Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Christ Crucifed and Emmanuel Exalted

The truth of Christ crucified is an anchor that holds fast the ship of faith in any tempest, however violent the storm of world or humanity.


You may lift up any text of Scripture you like, but if its truth does not rest upon the gospel of Jesus Christ lifted up as Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness, it is vain philosophy and no gospel at all.


Proclaim grace all you wish, and shout the name of Jesus from rooftops, but those proclamations have no power except it come by God’s mercy preached in Christ crucified.


Preaching without Christ crucified is no gospel at all. It is a valley of dry bones with no prophet, no vision, no power, no God.


Mercy rejoiceth against judgment only because of Christ crucified: God’s just judgment upon His only begotten Son is the only mercy men have for salvation, and except that it come by faith in God’s precious declarations, there can be no rejoicing of the soul.


 

A Holy Moment

I lay in bed for quite a long time this morning, in that strange state that is somewhere between asleep and awake—that place where the mind is working but the body is not. My mind was racing back and forth and eventually settled on an old memory. It’s a memory I hate and one of those I would purge if I could.

It goes back to a conference I attended in 2006. Not long before the conference I had reviewed a book and had taken issue with the theology it taught. The book had showed up at my house unsolicited and, after reading it, I posted a review that pointed out what I considered some significant weaknesses. Here I was now, several weeks later, walking the halls of a convention center. As I moved through the crowd, a little ways ahead of me and coming directly toward me, I saw the author of that book walking, talking and laughing with a friend of mine. They hadn’t yet seen me but were heading straight toward me and I knew that if we were to pass one another, my friend would stop and introduce us.

In that moment I felt a strange flush of shame and conviction. In that moment I realized that this author was a real person. I guess I should have known that, but somehow it hadn’t really occurred to me. It was so easy for me to read a book and post a review on the Internet without thinking of the fact that this author was a real person. He was not just some cleverly-programmed computer who spat out books and he was not a one-dimensional evil heretic who was out to subdue the Christian faith. He was a believer and one much like me, but for some fairly subtle theological differences.

I saw him walking toward me and with my face burning, I turned and fled. I couldn’t face him; I couldn’t bear the thought of having to look him in the eyes. I ended up going all the way back to my hotel room where I pulled open my computer and re-read the review I had written. I felt a new conviction that I had been unfair, that I had treated this book as if it was an entirely abstract entity rather than the labor of a brother in Christ who truly believed that this was a message he ought to share with the church. I still disagreed with much of what he said, but I could see that I had not treated him with love and with respect. I had not even given him the respect I owed to an older man.

I repented in that hotel room, asking God for forgiveness. And I have always regarded this as a bit of a holy moment, a moment of real significance. I vowed that from that time on, I would seek to be fair in my critiques and that I would never forget that the people whose books I receive are real people. This was a moment that shaped my writing and shaped this blog. That’s not to say that I have done perfectly since then, and it’s not to say that I’ve been afraid to call a spade a spade when necessary. But it does mean that I’ve genuinely sought to distinguish between people who are truly sharing evil theology and people whom I may disagree with in the more minor points.

This situation was formative in making me aware of the temptations that come with this kind of electronic communication that tends to dehumanize us. Somehow the distance between us can make us all seem a little bit less than human. I’ve seen this recently when people have mistakenly tagged me on Facebook, making me aware of conversations they did not know I had been invited into. I’ve seen it through what other blogs have said about me or what they’ve assumed to be true of me, my heart or my motives. As difficult as some of these moments have been, I’ve been grateful for them, as they’ve opened my eyes again to the digital temptations and my own tendencies to act as if the people on the other end of a copper wire are not real people. That moment in that hotel room in that city at that conference was probably the genesis of The Next Story.

For the rest of that weekend I kept my eyes open for the man whose book I had unfairly reviewed, but did not see him again. After the conference came to a close I was sitting at the airport, ready to catch my flight home, when I saw him walk by. I paused for a moment and then went after him, hoping to catch him and offer an apology. I chased after him, but he disappeared into the crowd and was gone. I haven’t seen him since, but if I ever do, I know just what I’ll say to him.


 

Going Public: Your Child Can Thrive in Public School

There was a time when homeschooling was a very lonely place to be. Perhaps in some contexts it still is. In today’s Christian circles though, at least the circles I’ve been exposed to locally and across the continent, it seems that homeschooling has entered the mainstream and for many families is now the default option. Speaking from experience, as the father of 3 children who all attend local public schools, I can attest that public schooling can be a very lonely place as well. Not only that, but there is little guidance for those of us who have chosen to educate our children in this way.
I recently came across a book titled Going Public, written by David and Kelli Pritchard, who together have raised 8 children, all of whom attended public schools. This is not a book that is anti-homeschool or anti-Christian school. The purpose is not to convince you that you ought to place your children in the local public school. Instead it seeks first, to show that your children can thrive at public school and second, to provide a parent’s field guide for helping them do just that. In this way it fills an important niche.
What the Pritchards do is simple: they allow us into their home and family, telling us why they made the decision to public school and then showing us how they have gone about it. It’s not like they public school out of ignorance. To the contrary, they do what they do out of conviction that this is the way they can best raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. That word “fear” is important to them. Following Proverbs, they say that the fear of the Lord “is the foundation on which all learning, all knowledge-gathering, all schooling should be built.” To do that, they focus on instructing their children from their earliest days in loving the Lord with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength; on learning unconditional obedience to their parents; and on attaining self-control. With these values being instilled in their children, they are ready to guide them through their education.
The most valuable lesson of all, at least in my view, is that public schooling is a family affair. The decision to place children in the public education system is a decision to have the whole family involved in this system. They say, “We should not think in terms of sending our child off by himself to ‘the mission field.’ We go there together. This is a family expedition. When we show up each August to enroll our kids for another school year, we are enrolling our family into the life of this institution. This is a joint venture.” This means that mom and dad are involved not just with the children, but with the school and teachers and leaders.
A second valuable lesson is that is the lesson that all parents are homeschoolers. The Pritchards make it clear that public schooling still calls for the parents to teach their children and to be involved in all that they learn. No good parent can abdicate all of the children’s education to other people.
There are many other lessons, of course. Some of them are broad in application while others are more specific. What I appreciate, though, is that all have come out of the testing ground of their own family. Through it all the Pritchards show their unshakeable belief in the sovereignty of God, their trust in his promises and their heartfelt desire to honor him in all things.
Going Public is, as far as I know, about the only thing on the market that addresses this topic of how to public school to the glory of God. And no matter how you choose or have chosen to educate your children, I’m sure you will be glad to welcome a book that teaches parents how they can help their children thrive in their schools. Let me assure you that Christians who place their children in public schools need far more than a lecture on the evils of the public education system, and trust me when I say we’ve all heard it. What we need is hope that it can be done well, guidance on how to do it right, and help to see what the particular challenges and opportunities may be. This book addresses all of these areas and does so in a way that I found deeply moving.
If you homeschool or have your children in Christian schools, I’d encourage you to buy a copy or two of this book. Keep them handy and when you meet people who know the Lord and who feel convicted that they can or should put their children in public schools, give them a copy as a way to love and encourage them. You may even want to read it with them. If you are a public schooler, buy a copy for a friend, but also make sure you get a copy for yourself. You will find it a source of challenge and comfort and maybe even a little bit of rebuke. Speaking personally, I found it a tremendous encouragement and genuine challenge. It was exactly what I needed to read and I’m indebted to the Pritchards for this labor of love. In writing it, they have served the church well.

A Guide to Recent Discussions on Justification and Sanctification

Guest post by Rob Edwards


The recent blog exchanges concerning the relationship between justification and sanctification, along with the role of union with Christ in each, is part of a larger ongoing discussion of which some may be unaware. Certainly this is not true for those writing the posts, but the general reader may not have noticed what has developed into a debate particularly over the past five years. My purpose here, after providing a brief context for the current exchange, is simply to point interested readers to other resources that play a role in the larger discussion. Some are available online though most are books and journal articles.


Though there is a much longer history, the context for the current debate reaches back most immediately to the various critiques of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. These movements emphasize union with Christ at the expense of the doctrine of justification as historically understood within Reformed theology. In particular, each takes issue with the idea of imputation in which Christ’s righteousness is attributed to me or legally counted as mine.


The response from Reformed circles defending the doctrine of justification has, generally speaking, followed along two lines. One response has continued to assert the central role of union with Christ as the overarching principle in the application of redemption and argues that imputation is an essential aspect of this union. The other response places greater emphasis on the priority of justification for the entire structure of salvation and makes this legal dimension the basis for all other benefits of redemption.


These different responses, one explaining justification as an aspect of union with Christ and the other emphasizing justification as the primary benefit of salvation and the basis for all others, brought to the fore different frameworks for how the whole of salvation is envisioned. Thus the initial defense of the doctrine of justification became the occasion for this broader debate about which has priority in Reformed soteriology: union with Christ or justification.


It’s important to note that both groups vigorously maintain that justification is God’s forensic, or legal, declaration of a believer’s righteous status dependent entirely on the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone. This is not at question. The debate is about the broader structure of salvation, the relationship between union with Christ and justification, along with the other benefits of redemption, and in particular sanctification.


