To avoid the sanctimony of those who slander redemptive historical preachers.
Tim Bayly needed to vent and took aim at redemptive historical preaching. The occasion for the outburst is not entirely clear. One reason is that the Baylys have little tolerance for anyone who doesn’t share their convictions. Another may be that Tim is preparing for an upcoming Clear Note conference on preaching. It seems that at this conference Tim is planning to do to the disciples of Ed Clowney what David did to Goliath.
In response to a professor who warns about isolating biblical narratives from the overarching narrative of salvation, Tim slashes and burns:
Holding David up as a hero is to isolate this narrative from the flow of redemptive history? Really? “Only a boy named David, only a little sling” is out the window now? Everyone all through church history has been wrong to speak well of David’s courage and faith? We must only speak well of God’s power and plan? To hold David up as an example to the young men and little boys of the church is to “isolate” the story of David and Goliath “from the flow of redemptive history?”
Bunk and double bunk.
Well, how much bunk is involved in explaining to those little boys who sing about David and his sling what they should think of David and his prurient thoughts about a certain bather named Bathsheba? How do you explain to the child who collected all of Bobby Barry Bonds baseball cards that the all-time home run leader cheated? Maybe avoiding heroes in the Bible is a good idea.
But the problem with redemptive historical preaching goes deeper:
The failure of men who take pride in being Christ and Gospel-centered isn’t that they’re wrong in affirming how types and examples point to Christ. Reading, teaching, and preaching Christ in all of Scripture is foundational. Obvious.
Their failure is that they deny the morals and virtues of the types and examples–the flesh and blood of history, if you will. It’s as if no one is capable of loving David as a man and desiring to be like him while also loving the God Who made him as he was and worked through him to accomplish his sovereign decrees, including the very public execution of blaspheming Goliath, the very public vindication of His Name resting on Israel, the eventual replacement of King Saul with this man whose Davidic Line would end with our Messiah, and so on.
To speak of courage and faith together does not tie even, or especially, very young boys’ brains in knots. They get it. God has made man capable of amazing intellectual feats and those feats are often seen at their most brilliant in little people who haven’t yet had blinkered professors tell them they can’t think that way. Those possessing wisdom rather than degrees are fully capable of thinking both ways at the same time, and for intellectuals to tell them that they must choose one way and delete the other from their mind, also deleting all those obvious paths criss-crossing between both ways, is for professors of hermeneutics and exegesis to chain Scripture to the same pulpits the Roman Catholics had chained it to back at the time of the Reformation.
Well, tell this to the apostle Paul who could claim all sorts of bona fides in the virtue and courage sphere of Old Testament heroes and called those qualities rubbish:
. . .though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith. . . (Phil. 3:4-9)
Paul seems to be wary, as redemptive historical preachers are, of putting confidence in human ability to keep the law, to be moral, even to be heroic. That kind of esteem for human morality has a tendency to lead people not to trust in Christ but to look to themselves and their own righteousness.
In fact, if Tim Bayly had listened to more redemptive historical preaching, he would not only be saved from a lack of charity, but he might regard his own moral posturing for what it is — double bunk.
Old Life 
D.G. – You’re showing your age commenting on Bobby Bonds vs. Barry Bonds. I too remember Bobby.
One thing that Mark Driscoll gets right (at least he used to when I listened to his sermons) is that Jesus is the hero of the Bible. It’s all about Jesus.
Point out when people obeyed the Law of God and disobeyed the Law of God in Scripture but don’t put the focus on them. To quote Tina Turner, “We don’t need another hero.”
LikeLike
“We don’t need no stinking redemptive historical preaching!”
LikeLike
Erik, the reference to Bobby was more a function of declining brain capacity than a slip of baseball nostalgia. I’ll fix it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I won’t hear of anymore declining brain capacity. As I tell my aging, baby-boomer, suck the treasury dry and all the private financial largesse from the ending of WWII, older brother; They’ll be no retiring for you mister, go to the alternative health food store and get you some of that go-go juice in the syringe(we are talking Barry Bonds after all). Y’all get to help dig us out this hole. After all us young ones at the ones who birthed mono-covenantalism in the american reformed scene and all it’s illegitimate children, and we’re too stupid and ahistorical to not get taken in by McLaren, Keller and warmed over Baltimore catechism RC. You got work to do it. Try whistling.
LikeLike
Erik, you’re not going to quote Charles Barkley? That’s a turrrible omission.
DGH, there’s a substantial market of moralistic children’s books designed for evangelicals to try to get their children to be good. I understand why a parent would purchase them but some of them do tend to equate Christianity with being good. I’ll see if I can find a couple examples beyond “Three Kind Mice.”
LikeLike
Sean, who said anything about retiring. I plan to go on as long as I can, sounding like an idiot all the way.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Just checkin’. My brother starts with physical and mental maladies and the next thing I hear about is retirement and downsizing and how they got the kids raised just ‘under the wire’ and my response is; ‘so, what’s any of that got to do with my needs?’
LikeLike
Dr. Hart: I agree that we need more redemptive-historical focus in preaching, and I share your distaste for the shallow, moralistic preaching so common today, even in otherwise reformed pulpits (i.e., the David and Goliath confrontation teaches us primarily that “David was a great example of courage”; Daniel in the lion’s den teaches us to “Dare to be a Daniel”; etc.). And I agree that Tim Bayly’s rant against redemptive-historical preaching was shrill and over-the-top. But at the same time I don’t think your appeal to Phil. 3:4-9 was very relevant to the point you were trying to make. In the context of that passage Paul is contrasting his pre-conversion perspective as an unregenerate, Christ-hating Pharisee with his “new perspective” as one who (by God’s sovereign grace) had come to find his righteousness in Christ alone. He is not saying that we can learn nothing exemplary from Old Testament saints. (Indeed, that subject does not appear to have been on his radar screen in the context of Phil. 3.) Furthermore, what do you propose to do with Hebrews chapter 11 (the great “hall of faith”), which presents numerous examples of Old Testament saints who (flawed and sinful though they were) were models of persevering faith and godly patience, and whom the author of Hebrews holds up as examples for his Christian readers to imitate?
Yes, preachers must keep the redemptive-historical and Christ-centered focus of Scripture front and center in their preaching. But at the same time, provided that we keep Scriptures’ redemptive-historical focus in view, it is possible to hold forth various biblical saints as examples of godliness without gutting the Scriptures of their Christ-centered, redemptive focus or falling into pelagian-like moralism.
LikeLike
I agree that the elect are not “totally depraved” after we are justified, because –if we were– we would still not be believing the gospel. But that being said, the law-gospel antithesis has not yet been removed from us, so when it comes to conditioning justification and other blessing on the sinner, our stuff is still garbage before God. In other words, our works are not “dead works” for the very reason we know that our works are not the condition of salvation.
For a more thoughtful and focused criticism of some “redemptive-historical preaching”, some of you guys might want to check out Robert Reymond’s systematic (p 535-536), in particular the footnote 34 disagreeing with Vos and his “biblical theology” on “dual seed”.
