"In the Original Text It Says"

I have reviewed Energion's latest addition to their Areopagus series here. The book addresses Word-Study Fallacies and is both an excellent and quick read.

Creativity

Creativity is impossible to manufacture. More often than not, we just copy the latest trend. That's not to say all copying is wrong. I understand the logic. Why reinvent the wheel? If it works, do it. At some point, though, our copying of the latest trend drones away into uninspiring sameness.

We can see this tendency especially in pop Christianity. Music, preaching, Sunday services, church programs all seem to follow the cookie-cutter mold of what works. Systematic theologies, for instance, seem to take the same scientific approach (try reading Calvin's Institutes and contrast it with some of the newer Systematic Theologies). Popular Christian music's lyrics, music, and vocals all seem to sound the same. Everybody seems to want to sound like their hero preacher. Technology probably makes matters worse. I wonder if information overload makes us more prone to copying what we hear. How can we recover our creativity?

Before the how question can be answered, we should probably address the why. I think creativity makes us better people who live more fulfilling lives, and I'm not talking about fulfilling your Joel Osteen fantasy. Perhaps an example from my workplace might help. I am a programmer. I work with a team of people to convert a program from an old (ancient) platform to a new(er) platform. Each person I work with contributes their ideas on how best to do this conversion project. We certainly copy each other a great deal, but we face challenges along the way that demand unique solutions. As a team and as individuals, we need creativity to make the project go smoothly - to face these challenges. If we restrict ourselves too much to one way of thinking, I do not believe the project would go as smoothly or the end product would be as strong.


Christianity especially makes creativity difficult - even heresy is difficult to create nowadays (I mean is Love Wins really all that creative anyways?). For instance, a creative pen toward the doctrine of the Trinity is not well looked upon and shouldn't be. Yet, I think we should examine doctrine with a critical eye. We will often rediscover the truth of a particular doctrine, but maybe the process of rediscovery has given us a new way to communicate its content. At other times, we may find that contemporary understanding of the issue is wrong, and we can work to correct that understanding. Either way, we can enrich our lives and the lives of others through this process.


Creativity is difficult work for me. I have three ways that I've tried to promote creative thinking in my own life. First, I try to really know the subject. The more I know the subject the more I am able to look at the issue in different ways. While I do depend on people I agree with, I try to keep an open mind toward those I don't agree with. They may ultimately have the wrong the conclusion, but at least they approach the issue differently than those I depend upon the most. In my recent study of Romans 1, I found that I agreed most with Douglas Moo's approach to the chapter. Carson and Morris did not deviate much from Moo so I gleaned less from them than I did from Dunn though I disagreed with him more. The more I read, the more I felt like like I understood the subject and I was able to formulate my own thoughts.

Secondly, I don't limit my interests to one field of study. My passion is the Bible (theology, the languages, hermeneutics, etc.), but I've tried to make sure that I listen to good music, read good books, watch good movies. I try to understand the content as well as the medium through which the content was communicated. Oftentimes, the medium is the creative part. Honestly, I feel like I'm more of an admirer of good work than I am a producer. But engaging with these creative works helps me to think that way when it comes to studying my passion.

Thirdly, I have no delusions of grandeur. As high as my standards are, I'm sure I have reinvented the wheel several times in my journey towards creativity. Though creativity comes naturally to some people, I understand that I will have to work hard. I am in a constant evaluation mode. My goal is to get better at thinking and communicating.

I want to be able to find ways to creatively communicate my thoughts (hopefully creative ones) to others. I want  to be able to find ways to make an art of my science. I can't paint like van Gogh. I can't write like C.S. Lewis. I can't speak like Martin Luther King Jr. Then again, I don't want to.

A New Blog

Hello all. I hope you had a merry Christmas and I also hope that you have a Happy New Year. I just wanted to let you know that I have started blogging over at ἐνθύμησις. That doesn't mean I won't continue posting here!