Perhaps two quotations from advocates of each position would be helpful summaries. The first is from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., emphasizing the priority of union with Christ:



The central soteriological reality is union with the exalted Christ by Spirit-created faith. This is the nub, the essence, of the way or order of salvation for Paul. . . no matter how close justification is to the heart of Paul’s gospel . . . there is an antecedent consideration, a reality, that is deeper, more fundamental, more decisive, more crucial: Christ and our union with him, the crucified and resurrected, the exalted, Christ.  Union with Christ by faith – that is the essence of Paul’s ordo salutis.[1]


Here, the focus is on the person of Christ and what he has accomplished for salvation through his death and resurrection, and consequent to this, our union with Christ is the inception of the application of what he has accomplished. Though justification is an essential aspect of redemption, union with Christ is most basic in the structure of salvation.


The following is from Michael S. Horton, emphasizing the priority of justification:



I am suggesting that we view all the items in the Pauline ordo as constituting one train, running on the same track, with justification as the engine that pulls adoption, new birth, sanctification, and glorification in tow. . . This means that we never leave the forensic domain even when we are discussing other topics in the ordo besides justification proper.  Although there is more to the new birth, sanctification, and glorification than the forensic, all of it is forensically charged.[2]


Here, justification is the dynamic for the entire structure of salvation, the source of power that animates every other aspect of redemption. The forensic declaration of justification is understood as the proper context for salvation as a whole.


Below, in chronological order, is a bibliography pointing to works that fit within this ongoing debate. A few things should be noted. First, I do not claim the list is exhaustive. Second, I will provide some annotation, primarily a brief description of where each fits within the broader discussion. Lastly, where the work is available online, a link will be provided.


2003

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards.” WTJ 65 (2003): 165-79. [an inaugural lecture demonstrating the relationship between biblical and systematic theology through the doctrine of union with Christ, in particular giving attention to Calvin and the Westminster Standards]

2004

Horton, Michael S. “What God Hath Joined Together: Westminster and the Uneasy Union of Biblical and Systematic Theology.” In The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries. Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple. Edited by David VanDrunen, 43-71. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004. [describes the tendencies and dangers in separating biblical and systematic theology and the link between them provided by federal, or covenant, theology]

2006

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation. Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 2006. [addresses the New Perspective, discussing the relationship between redemption accomplished and redemption applied in Paul, identifying union with Christ as the nexus between the two, and describing its relation to both justification and sanctification]_____. “Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections.” In Always Reforming, edited by A. T. B. McGowan, 271-88. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2006. [argues that union with Christ is central in the application of redemption, discussing its relationship to other aspects in the ordo salutis, and demonstrating similarities with Calvin and the Westminster Standards]Garcia, Mark A. “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ,” WTJ 68 (2006): 219-51. [criticizes those who reject imputation in favor of union with Christ, demonstrating the essential relationship between union with Christ and imputation in Reformed theology, and in particular Calvin]

2007

Clark, R. Scott, ed. Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary California. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007. [responding in particular to the Federal Vision, consistently emphasizing the priority of justification in Reformed soteriology and as the basis for sanctification; in particular see the following essays: David VanDrunen, “Where We Are: Justification under Fire in the Contemporary Scene;” Michael S. Horton, “Which Covenant Theology?” R. Scott Clark, “Do This and Live;” W. Robert Godrey, “Faith Formed by Love or Faith Alone?”]Fesko, John V. “A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ.” Modern Reformation 16, no. 3 (May/June 2007): 32-35, 38. [a brief article, arguing that union with Christ cannot be set over against justification, describing justification as a legal aspect of our union with Christ, and justification as the ground of sanctification; available here]Garcia, Mark A. “Review Article: No Reformed Theology of Justification?” (review of Paul A. Rainbow, The Way of Salvation: The Role of Christian Obedience in Justification and R. Scott Clark, ed., Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry). Ordained Servant Online (October 2007). http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=66 (accessed 20 August 2011). [a highly critical review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, where Garcia identifies what he believes to be clear Lutheran tendencies, where the whole of soteriology is subsumed under the doctrine of justification]Horton, Michael S. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. [engaging a wide range of contemporary theology while prioritizing the covenantal structure of redemption, and in particular identifying justification as the basis of union with Christ and the source of all other benefits of redemption; for examples see pp. 129, 139, 143, 147, 198, 201; also see Gaffin’s review listed below]Ryken, Philip G.  “Justification and Union with Christ.” Paper presented at the meeting of The Gospel Coalition at Trinity Evangelical School, May 23, 2007. [interacts with the New Perspective and Federal Vision while maintaining the centrality of union with Christ as the context for imputation and justification; audio available here.]Tipton, Lane G. “Union with Christ and Justification.” In Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, edited by K. Scott Oliphint, 23-49. Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2007. [describes how Reformed theology has held to the centrality of union with Christ while consistently affirming imputation as the ground for justification, discussing the biblical and systematic-theological structure as well as the historical-theological formulations, and distinguishing this from the New Perspective as well as Lutheran conceptions]Wenger, Thomas L. “The New Perspective on Calvin: Responding to Recent Calvin Interpretations.” JETS 50, no. 2 (June 2007): 311-328. [an article highly critical of Gaffin, and those associated with him, arguing that union with Christ as the overarching principle of the application of redemption in Calvin as Gaffin sees it is unfounded and greatly confuses Calvin’s soteriology]

2008

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. “Justification and Union with Christ.” In A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes, edited by David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, 248-69. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008. [focuses in particular on Calvin’s Institutes 3.11-18, looking at justification within the twofold grace (unio-duplex gratia) structure  of Calvin’s soteriology, giving particular attention to the role of faith in union with Christ, justification, and sanctification]

2009

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. “Calvin’s Soteriology: The Structure of the Application of Redemption in Book Three of the Institutes.” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 68-77. [similar to his other articles, examining Calvin and the role of union with Christ in the application of redemption, particularly how the twofold grace Calvin describes, justification and sanctification, flow together from this union while remaining distinct; available at http://www.opc.org/OS/Ordained_Servant_2009.pdf]_____. “Covenant and Salvation” (review of Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation). Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 145-49. [a review that finds Horton’s description of the relationship between union with Christ and justification unclear, raises questions about Horton’s use of Calvin at various points, and also expresses concern over how Horton envisions the relationship between justification and sanctification in a way that differs from historic Reformed formulations; available at http://www.opc.org/OS/Ordained_Servant_2009.pdf]_____. “A Response to John Fesko’s Review.” Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 104-13. [Gaffins response to Fesko’s review of Garcia’s Life in Christ, listed just below, restating his understanding of Calvin’s relationship between union with Christ, justification, and sanctification, claiming that this is not a unique view but consistent with Reformed theology subsequent to Calvin as well; available at http://www.opc.org/OS/Ordained_Servant_2009.pdf]Fesko, John V. “A Tale of Two Calvins: A Review Article (review of J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift and Mark A. Garcia, Life in Christ). Ordained Servant 18 (2009): 98-104. [Fesko’s review of Garcia, suggesting that Garcia is part of a novel approach to reading Calvin originating with Gaffin; available at http://www.opc.org/OS/Ordained_Servant_2009.pdf]

2010

Evans, William B. “Déjà vu All Over Again? The Contemporary Reformed Soteriological Controversy in Historical Perspective.” WTJ 72 (2010): 135-51. [an overview of the current debate with a taxonomy Evans suggests for understanding the differences between the various positions as related to developments in Reformed theology; Evans identifies himself as in agreement with the position emphasizing the priority of union with Christ]_____. “Of Trajectories, Repristinations, and the Meaningful Engagement of Texts: A Reply to J. V. Fesko.” WTJ 72 (2010): 403-14. [a reply by Evans to Fesko’s criticism of his above article]Fesko, John V. “Arminius on Union with Christ and Justification.” Trinity Journal 31, no. 2 (2010): 205-222. [a study of Arminius’s view of union with Christ as it relates to justification with application to the current controversy, raising concerns about those who would subsume the ordo salutis under the category of union with Christ in a way that does not maintain the clear priority of justification]_____. “Methodology, Myth, and Misperception: A Response to William B. Evans.” WTJ 72 (2010): 391-402. [responding to Evans article, “Déjà vu All Over Again?” taking issue with what he believes are substantial weaknesses in Evans’s taxonomy as well as his historical-theological methodology regarding Calvin and the subsequent development of Reformed soteriology]_____. “William Perkins on Union with Christ and Justification.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 21-34. [in reference to Evans’s claim that subsequent to Calvin, the ordo salutis model eclipsed the importance of union with Christ, Fesko argues that Perkins demonstrates a balanced concern for both, while affirming the priority of justification over sanctification]

2011

Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. [Horton’s recent systematic theology, pp. 551-710 being of particular relevance to the current debate, and especially pp. 587-619 where he discusses union with Christ and maintains that the forensic declaration of justification is the basis both of union with Christ and sanctification; for clear examples see especially pp. 573, 575, 589, 591, 595, 597, 610, and 645]

[1] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 2006), 43.


[2] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 708.


