A rebuttal to some arguments against the Covenant of Works (Part 2)

[continued from here]

The second argument posed by Nichols and Hoeksema is that no mere man could ever merit any special reward from God (p. 332). This argument however confuses ontological distance with covenantal obligations. Just because Man cannot make God owe him something does not imply that God cannot promise a reward to Man in a covenant He Himself initiates, and set the terms by which man is to obey in order to get the reward. In the Abrahamic Covenant, Abraham could legitimately ask God when He was going to provide a son, not because God owed Abraham anything, but because God has promised Abraham an heir from his own body. Likewise, one can even say that in the Covenant of Grace, believers can expect to be saved from hell, not because God owed us salvation, but because God has told us we are saved by faith in Christ. In all these, what God can be called upon to give has nothing to do with whether God "owes" anyone anything, but rather that God will honor His Word and His promises and thus one can hold God to His own covenantal obligations.

In the Covenant of Works therefore, Adam could hold God to His Word of reward. Adam did not strictly merit anything, but rather by fulfilling the terms of the covenant, Adam would have earned his reward according to the terms of the covenant. It is by "works," in the sense that Adam was tested upon his own strength whether he would or would not be obedient. Nichols' and Hoeksema's objection is therefore without basis here as well.

Nichols' and Hoeksema's third objection is that the "supposed promise of heavenly life is 'inconceivable' without violating the design of creation" (p. 332), and thus the giving of the cultural mandate does not makes sense if the Covenant of Works is true. This is however a strange objection from a Kuyperian. From a Kuyperian perspective, if one's cultural works are relevant for the kingdom of God and thus in the New Creation, doesn't that imply that the cultural mandate continues to be applicable in the new creation, and thus the mandate applies regardless of whether Adam has just been created or whether he has passed the test and has been confirmed in righteousness? From a non-Kuyperian perspective, the new creation includes a new earth which imply that a certain aspect of the cultural mandate, of exercising dominion over the [New] creation, would still be in force. There is therefore no contradiction between the Covenant of Works and the Creation Mandate.

Besides these objections, Nichols bring out the old canard that Adam's relation with God was "familial and filial-parental," and thus not the "cold, distant," "impersonal relationship between 'contracting parties.'" (p. 337). The legal is set against the familial, as if the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. But just because something is familial and relational does not mean it cannot be legal and forensic at the same time. Adoption is a legal process, but it is far from being impersonal and legal! And if one rejects the idea of a legal covenant with Adam, then why does one support the idea of a forensic Covenant of Grace wherein God is being supremely personal in adopting each and every of the the elect as His sons? This objection therefore has less than its weight in straw. Similarly, Nichols attempts to pit the "filial framework" against the idea of a "probation," pitting the familial against the forensic. But the traditional idea of a "probation" is meant to be understood merely as a time of trial to see whether Adam as God's son would obey, not whether there was a test of Adam's "suitability" (p. 344).

In conclusion, Nichols failed to disprove the legitimacy of the Covenant of Works. Rather, we have seen how poor the arguments against the Covenant of Works have been, with terrible arguments like pitting the forensic against the familial that should have no place at all in Reformed circles.

A rebuttal to some arguments against the Covenant of Works (Part 1)

It is perhaps not so surprising that Greg Nichols, a Reformed Baptist pastor and professor, would not be amenable to the doctrine of the Covenant of Works. What was surprising was his reliance on Herman Hoeksema to do some of the "heavy lifting," which makes me wonder what the relation between Reformed Baptists like Greg Nichols and Dutch Reformed circles is. I notice that in footnote one of Apppendix 2 on the Adamic Covenant (Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenats, 322), Nichols cited "ST421" Doctrine of Man Handouts from Calvin Seminary 1977, by Anthony Hoekema. I guess Nichols was exposed to Dutch theologizing through a 1977 class at Calvin Seminary? Regardless, the reasons for denying the Covenant of Works for some "Adamic Covenant" (following Hoeksema) are not convincing and not even well thought of, as we shall show below.

Nichols' first argument against the Covenant of Works, following Hoeksema, is that the covenant of works is based on speculation not Scripture. Thus, "God's threat of death for disobedience does not necessarily imply a promise of immutable life or of heavenly translation." (p. 332). In a certain sense, that is true, IF we did not have the parallelisms between Adam and Christ in Rom. 5:12-19, and the recurrence of the Tree of Life in Revelations 22:2, as well as an allusion to it in Ezekiel 47:12. When we have these biblical texts, then we can make the case that God did not just punish disobedience with death, but positive life was offered for obedience.

