife with error.

Age of Accountability in Scripture

Of Lemke’s arguments, this one has the fewest issues. Lemke claims that “perhaps the best biblical support for the “age of accountability” is in Jeremiah 31:29-30 and the parallel passage in Ezekiel 18:14-21, which makes clear that we are only accountable under the new covenant for our own sins, not those of our parents…” If he thinks those passages present the strongest support for age of accountability, fine. He’s permitted to believe that. But this strikes me as a very weak argument since I think those passages have zero bearing on an argument for age of accountability. I can see how one might (incorrectly, I think) use those passages in an argument about original sin, but an argument against original sin is not an argument for age of accountability.

Description of baptism

Lemke’s second argument is a bit strange and in some ways relates to his fourth argument. Lemke says that since the New Testament nowhere calls for infants to be baptized but always shows baptism being given to adults, it is evident that “moral accountability and salvation by faith are applicable only for those who are capable of moral discernment.” There are a few things I could say here, but I’ll keep it short and focus on one. In his argument, Lemke draws too much from what is not stated in Scripture. There is a gap between saying, “No babies are baptized in the Bible,” and, “therefore, those under the age of accountability are not morally responsible.” By the lack of one thing he assumes the existence of another thing.

By this point, Lemke’s article had me feeling perplexed, but when I got to his next argument agitation began moving in.

Because Baptists believe it

My heading isn’t entirely accurate, but it’s close. For Lemke’s third argument, he turns to Baptist beliefs, stating “we know it is true because of other core doctrinal beliefs.” In other words, because we know those things are true, we know this also has to be true. As it is worded, Lemke (unintentionally, I’m sure) comes very close to elevating Baptist doctrine on a level with Scripture. He would probably argue that because our beliefs are formed from Scripture, he is ultimately relying on Scripture and not Baptist doctrine. But this does not show up in his argument. His appeal here is made to what Baptists believe, and because of what Baptists believe, he defends the age of accountability.

But even then he once again fails for assuming too much. Essentially he is saying that Baptists believe in a regenerate church membership, to which we say a hearty Amen! But he goes on to argue from this that believers must be morally competent which, we are led to assume, somehow implies an age of accountability.

He even seems to contradict himself when he says, “The Baptist belief in personal soul competency before God presupposes morally competent believers, not infants.” But what is the Baptist belief in soul competency? It is the belief that every individual is able to stand before God without a human intercessor – this is the priesthood of believers. We do not need Pope and priests to stand between us and God. We have Christ as our intercessor, and because of Christ we are given access to the Father. If anything, this belief would imply the moral accountability of all people since all people are competent to stand before God.

Original sin and infant baptism

Here we get to the heart of Lemke’s argument and the biggest string of Lemke’s errors. I don’t mean places where I disagree with him, I mean places where Lemke completely misrepresents or misquotes those in the other camp. He does this several times when he addresses various confessions. I want to look at each mistake.

First, and perhaps the worst mistake, Lemke says, “The Westminster Confession had asserted that children were guilty of sin upon birth, and therefore the children of believers should be baptized as infants to remove original sin.” He then notes the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters 6 and 28.

It is possible that the Westminster Confession of Faith has undergone revision (I doubt it, I read the 1646 WCF), but the WCF as it stands today does not say what Lemke claims. Go read the chapters for yourself, they are short. You will find clear statements about original sin, that because of Adam’s sin we all inherit both the corruption and the guilt of sin. To this point Lemke was essentially correct. From conception on, children inherit Adam’s guilt and are under the same penalty of death. Be sure to note the Scriptural support offered by the WCF.

The second part of Lemke’s argument contains the real problem: “…and therefore the children of believers should be baptized as infants to remove original sin.” This sounds very much like the Catholic view of baptism, but you will not find it in the WCF. Read Chapter 28 of the WCF. It affirms that baptism is a sign and seal of God’s covenant of grace. It further affirms that baptism itself does not save and may not even do anything when it is administered (“The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered”). Furthermore, the WCF states that baptism is not essential for salvation.