 

Enjoying God’s Creation — Charles Spurgeon

“Where the birds make their nests; The stork has her home in the fir trees. The high hills are for the wild goats; The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers.” — Psalm 104:17-18.

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)


Charles Spurgeon,

Psalm 104 is all through a song of nature, the adoration of God in the great outward temple of the universe. Some in these modern times have thought it to be a mark of high spirituality never to observe nature; and I remember sorrowfully reading the expressions of a godly person, who, in sailing down one of the most famous rivers in the world closed his eyes, lest the picturesque beauties of the scene should divert his mind from scriptural topics. This may be regarded by some as profound spirituality; to me it seems to savor of absurdity. There may be persons who think they have grown in grace when they have attained to this; it seems to me that they are growing out of their senses. To despise the creating work of God—what is it but, in a measure, to despise God Himself? “Whoso mocketh the poor despiseth his Maker.”


To despise the Maker, then, is evidently a sin; to think little of God under the aspect of the Creator is a crime. We should none of us think it a great honour if our friends considered our productions to be unworthy of admiration, and more injurious to their minds than improving. If when they passed our workmanship they turned their eyes away, lest they should suffer injury by looking at it, we should not regard them as very respectful to ourselves: surely the despising of that which is made is akin to the despising of the Maker Himself. David tells us that, “the Lord shall rejoice in His works.” If He rejoices in what He has made, shall not those who have communion with Him rejoice in His works also? “The works of the Lord are great, sought out of them that have pleasure therein.” Despise not the work, lest thou despise the Worker.


The prejudice against the beauties of the universe reminds me of the lingering love to Judaism, which acted like a spell upon Peter of old. When the sheet knit at the four corners descended before him, and the voice said, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat,” he replied that he had not eaten anything that was common or unclean. He needed that the voice should speak to him from Heaven again and again before he would fully learn the lesson, “What God hath cleansed that call not thou unclean.” The Jew thinks this and that unclean, though Christ has cleansed it; and certain Christians appear to regard nature as unclean. The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, the glorious sunrise and sunset, the snow-clad Alps, the ancient forests, the boundless ocean, God hath cleansed them: call them not common. Here on this earth at Calvary where the Saviour died, and by His sacrifice offered not within walls and roofs, He made this outer world a temple wherein everything doth speak of God’s glory. If thou be unclean, all things will be unclean to thee; but if thou hast washed thy robe and made it white in the blood of the Lamb, and if the Holy Spirit hath overshadowed thee, then this world is but a nether Heaven; it is but the lower chamber of which the upper story glows with the full splendour of God, where angels see Him face to face, and this lower story is not without glory, for in the Person of Christ Jesus we have seen God, and have fellowship with Him even now.


It appears to me that those who would forbear the study of nature, or shun the observation of its beauties, are conscious of the weakness of their own spirituality. When the hermits and monks shut themselves out from the temptations of life, foolish persons said, “These are strong in grace.” Not so, they were so weak in grace that they were afraid to have their graces tried. They ran away from the battle like the cowards they were, and shut themselves up because they knew their swords were not of the true Jerusalem metal, and they were not men who could resist valiantly. Monasticism was the confession of a weakness, which they endeavoured to cover with the vain show of humility, and the pretence of superior sanctity. If my graces are strong, I can look upon the outward world, and draw forth its good without feeling its evil, if evil there be; but if my religion is mainly fictitious, then hypocrisy dictates to me the affectation of unusual spirituality, or at any rate I have not grace enough to rise from a contemplation of the works of God to a nearer communion with God Himself. It cannot be that nature of itself debases me, or diverts me from God, I ought to suspect a deficiency in myself when I find that the Creator’s handiwork has not a good effect upon my soul.


Moreover, rest assured, brethren, that He who wrote the Bible, the second and clearest revelation of His Divine mind, wrote also the first Book, the book of nature; and who are we that we should derogate from the worth of the first because we esteem the second? Milton’s “Paradise Regained” is certainly inferior to his “Paradise Lost,” but the eternal God has no inferior productions, all His works are masterpieces. There is no quarrel between nature and revelation, fools only think so; to wise men the one illustrates and establishes the other. Walking in the fields at eventide, as Isaac did, I see in the ripening harvest the same God of whom I read in the Word that He covenanted that seed-time and harvest should not cease. Surveying the midnight skies, I remember Him who, while He calls the stars by their names, also bindeth up the broken in heart. Who will may neglect the volume of creation, or the volume of revelation: I shall delight in them both as long as I live.


cited in Arthur W. Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures, August, 1939 from a sermon preached by C.H. Spurgeon, Lessons From Nature, Sermon No. 1005, August 13th, 1871.


View the original article here

Beware the Sea Monsters

I’ve long thought that Kline’s books are entertaining reads. Moreover, I’ve thought reading them outloud often makes them difficult to distinguish from science fiction and fantasy. Kline will throw in the occasional oddball sentence. Nonetheless, in my experience I have found Kline most often right than off in wacko land. Indeed, Kline’s mind worked on another level. His ability to connect biblical themes and relate them organically into the sweeping progress of redemptive history was truly a blessing to the Church. The following is one of my favorite excerpts in Kline. The first sentence is one of those that leaves you scratching your head – perhaps even laughing out loud. But the remaining treatment, I trust, will demonstrate the tremendous insight he can load into such offbeat sentences.



Synonymous with the motif of the ordeal by water is that of ordeal by combat with sea-monsters. Thus, the Red Sea water ordeal becomes in certain Old Testament passages a conflict of Yahweh against Leviathan (Isa. 51:9, 10; cf. Pss. 74:12-15; 89:10, 11 [9, 10]). We are thereby reminded that the Lord was present with his people in the passage through the sea, that he underwent their ordeal, and that their salvation depended on their identification with him. Then in the New Testament there is a typological application of this imagery to Jesus’ conflict with Satan in the course of his humiliation unto death.20 Hence, on our understanding of John’s baptism in general and of his baptism of Jesus in particular, Jesus’ experience in the Jordan would have been a symbolic anticipation of his ensuing victorious combat with the Satan-Dragon. We cannot, therefore, but view with new appreciation the liturgies of the ancient church when they speak of Jesus crushing the head of the dragon in his descent into the river for baptism.



It was with valid insight that early baptismal prayers recited the Lord’s supernatural way in the waters in events like creation, the deluge, and the Red Sea and Jordan crossings. Singularly apposite is the anchoring of God’s redemptive acts of subduing and dividing the ordeal waves in his creation acts of dividing and bounding the chaos waters in order that the dry land, inheritance of man, might appear. (It may be recalled here that in ancient mythology the slaying of the chaos dragon is the necessary preliminary to the establishment of the world order.) There is indeed an allegorical strain in these ancient prayers, but they did achieve a live sense of identification with the eschatological current of redemptive history, something our denatured modern baptismal liturgies would do well to recapture.


-Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned, pp. 60-61


 

Let Him Who Thinks He Stands…

Bernard of Clairvaux once told the story of an old man, who, whenever he heard of some professing Christian falling into sin, would say to himself, “It happened to him today, it may happen to me tomorrow.” May we never say–when we hear of someone falling into grievous sin–”I’d never do that.” “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:13). We must resist the temptation of thinking that somehow we have within our flesh the ability to abstain from sin. If the Lord allowed us to run after the evil desires of our hearts we would be ruined. We must be able to say in our hearts, “Were it not for the grace of God, there go I.” The following statement is a sobering reminder of the weakness of the flesh in believers, and the pressing need for us to take seriously the means of preventing such falls:

“Nevertheless, they [i.e. the saints] may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 12.3)


View the original article here

On the Unction of the Holy Spirit

The last chapter of Lloyd-Jones’ book on Preaching talks about the unction of the Holy Spirit, and how it is an essential element of the preacher’s ministry. Thomas Murphy makes a similar point early on in his very important Pastoral Theology.

These men quote passages such as in Acts where Barnabas is said to be a good man, full of the Holy Spirit, and that (presumably) many were added to the Lord (i.e., converted) through his ministry (Acts 11:24). Further, we are told that after the baptism of Jesus, he receives the Spirit that he might preach the Good News of the Kingdom. And so forth and so on.

These passages are supposed to teach that there is a special, additional measure of the Spirit – that is, in addition to the giving of the Spirit in our regeneration – which is needed and required to bless the ministry of the minister of the Word. This is the anointing of the Spirit, which gives the preacher the kind of zeal and . . . well . . . unction, needed to minister effectively.

What do you all think of this? I haven’t read much on this subject. So I am curious to learn from those who have reflected somewhat on this issue. Do you think its biblical? Is it problematic to speak of an additional measure of the Spirit given by God to some to equip them for a special ministry in the church?


View the original article here

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Preaching the Fullness of Christ

UPDATED


The relationship of justification and sanctification has returned to the forefront of the Twitter and blog circles I frequent. William B. Evans rekindled the discussion with a response to Tullian Tchividjian’s formulation of justification, which seems at times to be an aversion to sanctification. Today, Sean Michael Lucas offered a rejoinder. Rick Phillips is the most recent to add to Reformation21's impromptu series - providing seven assertions about these twin benefits and their relationship.


