Geerhardus Vos on the Covenant of Works

With Logos’ release of each translated volume of Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics we become the grateful beneficiaries of some of the church’s greatest theological treasures. In his second volume, on Anthropology, Vos taught by way of catechetical method what he deemed to be the important facets of a biblical anthropology. As usual, Vos’ theological precision and genius shine. Here is how he tackled the subject of Federal Theology and the Covenant of Works:

11. Give the principal propositions that constitute the federal theory.

a) Adam by nature was obliged to obey God, without thereby having any right to a reward.

b) God had created him mutable, and he also possessed no right to an immutable state.

c) His natural relationship to God already included that he, if sinning, must be punished by God.

d) All this was a natural relationship in which Adam stood. Now to this natural relationship a covenant was added by God, which contained various positive elements.

e) These positive elements were the following.

1. An element of representation. Adam stood not just for himself but by virtue of a legal ordering of God, for all his posterity.

2. An element of probation with limited duration. While previously or otherwise Adam’s period of testing could have lasted forever with a constant possibility of a sinful choice, so now a fixed period of perseverance would have led to a condition of immutable virtue.

3. An element of reward, ex pacto [by covenant]. By the free ordination of God, Adam received a right to eternal life if he fulfilled the conditions of the covenant of works.

f) Now when it is said that these three elements are positive, that does not mean that within God’s being there was not an inclination to reveal Himself in such unremitting kindness to man. He is the God of the covenant, and it is intrinsic to His being that He wants to be. But man had no right to expect and to demand it; in so far is the covenant of works positive.

g) By assuming the positive character of the covenant of works in this sense, we in no way intend to assert that Adam existed even for a single moment outside of the covenant of works. He was apparently created destined to be under it, and the garden in which he was placed was created to be a stage for his probation. The distinction between natural relationship and the covenant of works is logical and judicial, not temporal. That is, even when the covenant of works has served its purpose, the natural relationship remains in force in all circumstances, and also all the demands that stem from it still apply to man.

h) The organic unity that exists between Adam and his posterity is not the ground but the means for the transmission of Adam’s sin to us. Now it can certainly be said that Adam must have one nature with us if he were to be our covenant head and his sin were to be imputed to us. An angel, for example, could not represent us federally. But, conversely, it does not follow that Adam, because he possesses our nature, now must represent us. The unity of the nature is only a conditio sine qua non. It is in no way the ground that excludes the possibility of the opposite. The actual relationship is such that God, with an eye to the covenant unity for which He intended humanity, also created it as a natural unity. As being reckoned in Christ by election entails that in God’s time one is born again of Christ through the Spirit, so being reckoned in Adam by the covenant of works entails that in God’s time one is born of Adam.

i) The ultimate legal ground for this representation in Adam cannot by specified by us. We only can say that it:

1. Was strictly juridical insofar as it reckoned with persons and not with the nature of man in the abstract.

2. Has an archetypical example in the economy of the divine persons, in which the one person appears representatively for the other.

3. Must be just simply because it is already factual. No other legal norm exists for us than the acts of God. Therefore, it is foolish to ask whether something that God does is right, as if we possessed an independent standard by which we could know that.

4. Runs completely parallel with the representation of the elect in Christ, against which no Protestant Christian can object. If one has an objection to the imputation of sin and no objection to the imputation of righteousness, one thereby betrays that the objections that one advances rest more on self-interest than on a sense of justice. The covenant of grace is nothing other than a covenant of works accomplished in Christ, the fulfillment of which is given to us by grace.

j) One can even go further and assert that in that covenant of works there were several stipulations that must be beneficial for man. As already seen,

1) his probation was temporally limited; 2) it was concentrated in one man; 3) it was made as clear and objective as possible; 4) the reward promised was as glorious and as great as possible. For all these reasons, man cannot do otherwise than accept gratefully the covenant of works in which God placed him.