I think Baptists and Presbyterians agree on most issues regarding baptism, except for the (large and important) issue of when baptism is to be administered. I do not agree with the WCF and I do not agree with Presbyterians on this issue, but let’s make sure we present them fairly. They do not claim that infant baptism is able to remove original sin.

Second, Lemke mentions changes made to two Baptist confessions, the Second London Confession and the Philadelphia Confession, seeming to argue that these confessions, while drawing from the WCF, remove language that would teach original sin. Lemke is correct that the specific words he quotes are removed, but the Second London Confession (and Philadelphia, being identical to the SLC) still contains strong language about original sin (I’m looking at the 1689 version of the SLC): “Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them…”, “They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity…” (Second London Confession, Chapter 6, sections 2 and 3). Clearly, this confession voices strong affirmation to the belief in original sin. Lemke cannot argue that these early Baptists did not believe in original sin.

Third, Lemke states that “Baptists have never believed that one could be saved by physical birth or by the faith of their parents.” Who does believe this? The WCF does not teach this view. Who is Lemke arguing against? By making the statement he seems to imply that the WCF, and those who hold to it (Presbyterians and other Reformed types), believe individuals can be saved by merit of their birth or their parents. Later we will see a statement by R. C. Sproul, Jr that “children of at least one believing parent are viewed differently by God,” but he is making pointed reference to 1 Corinthians 7:14 which supports his claim. Saying there is some sort of different treatment is not the same as saying they are saved by their parents’ faith.

Fourth, Lemke mentions two early Baptist confessions that explicitly deny original sin. I’m not going to challenge him on that, but I’m wondering which ones? Considering he has thus far misrepresented every confession he referenced, I’m not willing to take him at his word. I want to read them for myself, consider their context and writers, etc. Plus, what does it matter? We claim to be a people of the book. Will we base our beliefs on confessions or on the Bible?

Getting closer to the truth, Lemke addresses the Baptist Faith and Message. The language of Chapter 3 is much more ambiguous than the other confessions. One could easily make the case that the 2000 BF&M argues against original sin, and the writers probably meant for it to. Nonetheless, the ambiguity at least leaves room for those who hold to original sin.

Fifth, jumping right back into error, Lemke says, “It is the belief in inherited guilt that leads those in the Reformed tradition toward the necessity for infant baptism.” I assume he says this based on his earlier claim about the WCF arguing that infant baptism removes original sin. But since the WCF says no such thing, and Presbyterians and other Reformed types believe no such thing, his statement is ridiculous.

One of the earliest Reformed writers was John Calvin. Calvin is clear that baptism does not remove original sin: “It is now clear how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created.” (Institutes, book 4, chapter 15, section 10) He goes on to explain that baptism is a sign assuring us that the guilt and stain of original sin, along with the guilt of our own sins, is taken away in Christ. In other words, baptism is a sign of God’s forgiveness through Christ.

Sixth, Lemke ends with a rant against R. C. Sproul, Jr. You can read Sproul’s words for yourself and see if Lemke gave him a fair shake. Lemke claims that Sproul argued, “since we are born guilty of original sin, unless the infants were elect and responded in faith, they had no hope of salvation.” Despite Lemke’s emotional argument (why do non-Calvinists love to make emotional appeals regarding children as an attack against Calvinism or Reformed positions?), what Sproul essentially said is that Graham went too far in offering absolute assurance to parents that their deceased children went to Heaven.

