Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

  • About
  • Writings
  • Recommended Resources
  • Categories
    • Christian Living
    • Book Recs
    • Biblical Theology
    • Dogmatics
      • Bibliology
      • Christology
      • Ecclesiology
    • Church History
    • Biblical Studies

Henshall’s History of Japan

August 21, 2018 by Brian

Henshall, Kenneth. A History of Japan: From Stone Age to Superpower. Third edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

I picked this book up because I wanted an accessible but accurate overview of the history of Japan. I picked the right book. The author impressed me as well informed and aware of debated issues in Japan’s history, but his telling remained accessible. Especially welcome were summaries at the end of each chapter not only of key events but key cultural ideas from the time covered.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Notes on Herman Witsius’s Economy of the Covenants

August 20, 2018 by Brian

Eight years ago, on my honeymoon, I began slowly reading the Economy of the Covenants. Last month I finished the Economy. Below are the notes that I took. Hopefully some will find them helpful.

38ff -discussion of the meaning of Hebrew & Greek words for covenant

40 – Jer 34:18-20 gives the significance of walking between cut animals

41 – definition of a covenant between God and man

1.1.15- covenant of works and covenant of grace

1.2.1- interestingly, Witsius speaks of the Covenant of Works as something made with God and Adam as the federal head of our race, but the proof texts concerning the nature of this covenant are drawn from the Mosaic Covenant

1.2.5-8- A defense of Adam’s knowledge of the Trinity (speculative)

1.2.9-12- the nature of the image of God in man, esp. the nature of his righteousness before the fall 1 2

1.2.13- the fact that Adam was entrusted with the image of God and given sufficient faculties to maintain that image taken as evidence that he was in covenant with God

1.2.14-18- the federal headship of Adam found in Scripture and defended against objections

1.3.2-3- on natural law

1.3.4-6- on the existence of law before the Fall

1.3.7 – argued that the 10 commandments are in substance the same as the natural law that has been since Adam.

1.3.8-19- the law is based on the nature of God and not merely on his positive will

See comments on 1 Timothy 1:9 at 1.3.9

1.3.20-21- on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

1.3.22-24- on the relation between natural law and the symbolic (but real) law prohibiting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

1.4.9- on eternity in heaven

1.4.4-8- on the promise of eternal life in the law

1.4.10-23 is an example of a Protestant Scholastic dealing with speculative matters. Notice the caution.

1.5.1-21- on the penalty of death pronounced in the garden

1.5.22-38 – on the penalty for sin being rooted in the nature of God – an excellent discussion of how the majesty, holiness of God are related to the punishment for sin.

1.5.39-42 – on the eternal duration of the penalty being rooted in the nature of God

1.6.4-10 – the significance of the garden of Eden to the covenant of works

1.6.11-15 – the significance of the tree of life

1.6.16-24 – the significance of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

1.8 – the Fall

1.8.10-29 – God’s foreknowledge and providence in connection with the Fall

1.8.29 – why God is not the author of evil though he foreordains all things–the mystery of it

1.8.30 – the headship of Adam

1.9.2 elements of the covenant of works still in effect

1.9.3-15 – all sinners still under the law (of the covenant of works?) and are therefore bound to obey God & responses to Arminius’ arguments that sinners are not bound to obey God’s law.

1.9.18 – the covenant of works not abrogated in regards to the three items noted in 1.9.2, but this section notes the ways in which it was abrogated

1.9.18 – Witsius says that Heb. 8:13 refers not directly to the passing away of the covenant of works but to the passing away of the old economy of the covenant of grace, but that what he says can be extended to the covenant of works.

1.9.21 – The law is now a rule of duty, but it is no longer a federal rule that promises eternal life for obedience

1.9.23 – but the covenant of works is not abrogated by the covenant of grace; rather, the covenant of works was fulfilled by the mediator and this enabled the covenant of grace to come in it’s place.

2.1.5 – definition of the covenant of grace

2.2.2 – covenant between The Father and the Son as part of the Covenant of Grace.

2.2.3-7 – Scripture proofs for the covenant between Father and Son (often called covenant of redemption).

2.2.10 – content of the covenant of Redemption

2.2.11 – Christ’s baptism a sign and seal of the covenant of Redemption

2.2.16 – on the antiquity of the concept of a covenant of redemption

2.3.2 – the covenant between Father and Son extends back into eternity: 1 Pet. 1:20; Prov. 8:23; Eph 1:4; John 17:6; Rev. 13:8. 2.3.3 – the covenant between Father and Son further evidenced by the mediatorial role adopted by the sudden immediately after the fall.

2.3.4 – the third period of the covenant is the incarnation and beyond

2.3.5 – The law is (1) A directory of the Mediator’s nature and office and (2) a condition of the covenant. The Mediator himself may be considered as God, as man, as Mediator God-Man.

2.3.6 – The Son as God is not under the law, for he is co-equal with the Father and Spirit.

2.3.7 – Witsius argues that the Son as God did not subject himself to the Father, for as God he is equal to the Father.

2.3.8 – He was called an Angel before the incarnation not because he was a being inferior to God bit because he appeared to man as such, prefiguring the incarnation.

2.3.9-13 – The relation of Christ to the Law as man, Israelite, and Mediator.

2.3.14 – On the active obedience of Christ

2.3.15 – On the passive obedience of Christ

2.3.16-19 – The relation of the divine nature (or the divine and human natures hypostatically united) to the law.

2.3.20-26 – On the economic subordination of the Son to the Father

2.3.27 – On the errors if the Remonstrants (Arminians), including their conception of the freedom of the will.

2.3.28 – On the reward for Christ’s obedience, namely his glorification and what it is.

2.3.29-34 – On the obedience of Christ as the ground of His reward and ours

2.4.3-7 – The surety of the covenant must be a true man

2.4.8-9 – he must be sinless from conception

2.4.10-11 – on the virgin birth, the true humanity of Christ, and original holiness; whether only a symbol or necessary to escape original sin.

2.4.12-18 – on the necessity of the Messiah’s deity.

2.5.3 – On the covenant of redemption; on what is required for Christ to be our surety

2.5.4 – Why Christ is qualified to be our surety.

2.5.8 – “But we certainly take too much upon us, when we presume to examine the equity of the divine government, by the standard of our reason: when the fact is plain, we are always to vindicate God against the sophistry of our foolish reasonings.”