The biblical story is a story of creation, fall and redemption. Part of that redemption involves the re-creation of all things (Mat. 19:28, Col. 2:20). This new creation would be of course more glorious than the original creation, but that does not imply that the superiority of the new creation is a superiority of kind rather than of degree, as if there were any defects in the original creation. The new creation is analogous to the current creation, not something entirely different from it.

The parallelism in Romans 5:12-19 parallels Adam's disobedience with Christ's obedience. It is true it does not parallel Adam's hypothetical obedience with Christ's actual obedience, but that is not necessary. What we should be understanding from the parallelism is the notion of federal headship. Adam and Christ are not contrasted because Christ is superior to Adam (although He is), but because there are federal heads of two different covenants. Adam was a federal head and he failed; Christ is a federal head and he succeeded. Adam by his failure earned death for all represented by him, while Christ by his obedience earned life for all represented in him. We must note here that the contrast being made here is between the two of them as federal heads, not between Adam as Man and Jesus as God, so we cannot apply the Creator-creature distinction here. But if the two of them are to be properly contrasted as federal heads, then the rewards and sanctions must apply both ways. For if one were to say, as with Nichols and Hoeksema, that there is no reward for obedience, then what we are comparing is Adam who could not have earned life regardless of what he did with Christ who did earn life. That would be a contrast between God and Man, not between two federal heads per se as the parallelism demands. The parallism only works if it states that Adam failed to earn what Christ earned, not that Adam could not earn what Christ has earned.

The Tree of Life imagery makes the promise of life even more explicit. In Ezekiel 47:12, we are told of the vision of the river flowing from the eschatological temple. The Ezekian temple symbolizes the people of God, the community of the elect that will be made manifest in the Last Days, the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:10-14). The river that flows is the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit that brings life to all it touches. This river in Ezekiel's vision is mentioned again in Revelations 22:1-2. The Holy Spirit brings us life, and thus the Tree of Life is mentioned here besides the river of life, bringing healing to the nations. The Tree of Life is the sacrament, the sign and seal of the life that the Spirit gives, and thus to partake of the Tree of Life is to partake of the Holy Spirit and live.

If we accept that the Tree of Life, as with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, are sacraments of the Adamic Covenant, and not possessing magical properties in and of themselves, then we must accept that the Tree of Life actually does bring life in a covenantal fashion. Thus, in contrast to the prohibition not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, to eat of the Tree of Life is to gain life, eschatological life.

Nichols and Hoeksema are therefore in error when they claim that the reward of life is not found in Scripture. Through the Tree of Life imagery, the reward of life is clearly shown. If there is no reward of life through the Tree of Life, then why is the Tree of Life mentioned in Revelation and alluded to in Ezekiel's vision? Why is it that we are told that the leaves of this Tree of life are for the healing of the nations, unless we are to link getting life with partaking of this tree?

Nichols puts forward an explanation however, saying that the "tree of life symbolized the life Adam already had and stood to lose" (p. 342). But if that was the case, then what life does the tree of life symbolized in the New Jerusalem that the elect already have before the Eschaton which she "stood to lose"? Since at the Eschaton, the elect will then be glorified and given resurrection bodies, it seems that the elect do not have the eschatological life before the Eschaton. The tree of life in the New Jerusalem must symbolize the gaining of life, and therefore it must likewise mean the gaining of a new type of life at Eden.

[to be continued]

Evangelical Obedience in the Mosaic Covenant?

Clearly, the Mosaic covenant called for evangelical obedience founded on gospel conversion (Deut. 30:10). How then is its conditional form consistent with this evangelical nature? ... By walking in gospel obedience they would retain their present inheritance and receive the Messianic inheritance at his coming. This teaches the necessity of gospel obedience unto complete salvation. ...

Thus the Mosaic covenant was not a proclamation of works righteousness, but of gospel sanctification.(Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants, 234)

The Mosaic Covenant is clearly conditional. How one deals with the conditionality in the Mosaic Covenant does affect to some extent one's soteriology. Greg Nichols has decided that the conditionality in the Mosaic Covenant refers to the necessity of evangelical obedience for sanctification. However, is that even a plausible interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant?

