Fixing theological education

A crucial moment 

Theological education in Australia is a crucial moment in our Evangelical History. Michael Jensen wrote recently that "not all Australian theological colleges are viable long term. There are too many colleges serving too small a market." ('Have we got too many Bible colleges?', Eternity, Nov 2018) This has forced each of the dozen or so evangelical theological colleges to try and find a niche market. For example Moore seeks to have the best of everything (library, scholars etc), Christ College Sydney is expanding into New Zealand, Ridley is seeking to capture the online market and PTC Melbourne is expanding its Chinese theological education. No doubt these efforts will prolong the life expectancy of each college.

Fee-HELP: not as bad as we think

Now it's not just too many colleges serving a too small a market of theological students, there are  financial pressures reducing the number of full time students and candidates. The average Australian is left with a fee-HELP debt of about $20,000 ('Updated Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debt statistics', Parliamentary Library, May 2018), however the average theological HELP debt is higher, particularly for ministry candidates because it's usually a second degree and usually a masters, which costs more per course unit. Now there are benefits, fee-HELP debt is currently non-transferrable and most ministry jobs don't reach the repayment threshold of about $55,000. In one way Fee-HELP debts are part of sacrifice of ministry, you earn less and have more debt but on the other hand you get paid to serve God's people.

But compliance is the sting in the tail

Ironically, Fee-HELP comes with a sobering sting in the tail not for the students but for the colleges and the denominations. That sting is the cost of administrative compliance. The Australian College of Theological (ACT) manages most theological colleges in Australia by sharing and standardising the burden of compliance. However each of the colleges have to meet increasing and complex levels of compliance to be eligible to provide Fee-HELP courses. We're seeing this first-hand with PTC Melbourne. Every year we hear at Assembly how the administrative burden is increasing on faculty, and the need to employ more faculty to meet rising ACT standards. And then the need for increased funding falls on the denomination. If you aren't compliant you can't offer Fee-HElP courses, but the cost of compliance is always increasing.

How Colleges promote themselves 

Which brings me to the rationale for theological education as it currently exists in twenty first century Australia. Even Ridley which has a booming online education component argues for the need for full time on-campus study. This is a valid argument, nothing replaces the ability to ask questions in person, discuss issues with peers and have printed resources at hand. Additionally college leaders are able to observe and help candidates grow in their spiritual maturity and leadership capacity. The less convincing part of the rationale is the argument that theological education needs to be theoretical and then made practical later in the field so to speak. The argument for theological then goes like this: "Come and study on campus for four years to be theoretically trained and spiritually matured for a task that will be need to be practically applied off-campus." The campuses are centrally located in the big cities, making it not just a theory/practice gap but a geographical and promotional gap between the congregations and the college.

How to fix theological education

I studied at Ridley and Christ College, but PTC Melbourne is the college for my denomination, the Presbyterian Church of Victoria (PCV). My suggestion for the PTC is to add another string to their bow. To modify their rationale for existence. Instead of 'just' making the argument "that interested students go to Box Hill for four years of theoretical training", they should be actively and carefully training all the leaders of PCV, across the state. They should make the college indispensable to the spiritual growth of the PCV. The biggest weakness of Ridley's online training is the lack of structured groups and direct practical tasks. Imagine if PTC offered regular NTE (National Training Event) style training strands? So every year a different Presbytery hosted a different strand (plus an annual residential conference for those who prefer that more intensive style). Some of the strands could include:

• The Gospel: how to summarise and explain
• The Bible: the big story and finding topics 
• Navigating the Presbyterian system
• Apologetics: explaining how and why Christianity is plausible
• Ethics: how to research the Bible to answer practical problems

There are a number of keys to making an idea like this work though. Firstly it needs a simple website that is the portal to register, track your progress, find out when/where your group is meeting, find the content etc. Secondly, the groups needs trainers who know the material and are able to guide the assessments. Thirdly, the content must be carefully crafted, both 'meaty' in order to keep people's interest and practical in order to be directly applied in real world assessments.

A controlling doctrine?