2.5.13 – On why we must still obey though Christ obeyed perfectly in our stead.

2.6.4-11 – Christ makes satisfaction for sin as our substitute in all his sufferings throughout his life and in his death

2.6.14 – In defense of the substitutionary atonement

2.7.1-2 – The efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction in securing salvation for the elect.

2.7.3 – “The effect of Christ’s satisfaction was not a bare possibility of the remission of our sins, and of our reconciliation with God but an actual remission and reconciliation.” cf. 2.7.4-5

2.7.8 – “true saving benefits are bestowed on none of the elect, before effectual calling, and actual union to Christ by a lively faith.” none the;ess Witsius says the elect before conversion “are in a state of reconciliation and justification actively considered.” 1 Cor 5:19

2.7.9-16 – against Arminius who says there is no actual remission, justification, or redemption of particular persons without that person’s faith

2.8.1 – The issue of the necessity of the atonement is not one of the absolute power of God–it is an issue of God’s “holiness, justice, and the like.” This is the issue: “whether God’s requiring Christ to give him satisfaction before h restore sinners to his favour, was owing to the mere good pleasure of the divine will; or whether the essential holiness, the justice, and the like perfections of God, which he cannot possibly part with, required a satisfaction to be made? We judge the last of these to be more true and safe.”

2.8.3 – The hypostatic union was ordained so the Son of God could suffer as a ransom for sinners. “Would not all this, to speak with reverence, seem a kind of solemn farce, if God by a single breath, could dispel all our sins as a cloud?”

2.8.7 – “If any affirm, that no satisfaction was necessary on account of the justice of God, but that he exacted it on account of some other perfections, namely to declare his power and will to punish sin, which he might suffer to go un[unished. I answer, such power and will are scarcely to be called perfections in God; seeing Christ, Mat. v. 45.48. reckons God’s mercy, long-suffering, and bounty towards men, even the unjust, amonghis perfections. Which would certianly be most laudable, if God could, as pleasure, let sin go unpunished.”

2.8.9 – God gave up his Son for his love to mankind (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 1 John 4:10). But if God could have redeemed us without the suffering of his Son, what does that say of his love for his Son. “Love is truly great, and inexpressible to the last degree, when implacable justice having demanded the punishment of mankind God’s love to man and free purpose of salvation, have nevertheless prevailed by finding out that end in the treasures of divine wisdom, an amazing method of reconciling justice with mercy.”

2.8.10 – “Christ’s satisfaction was ‘a declaration of the righteousness of God,’ Rom. iii. 25.”

2.8.12 – Sacrifices of the Mosaic law cannot take away sin. “But why might not a thing so easily to be removed without atonement be expiated by the death of legal sacrifices?” The atonement necessary for our salvation.

2.8.14 – Justification through the blood of Christ alone and not by works of the law (Rom 3:19-21ff.) argues that God had to be satisfied before he could justify

2.8.15-16 – Heb. 10:26 implies a sacrifice is necessary for pardon. Also Heb. 6:6.

2.8.17 – Asserting the necessity of satisfaction displays the glory of God’s holiness, justice, wisdom, and grace.

2.8.19 – On why it doesn’t testify against God’s absolute power or the freedom of his will. Excellent discussion.

2.9 – Defense of limited atonement

2.10.1 – “thus far we have at large treated of those things that relate to the covenant between Christ and the Father; and might seem to have completely finished that subject; was it not proper to add something concerning the Sacraments, by which that covenant was confirmed.” See Heb. 7:20-21

2.10.2 – Jesus was circumcised and kept the Passover

2.10.3-7 – Lord’s Supper based off Passover

2.10.8 – Christ partook of the Sacraments to fulfill all righteousness, as is noted at his baptism.

2.10.10 – Some of the Father’s promises to Christ relate to the covenant of works and others to his office and work as Mediator.

2.10.11 – “We may now enquire, whether both of these kinds of promises were sealed to Christ, by the ordinary Sacraments of the Old and New Testament, which he partook of. But we must not determine anything rashly with respect to this: and therefore I shall modestly propose what I think most probable. There is indeed no reason why Christ, as a holy man, and who as such, was to be made happy, might not be confirmed in the faith of this promise by some certain Sacraments, as appears from the Sacraments of the Covenant of Works given to Adam before the fall. But that such Sacraments were for that purpose granted Christ, does not appear from Scripture. Moreover, I dare not affirm that the ordinary Sacraments, which Christ made use of, were subservient to the confirming the legal promises belonging to the Covenant of Works, because they are Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace. And it does not seem consistent, that the promises of the Covenant of Works should be sealed by the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace.”

2.10.14 – “I therefore conclude, that the promises made to Christ as Mediator, were principally sealed to him by the Sacraments; Christ indeed, obtained these in virtue of his merits, or to speak with Paul, because he fulfilled the righteousness of the law; yet in themselves, and as they relate to believers, they are promises of the covenant of grace.”

2.10.22-23 – Significance of Christ’s circumcision

2.10.24 – Significance of Christ’s baptism

2.10.25-26 – Significance of Christ’s participation in Passover

2.10.-27 – The significance of Christ’s participation in the Lord’ Supper

3..1.4 – Roles of each member of the Trinity in the covenant with the elect / covenant of grace

3.1.5 – some externally in this covenant who are not internally in it

3.1.6 – Jeremiah 31 key passage in this covenant of grace / promises are grace in this life and glory to come

3.1.7 – promises of covenants of works and grace are same; conditions are different

3.1.8-13 – Covenant of Grace has no conditions (though given qualifications he is willing to use that term). We do not merit the promises of the covenant, the covenant is testament, the new covenant is frames promises

3.1.14 – Faith and holiness necessary for salvation, but not a condition as they are gifts from God

3.1.18 – faith and repentance given by God, salvation and obedience to the law follow

3.1.19 – faith is the instrument for laying hold on the covenant of grace, not the condition

3.1.20 – faith plays a different role in the New Covenant than works played in the Old Covenant

3.1.21-22 – No threatening in the covenant of grace; threatening all from the law

3.2.2 – “We therefore maintain, agreeable to the sacred writings, that to all the Elect, living in any period of time, 1st, One and the same eternal life was promised. 2ndly, That Jesus Christ was held forth as the one and the same author and bestower of salvation. 3rdly, That they could not become partakers of it in any other way, but by a true and lively faith in him. If we demonstrate these three things, none can any longer doubt, but that the covenant of grace must be, as to its substance, only one from the beginning. For, if the salvation be the same, and the author of it the same, the manner of communion with him the same, it is certain the covenant itself cannot be more than one.”