Phillip’s post is helpful, especially his mention of the believer’s union with Christ – specifically in his death. Beginning with John Murray, many have called this particular aspect of the ordo salutis “definitive sanctification.” Phillips’ comments are a welcome addition to the discussion. However, we have seen over the last several years that definitive sanctification is denied or even entirely lost on many theological popularizers. Yet to many it is a critical element to understanding what the Spirit does in transforming or renovating sinners upon union with Christ.


When the Spirit effectually calls a sinner and unites him or her to Christ, the sinner is simultaneously justified, adopted, and definitively sanctified. The power of sin is broken in the sinner’s life. They have died to sin (cf Rom 6:1-14; 1 Cor 1:2, 30; 6:11) and have now embarked upon a life of Spiritual renewal that continues until they either die or the Lord returns.


In my estimation, Tchividjian’s and Lucas’s posts were mostly motivated by what preaches or what will best help their respective congregations. This is an honorable motivation. But before we resign ourselves to preaching a single benefit, let us see that a full understanding of union with Christ has great practical value.


When I sit in the pew, I want my pastor to proclaim to me that by virtue of my faith-union with Christ, I am justified. I am no longer guilty and have escaped any sort of condemnation. But I also want him to tell me that I am part of God’s family. I have been accepted as a son and full heir to the promises and inheritance that Christ has procured. Yet perhaps most local to the concerns of this recent thread, I want my pastor to tell me that I am a slave of righteousness now having the freedom not to sin. Sin has no power over me, because I have died to sin. I belong to Christ and my fight for holiness has a future because I am united to my savior and his Spirit is at work within me. And one day I will see my savior face-to-face and be glorified.


My concern throughout this discussion is not to isolate the main problem facing people in the pews – whether that is legalism, cheap grace, or some other important issue. My concern is to hold up Christ as he is revealed in the fullness of his redemptive work. Moreover, I am convinced that my concern should have a tremendous impact on all of our communication whether it is through sermons, blog posts, or tweets. Granted, we cannot say everything at once. But our message should seek to demonstrate all this Christ is and what he has done. Exhorting anything less than union with Christ and the fullness of the benefits that flow from it will never do justice to Scripture.


 

Purposes and Preaching of Parables

Tonight we will begin a mid-week series on the parable of our Lord Jesus Christ at New Covenant. When I was young, I was–like so many–taught that a parable is simply “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.” This is a fair definition, so far as it goes; however, I was also told that Jesus spoke in parables so that the common and ignorant person could understand the deep teachings of God in simple, illustrative form. This explanation is far from capturing the reasons Jesus gave for why He spoke in parables. In Matthew 13:10-15, we read:


Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, ”To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:


“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’


There is a two-fold purpose to the parable. There is, on the one hand, a revealing of the heavenly mysteries to those for whom that truth is given. But, on the other hand, there is an element of eschatological judgment contained in the parables. Like the prophets before Him, our Lord spoke in parables so that those whose hearts were hard toward Him might not understand the truth, believe it and be saved. The parables are essentially “a veil that both conceal and reveal the truth.” Matthew Henry once called it, “the dark lantern of a parable.”


Throughout church history, a plethora of great books have been written–and sermons preached–on the parables. In our day, there is perhaps none so helpful as those preached by my former professor, Dr. John Carrick. You can find many of the sermons he has preached on the parables here.


 

Reinterpreting Doctrine

As members of the church, we must always be on guard for false teaching. Yet not all false teaching is equally easy to spot. In reacting to the mainline Presbyterian church’s revisions to the Westminster Standards in 1967, Cornelius Van Til reminds us that even though something may be packaged with the appearance of orthodoxy, something much different may be contained therein.



Dr. Hendry’s book, The Westminster Confession for Today, seeks to give a “contemporary interpretation” of the Westminster Confession. His “contemporary interpretation” however is, in effect, a reinterpretation in terms of dimensional philosophy. In other words, Hendry’s “contemporary interpretation” amounts to a substitution of a man-centered theology for a God and Christ-centered one.


To give “interpretations” of this sort is now the vogue. The Germans speak of it as Umdeutung. Liberals were not very good at this sort of thing. When they didn’t like the doctrine of Christ’s virgin birth or of his substitutionary atonement, they would reject these teachings. This rejection excited the fundamentalists and they reacted noisily.


Neo-orthodoxy knows better than, in this manner, to offend the fundamentalists openly. Don’t just throw the milk out of the bottle and put polluted water in it. Give your polluted water the color of milk. Hang up the portair of Warfield on your wall and tell the church that, together with him, you revere the standars of the church. Having done this the fundamentalists will not likely notice the fact that, in your contemporary interpretation, you have, in effect, substituted a modern man-centered theology for the historic Christian faith.


Cornelius Van Til, The Confession of 1967: Its Theological Background and Ecumenical Significance, pp. 15-16.


 

Sanctification and Eschatology

Here are some resources and a (somewhat) brief history to bring you up to speed on the sanctification issue that has garnered a lot of attention recently.

One of Tullian Tchividjian’s main thrusts for his blog (and his tweets) is communicating that sanctification is “getting used to your justification”, prompted in part by the Lutheran theologian Gerhard Forde (see here, here and briefly here).Meanwhile, Darryl Hart occasionally expresses his confusion on finding union with Christ as expressed by Vos, Gaffin, etc. in the Reformed tradition* (e.g. see here).Justin Taylor links to three posts: one from Kevin DeYoung emphasizing the role of effort in the Christian life (possibly prompted by Tullian’s emphases, but possibly not), one from Tullian that attempts to articulate the relationship of justification to sanctification (in response to Kevin), and one from Kevin emphasizing that sanctification includes more than just recalling our justification.Bill Evans writes on Ref21, seeking to add clarity to the issues Kevin DeYoung and Tullian were speaking of by giving a brief history of the discussion and emphasizing the soteriological priority of union with Christ, from which the benefits of justification, sanctification and adoption flow. Evans is also concerned to understand the law, obedience, legalism, grace, etc. within this context of our union with Christ and the benefits we receive from that union.Sean Lucas writes on Ref21 in response to Bill Evans’ article. Lucas emphasizes the need for unity among brothers as these discussions continue while seeing the issues as more of a matter of emphasis than foundational disagreement.Justin Taylor links to Sean Lucas’s post that is a response to Bill Evans’ post, sympathizing with Lucas’s concerns for unity.GreenBaggins also weighs in and gives thoughts on the debate.Rick Phillips writes a lengthy, organized response by putting forth positive statements on sanctification.Camden Bucey rounds out the discussion by also pointing out the believer’s union with Christ in his death, along with that union with Christ in his resurrection, ascension, and session.Kevin DeYoung again weighs in, responding to the Ref21 articles.Bill Evans writes another response here.Jim Cassidy weighs in here, emphasizing the pastoral element to the discussion.Sean Lucas responds again here, indicating that he should not be misunderstood as saying that these discussions are matters of mere emphasis.Tullian sums up his response to those recent posts here.

In the interest of keeping a spirit of unity, I won’t mention any names of people with whom I differ on this topic. I hope that’s at least partially indicative of my desire not simply to start arguments between Christian brothers, but to allow iron to sharpen iron for the sake of producing clarity where it perhaps lacked beforehand, on both sides.


What I hope to present are the categories for the discussion, arrived at by careful exegesis elsewhere by other writers. For the sake of space and the reader’s patience, I’ll simply assume this exegetical work represented by the passages cited especially by Bill Evans, Rick Phillips, and Camden Bucey in the articles mentioned above. Especially assumed and foundational to the discussion is the work done by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. in his book Resurrection and Redemptionas well as in his articles “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards”, “Justification and Eschatology” in Justified in Christ, “Theonomy and Eschatology” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, “Epistemological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16” in Revelation and Reason and somewhat related “The New Testament as Canon” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic. Much of what I write here is simply summarizing Gaffin’s work as well as drawing on Lane Tipton’s crucial notes on this subject from his “Doctrine of Salvation” course taught at WTS, alongside his articles “Justification and Union with Christ” in Justified in Christ and “Paul’s Christological Interpretation of Creation and Presuppositional Apologetics” in Revelation and Reason.


Eschatology. Eschatology. Eschatology. It may initially sound foreign, but eschatology is the background of and essential to the gospel. What sets the stage for how we are justified, how we are sanctified, and what’s called the “order of salvation” is what was accomplished in history by Christ to make possible those benefits you receive by being in Christ; the history of salvation is the context for the gospel and your own personal salvation.


The history of salvation starts with the need for salvation and redemption in the first place: Genesis 3. Before Adam’s fall the garden was very good, but it wasn’t the pinnacle or fulfillment of God’s creation. The garden was set up as a probationary environment and Adam was meant to pass that probationary test, but he failed. Instead of passing the temptation and being exalted, Adam became the head and representative of the unfulfilled, unredeemed human race in an unredeemed, unfulfilled age, earth, and heavens. The conditional curse told to Adam by God became a reality. The entire creation would groan from that point forward because of Adam’s failure, and every person after him would be born united to Adam (Rom 5:12-21) in his guilt, corruption, alienation from God, and lack of redemption.