Throughout his article Sproul is gracious to Graham, never taking the harsh tone implied by Lemke. He acknowledges the difficulty of Graham’s position, having to address many parents whose anguish was still quite fresh. Sproul’s ultimate position is, “Compassion tells us not to sugarcoat, but not to supply a poison pill either. We cannot say for sure what happens to small children who die. But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that the children of at least one believing parent are viewed differently by God…” He goes on to say that Graham “would have served the mourners well had he stuck to the simple life-changing truths that he has spoken so clearly so often in so many places…”

Seventh, one of Lemke’s closing remarks is that “Baptists have always believed that since infants are not yet capable of actual sin, they go to heaven.” But Lemke never demonstrates that Baptists have always believed this. And as we noted earlier, early Baptist confessions clearly affirm original sin, that even infants receive imputed guilt from Adam. This does not mean they did not believe in an age of accountability, but it at least does not provide Lemke room to claim what Baptists have always believed.

Wrapping up

Lemke closes on a personal note: “As a person who has lost a stillborn child, I can tell you that this issue of the “age of accountability” really does matter. Baptists need to be more conscious of this crucial doctrine.” I agree with Lemke that it matters. I believe all doctrine matters. I do wish, however, Lemke had presented a better case. So humor me for one more brief moment and see my case for age of accountability.

Age of Accountability

First, I do not believe we have enough biblical evidence to be dogmatic. Ultimately, we must just trust in God. We know he will do what is best.

That said, I believe children who die go to be with the Lord in Heaven. I believe this because of what I think I know about the character of God. In terms of Scripture, finding biblical evidence can be a difficult matter, but there is at least one passage which I think makes a strong case for age of accountability: Deuteronomy 1:34-40. The key point is in verse 39:

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Moses has assembled the people of Israel and is reminding them of the judgment upon them due to their lack of faith when they refused to enter the promised land. None of those who were present at that time would be allowed to enter the promised land. None, that is, except the children, those little ones “who today have no knowledge of good or evil.” They are not held accountable for the guilt of the people (note: “not held accountable” is not the same as “do not share”). It is at least implied that the children were allowed to enter the promised land because of their lack of knowledge of good or evil. They were not able to understand sin, so they were not held accountable for sin. They may have been guilty of sin, just as children are guilty of their sins, but the little ones of Israel were not held accountable for that guilt incurred while they had no knowledge of good or evil. In the same way, I believe children who die are not held accountable for sin – theirs, or that sin inherited from Adam.

A parable.

There once was a world of glass houses and tidy roads. The houses were kept neat and clean, the glass was never smudged or spotted with dirt. The roads were kept organized and clear of obstacles, arranged in such a way that travelers could easily get from house to house.

In this world, bulldozers were used to tend the roads. They carefully plowed obstacles out of the way or dug out new roads when new houses went up. They were designed for this work, and they did their work well.

One day, something happened. The bulldozers started doing their own thing. They dug roads all over the place – circular roads, zigzag roads, roads crossing other roads without warning, some roads were even dug through the middle of the glass houses. The bulldozers made a mess of things.

Now, none of the bulldozers had broken down, per se. They were able to do the work they were created for: digging roads and moving obstacles. They continued to be very good at digging roads, but not the roads they were supposed to dig. Some observers might say the bulldozers were very good bulldozers, look at those roads! Other observers might say the bulldozers were quite capable, though flawed. But the people living in the glass houses increasingly held one opinion about the bulldozers: they are totally deranged. It did not matter that the bulldozers were able to dig roads. If they could not dig the right roads, all their work was folly. The bulldozers totally failed to fulfill the purpose for which they were created.

Human beings were created for the purpose of glorifying God. We were given many abilities and talents to use for the glory of God. But since the fall, the vast majority of mankind has pursued everything except the glory of God. It does not matter that mankind continues to be able to use those abilities and talents we were given; if we do not use them for God’s glory, they are used for folly. We are totally deranged and totally fail if we do not pursue our purpose of glorifying God. Fallen man is totally depraved, even if some observers are tempted to say, “Men are very good, just look at what we can do!” Or, “We are good, but with flaws.” Or even, “We are somewhat sinful but kind of good, just look at the range of our actions!” If our actions do not spring from faith exercised for the glory of God, then our actions are absolutely not good. Apart from the saving and regenerating grace of God, we are totally depraved.