This is related to my earlier post about the canon-within-a-canon.  Tim Chester in the midst of reviewing Con Campbell's new book Paul and Union with Christ (which looks fascinating by the way) observes that "Campbell rejects the idea that any one theme (like union with Christ) can be identified as ‘the centre’ of Paul’s thought". A truism of hermeneutics is 'to let the clearer parts of Scripture explain the less clear parts', which is effectively the same thing as having a canon-within-a-canon. But here Con Campbell is saying that while Union with Christ might an important doctrine, it's not the one we can organise the Ordo Salutis around. In other words while Union with Christ might be a clear and profound doctrine it's not the one to interpret/control/organise the other doctrines of grace. So how do we organise/interpret the doctrines of grace? It feels like asking which books of the Bible do you prefer! The answer I suspect is to use the Gospel (Titus 3:4-6 is my current favourite definition) and my own personal context to control which doctrine gets emphasised.

[An English signal box, controlling a railway junction.]

Christianity and the public sphere

I think that Christians who have appeared on the ABC's Q&A are helping to break down a popular misconception of the phrase "separation of Church and state." They're showing that there is an interaction but not a separation between the Church (Christians collectively) and the public sphere. What I'm describing here is not how my faith affects me as a cultural creature, but how my faith affects other people and their culture. Collectively it's the question of how we shape the shared public sphere. It's the practical question of all human civilisations; what should the shape of all of us together look like?

The public sphere (politics, society and culture) should ideally encourage human flourishing. This means the moral and aesthetic values of life, liberty and truth. These are or at least should be the guide and telos of our earthly civilizations. They spring out of a Christian worldview but they're also naturally attractive for a shared public sphere. This is why ideological pluralism flourishes in most liberal democracies, compare for example India with Saudi Arabia, or even nominally Communist China with North Korea. Thinking about the public sphere flows out of two aspects of Christian theology. Firstly, life, liberty and truth foreshadow the shape of our eternal life with God and secondly not everyone who belongs to the visible church is part of the invisible church* and it's not our job to sort out who's who (Matt 13:24-30), we have to get along together on this side of eternity. 

There are several practical benefits from thinking like this. Evangelistically, having the public sphere arranged like this prompts the question of why those particular ethical values. Sociologically encouraging human flourishing benefits everyone, secularists and co-religionists. Additionally, just the concept alone of a robust shared public sphere, encourages the discussion of ideas which in turn lays a strong foundation for ideology and therefore theology. 

[A picture of Thomas Jefferson who first articulated the concept: "separation of church and state." But interestingly not quite as it's commonly understood.]

Sharpening of ideas: h/t Will Briggs ;-)

How the Gospel changes everything

The gospel is more than a ticket for the ferryman across the styx. It's really more like popping the red pill in The Matrix, and realising what's really going on.  Virginia Owens in And the Trees Clap their Hands: Faith Perception and the New Physics says when we know God we become like spies, secret agents in a world where every clue matters.

The Bible is not just a religious document, it's ideological one, and in it God expresses an opinion about everything. 2 Peter 1:3 "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life." and 2 Timothy 3:17 "... so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." You don't being stop being  godly or cease being responsible for doing good works while drinking coffee, interrogating a suspect or making love.

Now it's true that the Scripture doesn't include detailed instructions on about how to travel between the planets or how to bake nice fluffy scones. You could say that Jesus didn't say anything about cars, but does that preclude God having an opinion about if we should make them, what we should do in them and what their place is in our lives? God has an opinion about everything and the Bible speaks to everything in these seven ways.

1. Ethics
2. Purpose
3. Patterns
4. Pictures
5. Boundaries
6. Occasional details
7. The meta-narrative

Ordo Salutis: Forgiveness

Forgiveness is relational, it doesn't happen in a vacuum. God doesn't wear glasses and croak "oh, all you people down, I can't see you individually but I forgive youse all." The way some people present Jesus on the cross makes God sound like that. For example: Jesus in his pain allegedly forgives the pagan Roman soldiers, the rebellious disciples, including Judas, the arrogant Temple leaders and perhaps even the whole world, in one fell swoop (Luke 23:34)! That would mean that God is in a loving covenantal relationship (2 Peter 1:4 or 1 John 4:13) with every single person who ever was and will be, including the pagan Roman soldier who'd just prayed to Zeus before stabbing Jesus. This isn't to say some were forgiven at that moment, including the watching centurion who confesses Christ (Luke 23:47) and the relationship with Simon Peter is restored lated on the beach (John 21:15-22).

