A Defense of Covenant Theology: Addressing New Covenant Theology Objections

Abstract

This article presents a defense of Covenant Theology (CT) in response to objections raised by proponents of New Covenant Theology (NCT). It addresses key points of contention, including the nature of the Covenant of Grace, covenant membership, and the practice of infant baptism. Through careful examination of scriptural evidence and theological reasoning, this paper argues for the continued validity and coherence of CT as a framework for understanding God's redemptive plan.

Introduction

Covenant Theology has long been a cornerstone of Reformed theological understanding, providing a comprehensive framework for interpreting God's interactions with humanity throughout biblical history. However, in recent years, New Covenant Theology has emerged as a challenger to this established system, raising objections to several key tenets of CT. This article aims to address these objections and defend the Reformed position on CT, with a particular focus on the Covenant of Grace (CoG) and its implications for church practice, especially regarding baptism.

The Covenant of Grace: Theological Deduction and Biblical Warrant

One of the primary objections raised against CT is that the Covenant of Grace is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture and is therefore an "entirely theologically deduced" concept. This objection, however, fails to recognize the legitimacy of theological deduction when grounded in sound biblical exegesis.

The Principle of Good and Necessary Consequence

The Westminster Confession of Faith introduces the concept of "good and necessary consequence" (GNC), which allows for the formulation of doctrines that, while not explicitly stated in Scripture, are logically and necessarily derived from biblical teaching. A prime example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, a foundational teaching for orthodox Christianity that, like the CoG, is not explicitly named in Scripture but is clearly taught throughout.

The CoG, like the Trinity, is proclaimed throughout Scripture in God's gracious dealings with humanity. From the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15 to the new covenant promises in Jeremiah 31 and their fulfillment in Christ, the Bible consistently presents God's redemptive plan as a gracious covenant initiative.

The Gospel of Grace as the Covenant of Grace

Some NCT proponents suggest replacing the CoG with the "gospel of grace" as the meta-principle covering all of redemptive history. However, this proposal fails to recognize that the "good news" of grace is, in fact, the story of the Covenant of Grace. The CoG provides the theological framework that explains how the gospel operates throughout redemptive history.

Covenant Membership and the Visible/Invisible Church Distinction

Another point of contention is the nature of covenant membership, particularly as it relates to the concept of the visible and invisible church. NCT proponents often object to the idea that there can be members of the covenant who do not ultimately receive its benefits.

Biblical Evidence for a Mixed Covenant Community

Scripture provides ample evidence for the existence of a mixed covenant community, both in the Old Testament (e.g., Ishmael, Esau) and the New Testament (e.g., 2 Peter 2, Acts 20:28-30, Matthew 18:15-17, Hebrews 6:4-8, 1 John 2:19-20, Matthew 7:21-23). These passages demonstrate that there have always been those within the visible church who are not part of the invisible church.

This distinction does not negate the reality of the covenant but rather highlights the tension between the "already" and "not yet" aspects of God's kingdom. It also underscores the importance of perseverance and the need for continual faith and repentance within the covenant community.

Infant Baptism: A Sign and Seal of Covenant Promise

Perhaps the most contentious issue between CT and NCT is the practice of infant baptism. NCT proponents argue that the New Covenant is purely spiritual and therefore excludes infants from receiving its sign.

Continuity Between Old and New Covenant Signs

Covenant Theology maintains that baptism now occupies the same relation to the covenant and the church that circumcision did in the Old Testament. Both rites represent the same spiritual grace (regeneration) and serve as the seal or confirming sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Deuteronomy 30:6; Colossians 2:11-12; Romans 6:3-4; Acts 2:38-39; Galatians 3:27,29).

The Promise to Believers and Their Children

Acts 2:38-39 explicitly states that the promise of the New Covenant is "for you and for your children." This echoes the language of the Abrahamic covenant and suggests continuity in God's dealings with believers and their offspring.

Christ's Attitude Toward Children

Jesus' welcoming of children (Matthew 19:14-15) provides further support for including them in the covenant community. His actions and words suggest that children have a place in the kingdom of God and should not be hindered from coming to Him.