LikeLike
I am not one of those who thinks 2k lead Jason Stellman astray. If it had, he most likely would be in a more anabaptist place, and not in “the church” which is still inherently more (I think) Constantinian and magisterial. On the other hand, I do think maybe that Stellman was led astray by his redemptive-historical emphasis.
1. I know the feeling, because I myself was led astray by my new (still valid) understanding that the Mosaic law is the schoolmaster in an RH way that leads to the object of faith (as opposed to a personal puritan preparationism, for example). In other words, thank goodness, now I don’t talk about covenants anymore, but only about the gospel!
2. But let me say quickly that I don’t think RH inherently loses sight of the individual need for salvation and the individual’s being under the dominion (which means guilt in Romans 6) of sin.
Look especially at Stellman’s comments in chapter 12 of his Dual Citizens. He quotes Vos, “eschatology precedes soteriology” Sure, I also have read my Fesko on protology. I read that as saying: there is a covenant of works before there is sin. And that would fit the Meredith Kline model. Stellman narrates the drama this way— the desire for eternal life is before the desire to be
saved from God’s wrath for our sins. Adam on probation still needed (and wanted) eternal life. All fine and good. I am not one to quibble (!)
My problem is when eschatology not only precedes soteriology but becomes the soteriology.
My problem is when we read Romans 6:14 as saying ONLY that nobody is now under the Mosaic law. I agree that nobody is now under the Mosaic law economy. 1. I don’t think Romans 6:14 is teaching ONLY that. And 2.more importantly, I don’t think that is the gospel.
LikeLike
Romans 6:14–”for sin shall not have the dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace.” I read that as saying that sin shall not reign over a justified person, because that person is justified.
Jason Stillman (Dual Citizens, Reformation Trust, 2009, p143) suggests that such a reading is a non-answer. I quote: “According to this view, under law means under the condemnation of God’s moral law, and under grace speaks of the deliverance from this condition. Some problems arise from this view…. When Paul spoke to those saints in the churches of Galatia who desired to be under the law, was he talking to people who longed to be under the condemnation of the law?…Furthermore, if under law and under grace are existential categories describing an individual’s condemnation or justification, then Paul’s argument is a non-sequiter. It is not justification but sanctification that frees us from the dominion of the sin.”
Stillman of course was not alone in his interpretation of Romans 6. Others who are Reformed tell us that “freed from sin” in Romans 6:7 cannot mean “justified from sin” because this chapter is about sanctification and not about justification. They tell us that the dominion of sin is not the guilt of sin, and that the chapter teaches an “ontological break with sin personified”. They would not only assure the apostle Paul (who wrote Philippians 3) that his stuff is no longer garbage, but warn him that his stuff is necessary for final justification.
Let’s attend to Stillman’s two questions about Romans 6:14. You can read them in context above, but the first asks: When Paul was warning the Galatians, were the false teachers wanting to be under condemnation?
My answer: Paul’s answer is that the false teachers were under the condemnation. If you go their way, Christ will be of no profit to you. The gospel does not tell people that they WANT TO be damned. The gospel says that THEY WILL be damned if their trust in anything else but Christ’s death (and resurrection) for the elect. That death (and resurrection) alone, apart from our works enabled by the Spirit (be those works of Torah or works of new covenant) is the gospel.
Stillman’s second question—- when Paul wrote that Jesus was born under the law, did he mean that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law? My answer is yes. Gal 4:4: born of the law to redeem those under the law cannot mean only that Christ was born under the jurisdiction of Moses to get Jews free from that jurisdiction. Of course jewish bondage under the law is in view, but it’s part of the more basic pattern of all humans being condemned by the “curse of the law”.(Gal 3:13) .
Yes, Christ was born under the condemnation of God and God’s law. To see this, we need to attend to the first part of Romans 6 before we rush to the second part and conclude that it has to be about a sanctification that makes it just for God to justify the ungodly. Romans 6:10 speaks of Christ’s death when it describes “the death He died to sin”.
Before we jump to the redemptive historical complexity of union and identification with the death (when? Before the ages? Two thousand years ago? At imputation? Before or after faith?), we need to focus on Christ’s death to sin. Does Christ’s death to sin mean that Christ was unregenerate and then given an “ontological break with sin” by the Holy Spirit? NO it does not. God forbid. Neither does our death to sin in Romans six mean that. It’s one and the same death.
Not denying the RH factors in Romans 6, but only warning about reducing everything to that.
LikeLike
I heard a good redemptive historical preacher this weekend- he preached from Romans 8:1-4. The best preaching I have heard in quite a while. The Preacher stated that the texts summarized Paul’s teaching from Romans chapters 5,6 and 7. He elaborated but did not answer some questions I still have. I am laying low and listening for about 4 months. Much more emphasis on the spiritual union rather than the forensic union though. Plus the guy who taught the Bible study after the worship service is a big spiritual union guy. He had a thought provoking and interesting teaching from Acts 19:21-41, ie., the Artemis riots. You even had a time to ask questions before they dismissed. I don’t know what this guy was doing in the Chicago area.
LikeLike
David Gordon has done a very good job of working through RH in Romans 6, also in Romans 9:32 following. But perhaps the best short quotation I could give here would be from David Van Drunnen on Romans 6:14 in his WTJ essay “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation” (p322)
“How could not being under the Mosaic law have anything to do with one’s justification?….Justification is indeed ultimately not about whether a person is under the Mosaic law as a member of corporate Israel, but about whether a person is under the federal headship of the first Adam or the last Adam. But insofar as one of the chief divine purposes for the Mosaic law was to cause OT Israel to recapitulate Adam’s probation and fall, being under the Mosaic law was a profound illustration of the plight of humanity under the first Adam.”
LikeLike
Geoff, I’m not sure how Phil. 3 is really out of accord with the rest of Paul’s arguments against works righteousness. It seems to me that Paul was worried about one iota of moralism, even the mere flaying of foreskin. Plus, the more I read the Bible, I’m not sure I see too many saints (in the heroic, Roman Catholic sense) other than Jesus.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote: “Geoff, I’m not sure how Phil. 3 is really out of accord with the rest of Paul’s arguments against works righteousness. It seems to me that Paul was worried about one iota of moralism, even the mere flaying of foreskin. Plus, the more I read the Bible, I’m not sure I see too many saints (in the heroic, Roman Catholic sense) other than Jesus.”
GW: Yes, I agree that Paul is dealing with the issue of pharisaical works-righteousness in Phil. 3. That was my point, and why I suggest your use of this passage does not support your issue with looking to Old Testament saints as moral examples to believers today. (I’d suggest re-reading my original comment more carefully.) Paul is contrasting his pre-conversion attitude of pharisaical works-righteousness with his post-conversion perspective of justifying faith, which finds its righteousness in Christ alone; he was not saying that there is no sense in which we as believer can look to the OT saints (who themselves were also justified by faith alone, like Abraham) as examples of faith and godliness (albeit imperfect ones). (Indeed, the issue of moral example was not even on Paul’s radar screen in the context of that passage, and it is exegetical anachronism to read and apply the passage the way you do in your post.)