We note that in the Mosaic economy, blessings come with obedience and curses with disobedience. What is important to notice here is that the sanctions for disobedience in the Mosaic economy include death (Deut. 30:18), and obedience grants life (Deut. 30:20). Leviticus 18:5 states that the way to life is obedience of God's commands, and this verse is cited in the New Testament in Galatians 3:11 as the means of salvation "under the Law," which is contrasted with the way of salvation that is by faith, for "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12). In other words, the Scriptures seem to proclaim that the life promised under the Mosaic Covenant is (1) not of faith, (2) actually merited by obedience unto salvation. We also note that God does not punish with eternal death the misdeeds of His children, but merely chastise them for our good (Heb. 12:3-11). To render death for disobedience is certainly not compatible with the way God treats His wayward children.

What this proves is that the obedience in the Mosaic economy cannot be evangelical obedience, but legal obedience. Yes, we understand the graciousness of the giving of the Mosaic Covenant, but that is different from stating whether the stipulations and conditions IN the Mosaic Covenant are in fact evangelical or not. To predicate life upon obedience and death upon disobedience can never be about evangelical obedience. If, as Nichols put it, this conditionality teaches "the necessity of gospel obedience unto complete salvation," and thus "gospel sanctification," then does this mean that one can lose one's salvation ("death" under the Mosaic system) if one disobeys God? Are Christians in by faith, but stay in by covenantal faithfulness? I would sincerely hope not!

The denial of any type of works principle in the Mosaic Covenant, as Nichols does, results in confusion concerning the Mosaic Covenant, and even introduces confusion into one's soteriology. Our salvation is not conditioned upon our sanctification, for salvation is all by faith in Christ alone. Sanctification is necessary, but it is not a condition for salvation, but rather a condition from salvation. We are saved, therefore we obey; we are not sanctified in order that we might have "complete salvation," whatever that means.

Nichols, by denying the works principle in the Mosaic Covenant and placing the continuity/ discontinuity line of the Mosaic from the New Covenant on the wrong axis, leads his readers to confusion regarding salvation by faith alone. It is hoped that his expressed soteriology is better than his implicit one from his errant covenant theology.

Heart circumcision is a Mosaic reality

Did Moses preach a different heart circumcision than Paul? Did he preach a different conversion to God? In Paul's words, absolutely not! Moses predicted a society marked by heart circumcision. Paul says that very prediction has been fulfilled (Col. 2:11-13) [Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants, 231]

“And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good? Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn (Deut. 10:12-16)

It seems a Particular Baptistic Covenant Theology radicalizes the concept of progressive revelation. In Reformed Covenant Theology, the historical covenants are progressive revelations of the one Covenant of Grace. In Nichols' version of Baptistic Covenant Theology, the historical covenants are progressive revelations towards the ultimate expression of the Covenant of Grace. In Reformed theology, each historical covenant do indeed partake of the Covenant of Grace, albeit in a veiled manner. In Nichols' Baptistic Covenant Theology, each progression towards the New Covenant share elements of the Covenant of Grace but each is substantively different from the mature New Covenant. While both hold to progressive revelation, both mean rather different things when they think of progression in God's revelation.

One particular aspect of Nichols' Baptistic Covenant Theology is the view that physical circumcision belongs to physical Israel, and anticipates the heart or spiritual circumcision that marks spiritual Israel, the New Covenant Church. In order for that to be true however, heart circumcision must be future-oriented under the Mosaic economy. It is of course true that Deuteronomy 30:6 shows heart circumcision to be in Israel's future, but is it not also to be a mark of Israel under the Mosaic economy?

Deuteronomy 10:12-16 expresses this command for the Israelites under Moses for their present time. They were to be circumcised in their hearts, which indicates a new disposition towards God, as opposed to being stubborn against Him. Not only were they to be circumcised physically of their foreskins, they were also to be circumcised in their hearts. Their physical circumcisions thus were to be signs of heart circumcisions. Those who have the sign of physical circumcision but not the reality of heart circumcision, as indicated by open rebellion against God and His commands, will to be cut off and excommunicated and exiled from the land (Num. 15:30).

Nichols thus err in locating heart circumcision as a New Covenant reality. In Reformed Covenant Theology, the Old Covenant sign was physical circumcision, signifying heart circumcision. The New Covenant sign is water baptism, signifying Spirit baptism. As Colossians 2:11-13 states, Old Covenant circumcision is replaced with New Covenant baptism. The parallel is not Old Covenant physical circumcision and New Covenant heart circumcision, but Old Covenant physical and heart circumcision, and New Covenant water and Spirit baptism.