Historical Practice and the Burden of Proof

The historical practice of the church, founded by the apostles and their disciples, has included infant baptism. The burden of proof lies with NCT proponents to demonstrate that the New Covenant explicitly removes infants from receiving the sign of the visible Kingdom, nullifying the correlation between Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism.

The Mixed Nature of the New Covenant

A core tenet of NCT is that the New Covenant is purely spiritual and composed only of the elect. However, this view fails to account for the visible, physical aspects of the covenant.

Physical Signs and Consequences

Both the elect and the reprobate receive the physical sign of the New Covenant (baptism) and are therefore subject to its blessings and curses. For the elect, this includes both physical blessings (e.g., Galatians 5:22-23) and eternal communion with God. For the reprobate, it includes temporary physical blessings (e.g., Hebrews 6:4-6) but ultimately the curse of eternal damnation for covenant breaking (e.g., Hebrews 10:29-30, Matthew 7:22).

This mixed nature of the New Covenant community is consistent with the pattern seen throughout redemptive history and presents a significant challenge to the NCT framework.

Conclusion

While New Covenant Theology raises important questions about the nature of God's covenantal dealings with humanity, its objections to Covenant Theology ultimately fall short. CT provides a more comprehensive and biblically consistent framework for understanding God's redemptive plan. It accounts for the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, explains the mixed nature of the covenant community, and provides a solid theological foundation for practices such as infant baptism.

As we continue to engage with these important theological issues, it is crucial to remain grounded in Scripture while also appreciating the insights of church history and the broader Reformed tradition. Covenant Theology, with its emphasis on the unity of God's redemptive plan centered on Christ, continues to offer a robust and scripturally faithful approach to understanding God's relationship with His people.

We are Cosmic Traitors

Consider how human governments treat traitors. Throughout history, treason has been regarded as one of the most heinous crimes, often punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Traitors are not merely lawbreakers; they are seen as enemies of the state, actively working against the very authority that should command their allegiance. In times of war, a traitor's actions can lead to the deaths of countless innocents and the downfall of nations. Governments offer no leniency to traitors; there is no possibility of them simply choosing to switch sides and be welcomed back. The penalty must be paid, and rehabilitation is not even considered. Notably, any past good deeds or loyal service are utterly disregarded; they do not mitigate the traitor's guilt or lessen their punishment. The judgment is severe and final. Yet, with God, the stakes are infinitely higher. There is no hope of rehabilitation or reprieve after death; then comes the judgment, and it is eternal.

Now, consider this sobering truth: in the eyes of God, all of humanity are cosmic traitors. This is not hyperbole or mere analogy; it is the stark reality of our condition as revealed in Scripture. We are not just occasional rebels or inadvertent lawbreakers; we are, by our very nature, enemies of God in active rebellion against His rightful rule over us.

The rebellion of humanity against God is both inevitable and necessary. This may seem paradoxical at first, but it stems from a profound truth about our creation. We have been made in the image of God, a distinction that sets us apart from all other creatures. This image-bearing nature leads to a natural inclination towards self-sufficiency, mirroring in a finite way God's infinite self-sufficiency. Just as God is complete in Himself, needing nothing outside of His own being, we too feel a drive towards autonomy and self-determination.

However, herein lies the tragedy of the human condition. Our self-sufficiency, a dim reflection of God's, becomes the very thing that leads us into rebellion. We, in our finite and fallen state, mistakenly believe we can be like God in His independence. We assert our will against His, choosing our way over His way. This rebellion is inevitable because it arises from the very core of our being as image-bearers. It is necessary because through it, we come to understand our true nature – both our dignity as God's image-bearers and our utter dependence on Him despite our illusions of self-sufficiency.

This understanding deepens our appreciation of God's grace in salvation. We are not merely lawbreakers in need of forgiveness; we are image-bearers in need of restoration. Our rebellion, stemming from our nature, cannot be overcome by our own effort or choice. It requires a radical intervention by God Himself to realign our self-sufficiency under His sovereignty.

As a minister of the Gospel committed to Reformed theology, I feel compelled to address a concerning trend within the broader Christian community: the embrace of synergistic salvation. This view, which suggests that human will cooperates with divine grace in the process of salvation, not only misrepresents the true nature of our fallen state but also diminishes the magnificent grace of God in redemption.