The Descent Motif of Philippians 2:5-11

You will certainly find that Philippians 2:5-11 describes Christ's deity, incarnation, death, and exaltation and is extremely important for Christology.  One should not neglect, however, how Paul is using the hymn to encourage the Philippians to proper living as citizens in God's kingdom (Phil 1:27). They are to have the same attitude as Christ (2:5)

Who because he is in the form of God
  Did not think to take advantage of
  The divine equality he possessed
 But rather he emptied himself
  By taking the form of a slave
  By being born as a man
And having been found as a man
  He further humbled himself
  By being obedient as far as death
     Even as far as a wretched death on a cross
Therefore, God did indeed highly exalt him
That is, he gave him the name above all names
  For this two-fold purpose: that in honor of the name of Jesus
    Every knee of heaven and earth and under the earth shall bow
  And every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is LORD
    To the glory of God the Father.

We can see that the hymn begins with the picture of Christ in a high position (equality with God). Then, He emptied himself. He who is in the form of God took the form of a man. Then, He humbled himself. As a man, he did not stop at the incarnation. He became obedient even as far as dying the shameful death on the cross. We can see that Christ stoops to the lowest point that anyone could ever go. At that point, God "super exalts" Christ to the highest position. The focus shifts to the name that Christ receives. He is YHWH, and all things are subjected to him.

Paul intends the Philippians to take Christ as their example. Christians should walk the way of humility. I have been thinking about this passage in Scripture for a while now (I had to write a term paper on it). This lesson has been a difficult one for me to learn especially since I have had the opportunity to learn more about theology, languages, philosophy, etc. than perhaps most Christians have opportunity to learn. As I reflect on this passage, for me to take pride in what I learn is silly for two reasons. One, how can I take pride in something that is a gift of God. Scripture is God-breathed, and God had to give me a new heart before I even would accept it. I have Scripture, believe it, study it, understand it all because of what God did. Two, Christ's act of self-humiliation as Paul presents it in Philippians simply leaves no room for self boasting. Humility is our way of life as Christians.

I am comforted to know that God gives grace to people like me who struggle with this kind of weakness. I am thankful for the strength he gives me to endure the struggles of pride in my life. And I am thankful that I have to strive be as humble as my Savior who is much humbler than I am and exalt my Lord who is always worthy of my praise.

Childs's Thoughts on Heilsgechichte

Over the past few days, I've been reading the Prolegomena of Childs's 700+ page volume on Biblical Theology. Childs has a way of writing that is almost nourishing to the mind. I'm only 16 pages into the book and can't help but feel refreshed every time I pick it up. Thus far, he has been outlining sort of a history of approaches to Biblical theology while providing thought-provoking commentary along the way. The section he has just dealt with is the "History of Redemption" (i.e the Heilsgechichte) approach. This approach to a certain degree has been fairly popular within Evangelicalism, and I think one of Childs's critiques can appropriately address the Evangelical approach to "History of Redemption." I'll try to be brief and at the risk of being wrong, propose a couple of solutions that may help to mitigate these problems with the Heilsgechichte approach.

We should continue to contend that Christianity is a historical faith. If we do not,  if our faith is not firmly planted in the truth, in the fact that the events of the Bible actually happened, we risk falling into subjectivism. We should continue to fight the battle of the veracity of Scripture. When Biblical theology is the matter at hand, we need to be careful how we factor history into interpretation.  One of Child's critiques is that the Heilsgechichte approach, because it seeks to unify the OT and NT by tracing the thread of God's unfolding plan of redemption, can in some circles focus too much on the event rather than the text itself. While I think Childs is directing his criticism against a type of critical scholarship which depends upon the reconstruction of the event behind text, Evangelicals should be careful not to read the text of Scripture as a superficial retelling of an event. This approach can obfuscate the meaning of the text because it's not paying attention to the way the author puts the text together. What I find interesting is that we can focus on what Jesus or David say but spend less time trying to understand what Luke or the author of Samuel are doing with their texts.