Covenant offsprings...

Clearly the covenant of grace displays organic continuity and perpetuity. Wicked men like Cain are Eve's physical children, but they are not her seed. They are neither partakers of this promise, nor parties of the covenant of grace. [Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants (Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2011), 126]

Cain, Abel and Seth were all Eve's physical children... Abel and Seth were her spiritual children. Cain was the devil's spiritual child. (Ibid., 127)

Greg Nichols' book has been an interesting book from a Reformed Baptist perspective. It is interesting to note how Reformed Baptist Covenant theology is done, and how it differs from traditional Reformed Covenant Theology.

It is slightly disturbing to note in our excerpts that a Reformed Baptist thinks that the federal representation in the Covenant of Grace has to do with who is or isn't Eve's seed. We note that the proto-evangel in Genesis 3:15 concerns Eve's seed (singular) and the serpent's seed (also singular). In other words, this speaks about Jesus Christ, born of a woman, against Satan and his "seed" (the Antichrist). Therefore, to deliberate whether Cain or Abel is or is not Eve's seed is in error, because Eve is not the federal representative of the Covenant of Grace. Christ rather is the federal representative, the Mediator and Surety, of the Covenant of Grace.

The struggle between the seed of the women and the seed of the serpent is the struggle between Christ and the Devil, and thus more broadly of those who follow Christ and those who follow the Devil. Cain manifests himself to be the serpent's seed because he does the works of the devil, which has nothing to do with his parentage. His parentage is of Adam and thus of the broken Covenant of Works, not of the Covenant of Grace. Conversely, Abel and Seth are not Eve's spiritual children, but rather they have Christ as their federal head.

This strange contorted view of the first family fuels Nichols' view of trying to make the Covenant of Grace purely spiritual and not physical. Using this strange view concerning Eve's children, the point is made that it is Eve's spiritual children that are part of the Covenant of Grace, not Eve's physical children. But if we perceive the covenantal representation correctly, then we see that the it is not about whether one's children is "spiritual" that determines whether one is in the Covenant of Grace, but rather whether said children have their federal representation in Christ. Abel and Seth have their federal head in Christ, and are thus part of the Covenant of Grace. Cain has only his federal head in Adam, and thus he dies in his sins.

How the Enlightenment affected theologizing

This change [alteration in method -DHC] revealed itself in (among other things) the following tendencies, which exerted a profound affect on the theology of the Enlightenment.

1. Theology came to be more or less dependent on philosophy and rational thought. Even in those presentations where the author did not wish to go so far as to replace revelation with natural religion, intending rather to stand fully within the Christian tradition, it was not uncommon to find rational arguments placed alongside revelation on an equal basis. The demand that reason be subjected to the testimony of Scripture was replaced by the firm belief that revelation and rational principles are in complete harmony, plus the desire to legitimize revelation in the presence of reason.

2. Parallel with theology’s rationalizing was its tendency to moralize. Morality is a more immediate concern than religion to the modern, rational view of life. The promotion of good morals was looked upon as Christianity’s main objective, and ethical content as its very essence.

3. The idea that religion was based in particular on principles inbedded in human reason supported an individualistic conception: religion became an individual, private matter, its certainty based on a person’s own experiences

4. A basic characteristic of the theology of the Enlightenment was the tendency to “humanize” Christianity, to accommodate it to an anthropocentric frame. Theology was expected to promote human welfare, and theological truth was expected to harmonize with commonly recognized rational principles. This-worldly goals predominated: earthly happiness and a rational morality were the primary benefits that men expected from religion.

(Bengt Hägglund, History of Theology, 339)

Many of these trends are still with us today, even in supposed "post-modern" circles.

Lutheran Orthodoxy and the Usus tertius legis

[In Lutheran Orthooxy] Because man is unable to fulfill the Law's demands, it is not a rule for the conduct of his life. Instead, the Law serves to reveal sin, to accuse man, and to condemn all who are not released from the curse of the Law by the grace made available through Christ's atonement. [Bengt Hägglund, History of Theology (4th rev. ed.; trans. Gene J. Lund; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1968, 2007), 318]

While Luther believed in the third use of the Law, it seems that Lutheran Orthodoxy does not do so. This should be interesting for those who are interested in Lutheranism, which I am unfortunately not that keen on.