The OT saints listed as examples in Heb. 11 were not sinlessly perfect; indeed, many of them had glaring flaws. But at the same time, because of God’s grace in their lives, they are examples of true faith and godliness, and insofar as they manifested those fruits of sanctification they can be looked to as godly examples. The same can be said of NT saints and of the saints in post-biblical church history. Think of our beloved J. Gresham Machen. As a historian who has studied Machen’s life you know that he was not a flawless saint. But nevertheless, because of God’s grace, he was truly a godly man and can be held up as an example of a pilgrim who fought the good fight of faith even to the death. All I’m saying is that the same can be said of saints living in OT times as well (as long as we avoid pelagianizing moralism and keep the redemptive-historical focus of Scripture clear).
LikeLike
Next you’ll be confusing John Mayberry, Jr. with Bake McBride.
Old historians never die, they just become history.
LikeLike
Geoff,
I would be interested in your interaction with S.M. Baugh on Hebrews 11. The following is from the introductory section of, “The Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrews 11” (WTJ 68 (2006): 113-32):
Hebrews 11 is almost universally regarded as a display of the “heroes of faith” whose valiant “assurance” (ὑπόστασις) and “confidence” (ἔλεγχος) for which “they were commended” (ἐμαρτυρήθησαν) we are to emulate. In large part, this common interpretation is inspired and reinforced by highly questionable traditional renderings of key terms listed above from Heb 11:1–2, which continue on in newer English versions despite well-founded objections in lexical and scholarly authorities.
This situation is understandable, because when one renders the passage properly it comes across as enigmatic or ironic at best and unintelligible at worst. Scholarly interpretation of the passage is not always clear and, curiously, often devolves to the popular view in the end despite awareness that its basis in translation is faulty.
My understanding of Heb 11 proceeds from the author’s presentation of the OT believers recorded in the biblical record as recipients of divine testimony to the coming eschatological realities, and thence by faith they became participants in and witnesses to the world to come. It was by faith that the “elders” (Heb 11:2) acted as instruments of redemptive revelation, and hence they became the “cloud of witnesses surrounding us” (Heb 12:1). Therefore, Heb 11 bears directly on the author’s conception of the nature and central theme of the OT Scriptures as an organic unfolding of redemptive revelation, and this chapter powerfully witnesses to his hearers that they cannot reject Christ, the Reality, and go back to a supposed “old time religion” of the OT era.
LikeLike
Da Bayly’s cray cray. Why do you keep arguing with them?
LikeLike
Oops – That link may not work for you. It was 4 OPC histories – 2 by Hart, 1 by Churchill, 1 by Dennison. Just delete that comment if you can, D.G.
LikeLike
Erik, I would never make that mistake. Seeing Bake hit that homerun on the second to last Friday night of the 1980 season to beat the Expos at the Vet is still firmly etched in my addled brain.
LikeLike
Walt, it’s my ministry.
LikeLike
I had never heard of the Bayly family. It appears their father was a heavy-hitter within postwar evangelicalism. This probably explains their hostility to some Reformed distinctives like redemptive historical preaching. They might be more of the old Bible Presbyterian mindset vs. the OPC mindset. The more I learn about the PCA the more I realize it is a bit of a big tent.
LikeLike
I’ll always remember D.G.’s comment in either his Machen book or his recent OPC history (or maybe both) about the guys in the early OPC with European roots who were good with smoking and drinking. Not so with the Bible Presbyterians. Kind of a funny name. You would think “Bible” and “Presbyterian” would go together.
Not too many people realize that the B.P.’s are the group that Francis Schaeffer came out of. Did any of you guys ever meet him?
LikeLike
David R: Baugh makes some good points. I would agree that the author of Hebrews lists these various OT saints in the “hall of faith” of Heb. 11 primarily as “witnesses” to the coming eschatological realities. Thus Heb. 11 does, indeed, have a redemptive-historical purpose in the context of the overall “word of exhortation” of Hebrews. But having recognized that primary concern, is it not clear in the broader context of Hebrews that the author lists the OT saints as reasons why the Hebrews cannot and should not fall back into Judaism. I.E., can we not say that there is at least a secondary “exemplaristic” function of Heb. 11? It is as if the author of Hebrews is saying, “So, you’re thinking about apostatizing from your Christian faith and going back to Judaism and the old covenant system? Have you not read about the OT saints? Theirs was not the works-righteousness you find in pharisaical Judaism, and they understood the old covenant forms pointed forward to something greater. By their eschatological faith and hope they were witnesses to the new covenant eschatological realities that you have even now begun to experience in this new covenant age of Messiah. So I would urge you to imitate their eschatological faith and hope instead of reverting to the old covenant system which even they understood was temporary and to a works-righteousness that even they would not approve.”
The presence of example in the Scriptures does not, of itself, cancel out or weaken the Scriptures’ primary function as the written revelation of God’s redemptive plan. “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” (1 Cor. 11:1, ESV)
LikeLike
One more thought on this whole issue of Scripture as redemptive revelation vs. Scripture as moral example.
The Shorter Catechism (answer to Q. # 3) says: “The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” Of course, the Scriptures teach these principle things in the context of the eschatological flow of an unfolding historical narrative of redemptive revelation (and not in the form of an abstract systematics textbook or an ethics manual). Nevertheless, there is both law and gospel in Scripture. Which implies there is also both eschatological redemptive revelation and moral/ethical example based upon said revelation.
LikeLike
Aren’t fathers, husbands, elders, deacons, ministers, older women, older men, etc… called to be examples of Christ-likeness to families, the church, younger women, younger men, etc.? (Ephesians 5, I Timothy, Titus, etc…) If so, why not Old Testament saints? It is not as though we look to them as being Christ nor are they the perfect example, but they are never-the-less examples of those who have been effectually called and have been enabled to die more and more to sin and live more and more to righteousness (though as David and Paul remind us…not perfectly in this life).
Notice in Hebrews 11, Christ is not an example of Faith but rather the object of it (Christianity and Liberalism comes to mind here). So is it wrong to look at examples of Faith in the correct context?
LikeLike
B and Geoff, I don’t think the point here is to exclude exemplar. I think it’s to emphasis RH and point out the dangers of emphasizing exemplar, which really is the project of Kantian religion (i.e. liberalism). Christianity certainly isn’t a morality or way or life but there certainly is a morality and way of life resident within it. That seems to be a vital distinction and one that those who emphasis the exemplar are prone to rail against to greater or lesser degrees, especially those who want to champion one form of cultural Christianity or another.
LikeLike
Morality isn’t knowing Christ, but morality follows from knowing Christ. It is the necessary consequence.
LikeLike
So when atheists complain about the bad deeds that alleged Christians do they have a legitimate beef. They can’t explain why anyone but a Christian (or at least a theist) should want to or have to do good deeds, though.
LikeLike
Geoff, why render Scripture’s moral content as example? Why not use the language of the catechism — “duty”? If the problem with RH is that it doesn’t yield biblical heroes, what’s so bad about that if it still renders the law as duty? I suspect RH is being held to a standard that the standards don’t actually teach.
LikeLike
B, the problem is that heroism doesn’t set expectations for failure. What do we do when heroes fail? Where does the language of heroism actually come from? Literature? Shakespearean tragedies are all about heroes that fall. They are tragic. And that’s what happens to most if not all OT saints. The great thing about the story of the Bible is that the narrative is not about the saints. It’s about the savior who redeems them from their falls.