The other side of this critique is that we pitch our tents of interpretive focus at the end of the history of God's plan. Our time spent in the New Testament by far outweighs our time spent in the Old. Could this partially be due to our view of the Bible as the "History of Redemption?" The entire Biblical story certainly points to Christ. The Old Testament eagerly anticipates the redemption wrought through Christ. Once we see Christ's face on the pages of the New Testament, how do we evaluate the value of the Old? Is it merely a prequel to the main story? I think the answer is that the Old Testament fills the New with meaning. While the New reveals Christ's face, the Old provides a depth to Christ's character and person. We know what redemption, messiah, salvation, sin, etc is because the Old Testament teaches us how to think of those terms properly. The New Testament does as well, but as I have read the New Testament, I have come to realize how thoroughly fluent it is with Old Testament language. The New assumes you know the Old, and so we should work hard to understand the Old.

I'm not saying we should throw the concept of the "History of Redemption" under the bus. I am saying that the unity between the testaments is at its base the text of Scripture - not the events it reports. As we learn how the authors are using their texts, we will grow in our knowledge of the depth of God's wisdom that the  Old and the New Testaments together provide us.

A linguistic approach to studying biblical languages: a student's perspective

I know that linguistics is a broad field, and I do not intend give an overview. Nor can I speak authoritatively on the benefits of taking a linguistic approach to studying Greek and Hebrew. I can only tell you about how it has benefited me as a student of these languages. Linguistics is a scientific and descriptive study of a spoken language. Beginning with phonemes (identifiable sounds within a language), linguistics builds upwards toward syntax. Such a study of a language or a family of languages can greatly enhance one's view of a that language.Furthermore, I only intend to focus on morphology and phonology. I hope this sketch will whet your appetite and encourage you to incorporate linguistic categories in your language studies.

We are often told in beginning grammar that changes in the way the word is pronounced is due to certain "rules" which of course, must be memorized. Beginning at the phonemic level, we can begin to understand why those sound changes occur. For instance, the difference between the suffix "s" in the English words "buzzes" and "flats" is that in "buzzes" the "s" sounds like a "z" rather than the sound we normally associate with "s." The change in pronunciation is due to the vowel "e" in "buzzes" - it requires use of the vocal chords. When pronounce the "e" next to the "s" you are still using your vocal chords, so you make the "z" sound. (Put your hand over your Adam's apple, pronounce "s" then "z" then pronounce "buzzes" then "flats", you should be able to tell the difference).

Now, this may seem trivial, but when you see the word (present tense) εχω go to (future tense with rough breathing mark which makes an "h" sound) εξω, you would understand the change not as a rule but because as a result of the combination of sounds. (The rough breathing mark does not occur in the present because the χ (ch like in Bach) makes a similar sound to the (h). It reappears in the future because the χ is replaced with the ξ (sounds like x) allowing the rough breathing mark to reappear).

Morphology is equally if not more complex than phonology. This field deals with larger units called morphemes. We can identify two types of morphemes: bound and unbound. Unbound morphemes can stand on their own, but the bound morphemes must be attached to another morpheme. Take the English word "dogs." "Dog" is an unbound morpheme, and "s" (the marker for plurality) is the bound morpheme. The Hebrew word קטלי also exhibits this behavior קטל is the unbound morpheme and י (The first common singular ending) is the bound morpheme. In Hebrew מ is often a nominal marker (e.g. שכן means "to dwell" and משכן means "dwelling place"). Greek also exhibits complex morphological behavior. The word λελαληκα has 3 morphemes. The perfective morpheme λε, the lexical morpheme λαλε, and the aspect morpheme κα. If know how the morphology of a language works, it can help you to identify a word and it's function in a sentence.

Phonology and morphology should not be separated from semantics or syntax. They can, however, help those who study the languages make sense of a language. The closer we can get to thinking in a language the closer we are to understanding it. I have two recommendations for further reading - one for Greek and one for Hebrew. For Greek students, please read David Alan Black's Linguistics For Students Of New Testament Greek . For the Hebrew learner, pick up Joshua Blau's Phonology and Morphology Of Biblical Hebrew. Even if you have a good grasp on the languages, these books will fill in gaps. Enjoy your learning!