But back to forgiveness itself. It's completely the decision of our self-sufficient God, who gains nothing and for reasons we're don't completely understand or can imagine forgives sinners. Motivated by love and at great cost, the death of his Son, the Father forgives sinners giving providing us with hope, a way out of sin. Forgiveness therefore is a consequence of the atonement (a metaphysical result of God's action: we're no longer facing retribution) and a permanent part of our identity during sanctification.

• God's forgiveness is relational (John 21:15-22)
• God's prerogative (Col 3:13)
• God's motivation is love (1 John 4:8-12)
• Comes at a cost, the death of Jesus (Isaiah 53:4-5)
• Provides hope (Psalm 51:13-19)

Forgiveness is hard to translate into a broken world. It's hard enough to be forgiven. Don Carson helpfully (somewhere, maybe I'm using his name in vain) explains that forgiveness is a stance you adopt in anticipation of our post-judgement day life. I picked up some self-help advice somewhere that says that it isn't beneficial to carry hate and unforgiveness around in your head. This rings true, because after Judgement Day it won't be like this, we're on a trajectory to the whole, healed life, let go of the hate. Adopt a stance of forgiveness because God forgave you, at great cost. Forgive as you have been forgiven.

Forgiveness is also incomplete and it's not the antithesis to conflict. On this side of eternity some relationships will be fragile wispy ones, even among brothers and sisters in God's gathered community. It's not until Judgement Day that the truth of every motivation of every event will be revealed. All societies struggle with conflict and have different strategies of dealing with it. Personal survival and public reputation are very important in the West and so forgiveness is sometimes difficult to put into practice. It makes you vulnerable and takes precious energy!

• It's vital part of our connection with God (Matthew 6:9-14)
• We should forgive because we've been forgiven  (Col 3:13)
• Relational, not abstract applies only to people you have a connection with (Luke 17:3-4)
• Incomplete this side of eternity (Col 3:13 and 1 Cor 13:12)
• Doesn't remove conflict (Gal 2:11)

['Return of the Prodigal Son' by Rembrandt]

15 Biblical through-themes

Carson has a list, somewhere, of about seventeen whole Bible themes that are emphasised throughout Scripture. What do people think of this list, have I missed one?

1. Creation and Brokenness 
2. Culture: what should I create?
3. Ethics: how then should we live?
4. Eternity (time)
5. Evil (theodicy)
6. Grace and obedience = God's activity and our response
7. Gospel = Good news, Saviour and Bad news
8. Identity
9. Judgement and Mercy
10. Saving and Common Grace
11. Sin
12. Supernatural and Providence
13. Trinity
14. Thanksgiving 
15. Worship

The Trinity = Something taught

Fred Sanders in the Credo Magazine on how we arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity.

"The   idea   that   we   could   read   doctrines   directly   off   our   spiritual   experience   was   a   hallmark   of   classical   theological   liberalism,   and   did   not   normally   promote   the   health   of   the   doctrine   of   the   Trinity   (see   the   treatments   of   the   doctrine   by   Schleiermacher   and   Ritschl,   for   instance). The   doctrine   of   the   Trinity   doesn’t   spontaneously   emerge   from   spiritual   experience;;   it   has   to   be   carefully   taught." (22)

Then later about how this learning reveals how Trinitarian the Gospel and our salvation is.

"When   we   know   all   of   this,  we  know  where  the   gospel   came   from.   We   know   that   in   this   work   of   human   salvation,   the   character   of   God   is   made   known   to   us,   and   that   character   is   the   triune   character   of  Father,   Son,   and   Holy   Spirit.   Taking   the   big  view  of  how  we  know  the  details  of  the   doctrine  of  the  Trinity  helps  explain  the  odd   situation  we  started  with:  that  everyone  who   gets   saved   has   had   this   deeply   trinitarian   experience,   but   few   notice   the   trinitarian   character   of   it." (24)

And finally an excellent comment about the place of the Trinity in the church.