LikeLike
Erik, I not only knew Schaeffer but hiked with him in the Alps. (Okay, everyone who went to L’Abri did.)
LikeLike
B – Note that Hebrews 11 commends “examples of faith” and not examples of law-keeping. Too often Bible hero & virtue enthusiasts want to laud good deeds and not reliance on Christ.
LikeLike
Human nature is to want to point to “good people” and say “we can be good people too” vs. bowing before a savior who saves us in spite of our being bad people.
LikeLike
D.G. – Wow, didn’t know you did that. How long were you there?
LikeLike
It’s about time to start the old D.G. memoir, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Did Franky Sr wear his snobbish little pants? Did he lecture you about the vital importance of having a world—- opinion about everything, including stuff like art you maybe knew nothing about? Or was the instruction that it was your Christian duty to learn enough so that you could then have a world—– opinion? And did he tell you why he used the language of “free-will” in order to avoid looking like a non-theistic “determinist”?
One final question: did you wear a bow tie for these occasions?
LikeLike
This topic is actually one of the reasons I am saddest for those CTC guys. They’ve moved from an expression of the Christian faith that has a pretty square focus on Christ (the Bayly’s notwithstanding) to Rome, which mucks that focus up with all kinds of other stuff.
LikeLike
Zrim, DGH, and Erik,
I think we are in agreement. Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ alone for Salvation as He is offered to us in the gospel. Christ alone was the perfect law keeper and in keeping the law along with His substitutionary atonement on the cross He satisfied God’s divine justice and reconciled us to God. Even the best examples of Godliness and Holiness in Scripture are there to point us, not to the creature but to Creator God. God desires His people (those who have been effectually called and partakers of its benefits) to live like Christ and to be examples, hence the calling to fathers, ministers, elders, etc… always with the recognition that we are imperfect, putting to death the remnants of the old man only by the power of the Holy Spirit.
An interesting example of an example…Christ Jesus as the Eternal Son of God was and is sinless God. As such He never has nor will confess sin/repent. David, a man after God’s own heart, commits grievous, even scandalous sin, and by the grace and mercy of God, David is enabled to confess his sin and repent which account, prayer, praise, etc… is given for our benefit that we too might confess our sins and praise and worship our Lord (Psalm 51). David gives us an example of repentance. David and others also give an example of the Holy Spirit’s work in preserving saints in the truth. I agree that the only “hero” in these accounts is Christ Jesus doing the work through the Spirit and we ought to desire to have that Spirit in us so we too might walk “uprightly” before God and man.
It would seem calling examples other than Christ, heroes could be used improperly and a better title may be more prudent, but certainly the men and woman set out in Hebrews 11 in particular are examples that we should learn from and have been given to learn from while always looking to the one in whom was their foundation and cornerstone, namely Christ Jesus.
Are we in agreement here?
LikeLike
B, as I say, I’ve no problem with exemplar. For example, I know he’s given us 2kers a black eye of late, but one of the most poignant points Stellman makes in his 2k book comes at the end when he points to Christ on the matter of taking up worldly weapons to defend our so-called religious rights and suggests that it would be “far more Christ-like to patiently endure when we are wronged.” And speaking of Hebrews, he then invokes 10:32-35 to bring the point home.
But this is in contrast to those like the Baylys who would no doubt be on the bandwagon to make sure our religious liberties remain unscathed and tend to think of exemplar in moralistic and culture warrior ways. One wonders how the crucifixion would have ever happened with this sort of modern doctrine of religious liberty at play. So I’ve nothing against exemplar. I just think there are two different kinds: one that props up the stuff of Protestant liberalism, and the older kind that deconstructs it. The latter is good, by the way.
LikeLike
Is Stellman’s book pretty good? How would you assess it vs. Van Drunen’s two books?
You make a good point about patiently enduring vs. defending religious rights. I used to interact with a lot of religious right type folks in Iowa and they don’t get that at all. They are more of the mindset that if you love sinners you shouldn’t let them continue in their sin. You should fight to make them do what is right whether they want to or not. It seems to just make sinners hate Christ & Christians even more, though. Maybe I’ll try your approach on the RR. I don’t have much opportunity to interact with them anymore, though, since I’m off of Facebook. Where can you argue with these sorts of folks these days?
LikeLike
B said this: “God desires His people (those who have been effectually called and partakers of its benefits) to live like Christ and to be examples, hence the calling to fathers, ministers, elders, etc… always with the recognition that we are imperfect, putting to death the remnants of the old man only by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
John Y: Not that anyone is asking me but I think B brings up an important point. How are the remnants of the old man put to death? When one starts thinking by the power of the Spirit instead of the power of the Gospel one can get easily confused and wonder what is going on when the “power” of the Spirit seems to be turned off. Our old man was put to death when God placed us into Christ’s death. It is the atonement which is the power of the Gospel. We have Christ’s righteousness due to the atonement and therefore the power of sin (which is it’s ability to still condemn us and fill us with guilt when we sin) cannot condemn us when the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin and gives us the ability to repent. The old man was put to death already when we believed the Gospel, it is this body of sin that we still have our problems with. But we can deal with that by faith and repentance. And that is the job of the Holy Spirit to continually point us back to Christ (along with conviction and repentance) and his work for the elect. When one thinks it is the power of the Spirit rather than the power of the Gospel then your walk in the Christian life begins to emphasize what you have to do by the power of the Spirit which takes ones eyes off Christ and back on to what is happening inside you. I think that is a very important distinction to be continually reminded of.
LikeLike
Erik, try the Blog Bayly. It’s the Reformed religious right.
Re DC, I’ll let me review speak for itself (on DVD, I’ve only read ABCFNL & NL2K, but LG2K is on my short list) :
http://www.amazon.com/Dual-Citizens-Worship-Between-Already/product-reviews/1567691196/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
LikeLike
John Y,
Westminster Larger Catechism, # 75, was in mind in talking about the power of the Holy Spirit.
Question 75: “What is sanctification?”
Answer: “Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.”
Perhaps it would have been more complete and better for me to have said, “…only by the power of the Holy Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto believers.” Thank you for bringing up that point.
LikeLike
Erik, about 10 weeks, until money ran out.
Re: a memoir, I would but I can’t remember anything.
LikeLike
Zrim – If you had known he was going to convert you might have cut that down to 4 stars.
I’ll read DVD first. At this point I wouldn’t trust JS to pick out a box of cereal for me at the grocery store, but that’s just me being “uncharitable”.
LikeLike
McMark, Schaeffer wore knickers, a goatee, and longish hair. It was the seventies. It was cool. The w-w stuff didn’t take, though the idea of working and studying and worshiping together did.
As for what I wore, it was a t-shirt over the bow tie. The 1970s.
LikeLike
Arguing politics is way more fun with evangelicals because you can frustrate them with your Reformed theology and 2K at the same time. They immediately assume you are a theological liberal and once they figure out you are not they just don’t know what to make of you.