3.2.3-10, 15-32 – On the resurrection of the dead

3.2.35-40 – salvation through Christ even in the OT

3.2.41-43 – salvation by faith in the OT

3.3.2 – The one covenant of grace under two primary economies: the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament not the legal covenant.

3.3.4 – OT: promises in shadows and Gentiles excluded

3.3.11 – First period of the Old Testament: Adam to Noah; Abel’s death a type of the Messiah’s and Enoch’s translation a type of Christ’s ascension

3.3.12 – Second period of the Old Testament: Noah to Abraham; Noah a type of the Messiah

3.3.13 – Third period of the Old Testament: Abraham to Moses; promises of the covenant of grace given to Abraham, the sacrament of circumcision, Melchizedek a type of Christ

3.3.14-15 – Fourth period of the Old Testament: Moses to John the Baptist/Jesus; deliverance from Egypt, giving of the law

3.3.16 – Diversity on when the economy of the New Testament begins: birth of Christ, beginning of his public ministry, the death of Christ, or Pentecost

3.3.17-18 – Witsius argues for a gradual transition from Old Testament economy to New

3.3.20 – Some instead of dividing the covenant of grace into two economies (Old and New Testament), divide it into three (promise, law, gospel).

3.3.21, 23 – Witsius notes that the ceremonies were lighter before Moses, but that there were still sacrifices, clean & unclean animals, and circumcision thus a period of promise is not without the yoke of law

3.4.1 – The benefits of the covenant of grace: “1. Election. 2. Effectual calling to the communion of Christ. 3. Regeneration. 4. Faith. 5. Justification. 6. Spiritual peace. 7. Adoption. 8. The Spirit of Adoption. 9. Sanctification. 10. Conservation, or preservation. 11. Glorification.”

3.4.2-3 – Election defined

3.4.4 – Election based on God’s purpose, counsel, or decree, not on our works: 2 Tim 1:9; Eph 1:11; Rom. 8:28; 9:11

3.4.5 – Election is to salvation (2 Thess 2:13); not to an external condition (as in 1 Sam. 10:24; John 9:70; Deut 4:36)

3.4.6-7 – of the book of life

3.4.8, 10-12 – Election is personal and particular, not general and indeterminate (as the election of who will believe). See Acts 2:23 where God’s counsel is said to be determinate and Rom 8:29-30 in which persons, not conditions are said to be elect; also Lk 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Christ know whom he has chosen: 2 Tim. 2:19; John 13:

3.4.13-23 – Election made from eternity: Acts 11:18; Eph 1:4, 11; Matt 25:34; Rev. 13:8; 2 Tim 1:9; 2 Thess 1:13.

3.4.24 – God’s freedom in electing whom he will. Matt. 11:26; Lk. 12:32; Rom 9:21; election not based on anything in man: Rom 9:11; 2 Tim 1:9; election not based on faith or holiness, because these are gifts from God and are the purposes for which we were chosen: Phil. 1:29; Eph 2:8; Eph. 1:4; John 15:16; 2 Thess 2:13

3.4.25 – The immutability of God’s counsel in general: Isa 14:27; 46:10; Rom 9:19; “If any decree of God could be changed, it would be because God either would not, or could not effect the thing decreed, or because his latter thoughts were wise and better than his first: all of which are injurious to God. You will answer; God, indeed, wills what he has decreed to be done, but on condition the creature also wills it, whose liberty he would no-wise infringe. I answer, Is God so destitute either of power, or of wisdom, that he cannot so concur with the liberty of second causes, which he himself gave and formed, as to do what he wills, without prejudice to, and consistently with their liberty?” Immutability of election: Rom 9:11; 2 Tim 2:19; Isa 49:15-16; Rev 3:5; Isa 4:3

3.4.27-29 – On assurance of election.

3.4.30 – praise to God for election

3.5.1 – “And this calling is that act by which those who are chosen by God are sweetly invited, and effectually brought from a state of sin to a state of communion with God in Christ, both externally and internally.”

3.5.2-3 – Called from sin to Christ

3.5.4-6 – Benefits of calling

3.5.7 – External call in nature and Scripture; internal call by the Spirit

3.5.8-14 – natural revelation; its content; leaves man without excuse, but not sufficient to save

3.5.15-20 – External call through preaching the Gospel

3.5.21-26 – internal call

3.6.4 – “Regeneration is that supernatural act of God, whereby a new and divine life is infused into the elect person spiritually dead, and that from the incorruptible seed of the word of God made fruitful by the infinite power of the Spirit.”

3.6.5-6 – spiritual deadness

3.6.8 – Regeneration happens in a moment

3.6.10 – Semi-Pelagian and Remonstrant views regarding preparation for regeneration

3.6.11 – Reformed views of preparation for regeneration as power of the word in the heart, sense of sin, dread of punishment. These are neither natural nor meritorious but are acts of God. Nevertheless, Witsius sees them as effects of regeneration rather than preparation for regeneration.

3.6.12 – Different meanings of regeneration

3.6.25-27 – Word the seed of regeneration

3.7.1 – Faith is “the principal act of that spiritual life implanted in the elect by regeneration, and the source of all subsequent vital operations.”

3.7.4-5 – Against faculty psychology – understanding and will acting of the one soul in different aspects; they are one thing considered from different aspects.

3.7.8-10 – Faith includes knowledge of the thing believed―not complete understanding of all things―what things must be understood.

3.7.11 – Faith includes assent

3.7.16 – the person who wavers in his belief may still have assent

3.7.17 – true faith includes love of the truth known and assented to

3.7.18 – Faith includes a hunger for Christ

3.7.19-23 – Faith includes receiving Christ as Lord

3.7.26 – Summary of teaching on faith

3.7.28-35 – true and false faith; discerning the difference

3.7.36 – reasons for lack of assurance; assurance expedient but not necessary for salvation

3.8.2-5 – definition of justification

3.8.5-15 – Controversy with Rome not that justification has a forensic sense, which they grant. Some eminent Protestants grant it is sometimes used in a non-forensic sense that entails sanctification, but Witsius does not think this justified by the passages cited.