You know what happens next in redemptive history. The entire Old Testament is filled with anticipation, looking forward to a time when the redemption promised in Genesis would come and the new epoch is ushered in. Until that happens, failure after failure emerges – Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah – all of them Hebrews 11-like ‘heroes’ in the faith, but clearly failing to be the one who brings in that new, redeemed epoch. In the meantime, those who have faith in the Redeemer who is yet to come are no longer united to their earthly father Adam, they are united to their future Redeemer who has yet to come.


As we take a look at the epochal shift and fulfillment that occurred with the coming of God’s Son, Christ, we know that Christ lived a perfect life, then died for his chosen people and became sin (2 Cor 5:21) for believers for our salvation and our redemption from our inherited sin from Adam. But our salvation did not and cannot stop with Christ’s death alone, or with the cross alone (see Rev. 15). The second part to what Christ did back then in history is his resurrection by God that effectively ushered in that redeemed, new epochal age and conquered the fleshly, temporary, visible, groaning age and old creation. Those who died with Christ have been buried with Christ and have been raised with Christ by virtue of our union with Christ (Rom 6), and have, like Christ, become a new creation – but not fully. Yet.


There is a reality that we do not yet see with our physical eyes in our temporary bodies: the reality of being united with Christ as he has been raised, exalted, ascended into heaven, and as he is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father. We don’t visibly see that, do we? But make no mistake, it is a reality for Christ and is just as much a reality for us, albeit not physically seen. By faith we are united to Christ and receive the benefits of justification, sanctification, and adoption and we receive those benefits simultaneously at the time-point of our faith in Christ. In his resurrection and exaltation Christ was justified (1 Tim 3:16), definitively sanctified (Rom 6), and adopted (Heb 1:5). Moreover, this also happens to us as believers because of our union with that exalted Christ. We are not first justified by faith and abstractly declared innocent, only to then be sanctified for good works as that initial justification and its reality plays out in our lives. We are definitively sanctified at the same time-point that we are justified. Yet progressive sanctification does just that – it progresses – as we work out our salvation (Phil 2:12-13) in the power of the Spirit as believers living in this temporary world.


We can understand Christ’s coming in various ways, but one that I think is helpful is understanding Christ’s coming in two episodes. Christ has already completed the first part by being born of a virgin, living a perfect life, being crucified, dying, being buried, and being raised, exalted, ascending, and sitting at the right hand of God in heaven (Eph 1:20f). “It is finished”, it goes without saying, is completely true. But “it” doesn’t mean “everything” and Christ still has work to do before all is well and the removal of sin includes not only the removal of our guilt and corruption but working towards our deliverance from the old, evil age. We are awaiting a new creation, the new heavens and the new earth. We have faith and hope in what is invisible and unseen that is yet to come, for who hopes for what is visible (Heb 11:1-3)? We will get new bodies when Christ returns, bodies fit for the not-yet new creation that he will bring and fit for what we already are in our union with him. What we see now in this age will burn when Christ returns. What we see is just our temporary home as we are aliens here, and all of it will on that day make way for our real, permanent, new creation home with the glorified Christ.


Because of the already/not yet aspect to all of reality now, that reality must inform discussions regarding the gospel, salvation, what Christ has done, what he will do, etc. There is a sense (already) in which we are no more justified or sanctified now than we ever will be, even in the new heavens and the new earth. But there is another (not yet) sense where there is still work to be done in us and with God’s unredeemed, temporary creation. While this already/not yet tension is still a reality here while our Lord tarries, the indicative of who we are as believers united with Christ and receiving every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3) as a result is never in tension with what God calls us to do here as his sons and daughters in Christ. Whatever motivation we have for doing good works, we can be confident that those good works are never the basis for our salvation, while at the same time we strive toward them (Col 3:1) to hear Christ when he returns say, “Well done good and faithful servant.”


When the sanctification discussion takes place merely on the level of a pendulum swing between indicatives and imperatives (Gal 5:25; Eph 5:8; 1 Cor 5:7; Phil 2:12-13 are just a few examples of the biblical both/and of indicatives and imperatives), when the same two concepts are highlighted as emphases, and when all of that is discussed apart from the systemic eschatological element coursing through what Christ has done and what he is doing in you, something foundational and structural is lacking.


When sanctification is defined as “getting used to your justification” or “forgetting about yourself” and the law and the gospel/grace are in a tug of war of emphasis, do you not see that the entire crucial context and substructure of what Christ accomplished and how he applies it in your life is missing? Sanctification is a dying to sin and rising with Christ and has so much more to do with what Christ did for you than in your disposition of just letting the reality of the benefit of judicially being declared righteous sink in; not to mention the need to distinguish for clarity’s sake the difference between being definitively sanctified (1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; Heb 10:10,14) through our union with Christ and progressively sanctified (Rom 12:2) over time in the life of believers.


What absolutely must be distinguished in these discussions is the difference between pastoring a believer who needlessly feels guilty over not doing good works because he thinks he has to earn his salvation, and pastoring a believer who actually fails to do a specific good work (or doing a bad work) because he reverted to breaking God’s law and followed the previous patterns of the “old man” (Rom 5:12f; 6:12; 8;13) who was dead before God breathed new life and Spirit into him as God breathed life into his first creation, Adam.


As redeemed believers we must do good works “for Jesus” as God works in us progressively to sanctify and we must do so as good and faithful servants of the Savior who requires that of us, but not do them from a false motivation to earn our salvation already achieved for us by Christ. We obey as God’s new creatures, groaning with creation for our Savior to come and complete his work in us.



For reference to the historical Reformed tradition, one place to start would be the Westminster Confession of Faith; Chapter 11 for justification, Chapter 12 for adoption, and Chapter 13 for sanctification. Also see the Westminster Larger Catechism Questions 69-78 for the relationship of union to the benefits, particularly


Q 69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.


Also, Westminster Shorter Catechism Questions 32-38 are helpful. In Calvin, it’s worth looking at his Institutes, III.I.1, III.XI.1, III.XI.6, III.XI.10, III.XVI.1. It should be clear from those readings that what is said above regarding eschatology and our union with Christ is consistent within the tradition and not in conflict.


 

The Hardships of Christian Ministry

The president of the seminary I attended often said, to the men preparing for ministry, “Your hardest day in seminary will be easier than your easiest day in the ministry.” While this may not be true without exception, it is certainly the case generally speaking. The apostle Paul told young Timothy-as he began his ministry–that he would have to “endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.” Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Murray frequently said to the men coming for ordination, “If there is anything else you can do, you should do it.” Interestingly this is precisely what John Brown of Edinburgh wrote in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. When he came to chapter 4 (where the apostle Paul is pouring his heart out to the churches which he had planted, and which were now rejecting the Gospel he had preached to them), Brown wrote:


The Christian ministry, if entered on with appropriate sentiments, and prosecuted with conscientious fidelity, will be found replete with difficulties. Its toils are arduous and unceasing— its trials numerous and severe. He who would ” war this good warfare” must “endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.” The man who assumes the sacred character of a minister of Christ, with the honest intention of performing its duties (and he who resumes it without such an intention will find, in the ultimate result of things, that he had better have chosen any other profession) must lay his account with submitting to labours often ill-appreciated, sometimes unkindly requited, and with meeting with trials and afflictions which are the more severe as coming from a quarter from which nothing but support and encouragement had been expected.1


If there was only one piece of advice I could give to every other young man preparing for the Gospel ministry it would be the Apostle Paul’s sentiments in 2 Timothy 2:1-10. We must enter the ministry knowing that difficulties, trials and tribulations await us. Ministers must fill the office with “the honest intention of performing its duties;” but they must have the sober realization that their work will often be ”ill-appreciated, sometimes unkindly requited, and will meet with trials and afflictions.” These hardships will be more hurtful and difficult when they come from those from whom “support and encouragement had been expected.” Our Lord Jesus endured the greatest suffering (Heb. 12:1-4) in fulfilling His calling as the great Apostle and High Priest of our confession. The apostle Paul went through these difficulties, as a bondservant of Jesus Christ, when the churches he had planted rejected him. Timothy was told that he would go through them–and he did when the people despised his youth. Nevertheless, the Christian minister must “endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10).


Brown, John An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853) p. 218


 

The Spiritual Decline of Once-Healthy Churches

One of the greatest warnings we find in the Bible we find in the epistle to the Galatians. It concerns the very real danger of spiritual decline in once healthy churches. It is the same danger found in several of the churches addressed in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2-3). The churches of Galatia had been planted by the Apostle Paul. They had “received him as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:14). They had received the Gospel he had preached to them, and had become sons of God through faith in Jesus. The love that they had for him was evident in that they “would have gouged out their eyes and given them to him” (4:15). They did not despise his physical infirmity when he first came to them–though they way the apostle speaks of it, you get the sense that it was something reprehensible (v. 13). In short, these churches had begun the Christian life well. They had received the the minister of Christ and the Gospel of Christ with faith and love. But, it didn’t take long for theses Gentile converts to be “courted” by false brethren with a false Gospel. Samuel Davies made the following observation:


Alas, how naturally do the most flourishing churches tend to decay. How frail and fickle is man! How inconstant popular applause! These promising churches of Galatia soon began to decline; and their favorite, St. Paul–their apostle and spiritual father–appeared in quite another light, appeared as their enemy, because he told them the truth.1


Oh, that we would be able to see the spiritual condition of our own hearts and the local church to which we belong. May we take earnest heed to God’s word when He warns and instructs us in it as to the present reality of our spiritual condition. May we remember and heed those who have spoken the truth to us out of sincere love to Christ. May we ever distrust ourselves and our own ability to stand. May we ever be on guard and remember “how naturally do the most flourishing churches tend to decay.”