LikeLike
D.G., in defense of Geoff, I don’t think he’s arguing for heroism. It seems you’re making a false dichotomy – either Redemptive Historical interpretation or the wacky Baylay hermeneutic. Paul does exhort to follow his own example, and we are exhorted to follow Christ’s example, as Geoff points out. This doesn’t mean following examples of behavior implies the heroism that the Baylay’s recommend, nor does it mean it’s an improper consequence drawn from scripture.
Certainly there is a proper ordering of redemptive revelation over moral exhortation since we must understand the Gospel properly before we understand the Law (though our experience may be quite the contrary) but I don’t think Geoff is denying this. We must be wary of our natural bent towards Law (in this case Heroism) but I would think moral example is a justified consequence in the narrative of biblical characters (WCF 1.6), despite their glaring faults.
You of all people argue for not viewing people myopically – the case of a certain College Football coach comes to mind. Much to commend despite of significant moral failure.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If you can’t remember what happened at L’Abri then what the heck were you doing when you were there? Or, is it Alzheimers setting in early? What was it like there? I am as curious as Erik about the place. You must have been there when the weather was nice. I bet you went to other place in Europe too. Not expecting a reply. Nor will I be disappointed if I don’t get one. I may catch some flack from McMark about being curious about the place at all. He is not too keen on Schaeffer and all his bastard children. I can’t help but agree with him on that one.
LikeLike
I didn’t hike with Schaeffer, but I did see him on his last speaking tour before his death. He was travelling with Franky, who was showcasing a strident culture warrior cartoon that he had produced. This was around the time Franky was doing a periodical in a newspaperish format featuring the writing of various conservatives. At the time it felt like the mantle was being transferred from Francis to Franky.
LikeLike
I think Franky has turned out to be Absalom. So much for the exemplar paradigm. However, you never know what goes on in a family- even godly ones. I’ll take the Darryl side on this argument.
LikeLike
But Franky Jr took the pictures of his permissive father in knickers way later, so maybe it’s not the knickers so much as the posing that bothered me. Why should we listen to this weird guy’s manifestos for taking back “Christian America”? I suppose the solution (for all of us) is to not invite in the photographers. But when we see their picture on the poster against abortion, do we have camera envy?
In Dual Citizens, Stellman made an interesting note about being guilty (as a member of the “legitimate” second kingdom) for the guilt of all the innocent killed in Iraq.(p71) I wonder if he still thinks it’s ok to kill for the state (or the economy), just so long as we don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s redemptive. All one needs to do is choose which Roman Catholic bishops to tell you what to think about things like that.
As a pacifist, of course, I don’t get too excited about Stellman’s distinction. It seems to me that my baptist dad (separation of church and state) and Jason are agreed in wanting to eat the egg but still have the chicken which would be born from that egg! They think war for the American empire is a matter of liberty for the private Christian,just so long as that Christian does not confuse himself with the visible church, which will be the visible church with or without the people who kill and are killed.
Because plain common sense teaches us that Jesus cannot be the example when it comes to what comes naturally. Sure, Jesus is human (no ubiquity of his Humanity) and the redeemer, but for what comes naturally we can ignore His human life on earth and learn from His Deity as Creator and Judge that the vengeance of war (even for us) is legitimate (but not holy).
LikeLike
Well, at the time I was very evangelical, running in charismatic circles, and trying to study philosophy. I thought Schaeffer was a gold mine at the time.
And I still remember the confused looks on the faces of the Kenneth Hagen charismatics when I told them I was studying philosophy. But I digress from this digression – Schaeffer was encouraging at the time. I mean, at least thought was taking place.
LikeLike
Erik, you lost me: why would you need help picking out your cereal? Isn’t that what those WWJD bracelets are for? And Voter Guides for candidates. And Popes for a church.
LikeLike
Mikelmann,
What in heavens name were you ever reading Kenneth Hagin for? I was never in those charismatic circles. I cannot picture you being involved with him either. But then again I have never met you. Were you into Kenneth Copeland too? I was deeply involved in the Sheparding/Discipleship guys (Mumford, Prince, Baxter, Simpson and Basham) but never with Hagin or Copeland. I could not stomach them even while involved in the charismatic shepharding/discipleship movement.
LikeLike
JY, I never read KH, but a church I attended for a year or so was a health & wealth church. I recall some Kenneth Copeland cassettes being in my possession at one point. But I never even raised my hands with everyone else. Always a misfit…
LikeLike
MM, speaking of misfits, I once taught at a Full Gospel church school (but I was way too spiritual to be tempted like you). They bribed their kids with Tootsie Rolls in order to get their hands up in chapel/church. So much for spontaneity. But anybody who catechized their kids squelched the Spirit.
LikeLike
I Peter 3: Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the example of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct… 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are HER CHILDREN, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
LikeLike
How about if we say the exemplar argument is surely scriptural but often performed in a dead works kind of way- like family values and cultural transformation. When done due to union with the Gospel it is more powerful and convicting than words.
LikeLike
John Y., I was studying at L’Abri. For evangelicals of my generation, Schaeffer was the only known way to talk about existentialism and Ingmar Bergman. I went on the cheap flights that Icelandic made available and spent a little time in France on my way to and from Huemoz. It was a great time even if I later find Schaeffer almost incomprehensible in his philosophical/theological writing.
LikeLike
McMark, if you won’t fight for the American empire, how about the Swiss confederation? I hear the chocolate is pretty good.
LikeLike
The either/or of this debate is quite unhelpful. Pointing out good examples for to be imitated is not the same (or at least should not be the same) as promoting works righteousness as the grounds of justification:
Philippians 3:17: “Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.”
James 5:10: “As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.”
1 Peter 2:21: “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.”
Likewise, emphasizing the redemptive plot of Scripture is not (or at least should not be) the same as denying Progressive Sanctification and the need of Christians to persevere in the faith.
LikeLike
Zrim wrote: “Christianity certainly isn’t a morality or way or life but there certainly is a morality and way of life resident within it.”
GW: Well put. I agree.
LikeLike
David – The root of the problem is a misunderstanding of law and gospel, which is also the root of the problem with Rome, The Federal Vision, theological liberalism, etc. so it is a big deal. I have no problem with the passages you cite (obviously) as long as they are viewed in a proper law/gospel context.
LikeLike
Nate Paschall wrote: “D.G., in defense of Geoff, I don’t think he’s arguing for heroism. It seems you’re making a false dichotomy – either Redemptive Historical interpretation or the wacky Baylay hermeneutic. Paul does exhort to follow his own example, and we are exhorted to follow Christ’s example, as Geoff points out. This doesn’t mean following examples of behavior implies the heroism that the Baylay’s recommend, nor does it mean it’s an improper consequence drawn from scripture.”
GW: Thank you, Nate. You read my comments correctly. I was not defending a Bayly-type heroism.
NP: “Certainly there is a proper ordering of redemptive revelation over moral exhortation since we must understand the Gospel properly before we understand the Law (though our experience may be quite the contrary) but I don’t think Geoff is denying this.”
GW: Correct again. I certainly do not deny the proper ordering of redemptive revelation over moral exhortation. In fact, in my comments I affirm it quite clearly (as a careful reader should see). To quote from my original comment: “Yes, preachers must keep the redemptive-historical and Christ-centered focus of Scripture front and center in their preaching. But at the same time, provided that we keep Scriptures’ redemptive-historical focus in view, it is possible to hold forth various biblical saints as examples of godliness without gutting the Scriptures of their Christ-centered, redemptive focus or falling into pelagian-like moralism.”