3.8.16-26 – Witsius grants that there is a justification or declaration that people are righteous because they act righteously. Phineas and James 2 cited as examples

3.8.27 – “We thus define the Gospel justification of a sinner: ‘it is a judicial, but gracious act of God, whereby the elect and believing sinner, is absolved from the guilt of his sins, and hath a right to eternal life ajudged to him, on account of the obedience of Christ, received by faith.'”

3.8.29 – Christ’s original righteousness and active obedience

3.8.30-32 – imputation and union with Christ

3.8.33-36 – God as judge

3.8.37-42 – Christ’s righteousness and justification and imputation; justification by imputation of Christ’s righteousness necessary if justification is to be by grace and not by works

3.8.43-46 – justification addresses the sin problem

3.8.47-56 – the means of justification is faith alone; faith is not what is counted as our righteousness; faith not a work; faith not a condition of justification (the condition being perfect obedience, which condition Christ met)

3.8.57-63 – Different aspects of justification, such as its plan, its provision, its application, its assurance, future final verdict, etc.

3.8.64-67 – Future judgment/justification has its foundation both in inherent and imputed righteousness; inherent righteousness does not merit eternal life; good works are proof of faith, signs of hungering after righteousness, and works of God’s grace

3.8.68-77 – Justice and mercy at final judgment; works neither considered perfect nor meritorious.

3.9.1 – Reconciliation, the consummation of which is peace with God, follows on from Justification.

3.9.2 – What the peace of reconciliation is.

3.9.6 – God the initiator or reconciliation

3.9.13 – peace of conscience (= assurance?)

3.9.19 – gaining peace with God

3.9.20 – maintaining peace with God

3.9.21 – preservation and assurance

3.9.27 – difference between peace and carnal security

3.9.28 – how the peace of the New Covenant differs from that of previous covenants

3.10 – adoption

3.10.17-25 – difference between OT & NT believers

3.10.21, 25, 30 – the land for OT & NT believers

3.11.5-12 – difference between OT & NT believers regarding the Holy Spirit

3.12.3-6 – on holiness as distinctness from the world or the nations

3.12.7-9 – on holiness as being set apart to God

3.12.10 – on holiness as purity

3.12.11 – definition of sanctification

3.12.12-14 – different senses of sanctification as it relates to regeneration, effectual calling, and justification

3.12.20-26 – total depravity

3.12.27 – the significance of the term “old man.”

3.12.28-30 – mortification / putting off the old man

3.12.29-44 – putting on the new man; roles of understanding, will, affections, and body in this

3.12.45 – the parts of sanctification

3.12.46 – sanctification not merely the amendment of actions but the conferring of new habits.

3.12.48-51 – roles of the members of the Trinity in sanctification

3.12.62 – a holy ambition to be sanctified

3.12.67-79 – virtues in the natural man, virtues in the spiritual man, who pleases God.

3.12.80-95 – the rule of sanctification, the insufficiency of natural law, the great benefit of God’s law

3.12.96-103 – the end, or goal, of Christian virtues, the first of these being the glory of God, with considerations of self and neighbor following

3.12.104-117 – the means of sanctification, eight given

3.12.120-24 – why God permits the struggle between flesh and Spirit

3.12.25 – what the Scripture means when it calls some people perfect

3.13.2 – definition of conservation, or preservation

3.13.3 – distinctions between those in the church who are conserved and those who are not

3.13.5-8 – failings and declensions of those who do persevere

3.13.10-11 – apostates not preserved/restored ?

3.13.12-14 – Preservation based on the Father’s predestination

3.13.15 – Preservation based on the Father’s gift of believers to the Son; the Father will not let the Son lose his gift.

3.13.16-17 – Preservation based on the promises of the covenant of grace [he cites new convent passages]

3.13.18 – the Father preserves us by his power.

3.13.19 – Christ will not lose those he purchased with his blood.

3.13.20 – We are preserved because the Son intercedes for us.

3.13.21-24 – believers are living stones in the church Christ is building, and the gates of Hell will not withstand it.

3.13.25-26 – We are preserved because we are united to Christ and are part of his body.

3.13.27-29 – indwelling of the Spirit testifies to preservation

3.13.30-33 – We are preserved because the indwelling Spirit is the fountain of eternal life

3.13.34-37 – The Spirit’s role as seal guarantees preservation

3.13.38 – preservation accomplished by God’s supernatural power

3.13.39-40- the means by which the elect persevere

3.13.41-46 – how the doctrine of preservation promotes piety

3.14.4 – definition of glorification

3.14.5-10 – The first fruits of glorification in this life: holiness, vision of God, possession and enjoyment of God, full assurance of understanding, joy in God.

3.14.12-27 – On the intermediate state

3.14.28-32 – On the righteous in the intermediate state

3.14.33-41 – The righteous in the eternal state

4.1.2-26 – Gen 3:15

4.2 – Noah

4.3.3 – On OT appearances of God in human form as appearances of Christ

4.3.11-20 – Abrahamic covenant

4.3.21-23 – Abraham justified by faith

4.3.24-28 – Abrahamic covenant given to Abraham’s seed

4.3.30-38 – Job

4.3.32 – Angel of the Lord

4.3.40-41 – Identity and character of Balaam

4.4.2 – types of law in Mosaic Covenant ― moral, ceremonial, political – tid to three ways of considering Israel: Rational creatures (moral), church of the OT (ceremonial), a peculiar people (political)

4.4.4 – The angel who gave the law (Acts 7:39) was the Son of God. See Acts 7:35; Ps 68:18; Eph 4:8; Ps 68:7-8; Heb. 12:26

4.4.6 – The Son, economically considered, is the captain of the angels presnt at the giving of the law. Acts 7:58 with Dt. 33:2; Acts 7:35, 38; Ps. 68:17; Dan 4:17, 24

4.4.7 – The ministry of angels at the giving of he law – Dt. 33:2; Heb. 2:2; Gal. 3:19

4.4.9 – Law given on fiftieth day from Passover? (Pentecost connection?)