1. Davis, Samuel Sermons on Important Subjects (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1854) vol. 2, p. 301


 

Union with Christ, the Duplex Gratia, and the Current Debate: A Pulpit Perspective

The current discussion in the blogosphere concerning union with Christ and the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification is a good one. We should have this debate, so long as it remains brotherly and respectful.

I’m actually not here to chime in on the technicalities of the doctrinal discussion – far better minds than my own are already doing that well enough. I want to address the discussion from the perspective of the pulpit. That is to say, from a practical and pastoral perspective relative to the week in and week out work of the minister of the Word.

And here I have only two points I’d like to make.

First, justification by faith alone must never become assumed, but must remain explicit in our preaching. With zeal to build up the holiness of the congregation, many pastors go on to a practical series of sermons where he addresses the nuts and bolts of the Christian life. Here he speaks to Christians, or to those he assumes are Christians. It seems that here justification by faith alone is not relevant. After all, so it seems, that doctrine is for converting unbelievers, not for the saints. What the saints need is teaching on what to do, not on what is done for them in Christ’s work of justifying the ungodly. The result of this can be two-fold. First, it may lead a congregation to forget the fact that they are still – in and of themselves – ungodly. And all they need are tips for better living. They come to church to get some good life advice on how to live the Christian life. Or, on the other hand, after hearing a series of sermons on what they should be doing, they become honest with themselves and discover that they aren’t living the Christian life as they should. The end result of this is despair. They get a bunch of good and biblical dos and don’ts, but because justification by faith alone is assumed rather than explicitly taught, they forget who they are in Christ no matter how much they fall short of God’s law.

Secondly, preaching from indicative to imperative is not enough. I think everyone in the current debate agrees that we must preach the imperatives as they are grounded in the great indicatives of the Gospel. And if we did this, my first point above wouldn’t really be a problem. But another problem arises if we preach in a linear why from the indicatives to the imperatives and stop there. The problem is we leave off on a legal note. We leave off with man. We leave off with what I am supposed to do. And our people go out from church, all charged up to change the world, and then horribly fall short on Monday morning. OK, if the sermon was really good, maybe they make it until Tuesday. And once again, they are driven to despair. Or, they fool themselves – or otherwise excuse themselves – and convince themselves that they are keeping the law they heard on Sunday. Therefore, we must also remind our people that even their sanctification – their gifted sanctification which flows from Christ himself – will be imperfect. Therefore, and I often tell my congregation this, Christ’s justifying grace redeems me not only from my past sins of open rebellion, but it also pays for my “good works” as well. If it is true that not even the most sanctified of believers in this life approach perfect obedience, and if our best of works are really as filthy rags in the sight of God, then Christ’s justification is not only a reality which became mine “back then” at my conversion. But we must remind our people that their justification is a continual and abiding reality, even and especially when I am living a holy life. Even when I say no to sin, and turn from it, that act was itself so mingled with sin that I praise God I am forgiven of even the imperfection found in that good work. I think that much preaching in Reformed pulpits can lead people to think that they come in and out of a state of justification. But we must remind our people that if they are really in union with Jesus Christ by a sincere faith, no matter how bad they fail in their sanctification throughout the course of the week, they are no less justified as they were when they were first converted. To say otherwise is to lead people to think that they are justified by their sanctification.

The beauty of the doctrine of the duplex gratia is how justification and sanctification are co-terminus benefits in the life of the believer. Even while I am being sanctified, I am at the same time justified in Christ. And as one who is justified in Christ, I am also being sanctified. We can never leave one or the other out of our pulpits.


View the original article here

The World Redeemed From Within

The redemptive-historical steps from John 1:1 to 1:12 are some of the most remarkable in all the Scriptures. The eternal God (John 1:1-3) became man to enter the world that He had created (v.10)–a world that had rebellion against Him (v. 10). He came to the nation He had created for Himself (v. 11)–a nation that rejected Him (v. 11). In that rejection He redeemed out of that nation and that world a people for Himself, to make them sons of God. Note John’s transitions:


“The Word was God…without Him nothing was made that was made…He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, but the world did not know Him…He came to His own (i.e. the Jews) and His own did not receive Him…But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”


William Still put it so well when he wrote:


The preexistence of Christ is most plainly testified to in John 1:1, 2, 18; Phil. 2:6a; Col. 1:15; 1 John 1:1a…He is begotten, not created; the only and eternally begotten of the Father, before all worlds. With His coming, the eternal broke into time and became one with creation which had gone wrong, and which He could redeem only from within.


The greatest feat, drama and triumph in the history of all worlds is how God became Man, to be Man forever, and so do God’s job as Man without ceasing to be God, and yet as a true and proper Man. The Westminster Confession says that, ‘two whole, perfect and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition or confusion. Which person is very God and very Man, yet one Christ.’


It is only as we see the Man Christ Jesus thus that we understand what is happening in the Gospels and in the Acts, and what is being said in the Epistles and in the Revelation. If men would read the Gospels with this in view, they would find them, not full of problems, but full of answers to set them at rest about all their quibbles, engaging them in that “creative” thinking by the Holy Spirit which expands the mind and enlarges and inflames the heart until praise of Him pours forth spontaneously. 1


Still, William Notes on Galatians (Aberdeen: Didasko Press, 1972) p. 52

If There Must Be Trouble, Let it Be in My Day

Thomas Paine–the pro-revolutionary patriot and pamphleteer–was certainly no Christian and no fan of Christianity. But I find this sentence to be sound Christian thinking:



Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace’; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.


Of course, Paine was rallying the country to independence from Britain, but his words can apply equally well to other ventures. Is there some institutional change you know must happen but have been putting off for fear of your own hardship? Is there a family confrontation that must take place but you are waiting for someone else to handle it and let you off the hook? Is there a difficult decision to be made in your church but you are happy to let the bomb explode in some other lap? Is there a need in the world, a crisis in your city, or a cause in your country that you are waiting for others to take up without you? Are you quietly saying to yourself, “If there must be trouble, let it be in someone else’s day”?


Christian virtue is far different. If you or your family or your church or your movement or your nation are in trouble now, should not your heart cry out, “Better that I face this instead of my children”? If suffering is to come, if hardship is to ensue, don’t you want to be summoned to the task rather than someone else? Aren’t you eager to be a “generous parent”?


May God awaken a sense of duty for all who to ought to face trouble now that others can be at peace later.


 

Kings of Judah: Hezekiah’s Heroic God

2 Chronicles 32:1-32:33


So the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem…he provided for them on every side. (32:22)


One of the most interesting books I’ve read in recent years is entitled What If? The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. It’s a book of counterfactual history where scholars suggest how history would be different if key conflicts–the Battle of Brooklyn, Midway, D-Day, etc.–had gone differently.


The first chapter, by William McNeill, is about the plague that saved Jerusalem in 701 B.C. Assyria was threatening to destroy Jerusalem and wipe Judah off the map. This was no idle threat. Nation after nation had fallen to this superpower from the north. But God would not abandon his people. “Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria,” the Lord reassured King Hezekiah, “I will defend this city and save it.” Overnight the entire army was wiped out and the city spared without one drop of Israelite blood.


These events confirmed for the Jews the implausible and world changing belief that their God was the only true God, making the failed siege of Jerusalem the most fateful might-have-been of history. “Never before or since,” writes McNeill, “has so much depended on so few, believing so wholly in their one true god, and in such bold defiance of common sense.”


 

Monday, August 29, 2011

Luther and the Jews

Luther and the Jews I: The Problem


Most preachers and teachers have what one student of mine calls `the candy cane class’ — that sermon or lecture which is in the back pocket, so to speak, committed to memory and there to be pulled out at a moment’s notice if, on a Sunday morning, somebody requests that you preach or teach at the last minute. For me, it’s what I call my Luther shtick: a brief account of his life up to 1518, culminating in an exposition and application of his teaching on what it is that makes a theologian of the cross.


Some years ago, I became aware, however, that each time I gave this talk, one of the first questions to come from the audience would be some variation on this basic theme: `But didn’t Luther hate the Jews and write pamphlets about them that led to the Holocaust?’


Of course, if like Rousas Rushdoony — for those at the creepier end of the Christian Life and Worldview spectrum, the doyen of historical scholars (`scholar’ being their term for him, not mine) — you don’t think the Holocaust happened, this isn’t a problem (see my posts of some years back); back on Planet Earth, however, the question has some urgency for those of us who want to make the case for Luther’s continued relevance. We can’t really dodge this one by referring to a few skinhead historians or writing foaming-at-the-mouth taxi-driver style blogs accusing our opponents of being educationally sub-normal bleeding heart liberals.