WSC Conference 2016: The Holy Spirit in Our Confessions

The 2016 annual conference held by Westminster Seminary California had concluded and the audio and video files have been uploaded to the server. In the second talk, Dr. Fesko spoke about the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in especially the Westminster Confession of Faith, weaving interesting historical facts in the process (and the obligatory Star Wars reference). The talk can be seen here.

Regeneration and the means of grace

If regeneration is an immediate act of creative power it cannot be said to be wrought through the instrumentality of the Word of God in the sense of the gospel. For when we use the term the Word of God in such a sense we mean the Word of God proclaimed to us, addressed to our consciousness, operative in our consciousness, and engaging our consciousness with the appropriate effects. In other words, we do not meant the word of divine fiat, for that we must posit as the action of regeneration. (John Murray, "Regeneration," in John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 196)

In an earlier post, I pointed out the problems with trying to do away with the term "regeneration" by attempting to subsume regeneration under the category of effectual calling. But while I agree regeneration is a distinct (note: not separate) act from effectual calling, I agreed that it was through God's Word in effectual calling that regeneration happens.

In his article on the topic however, John Murray goes further, trying to distinguish between two types of regeneration. The first is unmediated by the proclaimed Word but purely of divine fiat. The second is mediated by the proclaimed Word (pp. 196-7). In a certain sense, we can say that some people seem to show signs of regeneration prior to the proclamation of the Gospel, but is that a real example of someone who is regenerated by divine fiat alone apart from the proclaimed Word?

It is my contention that Murray is wrong here. While certainly there is a distinction between the divine fiat Word, and the proclaimed Word, yet, inasmuch as the proclaimed Word is faithful to the Scriptures, it is the very Word of God. God has instituted means to lead people unto salvation, and those include especially the preaching of His Word (WSC Q89). Thus, in the matter of salvation, there is a tight relation between the divine fiat and the proclaimed Word. Certainly, equating them is ridiculous since no preacher is God, but since God is pleased to work through His ordained means, then the divine fiat always works in conjunction with the preached Word.

Seeing the tight relation between the fiat Word and the proclaimed Word, we can and should say that the divine fiat Word in the effectual call accompanies (either before, contemporaneous, or after) the divine fiat Word. Thus, contra Murray, regeneration is an immediate act of creative power (in the sense that God did it by fiat), and yet regeneration can be said to be wrought through the instrumentality of the Word of God (in the sense that God ordained the preached Word to accompany the fiat Word). Practically, we should expect regeneration to happen co-extensively with the proclaimed Word, with no particular choice in the temporal order of these events. Thus, we might see some people who were initially disinterested in the Christian faith yet they come to faith after hearing the proclamation of the Gospel, while others might show a tender heart and were already receptive to Christ even prior to hearing the Gospel.

There are therefore not two senses of regeneration, but one. God's speech is one, therefore there is one sense of regeneration. Regeneration is unmediated by creaturely agency, yet God is pleased to use the means of grace for it.

Article: Some practical problems with Cheung's heresies

I have consolidated and improved upon what I have written on the practical problems with Vincent Cheung's theology into an article, and you can read it here. Here is the conclusion:

Cheung’s heresy has produced poison fruits: the twin fruits of emotional resignation, and distrust in God. These are not the fruits of a God-centered ministry, and should be rejected as what they are: the works of the devil. May God open the eyes of Cheungians and grant them repentance and faith. Amen

The meaning of "puritan"

In essence, the ‘puritanism’ of this selection of authors extends no further than their desire for further reformation of the protestant church within the three kingdoms – hence the identification of ‘puritanism’ with an ecclesiological trend [Crawford Gribben, The Puritan Millennium: Literature and Theology, 1550-1682 (Studies in Christian History and Thought; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2008), 8]

What exactly is a "puritan"? In Crawford Gribben's work, the noun/ adjective "puritan" is defined broadly as a desire for further reformation of the protestant church, which historically is situated in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales. Thus, the word "puritan" can encompass both those who put a higher priority on the unity of the church and thus seek more gradual reforms, even the preservation of things they deem adiaphora (e.g. vestments), and those who put a higher priority on the purity of the church and thus agitate for quicker and stricter reforms. Over time after the Restoration of 1660, those who agitated for quicker and more radical reforms became known as the Nonconformists, who were forced out of the Church of England. Prior to 1660 however, all of them were within the young Reformed Church of England.