4.4.10 – Symbolic significance of Mt. Sinai’s location in the law/gospel contest

4.4.11-12 – The people’s internal impurity despite ritual holiness and the Law’s function of condemnation

4.4.14 – relation of the covenant of works and covenant of grace in the

4.4.17-19 – significance of God himself engraving the law on the tablets of stone

4.4.20 – significance of the two tablets

4.4.26 – Significance of placing the law in the ark of the covenant – Ex. 25:16; Dt. 10:5

4.4.27-37 – Is the Decalogue still binding on the church. Witsius affirms.

4.4.39-42 – the law’s role considered absolutely and relatively, in relation to man’s first, fallen, and restored state.

4.4.43-46 – The Decalogue is part of a covenant with Israel.

4.4.47-57 – Is the Mosaic law a covenant of works or of grace; Witsius argues that it is neither. It is a national covenant with Israel with elements of both

4.6.1-11 – Defense of typology / basic rules for interpreting types

4.6.12 – Three kinds of types: natural, historical, legal

4.6.13-14 – The visible creation a type of the regenerate as a new creation

4.6.16 – Resting on the 7th day a type

4.6.17 – Abel a type of Christ in humiliation

4.6.18 – Enoch a type of Christ in exaltation

4.6.20 – Noah a type of Christ

4.6.21-22 – The ark a type of both Christ and the church

4.6.23 – The waters of the Flood typify Christ

4.6.24 – The dove Noah sent out a type of the Spirit

4.6.31 – Moses as a type in relation to the law

4.6.32-35 – Moses as a type of Christ

4.6.36-39 – Aaron as a type of Christ

4.6.40-47 – typology of the ark of the covenant

4.6.48-73 – Typology of the Day of Atonement / Leviticus 16

4.7.4-5 – God’s clothing Adam and Eve with skins

4.7.6-16 – Symbolism of sacrifices

4.7.18-20 – Noahic covenant’s relation to the covenant of grace

4.7.21-26 – Significance of the rainbow

4.8.4 – John 7:22 – Jesus distinguished circumcision as given to the patriarchs since ‘to them it was a family institution’ and not required of followers of God who were not of Abraham’s family and circumcision as given by Moses, which was to be practiced by Gentiles who would come to worship the true God by joining with Israel.

4.8.11 – Ex. 12:19; Dt. 23:2 – Meaning of being cut off from the people

4.8.12 – Ex. 12:19 – this is a condemnation of adults, not children.

4.8.14-15 – Significance of the 8th day for circumcision

4.8.16-20 – Significance of circumcision

4.8.21-28 – Abrogation of circumcision

4.8.24 – Restoration of the Jewish nation

4.8.25-26 – The name Passover

4.9.6 – The sacrificial nature of Passover

4.9.17 – Description of Passover

4.9.33-58 – Significance/symbolism of Passover

4.10.3-5 – Red Sea/weedy sea – nature

4.10.6 – miraculous nature of Red Sea crossing

4.10.8-9 – Location of passage through the Sea

4.10.10-13 – Signification of ‘baptized unto Moses’ – 1 Cor. 10:

4.10.14 – Symbolism of Red Sea crossing

4.10.20-56 – Symbolism of manna

4.10.57-61 – Symbolism of water from rock

4.10.62-70 – Symbolism of brazen serpent.

4.11.1-2 – Blessing of the OT as a covenant of grace

4.11.3-4 – Benefit of Israel’s election

4.11.5-12 – Land promise a type; significance of the type

4.11.13 – Blessing of the display of divine majesty

4.11.14-17 – Blessing of ceremonies

4.11.18 – Blessing of an almost uninterrupted succession of inspired men.

4.11.18 – Cessation of prophecy

4.12.4-15 – Only temporal benefits, not true salvation, given before Christ – Witsius rejects

4.12.16-22 – Circumcision of the heart not a NT blessing alone -Dt. 30:1-6

4.12.23-26 – Writing of the law on the heart not peculiar to the NT

4.12.26 – relation of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace

4.12.27-43 – justification, remission, forgiveness all available in the OT

4.12.44-49 – Relation of adoption to OT & NT

4.12.50-55 – Witsius affirms that OT saints had peace of conscience (Heb. 10:1).

4.12.56-59 – OT church not specially under the domain of angels – Heb. 2:5

4.12.60-69 – OT saints not subject of fear of temporal death all their life. Heb. 2:15

4.12.70-78 – Denies that OT believers remained under God’s wrath and curse – Gal. 3:10

4.13 – Real defects in the OT

4.13.2-4 – cause of salvation not present and complete

4.13.5-8 – obscurity

4.13.9 – great rigor and severity

4.13.10-16 – Bondage to the elements of the world – 1. Multitude of rites. 2. Reproach of childhood. 3. Middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. 4. Law = enmity between Jews and Gentiles 5. Handwriting in ordinances contrary to those who observed them.

4.13.17-21 – Spirits of bondage

4.13.22-27 – more scanty measure of the gifts of grace

4.13.28-32 – Hunger and thirst for a better condition

4.14.2-6 – 1. Moral law founded on God’s holiness and cannot be abolished; ceremonial law founded on God’s will and may be abolished. 2. God often in the OT expresses preference for the moral law over the ceremonial. 3. The church existed before the ceremonial law and can exist after its abrogation

4.14.7-10 – 1. God always intended the ceremonial law to cease because he gave them to one nation in a particular place. But the prophets prophesied of a future day when the nations would be saved and these ceremonies were not given to them. Nor, given the unity of Jew and Gentile was it fitting for the Jews to continue with them. 2. God promised a prophet like Moses and he would institute a new form of worship.

4.14.11-17 – Jewish understanding of prophet like Moses & reasoning

4.14.17 – Jesus says he will not abolish the law or prophets – Matt. 5 – Interpretation and response to objections.

4.14.18-25 – Jeremiah 31 and the abrogation of the Old Covenant.

4.14.21 – Superior promises of the NC

4.14.23-25 – NC a new covenant; not merely a renewal

4.14.26-32 – Abrogation of the old covenant seen in the “removal of the ark of the covenant, not only out of the world, but also out of the memory and heart of believers,” – Jer. 3:16-17

4.14.33-40 – Abrogation of Levitical priesthood / replaced by priest after the order of Melchizedek. – Interpretation of Psalm 110.