Having just discussed the difference between monergism and synergism, it is now time to explain what brought these to mind.

While studying Ephesians 6:23-24, I was surprised to note two demonstrations of monergism. Now, biblical evidence of monergism can be found over and over again, I just did not expect to find it here:

Peace be to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible.
Ephesians 6:23-24

Take a moment and see if you can spot the two ways this passage presents monergism, the belief that salvation is entirely the work of God. Need a hint? The first way is found in verse 23; the second way starts with verse 24 but reaches back to verse 23.

Monergism in the gifts of grace

The first way is fairly straightforward. In blessing the Ephesians, Paul calls for them to receive peace, love, and faith. These would each be given to us by God’s grace – that is, we do not merit them; God gives them to us freely by his own good pleasure. Peace and love would be two-dimensional: peace between man and God, love between man and God, peace between man and man, love between man and man. Faith is one-dimensional: faith in God. Paul describes each of these as gifts coming from God. Neither faith nor love nor peace come as a result of our own free-will decision for Christ, nor as a result of our effort or achievement. Even saving faith comes as a gift from God (see also Ephesians 2:8-9). And love, which demonstrates the work of God in us (see Romans 5:5 and 1 John 4:12), is given to us from God.

So here is monergism. It is as Peter says in 2 Peter 1:3-4: God has given us everything pertaining to life and godliness. Every bit of it comes from him, none of it comes from us. We do not cooperate in any independent sense, for any effort we perform is carried out through the strength he gives us. Paul reinforces this point over in Philippians 2:13: …it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Salvation belongs to our God, and praise be God that he has given us salvation, making us his children.

Monergism in the qualification for grace

The second example of monergism is harder to spot, so bear with me. In verse 24 Paul says, Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. In verse 23 Paul already blessed them with gifts of grace, so in a sense Paul goes from being specific in verse 23 to more general in verse 24. “I bless you specifically with these aspects of God’s grace, but more than that I bless you with the full measure of God’s grace.”

In verse 24, this blessing of grace is qualified with the limiting phrase, all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. While God extends some grace to everyone, the grace Paul has in mind (God’s covenant blessings for his people) is only for those who love God with true, lasting love.

On the surface, this might look like evidence of synergism. “See!” a synergist might note, “Paul says we have to love God in order to receive grace! We cooperate with him!” The problem with this argument is what Paul has just said in verse 23. We already noted that love comes as a gift of God. Romans 5:5 helps illustrate this when Paul says, …God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. This does not just mean God’s love for us, it also means our love for God. The Holy Spirit pours God’s love into our hearts and with that love we love God. 1 John supports this point over and over again, as in 1 John 4:19: We love because he first loved us. His love is the source of our love.

So love itself is a gift from God, but we cannot receive gifts from God (grace) until we love him (Paul’s limiting statement in verse 24), but we cannot love him unless he gives love to us. Is there any way to receive God’s grace? There are two parts to resolving this dilemma.

God extends grace

Simply put, unless God extends grace to us and pours his love into our hearts, we are hopeless. We cannot love him unless he fills us with his love. The monergistic system becomes necessary: it is impossible for us to love God; we cannot cooperate to receive his grace. He must do it, or we are hopeless.

With grace comes love

And in fact, he does do it. God extends grace to those he chooses to save. Among other things, he pours love into the hearts of his elect, giving us his grace. But verse 24 seems to indicate that love must be present in order to receive grace, so I must love God to receive grace from God. What actually happens is that love and grace are born in us simultaneously. Immediately as God extends grace to us, our hearts fill with love for him. It is inevitable: his grace to us creates our love for him. We cannot receive this kind of grace and still refuse to love him.

This is like someone opening his eyes. Assuming you are not blind (a safe assumption, unless someone is reading this blog entry to you), when you open your eyes, you immediately begin to see (yes, you were already seeing the back of your eyelids, but that doesn’t count). You will not see unless you open your eyes, but sight comes immediately as the eyes open. We can say that sight comes because we opened our eyes, but we cannot say that it comes after we opened our eyes. As you open your eyes, you are able to see.