The word "puritan" therefore is descriptive more of a mood, or "ecclesiastical trend," than of fixed doctrines or even a certain type of piety. Now, in some modern day Reformed circles, "puritan" is associated with a certain type of inward piety and a striving after holiness. On pastoral practice, we have Richard Baxter's The Reformed Pastor, and John Owen's The Mortification of Sin is perhaps the most well-known work on self-examination and striving after holiness in mortifying the flesh. But historically, this understanding of "puritan" seems skewed. Oliver Cromwell can be considered a "puritan," but I doubt he would be a great example of supposed "puritan piety," at least not unless you are willing to contemplate massacring countless Irish as being a godly behavior. The more episcopal-minded James Ussher can be called a puritan, but a high church puritan doesn't exactly fit the modern Reformed mold of a "puritan," does it?

It is therefore better to use the more historically-based definition of "puritan" as a mood for ecclesiastical reform, instead of focusing on the more inward pietism-lite of a select few. No doubt a concern for inward piety and godliness is part of the 17th century puritan movement, yet its main focus is the reformation of the church. To be a "puritan" is thus to be discontent with the semi-Reformed status of the Church. It says no to the current ecclesiastical situation. It will not settle for the status quo under the partial truth that "there is no perfect church." Yes, there are no perfect churches, but there are churches reformed, and churches unreformed. What we desire is for churches to be always be reformed, going back to the Scriptures and confessing and practicing the historical Christian faith.

Another instance of Cheungian heresy

I have lost a friend to Cheungism, and blocked by him on Facebook. Recently, I was given a glimpse at what he had posted on one of the Facebook forums, and to some extent I was glad for the block, because I would have torn my hair out in frustration at such nonsense. Introducing the writings of Vincent Cheung to him to read is one of my biggest regrets. I am grieved by his fall from orthodoxy, and especially since he refuses to change. I was told however that perhaps I was too hasty in my denunciation of his Cheungian ways, but after seeing what he had posted, I think that my concern is at least partially validated.

The provocative nonsense he had posted in the forum was a statement that God actually deceives people. In the meta, there was a link to this article by Vincent Cheung, which states that God does tempt people, since God is fully sovereign and therefore he controls everything directly. Here we see an even more toxic fruit of Cheung's hard-shell determinism. It is bad enough that God is said to be the direct cause of evil, but now God actually deceives and tempts people? Just because He Himself is not the agent doing it, but He sent agents to do it, does not make any real differences at all. If I were to tell someone to murder X, does that mean that I am not guilty of murder since I did not personally commit the act?

There is nothing in Cheung's article that I have not refuted already, except the biblical texts. With regards to these texts, here we see Cheung violating a basic tenet of good exegesis: which is that clearer texts are supposed to interpret the more obscure texts, and narratives are to be interpreted according to didactic texts. Cheung cites the narrative texts 2 Samuel 24 and 1 King 22 and uses them to contradict what James 1:13-18 explicitly teaches, all in service to his occasionalist philosophy. This kind of bad exegesis is not surprising, for Cheung has an a priori dogmatic system which must be preserved at all costs; what the Scriptures say must be always re-interpreted to serve that philosophy.

For most people, it is enough to show that Cheungism holds that God deceives people. But, like every cult around the world, Cheungians seem willing to bite all the bullets their position entails. My only counter-argument is the same argument that I have used against God being the Author of Sin, namely, that it may exonerate God at the expense of compromising His nature. Besides that, I am totally at a loss how to refute this nonsense. It's almost like trying to refute someone who insists he is Superman and has just flown to and fro the Alpha Centauri system yesterday. Cheungism is a sickness of the mind and spirit, and God is using it as judgment to delude those who seek to be wiser than God Himself. May God in His mercy deliver them from this strong delusion Cheungians have.

What practical differences does making God the "Author of Sin" have

“But you are full of the judgment on the wicked; judgment and justice seize you.
Beware lest wrath entice you into scoffing, and let not the greatness of the ransom turn you aside.
Will your cry for help avail to keep you from distress, or all the force of your strength?
Do not long for the night, when peoples vanish in their place.
Take care; do not turn to iniquity, for this you have chosen rather than affliction.
Behold, God is exalted in his power; who is a teacher like him?
Who has prescribed for him his way, or who can say, ‘You have done wrong’?
“Remember to extol his work, of which men have sung. (Job 36:17-24)

Theologically, it makes a big deal whether God is or is not the Author of Sin. Yet, even if the dust will settle on this topic and my rebuttal to Vincent Cheung's rationalistic hypercalvinism, some might not see the differences between the two views. After all, God is the ultimate cause of sin either way, so does it matter whether it is "direct" or "indirect?" For Arminians like Roger Olsen, what difference does it make whether God directly caused sin, or indirectly superintends sin?