Indeed, given the fact that racism and genocide played prominent and evil roles in the history of the last 100 years, such a question is, of course, always more than just a question of the `Didn’t Luther suffer from constipation?’ variety. If Luther did hate the Jews, then surely he was a racist; and if he was a racist, couldn’t this be seen as a good gauge of his theology? And should we not therefore dismiss it as bad — at best a dead end, at worst an ideology of evil?


Certainly this view has found some significant supporters. Most famously, the American journalist, William Shirer, a man who witnessed the rise of Hitler while working in Berlin in the 1930s, proposed a positive and direct connection between Luther and the German anti-Semitism which fueled the Holocaust. Then, if you care to spend any time researching Holocaust Denial on the web, on the myriad anti-Semitic sites out there, you will find quite a few which link to Luther’s writing on the Jews. In addition, certain strands of the New Perspective on Paul, have posited links between Luther’s theology of justification and racism. This is all significant evidence that, yes, there may well be a huge theological problem here.


To put the case in a nutshell, the piece of writing which stands at the heart of the question is On the Jews and Their Lies, a work from 1543. Now, anyone who has read any of my recent posts will know that, when it comes to uncritical fans of Luther, I am right up there with the best of them; but even for a benighted Lutherophile like myself, this book is vile. Its rhetoric is revolting, and many of its suggestions — not least locking up Jews in their synagogues and burning the buildings to the ground — are not only horrific in and of themselves but, in light of events in Europe between 1933 and 1945, horribly prophetic.

Thus, the question I became accustomed to being asked at Sunday School hour is indeed a good one: did Luther and his theology in some way inspire or cause the Holocaust? If he did so, and this connects directly to his theology, then clearly such theology is morally repugnant.


There is the problem in a nutshell. Tomorrow, I hope to offer some lines of reflection that, if not absolving Luther of being in this regard a vile bigot, at least point to the fact that the tirade of 1543 is an aberration from his overall theology, not an integral part of it.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Luther and the Jews II: The Context


In my last post, I tried to summarise what we might call `the Shirer thesis’ which posits tight connection between Luther and the Holocaust. In this post, I want to start to offer an avenue of critique.


The first thing any historian needs to do when looking at a text is ask: `Is this text typical of the time or unusual?’ The typical never really needs any explanation, after all — it’s exactly what one expects, what everyone was doing at the time etc. Rather, it is the unusual, `the dog that did not bark,’ as Sherlock Holmes once said, that peaks the interest. So, is Luther’s treatise typical or atypical of the time in which it was written?


In fact, sad though it is to acknowledge, the 1543 tirade against the Jews is pretty typical of medieval and Renaissance rants against Judaism. Of course, nasty comments about Jews are the stock in trade of Christian writers right back to the Apostolic Fathers of the late first and early second centuries (e.g., The Didache; the Martyrdom of Polycarp); but by the late Middle Ages anti-Jewish diatribes were something of an established form, with their own themes and idioms.


Looked at in this way, Luther is not actually doing anything unusual. In fact, he even uses typical elements of late medieval anti-Jewish literature: for example, he talks about the `Blood Libel,’ a claim that Jews kidnapped Christian children and used them for ritual sacrifices. It was nonsense, of course, and most unpleasant of Luther to use it; but in so using it, he nonetheless indicated that his work was not unique but part of an ongoing tradition.


The second thing a historian needs to ask is: are the categories of the sixteenth century the same as today? Put more simply: we think of the hatred of Jews as an example of racism, and racism is the bogus idea that someone if inferior based on the biological category of race. Is this the case with Luther? Did he write against Jews because he was racist in the modern sense?


The answer is no. Race as we think of it today is really a concept of relatively modern provenance, something that arguably emerges in the nineteenth century as interest grew in biology, evolution etc. The ideology of the Holocaust was undoubtedly racist in this sense: the Nuremberg laws of 1935, which effectively paved the way in judicial terms for what became the Final Solution, made it clear that conversion to Christianity did not exempt someone: for the Nazis the matter was one of blood (albeit built on completely fallacious science) not of religion. For Luther, however, Judaism was a religious category. He had no real grasp of racial identity and no concern for the kind of racial issues which dominated Nazi ideology. And this points some of the way towards a resolution of our consideration of the Shirer thesis which we shall state in Part III


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Luther and the Jews III: Lessons


In yesterday’s post, I pointed to the fact that, while we today find Luther’s 1543 work, On the Jews and their Lies, extraordinarily vile and offensive, it was, sadly, in many ways a rather conventional piece for the time. I also noted that Luther was also not operating with racial categories: he considered Jews evil because they opposed the gospel, not because they were racially inferior. Conversion to Christianity would have solved the problem. This does not make his hate any more acceptable, but it does mean that the road between Luther and Auschwitz is a complicated one which defies direct and simplistic attempts to make him one of the primary historical culprits.


I also noted on Friday that it is the unusual, not the usual, which is often most interesting to the historian. Luther’s 1543 treatise is not unusual; but this was not the only book he wrote on the Jews; and the other book, the earlier one, is much more unusual. That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523) is a remarkable piece of work. In it, far from calling for the Jews to be incinerated in their own places of worship, Luther calls on Christians to be good and loving neighbours to them, to help them, to extend hospitality to them, to reach out to them with the love of Christ. In the context of the times, this is what we would now call an incredibly progressive position. So why the change? From enlightened gentlemen to foaming at the mouth extremist in just 20 years?


The reason lies with Luther’s understanding of the times in which he was living. Scholars have become increasingly aware over the years that Luther is part of a late medieval culture of eschatological expectancy. To put it simply: he thought his rediscovery of the gospel was a sign that history was about to end, with the triumph of the church and the return of Christ.


This connects to his early attitude to the Jews. The 1523 treatise was written in the context of great hope for the gospel, and his advice then is to reach out to them as positively as possible, to win them for Christ. When we move forward to 1543, by contrast, Luther is old, ill, and, above all, disillusioned both by the divisions among the Reformers and the way in which the gospel has not carried all before it. In such a context, he looks for those who are responsible; and, among them, he sees the Jews, those who have the Holy Scriptures but who adamantly refuse to see Christ therein. It is this that drives him to write such a bombastically bitter and hateful treatise against them.


What lessons can we draw from this? First, I would suggest that the connection between Luther and the Holocaust is clearly very complicated. Luther was no racist in the modern terms because he did not have the categories; rather, he was fairly typical of the kind of anti-Jewish sentiment which later morphed through a complex of contexts into modern, racial, anti-Semitism. His treatise of 1543 is grim reading and has been appropriated by various neo-Nazi and racist groups; but the history of textual reception is different from the original textual intention. This, of course, is not to excuse the 1543 work or ameliorate its viciousness; it is simply to point out that the story is more complicated than many have made it out to be.


Secondly, there is no necessary connection between his doctrine of justification and his hatred of Jews. Indeed, in the early years, his doctrine of justification was part of what made him break with the standards of his day and reach out to the Jewish community. The connection is rather more with his eschatology, and the failures of the Reformation project as a whole. This is important because his hatefulness to the Jews does not mean we cannot learn positively from things he said and did elsewhere.


Third, the whole matter should be a salutary warning that Christians need to pray continually that they will finish well. It is sad that Luther’s 1543 treatise overshadows that of 1523, but quite understandable, given the content. What a tragedy that a man used for such great good in the church could also become in popular culture associated with something as vile and evil as the Holocaust. Few of us, I expect, will make errors as public and influential as his; but that is a sign rather of singular lack of importance and stature on our part, not any particular moral superiority. Those with the greatest gifts in the church are often those with the greatest flaws. As we age, and as the dreams and aspirations of youth are snuffed out one by one like so many candles, and as the darkness of death starts to encroach, the temptation to bitterness and recrimination no doubt increases. At that point, more than any other, we need to seek grace to remain faithful and gracious. The sins of youth are terrible enough; for some, the sins of old age are even worse.


View the original article here

Sobering Report on College Drinking

The article is entitled “College Drinking is Liberating, and a Good Excuse.” I’m not sure if the folks at USA Today agree with the title, but it seems that college students certainly do. In the August 22 report, Sharon Jayson maintains that college students drink a lot and there’s not much anyone can do about it.



Colleges trying to stem the tide of student drinking have focused on the evils of intoxication and all the trouble that can ensue when students drink too much. But new psychological research suggests that the downsides of excessive drinking aren’t bad enough to make students stop.


“They intend to get intoxicated,” says psychologist E. Scott Geller, director of the Center for Applied Behavior Systems at Virginia Tech.


“We have shown in several studies that their intentions influence their behavior. If they intend to get drunk, it’s difficult to stop that.”


Geller, who has been studying alcohol awareness since the mid-1980s, notes that education hasn’t worked.


“We thought if we could demonstrate to students that their performance deteriorated under alcohol, they would be convinced that their alcohol consumption has put them at risk,” Geller says. But “knowing that one is impaired, physically and even emotionally, did not seem to reduce alcohol consumption.”