Scripture paints an even starker picture of the human condition than our analogy of earthly treason. We are not merely sick and in need of assistance; we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). Our very nature is that of rebels and traitors against the sovereign God. Every inclination of our hearts is bent towards evil continually (Genesis 6:5). In this state, we do not seek God (Romans 3:11). We are not capable of understanding spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:14).

To understand the gravity of our situation, consider this: As cosmic traitors, every choice we make is tainted by that nature. It's not that we cannot choose God; it's that we will not choose God unless God intervenes, pardons us, and transforms us from natural traitors to natural servants. This is why Jesus will say to the redeemed, "Well done, good and faithful servant." Our very ability to serve faithfully is a result of God's transformative work.

Given this reality, salvation cannot be a cooperative effort between God and man. We do not lack ability; we lack the very will to turn to God. It is not that we cannot choose God, but that we will not choose God unless He first intervenes. This intervention is not merely assistance or encouragement, but a radical transformation – a resurrection of our dead spirits.

Synergistic views of salvation, which suggest that humans can cooperate with God in initiating or securing their salvation, fundamentally misunderstand both the depth of human depravity and the nature of God's grace. These views, often well-intentioned, can lead to several dangerous outcomes: They rob God of His glory in salvation, attributing part of the work to human effort. They create uncertainty in salvation, as one can never be sure if they've "done enough." They can lead to pride in those who believe they've chosen God by their own power. They can lead to despair in those who recognize their inability to choose rightly.

Moreover, embracing synergism is a failure to understand the radical nature of our rebelliousness against God. It underestimates the totality of our fall and the depth of our natural enmity towards God. Our rebellion is not a mere misunderstanding or a simple mistake that can be corrected by our own volition. It is a fundamental opposition to God's rule, a treason so deep-seated that nothing short of divine intervention can overcome it. To suggest that we can, of our own accord, choose to cooperate with God in our salvation is to gravely underestimate the power of sin and overestimate our own spiritual capabilities.

In contrast, the biblical and Reformed view of monergistic salvation – where God alone acts to save – offers profound comfort and assurance. It recognizes that our salvation is entirely of grace, from beginning to end. God chooses us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), He regenerates our dead hearts (Ezekiel 36:26), He grants us the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and He preserves us to the end (John 10:28-29).

This view does not negate human responsibility. Rather, it properly orders it. We are called to repent and believe, but we do so only because God has first worked in us both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).

Recognizing the roots of our rebellion in our nature as image-bearers helps us understand why synergistic views of salvation fall short. Our inclination towards self-sufficiency runs so deep that even in salvation, we want to claim some role, some cooperation with God. But true salvation lies in surrendering this self-sufficiency, acknowledging that our very ability to choose God comes from His prior work in us.

To my brothers and sisters who have embraced synergistic views, I implore you to reconsider. Examine the Scriptures carefully. See the depth of your own sin and inability. Marvel at the sovereign grace of God that intervenes to save those who would never choose Him on their own.

Embracing this truth will not lead to passivity or fatalism. Instead, it will fuel passionate evangelism, as we realize that God can and does save even the hardest hearts. It will inspire deeper worship, as we recognize that our salvation is entirely a work of God's grace. And it will provide unshakeable assurance, as we rest not in our choice of God, but in His choice of us.

Let us marvel at the wisdom and grace of God, who uses even our rebellion to draw us to Himself, transforming our misguided self-sufficiency into complete dependence on Him. In this, we find our true freedom and the full expression of our nature as His image-bearers.

Let us proclaim this gospel in all its fullness – not a gospel of human cooperation, but of divine rescue; not of human ability, but of God's all-sufficient grace. For it is this gospel alone that truly saves, and it is this gospel that brings all glory to God alone.