4.14.36 – Davidic authorship of Psalms; Psalm titles

4.14.41-46 – Abrogation of the sacrifices.

4.14.47-53 – The ceremonies ought to be abrogated because of the bringing in of the Gentiles. See 4.14.48-49 for passages about bringing the Gentiles

4.14.54 – Stages of abrogation: 1. Christ’s humanity. 2. Christ’s death. 3. Pentecost. 4. Peter’s sheet vision. 5. Jerusalem Council. 6. Paul’s letter – 1 Cor. 8; 10. 7. Acts 21:22. 8. Paul’s rebuke of Peter – Gal. 2. 0. Destruction of the temple.

4.15.7 – Ways the NT gospel more excellent than the OT

4.15.8-13 – bringing in of the Gentiles

4.15.14-15 – Ways in which the measure of the Spirit is more abundant in the NT enumerated

4.15.16-19 – Christian liberty

4.15.20-37 – Latter day salvation of the Jewish nation – Rom. 11:25-29; See esp. the list of OT prophecies in 4.15.31

4.16.2-8 – Jewish antecedents to baptism

4.16.9-11 – John’s baptism

4.16.13-15 – immersion the ancient practice, pouring and sprinkling permitted; trine or single baptism immaterial

4.16.17-24 – significance of baptism

4.16.25-30 – symbolism of immersion

4.16.31-32 – symbolism of washing

4.16.33-39 – How baptism teaches us our duty

4.16.40-50 – defense of infant baptism

4.17 Lord’s Supper.

Notes

  • 1
  • 2

Filed Under: Uncategorized

The Lives of Philip and Matthew Henry

June 20, 2018 by Brian

Henry, Matthew and J. B. Williams, The Lives of Philip and Matthew Henry. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974.

This book combines in one volume Matthew Henry’s biography of his father Philip as expanded by J. B. Williams and William’s own biography of Matthew Henry. Both are worth reading, but Matthew Henry’s biography of Philip Henry is golden. It will repay repeated reading. It is the kind of biography that warms religious affections, convicts, and encourages the Christian in his walk with Christ. It is surely one of the best biographies that I’ve read.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

An Interpretation of W. B. Yeats’s “Second Coming”

February 20, 2018 by Brian

Harrison, John R. “What Rough Beast? Yeats, Nietzsche and Historical Rhetoric in ‘The Second Coming'” Papers on Language and Literature (September 1995): 362-88.

Harrison argues that in his poem “The Second Coming” (known for such lines as “things fall apart; the centre cannot hold” and “what rough beast … slouches towards Bethlehem) Yeats presents readers with a Nietzschean-influenced vision of history. According to Harrison Yeats had a cyclical view of history. In this case, it is pictured as a gyre or cone shape. Picture two of these cones coming together at their points. That center is the birth of Christ. But now, Yeats, says that center cannot hold. After 2,000 years Christianity has run its course and the world is slipping into anarchy. Christian theology would say that the falling apart of the world points to the Second Coming of Christ. But Yeats sees instead the revival of the pagan sphinx, “A shape with lion body and the head of a man,” as it “Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.” In other words, the Second Coming that Yeats envisions is the coming of anti-Christ rather than the coming of Christ.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

A Christmas Meditation

December 25, 2017 by Brian

This year my church began to work on its own church catechism. Our first question and answer is drawn from WSC 1: What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. We also began this year with a brief sermon series on Psalm 1 (“Blessed is the man”) and a Sunday School series on the beatitudes. There is probably no better way to understand the “and to enjoy Him forever” part of WSC 1 than to meditate on what the Scripture teaches about the blessed (‘ashre, makarios) man.

Interestingly, Thomas Watson, who wrote a marvelous exposition of glorifying God as our chief end in his Body of Divinity speaks of beatitude as man’s chief end in his book on the beatitudes. Jonathan Pennnington in his Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing also connects flourishing/blessedness to man’s chief end.

So it should not surprise us when the angelic announcement of Christ’s birth links God’s glory and true human flourishing:

Glory to God in the highest,

and on earth shalom among those with whom he is pleased. [Lk. 2:14]

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Articles and Notes on Holiness and Sanctification

December 1, 2017 by Brian

Peter J. Gentry, “The Meaning of ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 170, no. 677–680 (2013): 400–417.

Gentry challenges the traditional understanding of holiness as denoting “moral purity,” and “transcendence” or set-apartness. He first challenges the idea קדש can be defined by means of the surmised etymological link with קד, “to cut.” Gentry proposes that a usage study, done by Claude Bernard Costecalde in 1986, of both the Hebrew word and its equivalent in congate languages does not support either “moral purity” or “transcendance” as the meaning of holy. In line with Costecalde’s analysis Gentry concludes: “The basic meaning of the word is ‘consecrated’ or ‘devoted.'” Gentry surveys texts in Exodus 3, 19, and Isaiah 6 to establish this point.

In the end, I’m sympathetic to the idea that the basic meaning of קדש is “devoted,” but I didn’t see “set apart” or “moral purity” to be as decisively excluded from the range of meaning as Gentry argues. Gentry also seems to have a fairly negative view of the discipline of systematic theology in comparison to biblical studies: “Indeed, systematic theologians of the last five hundred years have not been helpful in explaining what Scripture teaches on this topic due to reliance on doubtful etymologies and connection of the term with moral purity and divine transcendence.” But more than Gentry’s exegesis, it was a theological observation from Sinclair Ferguson’s Devoted to God that convinced me that at its root holiness about being devoted. Ferguson observes that holiness, as an attribute of God, has to have a meaning that works apart from the created order. Being transcendent or set apart does not work theologically whereas devoted does.

O’Donovan, Oliver. “Sanctification and Ethics.” In Kelly M. Kapic, ed. Sanctification: Explorations in Theology and Practice. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014.

I find O’Donovan’s writings difficult to comprehend, as if I’m not yet acquainted with his dialect. In this essay I at points wondered about his commitment to the Reformation distinction between justification and sanctification. More positive were his helpful reflections on the relation of ethics to dogmatics and his observation that age does not confer sanctification. Each period of life has its own challenges to holiness that must be met.