Love of the Word

Wednesday marked the end of a four month trek through Hebrew Grammar I at Cary Alliance Church. The class began with 8 individuals from the local church and the surrounding community. The cost of the class was the purchase price of the Grammar. No external motivations were given. We gave no grades, no quizzes, no tests. "Homework" consisted of memorizing vocabulary, a couple of exercises out of the book and the charge to do as much extra practice as the student desired. As the size of the class slowly dwindled, the form of the class became rather concrete. We met, discussed questions and concerns regarding the previous week's lesson, went over the current week's lesson, recited vocabulary, and we spent the last 45 minutes of the class reading the Hebrew and sight translating.

By the time the last class concluded, three students remained. While I recognize that a 37.5% success rate doesn't seem to be too impressive, remember that these students were no compelled by an academic requirement that required this class for graduation nor were they compelled by a grade received at its conclusion. Instead, each truly possess a love for the Old Testament scriptures and a desire to know them better. This is what caused them to persevere through my shoddy attempt to teach Hebrew Grammar.

Rodney, Christine and Ingrid, thank you for worshipping together with me over the past 4 months. Thank you your discipline and the example you have set for me to persevere in my own knowledge and love of the scriptures. If only everyone in seminary, those who desire to serve in a "full-time" teaching capacity, had the discipline and desire of you three.

No Exceptions to the Westminster Standards? I don't believe you!

I recently attended a presbytery meeting in a conservative Presbyterian denomination where four or five men were examined for ordination to the ministry.  In the process, they were asked if they took any exceptions to the Westminster Standards (WCF, WLC, WSC).  An exception is usually understood as a substantial disagreement with any proposition found in the documents.  Not to my surprise but certainly to my dismay, all the candidates took no exceptions--and I don't believe them.

Jason Stellman over at his blog has recently pointed out this same unfortunate phenomena of candidates not taking any exceptions, when most, if they had studied the standards more carefully, would have surely taken at least one exception.  For example, do all those who took no exception to the Westminster Standards really believe that, "This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator?" Are these candidates aware that almost no scholar in biblical or systematic theology believes this any longer? Yet they do?  Really?

Charles Hodge, in his argument against a type of subscription which demanded subscription to every proposition writes,

If the rule that no man should be allowed to exercise the ministry in our church, who did not adopt every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, should be carried out, we verily believe we should be left almost alone.  We are not sure that we personally know a dozen ministers besides ourselves, who could stand the test. (Charles Hodge, "Adoption of the Confession of Faith" The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 30:4 (1858): 686)

But lo-and-behold, at one presbytery meeting all four or five men took no exception to any proposition found in the Westminster Standards?  I'm sorry, but I will not be convinced that the PCA or OPC is all that more conservative than the Presbyterianism found in the mid-19th century, even while fully acknowledging all the mid-19th c. problems which led to the Old-school/new school split.

So for the love of virtue and honesty--take an exception.

John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 7

In the last post, we looked at how Davenant defends the first proposition by means of various Scripture texts.  Davenant's first proposition is that,

The death of Christ is represented in holy Scripture as an universal remedy, by the ordinance of God, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind. (340-341)

Davenant continues his defense of this proposition by way of syllogistic argumentation.  Specifically, Davenant lays out eight arguments in support of proposition one.  Davenant follows standard Aristotilian logic by setting out various syllogisms taking the form of:

Major Premise:  All men are mortal (all M are P)
Minor Premise:  Soctates is a man (S is M)
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal (S is P)

Argument 1:

Davenant's first argument, following the above syllogistic format, goes something like:

Major Premise:  "That death which brings some spiritual advantages even to those who are not saved, is not applicable to the elect alone"
Minor Premise: "but the death of Christ brings advantages even to some who will not be saved"
Conclusion: "the death of Christ, as to some of its effects at least, is not only applicable to all men generally, but is actually applied to some who will not be saved."