The Temporal Uncertainty Model: A Framework for Assessing Confidence in Evolutionary Timelines

Abstract

This paper introduces the Temporal Uncertainty Model (TUM), a novel framework for quantifying and visualizing the increasing uncertainty associated with historical and prehistorical events as we delve further into the past. We apply this model to the field of evolutionary biology, demonstrating its utility in assessing the varying levels of confidence in our understanding of life's history on Earth. The TUM provides a valuable tool for researchers, educators, and policymakers to communicate the nuanced nature of scientific certainty in historical sciences. Furthermore, this paper explores the implications of the TUM for the presentation and understanding of evolutionary theory, suggesting a shift from portraying evolution as an established fact to recognizing it as a well-supported but uncertain hypothesis, particularly for ancient events.

1. Introduction

The study of Earth's history, particularly the evolution of life, presents unique challenges due to the vast timescales involved and the often fragmentary nature of available evidence. As we investigate events further in the past, the quantity and quality of direct evidence typically decrease, leading to increased uncertainty in our interpretations. However, quantifying and communicating this uncertainty has remained a persistent challenge in paleontology, evolutionary biology, and related fields.

This paper presents the Temporal Uncertainty Model (TUM) as a framework for addressing this challenge. The TUM provides a mathematical basis for expressing how certainty decreases over time, taking into account factors such as evidence degradation, interpretative challenges, and the limitations of dating methods.

2. The Temporal Uncertainty Model

2.1 Mathematical Foundation

The core of the TUM is expressed by the following equation:

U(t) = c * (1 - e^(-kt)) + b

Where:

• U(t) is the uncertainty at time t
• t is time (typically in years before present)
• k is the rate of uncertainty increase
• b is the base uncertainty (minimum uncertainty for recent events)
• c is the maximum additional uncertainty (cap minus base uncertainty)

2.2 Key Parameters

• Rate of uncertainty increase (k): This parameter determines how quickly uncertainty grows with time. It can be adjusted based on the specific field of study or types of evidence available.
• Base uncertainty (b): This represents the minimum level of uncertainty, even for recent or well-documented events, reflecting the inherent limitations in scientific knowledge.
• Maximum uncertainty cap (b + c): This upper limit acknowledges that even for very ancient events, some level of knowledge is typically attainable.

2.3 Model Behavior

The TUM exhibits several key behaviors:

1. Uncertainty never reaches 100%, reflecting that some knowledge is always attainable.
2. There is a base level of uncertainty even for recent events.
3. The rate of increase in uncertainty is higher for more recent times and slows down for ancient times, mirroring the exponential decay of evidence quality.

3. Application to Evolutionary Biology

To demonstrate the utility of the TUM, we apply it to the field of evolutionary biology, a discipline that deals with events spanning billions of years and relies on diverse forms of often fragmentary evidence.

3.1 Methodology

We selected key events in evolutionary history and applied the TUM to calculate uncertainty levels for each. The parameters were set as follows:

• k = 0.005 (rate of uncertainty increase)
• b = 0.2 (20% base uncertainty)
• c = 0.75 (maximum additional uncertainty, for a total cap of 95%)

These conservative parameters reflect the significant challenges in reconstructing evolutionary history, even for relatively recent events.

3.2 Results

Evolutionary Event	Time (Mya)	Calculated Uncertainty
Present	0	20.00%
Homo sapiens emergence	0.3	20.30%
Dinosaur extinction	66	48.98%
First mammals	225	74.22%
First land vertebrates	370	84.57%
Cambrian explosion	541	90.48%
First multicellular life	1000	94.11%
First eukaryotes	2100	94.99%
Origin of life	3800	95.00%

3.3 Discussion

The application of the TUM to evolutionary biology reveals several key insights:

1. Recent events (e.g., the emergence of Homo sapiens) show relatively low but non-negligible uncertainty, reflecting the complexities of recent evolutionary processes and the limitations of even our best evidence.
2. Uncertainty increases rapidly as we move back in time. Events like the dinosaur extinction, despite being well-studied, carry significant uncertainty due to the challenges in precise dating and the interpretation of fossil evidence.
3. For ancient events such as the origin of life, uncertainty approaches the maximum cap, highlighting the highly speculative nature of our understanding of early Earth processes.
4. The non-linear increase in uncertainty aligns with the practical challenges faced by researchers, where evidence becomes exponentially scarcer and more ambiguous with age.