LikeLike
David,
I need to know the context of Phil. 3 better, but the other examples concern suffering and patience. That’s a tad different from holding up David as a model of faith. I’m not sure that any believer would actually say consider me an example of righteousness. I’m not sure they’d do the same about suffering. But one is clearly different from the other, and I wish the Bayly’s fell in one category more than the other.
LikeLike
Even though there is no “either or” between redemptive-historical preaching and having/being an example, we must give priority to the gospel over ethics. My Amish neighbors are famous for wanting to “show and not tell”. If you were to ask them what they believe in order to discern if they have a “valid profession of faith”, they would direct you instead to question their neighbors for a witness about their “moral values” and “lifestyle choices”. (Yes, some of the spokespersons for the Amish know how to speak with Republican political correctness.)
In other words, my Amish neighbors deny the distinction between doctrine and life, between gospel and walk. And I agree that people submitted to the truth of gospel doctrine will walk in line with that
gospel. But this does not mean that they are less sinful than those people who teach the wicked false gospel lies of universal atonement and salvation conditioned on the sinner.
Nor does it mean that “our sanctification is strategically more important than our doctrines of justification and the atonement”. To keep walking by the Spirit instead of by the flesh is a description of those who keep believing the gospel. To attempt to experimentally prove with your walk that you believe is to walk by the flesh.
Jack Miller: “Scripture points out that the deepest problem in every situation and in all our struggles is the reality that we are sinners who sin. And for that problem Scripture gives us only one answer, one solution, one remedy– the Gospel of free mercy in Christ Jesus for sinners; to all who believe, theirs is complete cleansing from all sin and no longer any condemnation. The justified are set free from the law of sin and death and wedded to the One who paid the debt we could not pay. So we
hold tight the gospel through faith and walk in the direction of righteousness in obedience to God, not measuring how good our obedience is.”
LikeLike
Philippians 3:18-19 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is their shame-who set their minds on earthly things.”
According to Phil 3:18-19, those who remain enemies of the cross will perish. Only God can save anybody, and God has not promised to save anybody without teaching that person the gospel. Not all who are externally called by the gospel are effectively called by God. But all who are effectually called by God are called by the gospel. (Romans 10:14-17). The only way we can know if our works are good fruit (instead of fruit unto death) is to make our calling and election sure. (II Peter 1) By what gospel doctrine were we called?
Phil 3:18-19 is in contrast to 3:21. Their end is destruction; but our citizenship is already from heaven. Their end is the second death, but our end is immortality. When the text says that “they mind earthly things”, this does not necessarily mean immoral things. It may only mean
non-gospel things (distractions, misplaced priorities) , but it also may mean anti-gospel things (legalism, false religion).
It may mean somebody who thinks he used to be in this more legalistic sect but is now focused on being a healthy and happy and productive member of the larger more inclusive society.The “earthly things” are means by which those in the “flesh” remain ignorant or submissive to the gospel. The
glutton is not the only person who worships his “belly”.
The clergyman who will not preach the gospel (and its Machen antithesis) and expose the false gospel in order to “keep my ministry and still have influence” is also serving his “belly”. His flesh may not look like the flesh of the preacher who openly teaches freewill and losing your salvation. But it’s still flesh.
Phil 3:16 “Let us walk by the same rule”. Let’s not engage in the ungodly practice of judging only by outward appearance or by our own personal standard for a “valid profession of faith”. Without the imputed righteousness revealed in the gospel, any one person who commits one sin is no better off than other person who commits one sin.
It is legalism to think that we are converted because other people are less moral than we think we are. It is legalism to think that we are converted because we think we are less legalistic than we think other people are. II Corinthians 10:12 “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves by themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves are not wise.”
Philippians 3:16 says: WE are NOT like THOSE people. THEY have an unrighteous standard of judgment. We are not like them.. We judge everybody (ourselves included) by the gospel about the cross, Christ’s cross. Paul contrasts citizens of heaven with the enemies of the cross.
LikeLike
LC Q. 5. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
LC A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.
Dr. Hart,
I for one need good examples of suffering with patience! Let me offer a different type of example given by the N.T. from 1 Peter 3:1-6
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”
Let me add, while I oppose moralistic preaching every bit as much as you do, the discussion from those who advocate redemptive-historical sometimes leaves me wondering if they think striving to obey the law is a bad idea or that the Westminster Larger Catechism’s exposition of the Law is misguided.
One cannot know where other people are coming from with confidence from short remarks on a blog. Nevertheless, I would like to respond to what Erik wrote: “The root of the problem is a misunderstanding of law and gospel, which is also the root of the problem with Rome, The Federal Vision, theological liberalism, etc. so it is a big deal. I have no problem with the passages you cite (obviously) as long as they are viewed in a proper law/gospel context.” Now Erik and I don’t know each other, but the “law/gospel” context is sometimes used in redemptive-historical preaching to suggest that the law is meant only to drive us to Christ. If someone thinks that following the examples from the passages that I cited provide the grounds of his or her acceptance before God – then by all means these passages should serve as law that drives that person to despair of their own righteousness so that they flee to Christ. Nevertheless, as context makes abundantly clear, these examples are actually given to us for the purpose that we would try to follow them.
One could easily multiply such examples from the way the NT uses the OT. E.g., take a look at 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 and Hebrews 11. My concern is that some (NOT all) redemptive historical preaching tends to read passages like Hebrews 11:8 as though it says: “By faith Abraham realized that he could not obey …” instead of recognizing that it says “By faith Abraham obeyed.” Let us, therefore, take greater care to conform ourselves unto the moral law by seeking through the grace of God to obey it (see LC Q/A 97).
Best wishes,
David
LikeLike
To speak of courage and faith together does not tie even, or especially, very young boys’ brains in knots. They get it. God has made man capable of amazing intellectual feats and those feats are often seen at their most brilliant in little people who haven’t yet had blinkered professors tell them they can’t think that way. Those possessing wisdom rather than degrees are fully capable of thinking both ways at the same time, and for intellectuals to tell them that they must choose one way and delete the other from their mind, also deleting all those obvious paths criss-crossing between both ways, is for professors of hermeneutics and exegesis to chain Scripture to the same pulpits the Roman Catholics had chained it to back at the time of the Reformation.
The Bayly quote seems to raise a good objection to RH preaching. After all, why have an either/or approach over an both/and approach to a Christ centered narrative of redemption on the one hand and exhortation, example, and application on the other. The problem is that RH preaching that is devoid of application is a caricature. It’s a myth. In fact, moralistic preaching is guilty of lopsidedness.
LikeLike
The context of Philippians 3—beginning with “we are the circumcision”—is very important for thinking about what Paul means when he gets to accounting “gain and loss”. Count your heroic virtures as “garbage” (refuse, to use one four letter word, dung)
Most commentators on Philippians 3:18-19 focus on the word “belly” and assume that it means immorality and greed, not only the desire for too much food but the lust for money and sinful pleasures. They do not connect “belly” here to the desire to have one’s own righteousness from the law, even though that’s the topic in chapter three in the paragraphs before and after.