Another illustration is fire. When you strike a match, which happens first, light, or heat? We might say that the light comes from the chemical reaction caused by the heat, but light and heat are simultaneous products of fire. (Both illustrations – fire and eyesight – come from John Piper.)

So it is with this love (and faith and peace) and God’s grace. As he gives us his grace, we are filled with love for him, faith in him, and peace with him. They come immediately with his grace. Now, growing in Christ is a process that will take the rest of our lives, but the process is begun in an instant when God, completely on his own (monergistically), works salvation in us.

There are two types of Christians in the world: monergists and synergists. These terms describe what people believe about the role of God and man in salvation. Most theological labels have limited usefulness because of imprecision. Most non-Calvinists are not Arminian, yet most non-Calvinist are called Arminian. Similarly, many Calvinists do not agree with many of Calvin’s beliefs yet they are still called Calvinists. But monergism and synergism are precise enough to provide a clear distinction among Christians.

Synergism

Synergism is the position of the non-Calvinist and expresses the belief that God and man cooperate in salvation. The classic illustration of synergism is that God extends his hand halfway and waits for us to reach the other half. God may do most of the work for our salvation, but the final act to bring salvation is something we do: we pray a prayer, we exercise faith, we repent and turn from sin to God. Each of these would be considered acts performed without the superimposing work of the Holy Spirit. That is, while the Holy Spirit may woo or draw us, the determining factor in our salvation is our free-will decision to accept Christ.

Monergism

Monergism is the Calvinist position and expresses the belief that salvation is entirely God’s work. We do not cooperate. We do not grasp Jesus’ outstretched hand. We are not the final determining factor. Every step of salvation is God’s work. Thus, those saved have been saved because God elected (chose) them, God drew them, God regenerated them (caused them to be born again), God gave them faith, and God turned that faith toward himself.

John and Jane

Another way of seeing the difference is demonstrated with John and Jane. John has become a Christian, Jane has not. What makes them different? Why has John accepted while Jane rejects? The synergist would answer that John and Jane both made free-will decisions to accept or reject. John is a Christian because he reached out and received the salvation extended to him by Jesus Christ and Jane is a non-Christian because she rejected salvation. Jane could have decided otherwise and could have reached out to receive salvation.

The monergist would answer that neither John nor Jane is capable of independently reaching out to receive salvation. The corruption of sin has blinded the minds of all people so that no one would receive salvation. So John is a Christian only because God intervened in his life to awaken him and create faith within him, while Jane is a non-Christian because God has not awakened her from her sin. Both John and Jane deserve judgment for their sins. God will not be unjust when he condemns Jane to Hell for her sin. Though she was never awakened from her blindness, hers was a blindness caused by her own sin.

The following comes from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ book Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. As he prepares to discuss Matthew 5:27-30, Lloyd-Jones pauses to discuss sin and evangelism. Below is what he has to say about true and false evangelism.

This doctrine [what sin is], therefore, is absolutely vital in determining our conception of true evangelism. Three is no true evangelism without the doctrine of sin, and without an understanding of what sin is. I do not want to be unfair, but I say that a gospel which merely says, ‘Come to Jesus,’ and offers Him as a Friend, and offers a marvelous new life, without convicting of sin, is not New Testament evangelism. The essence of evangelism is to start by preaching the law; and it is because the law has not been preached that we have had so much superficial evangelism. Go through the ministry of our Lord Himself and you cannot but get the impression that at times, far from pressing people to follow Him and to decide for Him, He put great obstacles in their way. He said in effect: ‘Do you realize what you are doing? Have you counted the cost? Do you realize where it may lead you? Do you know that it means denying yourself, taking up your cross daily and following Me?’ True evangelism, I say, because of this doctrine of sin, must always start by preaching the law. This means that we must explain that mankind is confronted by the holiness of God, by His demands, and also by the consequences of sin. It is the Son of God Himself who speaks about being cast into hell. If you do not like the doctrine of hell you are just disagreeing with Jesus Christ. He, the Son of God, believed in hell; and it is in His exposure to the true nature of sin that He teaches that sin ultimately lands men in hell. So evangelism must start with the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, the demands of the law, the punishment meted out by the law, and the eternal consequences of evil and wrongdoing. It is only the man who is brought to see his guilt in this way who flies to Christ for deliverance and redemption. Any belief in the Lord Jesus Christ which is not based on that is not a true belief in Him. You can have a psychological belief even in the Lord Jesus Christ; but a true belief sees in Him one who delivers us from the curse of the law. True evangelism starts like that, and obviously is primarily a call to repentance, ‘repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.’