Davenant reminds his readers that "the death of Christ" mentioned in the major and minor premises refers to "all that accumulation of the meritorious obedience of Christ, to which his death put as it were the last finish."  The key assumption Davenant is making is that "it is this infinite merit of the Mediator Christ, which God the Father beholds, when he bestows any spiritual benefit upon lost and miserable mortals in order to eternal salvation."  [Italics mine]

Davenant recognizes that the minor premise, hinging as it does on the assumption above, is that which clearly needs defending for his argument to bear scrutiny.  Accordingly, Davenant appeals first to the proclamation of the Gospel as a spiritual benefit derived from the "infinite merit of the Mediator Christ."  So, Davenant asks, "is it not to be esteemed of considerable advantage, that God should deign to call many even of the non-elect to repentance and faith, and, under the condition of faith, to eternal life?"  Davenant notes that Titus 2:11 calls the preaching of the Gospel, "the grace of God [which] has appeared that offers salvation."  Further, God calls the

preaching of the Gospel, a treasure (2 Cor. iv. 7), and pronounces the feet of them that preach the Gospel beautiful (Rom. x. 15), and threatens the taking it away as the greatest punishment (Matt. xxi. 43), and declares that they shall be most severely punished who have despised and rejected this so great benefit. Luke x. 11, and 2 Thess. i. 8. All these things shew that the Gospel is a supernatural benefit granted even to those who abuse it. (252-253)

Davenant, not content to rest his argument merely on the ground that the preaching of the Gospel is a spiritual benefit given to some of the non-elect, appeals to the famous Hebrews 6 passage which speaks of those "great and supernatural benefits" such as an enlightened mind and a taste of the heavenly gift--all given to many who are unbelievers (or non-elect).  These benefits, according to Davenant, are "given through and for the sake of Christ."  Davenant apparently see the gifts in Hebrews 6 as the same spiritual gifts promised to believers, appealing e.g. to John 1:16 and 1 Cor. 12:11 which says that spiritual gifts are given "by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."

Francis Turretin, somewhat surprisingly (seeing he is a high Calvinist), argues that the problem between the "[Hypothetical] Universalists" and his own view does not respect whether the death of Christ brings "many blessings" to reprobates.

We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates.  For it is due to the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God's word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit.  All these unquestionably flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. (Turretin, Institutes, 2:459 (XI)).

In other words, Turretin would seem to agree with the Davenant's minor premise.  At the meetings of the Synod of Dort, the British Delegates write and argue that,

there are sundry initial preparations tending to Conversion, merited by Christ, and dispensed in the preaching of the Gospel, and wrought by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of many that never attain to true Regeneration or Justification, such as Illuminatio [en: Illumination], & Notitia dogmatum fidei [en: knowledge of the dogmas of faith], Fides Dogmatica [en: dogmatic faith], Sensus peccati [en: a sense of sin], Timor poenae [en: a fear of punishment], Cogitatio de liberatione [en: the thought of deliverance], Spes veniae [en: hope of pardon], &c.  An evident example whereof may be seen in them that sin against the Holy Ghost, Heb. VI & X.  And consequently we hold, that the whole merit of Christ is not confined to the Elect only, as some here do hold, and was held in Colloq. Hag. [Conference at the Hague (1611)] by the Contra-Remonstrants. (Quoted in Milton, The British Delegation, 219)

Interestingly, the question of whether or not "whatever supernatural grace is given through Christ to any man, is given from the merit of Christ" was a debated point among Reformed scholars in Davenant's time.  E.g., Samuel Ward, an English contemporary of Davenant and a fellow delegate to the Synod of Dort, wrote to James Ussher complaining that, "some of us [i.e. the English delegates to Dort] were held by some [as] half remonstrants, for extending the oblation made to the Father, to all; and for holding sundry effects thereof offered serio [en: seriously], and some really communicated to the reprobate." (Ibid., xliv).  As an aside, the British delegates, as a whole, believed that this latter affirmation (viz. "sundry effects...really communicated to the reprobate" gained ground upon the Remonstrant's denial of perseverance of the saints, "and thereby easily repell[ed], not only their instances of Apostasie [sic], but also their odious imputation of illusion in the general propounding of the Evangelical Promises." (ibid., 217). 