The lust of the “flesh” is at its most subtle when it comes to self-righteousness. The trouble comes when people think that their “tasting not and touching not” brings them some blessing which the righteousness of Christ could not bring. There is nothing wrong with tasting not and touching not. Simply because we do not agree with another person about what God’s law teaches is no excuse to call that person a legalist. But a person is self-righteous, even if he has a right interpretation about what God’s law teaches, if that person thinks that his obeying that law brings him a blessing which the imputed righteousness of Christ did not bring..
The UNLAWFUL desires of the flesh are most subtle when it comes to self-righteousness. The law of God should not be blamed for self-righteousness, even though God has predestined the abuse of the law. When a person thinks that his not tasting and his not touching brings him blessing, that
person is not only a legalist but also an antinomian, because that person is thinking that God is satisfied with something less than Christ’s perfect satisfaction of the law.
The only way that God can be (and IS) pleased with the good works of a Christian is when that Christian knows that these good works are not a supplement to Christ’s righteousness. And this distinction is not only something that God knows, or only something that the right kind of smart “Reformed” theologians know. Every Christian knows that Christ’s righteousness is the only legal basis (merit) of every love-gift from God.
The sin which deceives us all by nature is that WE DESIRE WHAT WE PRODUCE TO BE OUR SALVATION. We will give God’s “grace” the credit for helping us produce it. But, like Cain, we want to take what we produced and offer it to God as some small part of what God will accept it as righteousness.
Self-righteous people seemingly don’t mind if God (Father more than Judge now that we are into “post-regeneration” works) has to produce some righteousness in them to add to what Christ did outside of them Nor do they mind much if God simply inscrutably and “sovereignly” decides to not remember His justice and threats against those who do not know and believe the gospel.
But the one thing self-righteous people do mind, that they do want, the one thing which the people who killed Jesus wanted, the one thing Cain wanted, is to have God accept what they have produced and sincerely ) offered to God as their service. And if God finds this their worship an “abomination”, then they get insulted.
LikeLike
DGH,
Didn’t Machen fight the good fight, and isn’t he one we like to hold up as an example of faith? I agree that Christians should not hold themselves up as examples but is it wrong for a Christian to hold up another Christian as an example of faithfulness, always mindful that it is imperfect and is for the purpose of pointing our eyes to Christ? Scripture seems to do this regularly for our benefit?
Did you have a chance to think abiut the question on examples of Christian repentance? Since Christ did not sin He cannot be the example of this…though David is very helpful under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I appreciate our time and this discussion, it is very helpful for me?
LikeLike
McMark, are these your thoughts on Phil. 3, or is this a quote? Good stuff.
LikeLike
B, I have great admiration for Machen and believe he is an inspiring figure. But I’m not sure his piety will rival David Brainerd’s. For me that’s a good thing. But each of us have our idiosyncracies, both with whom we admire, and what motivates our devotion. Since each of us is responsible for our own affairs, I am inclined to say we need to figure it out without examples.
LikeLike
Not a quotation, my stuff. As for it being “my thoughts”, I read too much to have much anxiety about influence and originality. I hope the way I use the word “converted” doesn’t put you off.
One phrase in Philippians 3:19 says: “whose glory is their shame”. The enemies of the cross glory in that of which we should be ashamed. We should be ashamed of all that we produce and rest only in what Christ produced before Christ sat down at the right hand on high. Instead, all of us before we are converted (if and when that happens) want to give God credit for helping us produce something which then obligates God the creator to save the creature who has produced it.
Most of us when we were unconverted didn’t call what we produced “works”. Many of us even sincerely believed that God predestined us to have faith. But we still wanted our faith in a false gospel to count for something.
Why this concern about not being ashamed of the gospel? Why talk of glorying in things we should be ashamed of? We were never murderers, or even if we were, we never gloried in it. But Paul
learned to regret, to have a shame with which none of us are born Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
Paul learned to glory in, to exult in, to boast in the cross, not in the flesh. He explains this in Galatians 6:14 and in Philippians 3:3..
Romans 6 is NOT saying—don’t worry about only believing true doctrine, because the bottom line is that Christians “reign” by now being able to produce a quality-righteousness. Romans 6:17 says: “you WERE SLAVES of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.” Telling lies and stealing were always shameful things to Nicodemus (who would not come to the light lest his good deeds be exposed as evil deeds, John 3:19).
After one believes the gospel, one no longer remains an enemy of the cross and is no longer ashamed to say that Christ on the cross only died for the elect and that this death is the only difference between converted and lost. A lot of people claim to be converted who will not say that, who think that such a thing does not need to be said and should not be said. Why?
Not all unconverted religionists are insincere people who want to speak smooth words to keep everybody happy. When Paul was unconverted, he was not such a person. And to speak about myself (all about me) when I was unconverted, I was not such a person. My problem was that I wanted God and other people to approve what I produced,. So I approved what other people
produced.
“For many walk, and I tell you now even weeping, who are enemies of the cross, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is their shame.”
LikeLike
Mark, I’ll second the good stuff. But following the pattern of guilt/grace/gratitude, it’s always seemed to me that this is the precise point of the entire third section of the Heidelberg Catechism called “Of Thankfulness.” It has been said that the Christian life can be summed up in two words: grateful obedience. Works are necessary for salvation, but it cannot be overemphasized how this is an evidential point and that works are entirely a matter of inevitable response to grace alone. As natural legalists, this is alien and is why RH is far superior to exemplar, the latter being a form of preaching that appeals to the abiding legalism.
LikeLike
I’ll third the comments on Philippians from McMark. He has a fairly long blog on the issue that is worth reading in full. He sent it to me about 3 or 4 month ago and you can’t help but have a deep reaction to it. Belly takes on a whole different meaning and you begin seeing it all over the place, especially in yourself. Here it is:
http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-belly-problem-philippians-3/
LikeLike
Thanks, Zrim. Some folks spend a great deal of time debating about “is Galatians about justification or about sanctification”. It seems to me that, if we have the wrong gospel in thinking about “the Christian life”, this may well mean we have the wrong gospel in thinking about justification. In other words, now I want to point to the other side of the dialectic about the importance of RH. (Does that sound better than saying I want to be “contrarian”?)
Josh Moody ( Edwards scholar, pastor of College Church Wheaton, in a book on Galatians, 31 reasons Justification is By Faith Alone), explains that some of the godly were not “legalistic” during the old covenant despite the lack of new covenant revelation.
What this means for his view of redemptive history, he does not explain. If Moody simply means that no converted justified elect person is ever a “legalist”, that certainly is not what he argues elsewhere in his book, which assumes that most Christians are “legalistic” when it comes to the Christian life.
If Moody wants to say that new covenant revelation ( progress in redemptive history) has now
released the justified elect from “legalism”, how can he think that the justified elect in the old covenant were also free from this “legalism”?