Theology is not merely abstract. Theology of course must start with the abstract, but it continues into the practical realm, for God is always immensely true and His Word always practical. So, if it is a big deal whether God is the direct cause of sin or the indirect superintendent of sin, then what practical differences would result from the two views? I suggest that it is in how one deals with trials and tribulations in life that the differences between these two views would be manifested.

In the wisdom literature, we read in the account of Job how he struggled with his unjust suffering. Job's three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar) applied the retributive principle to Job's suffering, and inferred that Job must have sinned because he was suffering. Their dialogues are basically variants on the accusation that Job must have sinned against God and he needs to repent, while Job insisted on pleading his righteousness before God.

In contrast to Job's three friends, his fourth friend Elihu did not so rebuke Job. Rather, he rebuked Job for presuming he could demand an explanation from God, that God is answerable to him. When God finally responds out of the storm, God similarly rebukes Job for his presumption in questioning Him, exposing Job's total inadequacy in the areas of knowledge and power (Job 38-41). It is thus understandable that God did not rebuke Elihu, while Job's other three friends were rebuked (Job. 42:7-8). Elihu's rebuke of Job is fully in line with God's rebuke to Job, and thus it is to Elihu's words that we want to focus our attention here.

In Job 36:17-24, we see here that Elihu rebuked Job for letting his judgment of the wicked descend into a self-righteous exoneration of himself. In Job's bitter affliction, Job has crossed the line from pleading for justice to demanding justice. Job's affliction has turned in this sense into iniquity. Elihu's rebuke, and God's rebuke, is not because Job called for justice and pleaded his cause, but because in his vehement cry for vindication, he has elevated himself to the position of a judge instead of remaining the supplicant.

Thus, we see here that there is nothing wrong with calling for vindication before God. There is nothing wrong with facing trials and tribulations with anguish and calls for relief. All of these are not sinful unless they become demands where we become the judge demanding that God must act (or worse still, take matters into our own hands). But if everything is ordained by God, shouldn't the response to trials and tribulations be resignation and trust in God, instead of anger and anguish and cries for relief?

Here, we see one practical difference between Cheung's direct causation model of sovereignty, and the biblical Reformed model of full sovereignty through both primary and secondary means. Under Cheung's model, one should approach trials and tribulations with a certain sense of "resignation," trusting in God to bring good out of the trials and tribulations. Since everything is directly caused by God, to be angry at the means is to be angry at God, for the means are mere occasions for God to act. But in the biblical model, since the means are not directly from God, but that God superintends all things, then there is nothing wrong with being angry at the means. Anger at sin, anger towards oppression, anguish at suffering — all these are legitimate emotions to be expressed. Cries for vindication from God for what one perceives to be unjust suffering, like in the sufferings of Job, are not sinful in and of themselves. Of course, one has to have faith and trust in God that all things would work together for good (cf. Rom. 8:28), but this trust is not contradictory to having legitimate feelings of anguish and an attitude of questioning. We are after all not Stoics. In Job's case, Job's bitter anguish and suffering coexists with his own faith and trust in God as his redeemer (Job 19); the two are not mutually exclusive.

It is thus in this very practical aspect of life that the differences between Cheung's direct causation model and the biblical Reformed model can be in my opinion most clearly perceived. Cheung's model, while it might not lead to fatalism, certainly necessitates a certain soft form of resignation. After all, how can one be angry at the means if God is the one directly bringing about the means? Can one be angry at God? If I know that all things work together for good, then I would infer that persecution would work together for good, so should I be angry at the persecution of Christians around the world? Why should I if God is directly causing it for good?

Only in the biblical Reformed model that we can both trust God and yet have questions and anger at injustices. We live in a fallen world, not in the realm of God's decrees and sovereign will. Emotions of anguish and bitterness are natural. Instead of striving for artificiality in the Christian life, we should not have any issue with so-called "negative emotions," but rather cultivate faith in God as the deeper anchor for our souls in the many storms of life, so that our faith would bring us through the trials and tribulations that we face in this world.