Christian, do you follow the law?

On Sunday nights I am preaching through the Sermon on the Mount. This past Sunday our text was Matthew 5:17-20, dealing with Christ and the law (audio of the sermon available at the link).

I want to focus on one of the points brought up in the sermon. Christians often wrestle with the relationship between Christians and the law. We know we are not under the law (Romans 6:14) and that Christ has in some sense been the end of the law (Romans 10:4) but we also know that this does not release us from God’s moral commands and that Jesus taught the law would not pass away (Matthew 5:18).

It was this last verse that puzzled me as I prepared to preach. There are two things Jesus says in Matthew 5:18:

1. Not even the smallest part of the law will pass away, even if the world passes away.
2. Nothing in the law will change until everything is accomplished.

On the one hand Jesus says the law will not pass away. Then he immediately turns around with the caveat, “until all is accomplished.” Something will happen that will cause at least some change in the law.

To determine what Jesus meant it is helpful to take a closer look at the law. When we talk about the Old Testament law we usually refer to the covenantal law established through Moses. The commands of the Mosaic law can be grouped into three categories or three kinds of law:

1. The judicial law. This was the law governing the people of God as a political assembly or nation. God’s law did not just govern individual life, it also governed the political and judicial life of the people. These commands gave instructions for how to behave in war, how to punish various sins, etc.
2. The ceremonial law. This law guided the religious life of the people. In the ceremonial law the people learned about the feast days, rituals and sacrifices to be carried out before God. The centerpiece of the ceremonial law was first the tabernacle then the temple.
3. The moral law. Here we have the commands that governed individual life. Through the moral law God revealed to his people how he wanted them to live their lives and interact with one another. The moral law is generally summarized in the ten commandments.

Looking back at the words of Jesus, in what way does the law not pass away and in what way is it accomplished? I argue that the whole law is fulfilled in Christ (as he himself states in Matthew 5:17) but the first two types of law have been altogether accomplished while the third type, the moral law, will never pass away. Look at the three types again:

1. Through the judicial law God emphasized the seriousness of sin against a holy God and he taught that sin will be punished (these are also taught in the ceremonial law but from a different slant). It was also through the judicial law that God laid down the framework for life in his kingdom: his people would be obedient to him and his rule. The judicial law was fulfilled in Christ who by his death serves as the greatest demonstration of just how great an offense sin is. He has also transformed the judicial landscape. The people of God are no longer defined as a geopolitical entity but as a body, the church, the bride of Christ. The reign of God is no longer centered on a throne, whether the throne of God at the Ark of the Covenant or the throne of a king in a palace. The reign of God comes through human hearts by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not just fulfill the judicial law, through Jesus the judicial law has accomplished its purpose. It was given as a pointer and when the One it pointed to arrived, its purpose was completed.
2. Through the ceremonial law God taught the people that sin must be paid for. Sin requires blood. Either your blood or the blood of someone else. The Old Testament sacrifices did not themselves accomplish any atoning work – the blood of bulls and goats will not cover our sins – but they served as a symbol of the One who would come, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law by perfectly following every one of its precepts. And like the judicial law, through Jesus the ceremonial law was accomplished. It was no longer necessary once the eternal Lamb had come.
3. With the moral law we have something a bit different. The moral law existed before the judicial or ceremonial. Even in the garden Adam and Eve were guided by God’s expectations for how they should behave. Jesus fulfilled the moral law by living without sin. He was holy and righteous, never doing wrong. But the moral law was not accomplished with Jesus. The judicial and ceremonial laws were pointers to Christ but the moral law points not to Christ but to his expectations for us. These expectations did not end with the birth of Jesus or at his cross or resurrection or ascension or the giving of the Holy Spirit. God continues to expect all humans to live according to his moral commands.