In Galatians 3, when Paul is writing about “before faith came, the law was our cop”, he was not ONLY talking about a change in covenants. In these same verses, Paul is concerned with
individuals “getting justified” by Christ, also concerned about individuals being “baptized” by God into Christ
Even though I don’t think it’s right for Moody to ignore the difference between the old and new covenants (or to not stress that Christ satisfied the law, but rather emphasize that now people can do the law), the solution here is not ONLY to see that the old covenant law is not the same as the new covenant law. Nor is the solution to point to a greater work of the Holy Spirit enabling us to get it done. We must never forget that, even during the time of the new covenant, there are many non-elect folks for whom Christ never died and who will never be baptized into Christ.
Even though Moody writes that he doesn’t want to assume that everybody is a Christian, as a “minister of the church” he does not seem to be able to keep from telling his readers that God loves them and that Christ died for them. p42–“Christ was cursed for me and you.” p100–“The only way to realize that you’re okay is to realize that God loves you and that Christ died for you as you are.” p160–“We preach to people that they are sinners until they believe it, and then we preach to them that Christ died for their sins.” Moody seems to be following Norman Shepherd’s advise to never talk about election.
LikeLike
Josh Moody rightly asks why the Galatians were tempted to add their works (their imitating the examples) to Christ’s righteousness. Moody rightly answers that this temptation does not come from the faith which fears God, but comes from the fear which does not trust the cross to be enough to justify. But if Jesus Christ died for everybody and not everybody is justified, then those who trust this false Christ SHOULD be afraid.
If Jesus died for everybody but many of them will never be justified, then we need to be fearful about if we have enough faith. Moody tells us that “faith is the relational glue that attaches us to Christ.” (p150). Since Moody is not teaching that, Moody is teaching that Christ died for everybody.
If you think that kind of antithesis and inference is unfair, then I will use one of Moody’s own analogies. If you can’t go by train (because the train doesn’t go there), you have to go by car, and you can’t go by train and by car at the same time. If justification is not by works of any kind, then you can’t be justified because of post-regeneration works “done in faith” either.
If the only kind of atonement revealed in the Bible is definite and effectual (for the sheep, and not for those who will not believe, John 10), then there is no atonement revealed in the Bible for everybody, and you can’t have it both ways, no matter what John Stott or John Piper say about it.. I have no more interest in being rude than Moody does, but when it comes to the thing that really matters, the justice of the cross, then I want to know what the Bible says that Christ’s death does. And so I believe what the Reformed Confessions have concluded about what Christ’s death does.
You can say all matter of true things about the difference between law and gospel (and I have no doubt that the false teachers in Galatia did so), but you have no legitimate right to say them, if you avoid the offense of the cross being A. for the elect alone and B. being alone effectual, being the difference, since Christ’s death was not for everybody.
And if people want to talk about the atonement and honor Christ but without talking about election, the true things they may say about Christ or His death, or about law and gospel, end up not being true things. The false teachers in Galatians said some true things also, or they would have never been accepted as teachers.
Of course you can say that Christ died for everybody and not be a “semi-Pelagian” . But if the Arminian evangelical gospel is indeed the gospel, and Christ’s death was righteousness intended and obtained for everybody, then it’s not His death but our faith which must make the difference. And
if that is so, we need to be very afraid.
One more quotation from Moody: “Nobody comes along and says that you don’t need faith. They just say it’s not faith alone. But if it’s not faith alone, then it is faith plus law; and if it is by law, then it is no longer by promise; then it is no longer by faith. The message of faith and works is really a message of work; it is simply legalism” (p157)
Let me say something different. Nobody comes along and says that Jesus didn’t need to die. They just say that Jesus died for everybody but that it doesn’t work unless the Spirit causes you to consent to it and then follow His example. They just say that, even if you are not elect and even if the Spirit doesn’t cause you to consent to it, Jesus loves you and died for you and offers to save you, and if His death doesn’t take away your guilt, it was because you didn’t have faith in it.
But if Jesus died for everybody, then it is that death PLUS you being changed to “accept it”, and if the difference of the new covenant is regeneration, then the promise is not about Christ alone
or His death alone; and if it is about your being changed then salvation is not by Christ’s death. The message of His death plus your regeneration is really at the end a message about your regeneration.
And even if Arminians can’t agree with the Reformed about regeneration being before faith, or about regeneration being purchased for the elect by Christ, many of them still want to unite in faith that the Jesus who died for everybody and the Jesus who died only for those who are saved are one and the same Jesus. Because in the end, it’s not Christ’s death that matters to these people. It’s regeneration, and people think they can see if you are born again by the way you live….
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: B, I have great admiration for Machen and believe he is an inspiring figure. But I’m not sure his piety will rival David Brainerd’s. For me that’s a good thing.
RS: Sigh. So despite the fact that many missionaries who went to foreign lands read Brainerd and considered him a major influence (both before they went and after), you still won’t admit that piety is not always that bad. Sigh.
LikeLike
McMark: And even if Arminians can’t agree with the Reformed about regeneration being before faith, or about regeneration being purchased for the elect by Christ, many of them still want to unite in faith that the Jesus who died for everybody and the Jesus who died only for those who are saved are one and the same Jesus. Because in the end, it’s not Christ’s death that matters to these people. It’s regeneration, and people think they can see if you are born again by the way you live….
RS: But just because there are those who abuse the teaching of regeneration does not mean we should denigrate it or lessen its importance. After all, there are at least as many who denigrate the work of Christ on the cross and His imputed righteousness.
But as a matter of fact, those who are born again do have Christ as their life and they have the Holy Spirit in them. They do live differently. They have Christ and they have the Spirit because Christ purchased the Spirit for them. There is a difference between those who are spiritually dead and those who are spiritually alive just as there is a difference between a corpse and a living person. This is why in Galatians 5 the Spirit is said to be in conflict with the flesh and the flesh with the Spirit. Those who love God obey His commands out of love for Him. Those who don’t love God only obey when it is good for them to do so. But again, it is because Christ propitiated the wrath of the Father that He can dwell in sinners and be their life.
LikeLike
Peter OBrien, NIGTC on Philippians, 262—“The Christ-hymn (2:5-11) presents Jesus as the ultimate model for Christian behavior and action, the supreme example of the humble, self-sacrificing, self-giving service that Paul has been urging the Philippians to practice in their relations toward one another.”
Andrew Purves, The Crucifixion of Ministry, IVP, 2007, p57—“Making the incarnation something that we do can easily assume that the living Christ is not present and active. But it is Christ’s ministry that is primary, for His ministry alone is redemptive.”
both quotations from Todd Billings, “A Critique of Incarnational Ministry”, in Union with Christ,, Baker, 2011
LikeLike
John Fesko–“Through the body of Christ we who died to the law (Romans 7:4) have been released from the law (7:6) Paul’s point here is both redemptive-historical and soteriological simultaneously.”, p216,
“The Two Kingdoms and the Ordus Salutis”, WTJ, Fall 2008
LikeLike
Dwight Eisenhower—“Religion is good for society, and I don’t care what it is.”
As long as we keep baptizing babies, there will be always something to reform. Luther– “if we were to stop that practice, Christendom would disappear and then who would hear the gospel?”
Anything is better than disorder and discontinuity.
Smile.
LikeLike
Howdy! Do you know if they make any pluginns to safeguard against hackers?
I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve
worked hard on. Any recommendations?
LikeLike