James Walker, the 19th c. Scottish Free-Church historian, also notes that the question of whether certain benefits are purchased by Christ for the reprobate was not new for Scottish Presbyterianism.

[The] scheme that Christ had purchased 'common benefits,' the ordinary temporal blessings of life, and that it is through His grace that the world is sustained as it is, and that all its bounties are enjoyed by mankind...[has] at different times and in different forms...been debated in the Scottish churches.  [James] Durham has an essay, in which he considers whether any mercy bestowed upon the reprobate, and enjoyed by them, may be said to be the proper fruit of, or purchase of, Christ's death. And he answers decisively in the negative. The native fruits of Christ's death, he says, are not divided, but they all go together. So that for whom He satisfied and for whom He purchased anything in any respect, He did so in respect of everything. There may be certain consequences of Christ's death of an advantageous kind which reach wicked men. But that is a mere accident. Nay, to the wicked there may be given common gifts, by which the Church is edified and the glory of the Lord advanced; but these belong to the covenant redemption, as promised blessings to God's people. It is argued further, that it is very doubtful whether, looked at in every point of view, it can well be said that it is a blessing to men who yet reject the Son of God, that they have the morally purifying influences of Christianity, and are more or less affected by them in their character, or by any such blessing as can be said to fall from the tree of life. So, too, thought Gillespie, and so thought Rutherford. (Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 50-51)

In other words, Durham et al would have denied that the merit of Christ purchases benefits (albeit, common grace benefits) for the non-elect.  Davenant may have retorted to someone like Durham by claiming that, "Christ does not confer any thing upon men which he hath not first merited for them by his obedience" including those spiritual blessings spoken of in Hebrews 6 which the reprobate receive.  In defending this claim, Davenant appeals to Bernard of Clairvaux as stating that "whatsoever wisdom, whatsoever virtue you think you have, attribute it to Christ, the virtue of God, the wisdom of God. The source of fountains and rivers is the sea : the source of virtue and knowledge is our Lord Jesus Christ." (Cf. Bernard, Sermon 13 on the Song of Songs, Para. 1).  Furthermore, Ambrose stated that, "every gift of the grace of God is in Christ."  Thus, a common grace gift is from Christ also.

Another argument in support of the question of whether the death of Christ is applicable to the non-elect comes from Davenant's understanding of the early church's teaching that the "death of Christ was applied in baptism for the remission of original sin to every baptised infant."  Davenant claims that this opinion can be confirmed by way of Prosper, the African Fathers in their Synodical Epistle, and the Council of Valence (5th Canon).

Argument 2:

The second argument employed by Davenant in defense of proposition #1 follows the following syllogistic pattern:

Major Premise: "He who by undergoing death by the ordination of God sustained the punishment due not only to the sins of certain individual persons, but of the whole human race; His passion, by virtue of the same ordination, is applicable not only to certain definite persons, but to every individual of the human race."
Minor Premise: "But Christ by dying sustained the punishment due to the sins of the world"
Conclusion: "Therefore, he willed that his death should be, as it were, an universal cause of salvation applicable to all."

Davenant begins by stating that the person who finds the major premise unsound must "shew why God willed that his Son should bear the sins of the human race, if he was unwilling to appoint in his death a cause at least applicable to the human race, although the application would not follow in many."  Davenant sees the cause of God in offering Christ as a propitiation even for those who would not believe as proceeding from the pleasure of "the Divine goodness and wisdom to exact from our Redeemer, and as it were to receive into his own hands, an universal ransom applicable to all."

Davenant lists three other causes for Christ's death for all men.  First, that the "liberty of the Divine will" might be made more manifest (in applying the remedy to those whom he wills by divine election).  Second, "That he might afford a specimen of great mercy" towards the non-elect who are in the Church.  Finally, that unbelievers may be convinced that God had provided a remedy which was not wanting with respect to their sins, but they still are not willing to come (cf. John 5:40).