4. Implications and Future Directions

The TUM provides a quantitative framework for discussing uncertainty in evolutionary biology and other historical sciences. It offers several benefits:

1. Communication: The model can help scientists more effectively communicate the varying levels of certainty in their findings to both peers and the public.
2. Research Prioritization: By highlighting areas of high uncertainty, the TUM can guide researchers towards questions that may yield the most impactful new insights.
3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The model underscores the need for diverse evidence sources to constrain uncertainty, encouraging cross-disciplinary approaches.
4. Education: The TUM can serve as a teaching tool to help students understand the nature of evidence and certainty in historical sciences.

Future work should focus on refining the model parameters for specific subfields within evolutionary biology and extending the model to incorporate discrete events that significantly alter uncertainty (e.g., major fossil discoveries or the development of new dating techniques).

5. Evolutionary Theory: From Fact to Hypothesis

The application of the Temporal Uncertainty Model to evolutionary biology necessitates a reevaluation of how evolutionary theory is presented and understood, both within the scientific community and in public discourse.

5.1 Challenging the "Fact" Narrative

For decades, evolutionary theory has often been presented as an established fact, particularly in educational and popular science contexts [1]. However, the TUM quantitatively demonstrates that significant uncertainties exist, especially regarding ancient evolutionary events. This challenges the simplistic "evolution as fact" narrative and suggests a more nuanced approach is necessary.

5.2 Evolutionary Theory as a Working Hypothesis

The high levels of uncertainty revealed by the TUM, particularly for early life events, support framing evolutionary theory more accurately as a working hypothesis – a useful current explanation that is subject to revision as new evidence emerges. Key points include:

1. Incomplete Fossil Record: The fragmentary nature of the fossil record, especially for soft-bodied organisms and early life forms, leaves significant gaps in our understanding [2].
2. Limitations of Molecular Clock Methods: While powerful, molecular clock techniques rely on assumptions about mutation rates that may not hold constant over billions of years [3].
3. Ambiguity in Interpreting Ancient Evidence: As we move further back in time, multiple interpretations of available evidence become increasingly plausible, reducing certainty in any single narrative [4].
4. Ongoing Debates: Major aspects of evolutionary theory, such as the mechanisms of macroevolution, the role of horizontal gene transfer in early life, and the origins of key innovations (e.g., multicellularity), remain actively debated in the scientific community [5].

5.3 Implications for Science Communication and Education

Recognizing the hypothetical nature of much of evolutionary theory has several important implications:

1. Transparency in Uncertainty: Scientists and educators should more explicitly communicate the varying levels of certainty associated with different aspects of evolutionary theory [6].
2. Encouraging Critical Thinking: Presenting evolution as a hypothesis supported by evidence, rather than an unquestionable fact, can foster better critical thinking skills among students and the public [7].
3. Openness to New Ideas: Acknowledging uncertainties can create a more open scientific environment where alternative hypotheses can be more readily considered and tested [8].
4. Improving Public Trust: Honest communication about the limitations and uncertainties in our understanding of evolution may paradoxically increase public trust in science by demonstrating its self-correcting nature [9].

5.4 The Value of Uncertainty

While highlighting uncertainties in evolutionary theory may seem to weaken its standing, it actually aligns the public perception of the theory more closely with its true scientific status. This approach:

1. Better reflects the nature of scientific inquiry as an ongoing process rather than a set of immutable truths [10].
2. Encourages continued research by highlighting areas where our understanding is most limited [11].
3. Provides a more honest and engaging narrative about how science progresses, potentially increasing public interest and participation in scientific discussions [12].

6. Conclusion

The Temporal Uncertainty Model provides a quantitative framework for assessing and communicating the varying levels of certainty in our understanding of evolutionary history. By applying this model, we not only gain insights into the strengths and limitations of current evolutionary theory but also highlight the need for a more nuanced presentation of scientific knowledge.

Recognizing evolutionary theory as a well-supported but still uncertain hypothesis, particularly for ancient events, aligns with the true nature of scientific inquiry. This approach encourages ongoing research, fosters critical thinking, and promotes a more accurate public understanding of how science operates. As we continue to uncover new evidence and develop new analytical techniques, our understanding of life's history will undoubtedly evolve, guided by the principles of evidence-based inquiry and open scientific debate.