The judicial and ceremonial laws have been accomplished and have passed away but the moral law remains binding on humanity. This is why in Matthew 5:19 Jesus says the people of God ought to be both doing and teaching the law of God. He does not mean we ought to do and teach that which has been accomplished but we should do and teach that which remains of the law.

Christians are not antinomian, anti-law. We believe that we are not made righteous by the law but we also believe we are still subject to the law’s commands. The law ought not be a burden. Whenever we find God’s commands burdensome it is not because of the command but because of our continuing sinfulness. We are not free to live life as we please but follow the instructions of our Master, knowing that only by his will and by his way and by his power will we live life to the full.

When did the rainbow come into being?

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all fut

ure generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”
Genesis 9:12-16

Growing up I was taught (or at least believed) that the rainbow did not exist until after the flood. Following the flood God created the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with Noah and the rest of humanity that God would never again destroy the earth by flood.

For those trying to find errors in the Bible, this interpretation provided an opportunity. Critics will say, “What, did God change the very physical laws and properties? A rainbow is just the refraction of light through water, presenting a spectrum of color. Did these properties of water and light not exist before the flood?” The very idea is put forth as ludicrous.

To the skeptic I would say that God can do with his creation what he will. If he decided tomorrow to invert the behavior of gravity so that anything not tied down would go flying into the heavens I would be sure to invest in rope.

That said, I do not think Genesis 9:13 teaches that God spontaneously created rainbows following the flood. What he did was take something he had already made and fill it with meaning. Notice the wording: I have set my bow in the cloud, a divine declaration that God is the one who created the rainbow. Then: and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. God created the rainbow – meaning God created water and light to interact in such a way during a storm that a rainbow would form. He could have done this after the flood but the text makes no such claim, it just recognizes God as the creator of the rainbow. What does happen after the flood is God assigns new meaning to the rainbow. Or rather, God reveals why he originally created the rainbow.

There is something amazing in this. Here we see the planning of God in creation. From the beginning he knew he would need a covenant-sign following the great deluge. When God said “let there be” to the rainbow he put it in place so that one day he could say to Noah, “This is a sign of my covenant.”

Looking at the rainbow itself, we can be further amazed at how much meaning is packed into one symbol. Here are some of the things signified by the rainbow:

1. As revealed in the text, the rainbow is a symbol of God’s mercy to man. God promised that he would never again destroy the world by flood. The promise was not dependent on man’s behavior, it was fixed on God’s character. Regardless of what man would do, God would not destroy the earth by flood. The rainbow would serve as a source of comfort to man and an unending reminder to God. So long as the earth remains we have this assurance of God’s mercy and faithfulness, his guarantee that he will not destroy the earth by flood. Even when heaven and earth are remade rainbows will continue to cross the skies. For the rest of eternity we will have this reminder of God’s grace.
2. It is quite possible that God had in mind a symbol of laying down a weapon of war. At the end of the flood his judgment had been completed and his weapons were put up. Genesis does not mention a rainbow, per se, it mentions a bow, the same word used of a bow and arrow. God has hung (set) his bow in the clouds, putting aside that weapon of war.
3. Another possible symbol of the bow is its bridging of Heaven and Earth. Reaching from Heaven and stretching down to Earth, it symbolizes God’s stooping, bending down to bring both justice and mercy to the earth.
4. The expanse of the rainbow showed the expanse of God’s love. Allen Ross says, “The covenant is cosmic and universal, as seen from the great sign, the rainbow. As it arched over the horizon after the rains, it formed an all-embracing sign of God’s faithfulness to his word of grace.” (Ross, Creation and Blessing, p206)

Someday the world will come to an end. Do you know how it will happen? Despite my recent tweet, my eschatology continues to be a work in progress. Presently, my beliefs about the end are characterized more by what I do not believe than what I do believe. I do believe Christ will someday return, but I’m still working on the details.