"The   doctrine   of   the   Trinity   is   the   quintessential   catechizing   doctrine.   Whenever  and  wherever  Christian  churches   have  understood  the  urgency  of  the  task  of   teaching  the  truth  to  believers,  the  doctrine   of   the   Trinity   has   thrived:   think   of   the   fourth   century   and   the   sixteenth   century,   both   periods   rich   in   catechetical   literature   and   practice.   On   the   other   hand,   when   the   practice  of  catechesis  has  fallen  into  neglect,   the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  lost  its  luster "(25)

[Again my apologies for the weird formatting, cut and paste from a PDF]

Common Grace and Theodicy

• Providence: God's activity in the world after creation. (Colossians 1:17)
• Grace: God's saving activity. (Ephesians 2:8)

"Calvin also formulated a doctrine of grace at work in the world at large, and distinguished between the grace of Christ, by which one became and remained a Christian, and a 'general' or 'common' grace to which may be attributed the restraint of gross sin. ... Later Arminian theologians rejected the distinction between common grace and the grace in salvation, seeing only a single divine grace held out to every person. They were, however, unable to dispose of the NT references to predestination and election." (Kearsley, 'Grace', New Dictionary of Theology, 280)

Observations and questions:

1. Can we come up with better nomenclature for "common and special grace"?
2. "Common grace" = God's gracious patience with sin and evil in general and magnifies his loving nature.
3. "Special Grace" still makes we wonder about the place of evil in the lives of those who are elect?

The usefulness of heresy?

Jacob Wrestling with God: how heresy might sometimes be useful

Quite often the pattern of heresy is magnify a theological truth or method way out of proportion. Hersey usually begins with an error and then grows into a full theological construction. However once a heresy has been formally identified it can still (to some degrees) be useful.

1. There might be something under-emphasised in traditional theology that needs to be focused on again
2. Often the truths heresy denies haven't been properly explained or defended, heresy gives you fresh eyes to enjoy and promote them again
3. Combating heresy reminds you that traditional theology itself is "a process of wrestling with God"
4. Combating heresy gives you a wider cultural and theology insight into what's being valued, rejected and questioned by the wider culture

[Figures de la Bible, Gerard Hoet (1648-1733)]

Joel Beeke on Assurance

Beeke in describing the doctrine of Assurance, describes Puritan piety as in coram Deo (in the face of God), "the smiles and frowns of God are of a greater value than the smiles and frowns of men."

Compare to the Reformers and the post-Reformers, the church is seriously impoverished in her spiritual exercises. The desire to fellowship with God, the sense of the reality of heaven, and the relish for God's glory, appear to fall short of a former day. Whenever the church's emphasis on earthly good dominates the conviction that she is travelling through this world on her way to God and glory, assurance is at a low ebb (Heb 11).

Joel Beeke, 'Assurance of Faith: promises, inward evidences and the Spirit's witness' Free Reformed Student Journal, (1994).

Law and Gospel

The Pentateuch, is dominated by the beginning of the world, the story of the Israel and the Law given through Moses. Tracing out the Law's relationship to Christians today and its place in the New Testament is important for our own obedience to God and for understanding Romans.

This blog post isn't exhaustive but I've tried to pick the key or summative passages about the Law.


What’s the purpose of the Law?

• Show Sin: The holiness of God enshrined in the Mosaic Law, "I am Holy" says God. (Lev 11:44-45) The Law was brought into the world so that trespasses might increase (Rom 5:20), it's introduced to show sin (Rom 7:13) “Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." (Gal 3:19) For lawbreakers and rebels, (1 Tim 1:9) showing us guilty even if we break just one part. (James 2:10)
• Guide Obedience: Those who follow God will obey the Law. (Lev 18:5) Jesus says “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”(Matt 19:17) "Keeping God’s commands is what counts.” (2 Cor 7:19) All Scripture including the Law is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (2 Tim 3:16)
• To Shape our worldview: God gave ancient Israel the Law so that other nations may see his glory. (Deut 4:5-8) Jesus points to the two-fold summary of the Law as the essence of obedience. (Matt 22:40) Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for thinking that mere obedience is sufficient. (Mark 7) What governs our mind, fleshly sin or God's Law? (Rom 8:5-7) 

What is the “Law”?


Traditionally Reformed theology (except Lutheranism) has divided the Mosaic law into three categories: "ceremonial, judicial and moral" with moral law being the most significant.  These categories are broadly useful but their strict application could imply that some laws are no longer relevant to the modern Christian. Doug Moo in The Law and Gospel helpfully suggests God's eternal law sits behind the Mosaic Law. This also makes sense of the emphasis on the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law.