In his defense of the minor premise, Davenant appeals to Isaiah 53:6.  Further, he quotes Prosper, the disciple of Augustine, who said that "the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ransom of the whole world, from which they are excluded, who, either being delighted with their captivity are unwilling to be redeemed..."  Davenant also mentions the second article of the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles which states that, "[Christ] truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." (Cf. Art. 31 of the 39 Articles) 

Finally, Davenant seems to leave the most 'air-tight' testimony as his last.  Davenant quotes Paraeus, the chief disciple of Ursinus (whom Richard Muller has claimed to be a hypothetical universalist), as writing in a letter to the Synod of Dort,

The cause and matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of the anger of God excited against the sin, not of some men, but of the whole human race; whence it arises, that the whole of sin and of the wrath of God against it was endured by Christ, but the whole of reconciliation was not obtained or restored to all. Act. Synod. Dordrect. p. 217. (quoted in Davenant, 356)

Davenant understands this quote of Paraeus as affirming:

He who willed and ordained that Christ the Mediator should sustain the wrath of God due to the sins not of certain persons, but of the whole human race. He willed that this passion of Christ should be a remedy applicable to the human race, that is, to each and every man, and not only to certain individual persons; supreme power being nevertheless left to himself, and full liberty of dispensing and applying this infinite merit according to the secret good pleasure of his will. (356)

If it is accurate, as Richard Muller asserts in his review of Jonathan Moore's book on English Hypothetical Universalism, namely, that Ursinus was a hypothetical universalist, and if Davenant  has conclusively proved (and other historians have since confirmed) from the quote above that Paraeus, Ursinus' chief disciple, was a hypothetical universalist, then what shall we say about the Heidelberg Catechism authored chiefly by Ursinus?  Is it positing a hypothetical universalist position in question 37?:

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life. [italics mine]

Argument 3:

Major Premise:  "Whoever from the ordination of God may be called to believe in the Mediator, and they who by believing may obtain eternal life, to them the death of Christ from the previous ordination of God is applicable for salvation"
Minor Premise:  "But every living person may be called to believe in the Mediator, and by believing, according to the evangelical covenant, may obtain eternal life"
Conclusion:  "Therefore, the death of Christ is applicable to every living person."

Davenant begins by explaining that the connection between the antecedent and consequent found in the major premise is, "that a real call to believe presupposes an object prepared in which to believe, and this very possibility of being saved by believing implies a saving object, that is, That the death or merit of Christ was ordained as a remedy applicable to him to whom such a benefit is promised under the condition of faith."

This argument is not unique to Davenant.  One of the chief concerns for the moderate Calvinist was the need for an object to which a sinner may be called to believe.  If Christ is not applicable to all sinners, then all sinners cannot be called to believe in Christ.  The connection in the major premise, for Davenant, is absolutely crucial.

The second premise, the minor, is a truth which Davenant thinks all orthodox Christians ought to concede.  Although Davenant recognizes that the Gospel message will not, by God's providence, be proclaimed to all men, he nonetheless argues that,

God himself has appointed that the Gospel should be a thing really to be announced to all...If any one preacher could go over the whole world, and come to every individual mortal, it would be lawful for him to offer Christ to every man, and, under the condition of faith, to announce and promise salvation to be obtained through Christ...[the death of Christ] would not be sufficient to save all, even if all should believe, unless it be true that by the ordination of God this death is an appointed remedy applicable to all. If it be denied that Christ died for some persons, it will immediately follow, that such could not be saved by the death of Christ, even if they should believe. (357-358)

At this point, Davenant raises an apparent objection, an objection most high Calvinists have raised against the hypothetical universalist position, namely:

That God has not commanded his ministers to announce that Christ died for every individual, whether they believe or not, but only for believing and penitent sinners, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated from the universality of the call, that the death of Christ is, according to the ordination of God, an universal remedy applicable to all.  (358)

However, Davenant finds this reasoning absurd.  For "faith is not previously required in mankind, as a condition, which makes Christ to have died for them," but faith is the means of actually appropriating the (saving) benefits of the death of Christ to oneself.  Davenant concludes his third argument by asserting that "when therefore we announce to any one, that the death of Christ would profit him if he believed, we presume that it was destined for him, as applicable before he believed."