Eglinton, James. “On Bavinck’s Theology of Sanctification-As-Ethics.” In Kelly M. Kapic, ed. Sanctification: Explorations in Theology and Practice. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014.

Eglinton argues that Bavinck was just as much an ethicist as he was a dogmatician. He was actually working on a Reformed Ethics at the same time he was writing the Reformed Dogmatics. He seemed to give up the ethics project when he moved to the Free University and the professor of ethics there was writing, and completed, a Reformed Ethics. At that point Bavinck turned to writing essays that were, in effect, applied ethics. Eglington’s article is largely helpful historical situation of Bavinck as ethicist with a brief summary of his approach and with many useful works to follow up in the footnotes.

Bavinck on Sanctification

The kingdom of God is a gift granted by God according to his good pleasure (Matt. 11:26; 16:17; 22:14; 24:22; Luke 10:20; 12:32; 2:29), yet it is also a reward, a treasure in heaven, which has to be aggressively sought and gained by labor in the service of God (Matt. 5:12, 20; 6:20; 19:21; 20:1ff.; and so forth). Believers are branches in the vine who cannot do anything apart from Christ, yet at the same time they are admonished to remain in him, in his word, in his love (John 15). They are a chosen people, and still have to be zealous to confirm their call and election (2 Pet. 1:10). By a single offering of Christ they have been sanctified and perfected (Heb. 10:10, 14). God effected in them that which is good (13:21), yet they must still persevere to the end (3:6, 14; 4:14; 6:11-12). They have put on the new self and must continually clothe themselves with the new self (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). They have crucified the flesh with its desires, and must kill its members who are on the earth (Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:10). They are saints and sanctified in Christ Jesus, and must nevertheless become holy in all their conduct (1 Pet. 1:15; 2 Pet. 3:11), pursuing and perfecting their sanctification in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:3), for without it no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:254.

On the one hand this union of believers with Christ is not a pantheistic mingling of the two, not a ‘substantial union,’ as it has been viewed by the mysticism of earlier and later times, nor on the other hand is it mere agreement in disposition, will, and purpose, as rationalism understood it and Ritschl again explained it. What Scripture tells us of this mystical union goes far beyond moral agreement in will and disposition. It expressly states that Christ lives and dwells in believers (John 14:23; 17:23, 26; Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3:17), and that they exist in him (John 15:1-7; Rom. 8:1; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 1:10ff.). The two are united as branch and vine (John 15), as are head and members (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12; Eph. 1:23; 4:15), husband and wife (1 Cor. 6:16-17; Eph. 5:32); cornerstone and building (1 Cor. 3:11, 16; 6:19l Eph. 2:21; 1 Pet. 2:4-5). This mystical union, however, is not immediate but comes into being by the Holy Spirit….The very first gift that believers receive is already communicated to them by the Spirit, how takes everything from Christ (John 16:14). It is he who regenerates them (John 3:5-6, 8; Titus 3:5); gives life to them (Rom. 8:10); incorporates them into fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 6:15, 17, 19); brings them to faith (2:9ff.; 12:3); washes, sanctifies, and justifies them (6:11; 12:13; Titus 3:5); leads them (Rom. 8:14); pours out God’s love into their hearts (5:5); prays in them (8:26); imparts to them an array of virtues (Gal. 5:22-23; Eph. 5:9) and gifts (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:4), especially the gift of love (1 Cor. 13); prompts them to live by a new law, the law of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2, 4; 1 Cor. 7:9; Gal. 5:6; 6:2); and renews them in intellect and will, in soul and body (Rom. 6:19; 1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Thess. 5:23). In a word, the Holy Spirit dwells in them and they live and walk in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:1, 4, 9-11; 1 Cor. 6:19l Gal. 4:6; and so forth)

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:250-52.

Justification and sanctification, accordingly, while distinct from each other, are not for a moment separated. They are distinct: those who mix them undermine the religious life, take away the comfort of believers, and subordinate God to humanity. The distinction between the two consists in the fact that in justification the religious relationship of human beings with God is restored, and in sanctification their nature is renewed and cleansed of the impurity of sin. At bottom the distinction rests on the fact that God is both righteous and holy.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:249.

But there is something else as well: the moral law that confronts us in the Decalogue, in the Sermon on the Mount, and further throughout the Old and New Testaments is not the case of ‘precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little’ [Isa. 28:10, 13] but comprises universal norms, great principles, that leave a lot of room for individual application and summon every believer to examine what in a given situation would for them be the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2). Since the moral law is not a code of articles we merely have to look up in order, from moment to moment, to know exactly what we must do, there is in its domain a freedom that may not be curbed by human ordinances but must—precisely to safeguard the character of the moral life—be recognized and maintained. On the one hand that freedom includes the permissible, the adiaphora, and on the other what Rome calls the ‘counsels.’ Error begins in both schools of thought when the adiaphora and the counsels are located outside or alongside of, below or above, the moral law and are therefore detached from the moral life. There is no right or reason for this either in the one or in the other case. There are cases in which what is in itself permissible becomes impermissible (Rom. 14:21, 23; 1 Cor. 8:13; 10:23); and there are also circumstances in which abstention from marriage (Matt. 19:11; 1 Cor. 7:7), giving up remuneration (1 Cor.9:14-19), the renunciation of all earthly goods (Matt. 19:21), or the like is a duty. But in ‘doing’ these good works one is not accomplishing anything that is outside the moral law or surpasses it. For there is a difference between a law that furnishes universally valid rules and a duty that is inferred from that law in a given case for everyone personally. Those who lose sight of this and assume the existence of a series of good works that really lie outside of and surpass the moral law fail to honor its unity and universality and degrade it.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:259-60.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Ryken on the Puritans

November 24, 2017 by Brian

Ryken, Leland. Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

The title of this volume doesn’t indicate that the Puritans were worldly in the negative biblical sense. The pairing with “saints” is the tip-off. Ryken’s point is that the Puritans lived in the created world—in the world of work, marriage, family, money, education, and social action—as saints. Thus stereotypes of the Puritans as a dour, cloistered people are incorrect.

In seeking to correct the record Ryken surveys Puritan views on the topics listed above as well as on their views of the Bible, preaching, and worship. Two concluding chapters look at faults to avoid and strengths to learn from.