Scripture distinguishes between "God's Law" and the commandments given to Moses. (1 Cor 9:21) The summary of the Law provided by Jesus (Matt 22:40) and echoed by the Apostle Paul (Rom 13:8-10) indicate that there is an eternal essence of the Law that is more than its expression at Mount Sinai (Hosea 6:6 & Gal 6:2). It also seems that God's Law, his eternal decrees, are known to the Gentiles. (Rom 1:32) So it would be safe to say that God's eternal or moral law sits behind, the law written on our hearts (and first expressed to Adam in the Garden of Eden), given to Moses or the commands given in the New Testament.

How were people saved in the Old Testament?

Prior to Jesus, faithful people trusted God and his ultimate promise of a messiah. (Gen 15:6) The Law with it's sacrificial system wasn't designed to justify people. (Acts 13:29 & Gal 3:21) "God desires mercy not sacrifice."(Ps 51:16-17) In Jesus God's promises are fulfilled (2 Cor 1:20) and we trust his work for our justification. (Rom 3:21-27)

What guides our application of the Law today?

• Fulfilled in Christ: Jesus fulfils the Law, (Matt 5:17) He is the "culmination of the Law." (Rom 10:4) He sets aside "the Law with its commands and regulations" (Eph 2:15) and also has "canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness." (Col 2:14) 
• Freedom (indwelling of the Holy Spirit): We are no longer under the law (Rom 6:14-15) but "have been released from the law so that we can serve in the new way of the Spirit."(Rom 7:6) Strangely this new era of the law gives us freedom, (James 2:12) because we died to law in order to live for God. (Gal 2:19)
• Different applications: But the earthly Law (in all it's expressions) has not been abolished (Matt 5:18) because "we know that the Law is good if one uses it properly." (1 Tim 1:8) "We've been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit." (Rom 7:6)

Practically what does this all look like?

Pulling all these thread together means that although we no longer have to offer animal sacrifices or wear non-mixed clothing, the principles of God's holiness and our sinfulness remain. The Law has been fulfilled in Christ, we have freedom to take our day of rest on Tuesday, but we're still called to obey God and God's eternal Law sits behind every command in Scripture. 

[Detail from Rembrandt's Moses breaking the Tablets of the Law]

Dispensational Theology

Discuss:

"Dispensationalism rests on the view that God's dealings with men have proceeded through 'well-defined time-periods' ie 'dispensations', in each of which God reveals a particular purpose to be accomplished in that period, to which men respond in faith or unbelief. ... Dispensationalists differ in identification of the dispensations, but it is fairly general to distinguish those of innocency (Adam before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), promise (Araham to Moses), Mosaic law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture) and the millennium. The sharp distinction drawn between Israel and the church (except during the dispensation of grace) is crucial. ... The basic hermeneutical principle is literal interpretation, ... which insists that throughout, 'the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved' is determinative. ... Some details are in dispute among dispensationalists. These include the number and designations of the dispensations and the point at which the dispensation of grace began."

('Dispensational Theology' H.H. Rowden, New Dictionary of Theology, (IVP 1988) p200-201)

This describes my Grandmother's dispensationalism, is it what you have in mind when you hear the term? I've snipped only sections of the article, should the definition be wider or narrower? What is there to agree with or disagree with? 

Westminister Confession: Assurance

I sometimes feel that I haven't done enough or that I haven't stopped sinning enough to be saved. I know that I am no longer condemned (Rom 8:1) but I also don't want to live carelessly (Rom 6:1-2). Assurance is a feeling of confidence that you are indeed saved; We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. (Heb 6:19-20). It's also personal feeling because the Holy Spirit testifies to God from inside you, giving you inward evidence of God's saving activity (Eph 1:13-14).

In a chapter about Assurance the Westminster Confession has two very encouraging paragraphs:

True believers may have the assurance of their salvation shaken, lessened and interrupted in different ways, such as by -

• neglecting to preserve it

• falling into some special sin that wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit

• some sudden and violent temptation

• God withdrawing the light of his face, and allowing even those that fear him to live in darkness and to have no light.

Yet they are never completely deprived of -

• that life of God, and life of faith

• that love of Christ and the christian family

• that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty

out of which, by the working of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be reived. By this, in the meantime, they are kept from complete despair.