Binge drinking is so bad that when researches tried using Breathalyzers at parties and bars it only encouraged students to drink more. No matter how many bad consequences are put in front of students–drunk driving, addictions, unwanted sexual intercourse, unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, decreased performance in school–Jayson argues that it just doesn’t offset the two perceived benefits of drinking: it’s liberating and a good excuse.


On the former, students thinking of alcohol as “liquid courage.” It makes them more fun, more adventurous, less tied to inhibitions. On the latter, drinking is seen as a convenient way of avoiding personal responsibility. The sober girl who hooks up with a complete stranger might be considered a slut. But if she’s drunk, then it’s not really a mark on her character; she just had a few too many. Likewise, many students feel justified if they miss class or perform poorly because of a hangover. No matter what people tell them about the possible dangers of drinking, getting drunk, for many college students, is the best way to have fun. And whatever negative consequences may come, these are thought to reflect on the alcohol not on the individual.


What to Do?


How should Christians respond? Here we are at the start of another school year with thousands of students returning to classes and thousands more leaving home for the first time. Many of these students are already excited to drink. Others will be sucked into the party scene their first weekend and may not pull out of it for years…or ever. Many professing Christians will live duplicitous lives–getting smashed on the weekends while still trying to be the good Christian boy or girl their parents and ministry friends imagine them to be. The problem is huge and anyone wishing to minister to college students needs to think about a biblical approach.


Here are a few suggestions on how to begin formulating a Christian response to drunkenness on our college campuses.


1. Know your enemy. Like a good AA course, the first step is admitting we have a problem. I don’t need to give you statistics to convince you that lots and lots of college students drink alcohol to get drunk. Churches and Christian leaders must not take their eyes off of this singular fact. Take almost any college in the country, especially the big state schools, and I can just about guarantee that the biggest obstacle to Christian discipleship is not Richard Dawkins or Bart Ehrman or all the heady objections to Christianity that our apologetics are meant to counter. We need apologetics. I’m 100% for taking every thought captive to Christ. But for most 17-22 year-olds the most common temptations to sin are alcohol and sex. Even when there are intellectual objections to Christianity, these are often just cover for a debauched lifestyle. Tens of thousands of college students walk away from the church this year or never give it a chance because their main goal each week is to get smashed and hook up. Rare is the campus ministry that needs to talk about Derrida more than drunkenness.


2. Demonstrate a mature attitude toward alcohol. Some Christians go farther than Scripture in condemning alcohol. I won’t get into that argument here, but I don’t believe you can condemn alcohol from the Bible. If you try, many folks will swing to the other side when they realize your arguments don’t work. On the other hand, the Christians that recognize the good gift of wine or beer need to grow up at times. Christian upperclassmen (and other adults) who can drink legally should be careful with alcohol consumption around underage believers. They should not talk about beer like it’s the coolest thing since Sufjan Stevens. Christian liberty is no reason for social life and conversation to revolve around the conspicuous consumption of alcohol.


3. Be boldly biblical. There is good wisdom in admonishing sinners by presenting the negative consequences of sin. “You reap what you sow” is how the Bible puts it. So it’s appropriate to warn binge drinkers of STD’s and addictions and DUI’s and scrambling your brains on a car antenna (I won’t go into details, but it was the most disturbing story I heard while I was in college). And yet the Bible doesn’t just say, “Stop getting drunk because it will hurt you.” It also says, “Stop getting drunk because God hates it.” Drunkards do not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:10). Drunkards do not belong in the church’s fellowship (1 Cor. 5:11). Of course, there is forgiveness for the sin of drunkenness. But the Bible repeatedly rebukes those who seek after this sin. Woe to those who run after strong drink, Isaiah says (5:11). Do not get drunk, is Paul’s command (Eph. 5:18). This is what God has to say about the tradition of partying every weekend while in college: “Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:13-14).


4. Show tough love. There’s a fine line between caring for your drunken friend (who may legitimately hurt himself or others) and enabling sin. Don’t let friends drink and drive and don’t let friends crack their skulls open (I saw people come close in college). But don’t feel sorry for the weekend warriors. Don’t pick up all their messes or remove all their consequences. This line from the USA Today article stuck out: “The campus environment provides so much social support that even when students have bad experiences drinking, the help they get from friends afterward is seen as a positive.” If you are interested in real community, take a risk and show some tough love.


5. Remind the Christians who they are. I realize that many of the binge drinkers have nothing to do with Christianity. But at least in the Midwest (and I’m sure in the South), most college students claim some Christian affiliation. Press home their profession of Christ. Tell them what it means to be a new creation. Help them see who they are in Christ. Show them that because they are joined to Christ they take Christ with them to get hammered and get in bed with someone. Teach them again all the good news of Christ crucified for sinners and Christ raised for newness of life. Then implore them to live as if they actually believed what they say they believe.


 

The Sincere Offer of the Gospel

TurretinFan writes:


Is the “free offer” of the gospel really “sincere” if Jesus only died for some men and not all? If there is no atonement available for them, the offer seems insincere.


This is a frequent objection, particularly from Amyraldians and Arminians. If you think that the gospel is “Jesus died for you,” then this objection makes a lot of sense. If we’re supposed to tell people indiscriminately that Christ died for them, but he didn’t, that doesn’t seem very sincere.


Scriptures, however, don’t present the gospel that way. In Scripture, the gospel is expressed in terms of repenting of your sins and believing on (i.e. trusting in) Jesus Christ for salvation. If you trust in Christ and repent of your sins, God will have mercy on you.


There is a world of difference between those two messages. One message makes an unconditional assertion regarding what Christ has done. The other message makes a conditional assertion about what God will do.


Yet, even among those who will grant to us that the gospel is not, “Jesus died for you,” some people still don’t like the idea of salvation being offered to those for whom God has not made any provision. Indeed, our Amyraldian and Arminian friends sometimes urge on us the idea that such a conditional offer is not “sincere” unless God has made preparations for those people.

The mere absence of enough provision for everyone to be saved, however, doesn’t explain this objection. Suppose a company offers to “anyone who is willing to come down here and listen to us explain the benefits of our new tractor,” an incentive of “$5, just for coming down and listening to the talk.” No one would consider it “insincere” if the company doesn’t actually have $5 times the number of people who will hear the offer, so long as they have $5 times the number of people that they think will accept the offer.


So, as long as the provision is sufficient for those who will “accept” the offer, we don’t view the offer as insincere. Since, under the Calvinist framework, God has made provision for all who will come to Christ, the offer of the gospel should also be considered to be sincere by this standard.


The intuition behind the objection that remains, however, is that an “offer” doesn’t seem sincere, if you have no intention of giving the offered thing to the person to whom you are offering it. For example, when a child offers to share an ice cream cone, it sometimes happens that this is simply an imitation of a parent’s offer to share the parent’s cone. If the parent were to try to accept the child’s offer, the child might greedily refuse to allow the parent to have a bite. So, the child has only offered to share the cone because the child thought the offer would be refused. Such an offer is insincere.


Of course, by this time we are now dealing with the kind of objection that an Amyraldian, or someone like Ponter, cannot consistently make. After all, the problem with the child’s offer is not that he doesn’t have a cone to share, but that he does not intend to give up the cone. The Amyraldian admits that God does not intend to save the non-elect. Therefore, whether or not a provision is made seems utterly moot.


Nevertheless, for those who insist that God must intend to save, we may still legitimately question the weight of this objection. Isn’t it enough that God intends to save everyone who “accepts” the “offer”? The idea that God must intend to save all those whom he knows will refuse seems absurd when expressed that way. Thus, we may conclude that while such an objection may have some limited intuitive appeal, it does not hold up to intellectual scrutiny.


___________________


A gentleman by the name of David Poner objects to this and uses an analogy to express this:



David says to his friend Paddy,


Paddy, if God were to say to me, “David, I want to offer you a green polka dotted unicorn for your next birthday, all you have to do, David, is to believe and embrace my offer, you will get a green-spotted unicorn for your birthday,” God would be thoroughly sincere in this offer.


Paddy, the Irish Leprechaun, says to David,


But that would be impossible David, because everyone knows that green spotted unicorns don’t exist in this world. God could not sincerely offer to give you something that does not exist.


Ponter has tried to bias the example by picking something very fanciful. Let’s pick something less fanciful. Suppose that God simply promises 1 ounce more gold than currently exists. Well, in that case, I think we would all recognize that God would not be challenged to fulfill that offer simply because of the present non-existence of the last ounce of gold, since God can easily make more gold. It doesn’t even require omnipotence to make a finite amount of gold. So, the intuition that God cannot offer what he doesn’t presently have is mistaken.


Moreover, Ponter’s analogy seems flawed for another reason. The gospel (in its primary sense) doesn’t promise to give you a thing or object. It promises salvation from your sins. God is saying that if you trust in Christ and repent of your sins, you will be forgiven, adopted, justified, and so on.


Maybe you will say, “but what about our heavenly mansions?” Maybe you have something there! Will heaven be a ghost town of empty mansions of folks who were offered the gospel but didn’t accept? Or does God actually only prepare mansions for those who trust in Christ? Intuitively, one would not expect heaven to be full of unoccupied mansions. But is that what Ponter thinks is necessary to make God’s offer sincere?