References

1. Gould, S.J. (1981). Evolution as Fact and Theory. Discover, 2(5), 34-37.
2. Raup, D.M. (1983). On the Early Origins of Major Biologic Groups. Paleobiology, 9(2), 107-115.
3. Kumar, S. (2005). Molecular clocks: four decades of evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(8), 654-662.
4. Donoghue, P.C. and Yang, Z. (2016). The evolution of methods for establishing evolutionary timescales. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1699), 20160020.
5. Pigliucci, M. (2007). Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis?. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 61(12), 2743-2749.
6. Fischhoff, B. and Davis, A.L. (2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13664-13671.
7. Allchin, D. (2012). Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Science Education, 96(5), 904-926.
8. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 4, 91-195.
9. Hmielowski, J.D., Feldman, L., Myers, T.A., Leiserowitz, A. and Maibach, E. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866-883.
10. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
11. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
12. Fiske, S.T. and Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13593-13597.

Adam as historical person: Luke genealogy cross-referenced

Luke 3:32-38 (NIV):

"32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Cross-referencing with Old Testament genealogies:

1. Jesse to Abraham (Luke 3:32-34):

   This section largely agrees with Old Testament genealogies[1].

2. Abraham to Noah (Luke 3:34-36):

   This section also generally aligns with Old Testament accounts[2].

3. Noah to Adam (Luke 3:36-38):

   This section presents some discrepancies with Old Testament genealogies.

Issues and Scholarly Resolutions:

1. Cainan in Luke 3:36:

   Issue: Cainan appears between Arphaxad and Shelah in Luke's genealogy but is absent in the corresponding Old Testament genealogies[3].

   Resolution: Scholars suggest this addition may come from the Septuagint (LXX) version of Genesis, which includes Cainan in this position[4].

2. Ram in Luke 3:33 (NIV):

   Issue: The NIV uses "Ram" here, while some other translations (like NRSV) have "Admin" and "Arni". These names are not found in Old Testament genealogies.

   Resolution: The use of "Ram" in the NIV aligns with Old Testament genealogies[5]. The variation in other translations might reflect textual variants or different manuscript traditions[6].

3. Differences in spelling:

   Some names have slightly different spellings (e.g., Salmon instead of Sala, Enosh instead of Enos in some translations). This is generally attributed to differences in Greek and Hebrew transliteration and is not considered a significant issue[7].

4. Length of genealogy:

   Luke's genealogy is more extensive than most Old Testament genealogies, tracing back to Adam. This is likely due to Luke's intent to present Jesus as the savior of all humanity, not just Israel[8].

Footnotes:

[1] Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 2:1-15

[2] Genesis 11:10-26; 1 Chronicles 1:24-27

[3] Genesis 11:12-13; 1 Chronicles 1:18

[4] Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Gospel According to Luke I-IX." Anchor Bible Commentary, 1981.

[5] Ruth 4:19; 1 Chronicles 2:9-10

[6] Marshall, I. Howard. "The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text." New International Greek Testament Commentary, 1978.

[7] Nolland, John. "Luke 1-9:20." Word Biblical Commentary, 1989.

[8] Green, Joel B. "The Gospel of Luke." New International Commentary on the New Testament, 1997.

These discrepancies have been the subject of much scholarly debate. While some critics see them as evidence of historical inaccuracies, many argue that they reflect different genealogical traditions or serve theological purposes. It's important to note that ancient genealogies often had purposes beyond mere historical record-keeping, such as establishing legitimacy or emphasizing certain theological points.

Analogy: God’s sovereignty and Man’s Free Will

Ok, my friends who are theology nerds, I developed this in response to a criticism of Reformed Theology:

God is sovereign over everything in His Creation, including human free agency/will. 

God the Father lovingly ordained that God the Son shall be glorified as Lord, Judge, and Savior over free beings made in His image, so that some would be mercifully and graciously made fit through God the Spirit for eternal communion and others justly condemned to eternal separation.

Go back and study the 3 wills of God and Augustine’s States of Man.