The WC also gives a warning about nominalism (James 1:23-34 & 2:18-19), for which there is no assurance. (A classic example of nominalism is in the closing montage at the end of the first Godfather movie.) But then the WC says:

Yet those people who truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him sincerely, aiming to live in all good conscience in his sight, may be certainly assured in this life, that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in hoping for the glory of God, (this hope will never disappoint them).

Paradoxes and Contradictions

I've been listening to a podcast recommended to me entitled "The History of Philosophy without any Gaps". It's great fun and the episode about Heraclitus, a pre-Socartic Philosopher from fifth century BC Ephesus, made me think a little more about Paradoxes in theology. Heraclitus was interested in the relationship between change and unity and had an unusual, proverbial, way of writing. For example:

Sea is the purest and most polluted water: for fish drinkable and healthy, for men undrinkable and harmful.

But this "proverb" caught my attention:

The road up and the road down are the one and the same.

"Paradox" is a controversial concept in Philosophy, but because it's often an important concept in understanding theology I thought Heraclitus could help us out a little. Jesus the Son of God, is both human and divine, a paradox similar to the one about the road expressed above by Heraclitus, two different things in unity. On the other hand an antinomy (a synonym for 'paradox') at the heart of Christian Theodicy is a contradiction, three opposite things (God's power, his love, and evil) held in tension. Previously I'd used "paradox" as a catch-all expression. But I think it's important to distinguish between a paradox, two or more different things in unity and a contradiction, two or more opposite things in tension.

[Heraclitus by Hendrick ter Brugghen, 1588]

What is the gospel?

Trevin Wax who blogs at Kingdom People, has put together an interesting survey of gospel definitions.  He says they seem to fall into three categories, story, announcement, community. I think "gospel" like "love" or "faith" is a broad term, with different nuances. So depending on the context, both scripturally and historically, the gospel has these three meanings:

• The five part story of Jesus: conception, birth, ministry, death and resurrection, as presented in the four gospels (Eg Luke 1:1f or 2 Timothy 2:8).
• The announcement of good news about who Jesus is and what he has done (Eg Phil 2:6-11 or 1 Peter 3:18).
• The core-theology of the Church which is centred around the crucifixion and resurrection but includes the bad news of sin, the mercy of the cross and a hope for the future (Eg Isaiah 53 or Rev 5:6-10).

I've been meaning to blog about this for a long time but was prompted to post when Arthur posted a video by Scott McKnight on Facebook. In that video Scott McKnight provokes us rightly to think about what "the gospel" actually means, although with rhetoric I wouldn't agree with. I also think it's important to discuss our definition of the gospel because it's a key phrase in our church vocabulary but one that through frequency has lost some of it's specificity. Sometimes when we talk about "the gospel" we really mean:

• The mechanics of salvation, the doctrines of grace (aka the Ordo-Salutis) how God's saving grace works in all it's parts (Eg Rom 8:30).
• The story of salvation, the grand meta-narrative of Scripture: creation, fall, redemption and restoration (Eg Hebrews 11).
• A world view or behaviour that's shaped by Scripture (Eg Acts 17:11).
• A particular aspect of salvation such as justification (Eg Rom 3:24).

Scott McKnight says 'that if we make the gospel mean everything then it means nothing' and this is correct.  I applaud McKnight for asking great questions and provoking me to think but reject his assumption from the video that personal salvation is over-empahsied. The gospel (in either of it's three forms) creates a personal reaction and requires a personal response (Rom 10:9-10)

The Lord's Supper, as a meal

This new book by Tim Chester seemed at first to me to be a little fadish, but he's been posting extracts on his blog and this one about the Lord's Supper stood out as a succinct summary of both the theology and practice of Communion.

But firstly some context; John Frame says the Reformation was essentially about salvation and worship; salvation accomplished through work of Jesus and our worship of Christ (not salvation through ecclesiastical means or our worship of parts of Jesus during Communion). I'm convinced that Communion is a spiritual meal but not because of something peculiar to the bread and wine or unique in the words that are said but because of who participates, God and man at table together, re-enacting the gospel message.  It's spiritual both because the stakes are so high, 'substitutionary atonement' celebrated in a meal (someone else's body broken and blood shed on our behalf) and because God has stepped into history and delineated a special celebration; passover-communion.