Hail the Sun of Righteousness

Hail the heav’nly Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Ris’n with healing in His wings.
(Beginning lines of 3rd stanza of "Hark the Herald Angels Sing")

One Christmas carol that is much beloved has been the hymn "Hark the Herald Angels Sing." Proclaiming the glories of the incarnate God-man, this song has an upbeat melody appropriate for celebrating the birth of the Messiah, a tune which, unlike many older tunes, has managed to transcend the worship wars altogether.

It has however come to my surprise that some modern renditions of this classic hymn has subtly changed the lyrics. In the second line of the third stanza, the original wording is "Hail the Sun of Righteousness," while the altered wording has "Hail the Son of Righteousness." Obviously, the new wording is in some sense easier to understand, but that is rather besides the point. The point is that whoever did the alteration has given no indication whatsoever that he understands the original intent of the words and its allusion to biblical texts, which is sad considering how much richer the meaning of the original wording is.

The beginning lines of the third stanza allude to a certain verse in the "obscure" Minor Prophets, namely Malachi 4:2

But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall.

As the third line in the third stanza states, Christ is risen "with healing in His wings," an expression that clearly comes from Malachi 4:2. The clauses in the beginning lines of stanza 3 were meant to point to Jesus as the "Sun of Righteousness" who fulfills Malachi 4:2. Jesus is the Sun of Righteousness bringing healing to the people. Jesus is the mediator who will bring salvation and healing in the Great Day of the Lord. Jesus is the one who will bring us along to tread the wicked under our feet and right all wrongs (Mal. 4:3).

By the slight alteration of one vowel, all of these are lost. Jesus is of course the Son of Righteousness, for He is perfectly righteous and God's only-begotten son. Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf. But Jesus is also the eschatological Lord of our salvation, and Malachi 4:2 reminds us of that. Jesus is not just the son of righteousness, but the Sun of Righteousness, bringing the rays of God's favor upon His people, in the day of wrath and judgment.

In any celebration of Christ's birth, let us not forget the "reason for the season." The climax of history is not the incarnation, but the cross. The goal of history is not the incarnation, but the Second Coming of Christ for His people. Both are important, so let us remember those even while others think only of the incarnation

Glossary on some NAR terms

The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a third-wave charismatic movement, might be new, but is neither apostolic nor a reformation. Earlier in my Christian walk, being ignorant, I skirted around its edges, to the detriment of my spiritual health. Hungry for more of God and without direction or a firm foundation, I nearly wrecked my spiritual life as I was drawn into parts of the movement.

Thankfully, God in due time delivered me from that nest of vipers and heretics. Yet, I know that the Singapore churches continue to be awash in NAR nonsense, as a look at what's on offer in many a "Christian bookstore" would show. Books by heretics Bill Johnson, Kris Valloton, Dutch Sheets and Cindy Jacobs clutter the shelves, sharing space with books by Word-faith heretics like Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn and Kenneth and Gloria Copeland. To say that Singapore Christianity is sick is an understatement; terminal illness might fit the situation better. Or you could try "dead."

I have recently just read a book on the NAR, entitled God's Super Apostles by R. Douglas Geivett and Holy Pivec. While brief, this book does deal with some of the nonsense in the NAR. At the end of book on pages 143-7, they wrote a glossary for common NAR terms, and some of these I would like to share here with you all.

Activation: A NAR teaching that miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such a healing and prophesying, can be activated (or released) in individuals who embrace new truths that have been revealed by NAR apostles and prophets

Dominionism: A NAR teaching that the church must yield to the authority of modern-day apostles and prophets to whom God has given new strategies to advance his kingdom

Manifest Sons of God: A NAR teaching that those who follow the end-times apostles and prophets will become manifest (or revealed) as sons of God, patterned after the original Son of God, Jesus Christ. They will work the same miracles—and even greater miracles— than Jesus did. Those who embrace extreme expressions of this teaching believe they’ll continue to grow in miraculous power until they execute God’s judgments on earth and overcome sickness and death

Many-membered man-child: A NAR teaching that the church, under the leadership of end-time apostles and prophets, will become a type of corporate Christ—a literal extension of the incarnation of Christ on earth

Workplace apostles: NAR apostles who govern what they call the church in the workplace—that is, they govern the Christians who work in various sectors of society, like business, media, and government