The most popular brand of eschatology today is pre-trib premillennialism. But in my list of things I do not believe, I do not believe the Bible teaches a pre-trib rapture.

This post is not an exhaustive argument against pre-trib rapture but against the frequent citing of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 by pre-trib proponents. Here is the verse:

…and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Here is how the pre-trib argument goes. Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven. We await for his return. He will come back to deliver his people from the seven-year tribulation at the end during which God’s wrath is poured upon the earth. Thus in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 we have the promise that all Christians will be removed from the earth (raptured) before the tribulation takes place.

The problem with this view is 1 Thessalonians 1:10 has nothing to do with some period of judgment occurring on Earth just before the coming of Christ. Nothing in the context makes reference to rapture; wrath here does not refer to an end-times tribulation but to eternal judgment.

The natural meaning of this verse is that the believers in Thessalonica trusted that Jesus Christ was the one who delivered them from God’s eternal judgment. Believers were secure in the knowledge that they would be raised to life with Christ in Heaven rather than cast into Hell for eternal judgment.

This meaning becomes clear a few chapters later, 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10: For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Note the contrast here. The people of God have not been destined for wrath but for salvation. Their deliverance is not from temporal suffering just before the end of time but deliverance from eternal judgment. We do not receive salvation so that we can avoid the tribulation, we receive salvation to be rescued from Hell.

Revelation also speaks of this. Revelation 11:9-10 tells us about the wrath faced by those who take the mark of the beast: And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

Note how it describes God’s wrath. It is not in terms of a tribulation period but eternal judgment.

Christians are in the world to shine the light of Christ even in the midst of great suffering. We labor no matter the cost knowing that this world is not our home. We wait patiently for our Lord Jesus Christ, knowing he has delivered us from the coming wrath: we need not fear the flames of judgment, we are secure in Christ. But there are many, many more who do not know God’s mercy. God will keep us here to share with them about his love and grace. When finally he returns, we (Christians) will still be around to see it.

I was recently given a number of books from the library of a man who passed away. I’m still sorting through them but among them I found Pulpit and Communion Table by Rev. John Duncan. Flipping through it, I came across the following:

There was lately put into my hands a very short tract of two pages, called “The Converted Negro.”

A lady called on a minister, and said, “My dear sir, I never till lately knew the importance of personal religion, till I saw it in my own negro servant. We were in a storm at sea, looking to be all drowned: I was in great alarm – all on board were – this poor negro alone was calm. She said to me when she saw my distress, ‘O missus, don’t fear; look to Jesus, see the rock.’ We were in fear of being sunk in the waters or dashed on a rock; but she said, ‘Jesus is the rock, nearer than that rock.’”

The minister called on the lady, and asked the negro when and how she came to know Jesus. She said, “Good mister Hinnican came and tell us negroes that Christ Jesus, the Son of God, came down from the good place to save us sinners. He die, or me die; He die, me no die. I weep very much – I ask Jesus – He good, He save me.” And it was asked, “Where is Mr. Hinnican now?” “O, he fall asleep.” “I see, Mr. Hinnican is dead?” “O no, he no die, He call us negroes, tell us he go to Jesus, bid us follow, then he fall asleep. He sleep till the trumpet of the archangel sound, where he arise.”

I think here is a noble specimen of the teaching of the Spirit of God – his sublime mystery in all its simplicity…
(page 86)