In the meantime, please consider this analogy:

The Divine Software Development Project: A Reformed Theology Analogy

Imagine the entirety of creation as an immense software development project, with God as the Master Developer. This cosmic application, "Project Glorification," is designed to exalt the Son as Lord, Judge, and Savior[1].

The Development Framework:

1. Decretive Will (Core Architecture): 

   This is the fundamental architecture of the project, determining every aspect and outcome with absolute certainty. It's the sovereign, efficacious will by which God brings to pass whatever He pleases[2]. Like a perfectly designed system architecture, nothing can ultimately frustrate or alter this will.

2. Preceptive Will (User Interface Guidelines):

   This represents God's revealed commandments and moral law[3]. It's akin to a comprehensive set of user interface guidelines, detailing how users should interact with the application. However, unlike the decretive will, users can choose to violate these guidelines, though not without consequences.

3. Will of Disposition (Developer's Desire):

   This reflects God's attitude or disposition towards His creation[4]. It's similar to a developer's preferences for how users should engage with the software, even if He permits actions contrary to these preferences to serve His ultimate purposes.

User Roles:

1. The Elect (Authorized Users): Users chosen by the Developer to receive special access privileges[5].

   

2. The Reprobate (Standard Users): Users interacting with the software within standard parameters[6].

User Experience Levels (Augustine's States):

1. Pre-Fall State (Posse non peccare): Initial user state, with potential for error-free interaction[7].

   

2. Fallen State (Non posse non peccare): State where users invariably trigger software errors[8].

   

3. Regenerate State (Posse peccare): Partially restored state, with improved but not perfect stability[9].

   

4. Glorified State (Non posse peccare): Final, flawless user experience[10].

The Holy Spirit as System Optimizer:

The Holy Spirit functions as a divine system optimizer for the Elect, enhancing their interaction with the software[11]:

- Exclusive Implementation: Applied solely at the Master Developer's discretion[12].

- Transformative Power: Initiates a comprehensive overhaul of the user's interface and interaction[13].

- Enhanced Comprehension: Grants deeper understanding of the User Interface Guidelines[14].

- Direct Communication Channel: Establishes real-time, two-way communication with the Developer[15].

- Progressive Optimization: Initiates ongoing user refinement[16].

- Irrevocable Implementation: Once applied, it cannot be removed[17].

- Fruit-Bearing Subroutines: Activates new subroutines producing "fruit of the Spirit" outputs[18].

Development Processes:

The application employs advanced procedural generation techniques, creating a dynamic user experience that accounts for individual choices while ensuring the Developer's decretive will is never compromised[19].

User Interactions:

All users make real choices with real consequences, interacting with the User Interface (Preceptive Will). However, these choices always align with the Core Architecture's (Decretive Will) purposes, even when they violate the User Interface Guidelines[20].

Project Outcome:

"Project Glorification" fulfills its intended purpose, demonstrating the Developer's unmatched skill, showcasing both mercy and justice[21].

—-

References:

[1]: Philippians 2:9-11 (Lord), John 5:22-23 (Judge), Acts 4:12 (Savior)

[2]: Ephesians 1:11, Daniel 4:35

[3]: Psalm 19:7-11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17

[4]: Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:4

[5]: Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:29-30

[6]: Romans 9:22-23, 1 Peter 2:8

[7]: Genesis 1:31, 2:25

[8]: Romans 5:12, 3:23

[9]: Romans 7:15-25, Galatians 5:17

[10]: 1 John 3:2, Revelation 21:27

[11]: John 14:26, 16:13-14

[12]: John 3:8, 1 Corinthians 12:11

[13]: 2 Corinthians 5:17, Ezekiel 36:26-27

[14]: 1 Corinthians 2:12-14, John 16:13

[15]: Romans 8:26-27, Galatians 4:6

[16]: Philippians 1:6, 2:13

[17]: John 10:28-29, Romans 8:38-39

[18]: Galatians 5:22-23, John 15:5

[19]: Proverbs 16:9, 19:21

[20]: Philippians 2:12-13, Acts 4:27-28

[21]: Romans 9:22-23, Ephesians 2:7