Tim Chester (who often writes like fellow Englishman Melvin Tinker) gently reminds us of the obvious New Testament precedent, Communion should be celebrated as part of a meal:

What we call “the Lord’s Supper” is a foretaste of “the Lamb’s Supper” in Revelation 19. It’s a beginning of the feast we eat with Jesus and his people in the new creation. It’s not just a picture. It’s the real thing begun in a partial way. We eat with God’s people and we eat with the ascended Christ, present through the Holy Spirit.  It should be a meal we “earnestly desire” to eat. We should approach it with anticipation. With longing. With excitement. With joy. The Lord’s Supper should be a joyous occasion. A vibrant meal with friends. A feast.  That must surely affect how we celebrate it. Today the Lord’s Supper has commonly become ritualized. We’re the group in town whose central meal involves a fragment of bread and a small sip of wine.  The bread and wine in the New Testament are part of a meal. 

Repentance

While conceptually it's sometimes good to talk about faith and repentance separately, it's generally more healthy to acknowledge that they occur together (Mark 1:15), that as you turn from something you put your trust in something else.  However today I'll focus on repentance. Unlike Glorification, which is a sequential stage, repentance is an ongoing through-theme in the Ordo Salutis.  From the moment we first respond to God's call and turn from our initial rebellious orientation we continue to turn from all of sin's manifestations in all the parts of our life. So for those who become Christians as adults it's an initial stage (2 Cor 7:10 or Heb 6:1) but for those who grow up as Christians and those who perserve as Christians it's an ongoing attitude, an ongoing activity.  Daily repentance is the motion of turning to face the flickering flame of the candle in a dark room (Acts 26:20 or Heb 6:6), instead of cherishing the darkness.

Effectual Calling

God, through Scripture, says he has called you out of darkness into his wonderful light (1 Peter 2:9).  The idea is very similar to that moment in the Matrix when Neo gets the package with the ringing phone and a series of amazing events unfold. The doctrine of effectual calling should be kept separate from the doctrines of Apologetics and Evangelism because it's personal, because it's about the election of particular people, those he predestined, he also called (Rom 8:30).  "Effectual calling" is also ultimately successful, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).  It's not as though God makes someone an offer and they decide whether or not to buy Amway but God brings supernatural force to bear on their situation and the person begins a radical new direction in their life's journey.  The most useful aspect of this doctrine is the way it describes the pull God exerts and introduces into your life. For some it's as simple and dramatic as hearing someone else ask them to become a Christian, for others it's more of a series of small events, circumstances and comments that nudge you towards repentance and faith. Finally this doctrine is useful for Christians thinking about and describing how they became Christians.

Regeneration

Regeneration is, to steal a phrase of John Calvin's, "the secret work of the Holy Spirit." What motivates us to repent of our wrong doing and to trust the historical Jesus with our lives?  Regeneration is the doctrine that describes the work that the Holy Spirit does, behind the scenes, through all the various aspects of our salvation. Instead of deciding off our own bat to follow Jesus, the Spirit prompts us to respond to the call of the gospel.



A representative verse is Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ, linking it interestingly to the other through theme, union with Christ. But the concept is best explained by Jesus in the gospel of John were he says to the interested Nicodemus; “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."  (John 3:3)  Not a physical rebirth but an inward work of the Spirit explains Jesus, who then in the following verses links this to a synopsis of the good news.

There are synergistic aspects of our salvation, for example faith, repentance and mortification.  This means God uses secondary causes, such as trust, turning or putting-sin-to-death, as part of his saving action.  But Regeneration is out of our control, it's monergistic, we don't summon up the Holy Spirit like a witch, he works in inside us like sap inside a tree. This is because our sinful inability prevents us from responding positively to God. But your iniquities have separated you from your God;  your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. (Isaiah 59:2)

A new diagram

The older diagram represents the Doctrines of Grace, in abstraction, so I thought it'd be helpful to represent the Ordo Salutis as it related to someone's life. I've used my own life as an example, I grew up with Christian parents and so in a sense was being "called" via my parents and my church community from my very earliest moments. There was also in my life no moment of crisis where I turned from unbelief to belief but instead repeated instances of repentance and a growth in awareness of what God had done.  But tell me readers, what do you think, does this diagram represent the Doctrine of Salvation any better?