Argument 4:

Major Premise: "If all men, as soon as the doctrine of the Gospel concerning Christ the Redeemer enduring death on account of the sins of mankind, is made known to them, are bound to be grateful and obedient to Christ, then it is certain that this work of the Redeemer in offering himself as a sacrifice to God, is to be considered as a benefit generally applicable to all; for there is no cause why we should say that they are bound to gratitude, or to the duties of obedience, on account of the death of Christ, who are altogether excluded from that benefit"
Minor Premise: "But an Apostle testifies that every man may be excited to obedience by this argument."
Conclusion:  "[Therefore], unless the death of Christ be understood as a remedy applicable to all, the foundation on which the ministers of the Gospel build exhortations of this kind, will be always uncertain, and often false: Always uncertain, because it cannot be known by men who are the elect. Often false, as often indeed as it is exhibited to the non-elect, who by this kind of redemption are not bound to live to Christ, unless it be presupposed that the sacrifice offered by Christ for the redemption of the world was for them."

Davenant defends the minor premise by way of 1 Cor. 6:20 and 2 Cor. 5:15.  Davenant even argues that Christ may not claim supreme dominion over each and every man by right of his death as Rom. 14:9 seems to suggest, unless the merit of Christ be applicable to all according to God's ordination. 

Again, in conclusion, Davenant suggests that, "we ought, to extend his death to all, at least as to the right and power of a saving application," though acknowledging that "the Spirit of Christ (who bloweth where he listeth) gives to men the faculty and will of applying, as well as the benefit of the death applied, according to the decree of his special mercy."

Thoughts On Biblical Narrative

I don't think I'm saying anything new or particularly insightful. I figured I would just share what I've been thinking about lately:

Perhaps the greatest challenge to a modern audience is to realize the Bible is both literature and history. I do not think we should try to separate the two. I think part of the problem is that we see accuracy and fact tied up with scientific precision. The biblical writers, however, do not write with the precision we would expect (they do not contain direct quotes, stories are not always ordered chronologically, etc). Each writer selects, arranges, and adapts his material to convey meaning. In doing so, they write with great degree of accuracy - revealing the theological and historical reality of each event in a way that only well-written literature can do.

I think that reading and understanding Scripture is much like learning to speak. As we read, we build a grammar and vocabulary for understanding the Biblical language. We are like children learning to think, read, and speak. The act of reading allows us to learn the grammar and syntax of Scripture so that we may see the devices that the author uses. The use of words and phrases, breaking with genre, and the arranging of material are a part of the language that the author uses to convey the event and its meaning to his readers.

More importantly, the author challenges us to evaluate the window through which we see the world through the Biblical framework. The Bible confronts us as a lion his prey. With great force, it devours our false conceptions of the world in which we live. The story of the Fall is not about a snake and “apple” but conveys perverseness of human sin. The stories of the Patriarchs are not just stepping stones to the Messiah but reveal the depth of God’s faithfulness and steadfast love upon which found God’s salvific acts. Israel’s continual rebellion is not just an example for us but an illustration of God’s patience and mercy and the need for the circumcision of the heart. Jesus is not just the miracle working man who dies and is resurrected, but Israel’s representative who succeeds where Israel fails mediating the blessings of the covenant to those who have faith. Paying close attention to author’s usage of language and literary devices allows us to see these things in vivid colors.

We have no need to exact a postmodern, relativistic, “what this means to me” attitude when it comes to interpretation of Scripture. C.S. Lewis once said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Scripture is God’s light which teaches to see the world as it is and live in it as we should. For this reason, let us aspire together to understand the biblical narrative for through it we can understand reality.