The book is full of primary source material and suggestions for further reading. It would be a good place to start in learning about the Puritans. The book is not perfect. I wondered at times about its appeal to Milton as a Puritan or if there was perhaps a greater diversity of views among the Puritans in certain areas that were being elided for the sake of summary (for instance, I think the Puritan view of revolution, the Civil War, and the Restoration may have been more varied). But these quibbles aside, this is a book well worth reading.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Review of Kaplan on John Quincy Adams

November 23, 2017 by Brian

Kaplan, Fred. John Quincy Adams: American Visionary. New York: Harper, 2014.

I’ve been interested in reading a biography of John Quincy Adams since reading David McCullough’s renowned biography of John Adams. I selected this particular biography for the unscientific reason that its Kindle edition was on sale. It nonetheless was a satisfying read. Kaplan not only covers the basic political history that is intertwined with Adams’s life, but he also covers Adams’s religious views and his literary interests. For instance, it was interesting to read of a debate John Quincy carried on with his father regarding the Trinity. John Adams favored the unitarian position while his son defended the trinitarian. (This seems to reflect the move toward rationalism by the founding generation and a move back toward orthodoxy in the following generation, due to the influence of the Second Great Awakening, though it should be noted that John Quincy Adams did not entirely embrace orthodox Protestantism.) The political life of John Quincy Adams is fascinating because it spans almost the entire era from the founding to the Civil War. Adams plays an important part in many key national events from negotiating the end of the War of 1812 to opposing Jacksonian populism to opposing slavery. He is involved in these momentous events as ambassador, president, and congressman. He was also the first president to be the son of a president and the only president to later serve in the House of Representatives. His philosophy of public service was to never put himself forward but to never decline if his fellow citizens called on him to serve.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Leithart on Macbeth

November 20, 2017 by Brian

Leithart, Peter. “If It Were Done When ‘Tis Done: Macbeth.” In Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide to Six Shakespeare Plays. Moscow, ID: Canon, 1996.

Leithart’s analysis is illuminating and enhanced my enjoyment of the play. Here’s an example:

Whether or not Macbeth will act on his ambition depends on his answer to the question, What does it mean to be a man? Two answers to this question are presented by the play, and Macbeth is forced to choose between them. When Lady Macbeth urges him to kill Duncan, he protests, ‘I dare do all that may become a man; who dares do more is none’ (1.7.46-47). On this view, one cannot be a man without placing limitations on desires and actions. Whoever tries to do more than ‘becomes a man’ becomes less than a man. Lady Macbeth, by contrast, operates on the view that you are not a man unless you act on every single desire. She asks her hesitating husband, ‘wouldst thou have that / Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life, / And live a coward in thine own esteem, / Letting ‘I dare not’ wait upon ‘I would’ (1.7.41-44), and adds, ‘When you durst do it, then you were a man’ (1.7.49). Any effort to control desire, to deny and suppress evil, or to place any limits whatever on action—all these for Lady Macbeth amount to nothing but cowardice.
. . . . . . . . .
His assault on the order of the world turns him into a beast. Having tried to lift himself above his place, he ends up falling into an abyss (see Ezekiel 28:1-10). As a consequence of his ambition to be more than human, he becomes less than human (see Daniel 4:1-37). By the end of the play, Macbeth is being seen, and even sees himself, as a subhuman creature: a baited bear, a hell-hound, a devil. He has dared do more than becomes a man, and at the last he is none. [162-63]

The one drawback is that the book is without footnotes or endnotes. Are all these observations simply Leithart’s or is he drawing on other sources?

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Review of Harvey Mansfield’s Very Short Introduction of Tocqueville

September 19, 2017 by Brian

Mansfield, Harvey C. Tocqueville: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

This excellent “Very Short Introduction” is written by one of the translators of the excellent University of Chicago Press edition of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

Mansfield, in a brief span of pages is able to distil Tocqueville’s thought, relate it to that of other thinkers, and to show the significance of the questions Tocqueville raises.

Some examples:

Here is another singular feature of his liberalism. Whereas john Stuart Mill, a more typical liberal, does his best to defend the value of individuality in not conforming to majority opinion, Tocqueville expands on the benefits for liberal society of associating. He is less confident than Mill that individuals can be taught to stand up to the majority, and he wants also to persuade the majority that it need not demand conformity. [25]

In noting American reliance on self-interest, Tocqueville differs from much current discussion on democratic participation, sometimes called ‘communitarian.’ Communitarian sentiment is opposed to self-interest; it wants to be altruistic and selfless, for the common good as opposed to selfish or market-oriented. For him, sentiment on behalf of the community comes out of one’s self-interest and is useful to it rather than selfless and opposed. [26]

Religion is the root of the mores that help maintain a democratic republic in America. It is considered for this function, not for its truth—and he says that what is most important is not that all citizens profess the true religion, but that they profess a religion. In this political view, religion serves politics, rather than politics serving religion, as with the Puritans. [30]

Almost immediately after introducing majority tyranny, Tocqueville speaks of the ‘power that the majority exercises over thought.’ He makes the flat statement that ‘I do not know any country where, in general, less independence of mind and genuine freedom reign than in America. It is not that a dissident need fear being persecuted or burned at the stake, but that nobody will listen, and he will be dismissed from consideration, finally shushed. This is an ‘intellectual’ violence that closes the mind and, more effectually than the Inquisition, takes away from authors even the thought of publishing views contrary to the majority’s opinion. [45-46].

“Equality develops the desire in each man to judge everything by himself; it gives him in all things a taste for the tangible and real and a contempt for traditions and forms.” In the permanent bustle of democracy men have no leisure for the quiet meditation required for the “most theoretical principles.” [64]

At the end of his master work Tocqueville discloses the political evil toward which democracy naturally tends, the culmination of his fear, repeatedly expressed, that democratic equality will overcome democratic freedom. Here, he calls this evil ‘mild despotism’; elsewhere he calls it democratic or administrative despotism….We have seen the germ of mild despotism in his description in volume 1 of the vague power of public opinion, but in volume 2 we see it embodied in the centralized democratic state. [77-78]

As these quotations show Tocqueville both has insights that remain relevant to life today (e.g., above quotations from pp. 25, 46-46, 77-78) and ideas that Christians must reject (e.g., quotations form pp. 26, 30).

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • …
  • 42
  • Next Page »