k) Through the covenant of works it is explained why the sin of our natural ancestors outside of Adam is not imputed to us. Imputation rests on the covenantal relation, and we stand in such a covenantal relation only to Adam and not to others.

l) The covenant of works explains why Christ, though he assumed a human nature, was not under the curse as we are and why He could therefore assume human nature undefiled. The covenant of works was established with human persons in Adam. Because the person of Christ is the person of the Son of God, he was not included in the covenant of works.

m) Adam’s first sin as act is representatively our sin. It is just as if we had sinned in it. God reckons it so according to His justice, and this verdict of God is called the imputation of Adam’s first sin. Imputation thus means “to put something on someone’s account,” whether it is required of him or is to his benefit. It is, however, only the reatus poenae [liability to punishment], not the reatus culpae [liability to guilt] of this first sin that is imputed to us. That reatus culpae is not transmittable. The reatus poenae, on the other hand, is imputed to us in the fullest sense of the word so that by this alone we are already condemned before God. It is a dangerous, and in its consequences far-reaching, error when one teaches that no one is condemned by God other than on the basis of his own inherent depravity and the guilt that is connected with it. Related to this error is the other error that all children (of whatever parents) who die before their use of reason are saved without exception. This goes a step still further than the preceding error, insofar as it denies that original corruption is condemnable, but otherwise is completely on the same line. We must take a stand against this error: something is sin or not sin, guilt or not guilt. If sin is guilt, then it is that fully. Every sin and guilt is in itself worthy of eternal death. (The parallel with Christ would require that we do not yet become fully righteous by Christ’s imputed righteousness but only by our inherent righteousness that enters us based on the first.) Finally, it is illogical to say that I will not perish because of imputed original pollution but only on the basis of inherent original pollution, if the latter is viewed as the necessary result of the former.

n) Original pollution, inherent corruption, was both for Adam and for us a punishment for the first sin. For Adam it appeared immediately, for us it can only appear when our persons come into being. It is not the only but still the principal punishment of sin, and potentially contains eternal death, since it is separation from God of the s???, “flesh.” While on the one hand it must thus be viewed as a penal consequence, on the other hand one can also view it as the basis of guilt. For there is no pollution without guilt. From all this it appears how sin perpetuates itself without end, how one sin flows from the other in order, in its turn, to give life to a third.

o) The federal theory does not deny that smaller groups of humanity, considered apart from the covenantal relation with Adam, are also in many ways in solidarity and are punished for common sins. We hold, however, that this solidarity in smaller groups is limited, does not extend down to all following generations and does not stem from Adam through all preceding generations. Also, it is not a covenantal solidarity but it rests, so far as its legal ground is concerned, on the presence of the covenant of works. God can visit the sin of the parents upon the children, but He does not do that because juridically the children have sinned in their parents as they have in Adam. He can do that because the children have already forfeited all life in Adam, are under the wrath of God, and God is free in the choice of the form in which He wills to bring the punishment of sin upon them. This fact stands on a line identical to the order that God follows in the covenant of grace, where He grants His promises to children of believing parents and generally extends the grace of the covenant. This does not happen because the children are justified in the parents, but because they, too, were personally reckoned in Christ.

12. On what grounds do we accept this theory of a covenant of works?

a) On the general ground that, if all the data are present, it is allowable for us to connect them with each other and to give a suitable name to the connection so constructed. This is the case here. Here is a free covenant alongside the natural relationship. Although it is true that one cannot speak of a formal enacting of a covenant, God had only had to announce the covenant and that Adam was perfect before God guaranteed of itself that He accepted it.

b) All, whatever theory they may follow in this matter, admit that the right to reward, and certainly such a glorious reward, did not proceed from the natural relationship of Adam to God and thus had to have another foundation. However, as soon as one must agree that there was something positive, a special condescension of God, in these matters, he also accepts the covenant of works in principle, although one may still take exception to the designation.

c) The covenant of grace is the implementation of the covenant of works in the surety for us. That the former possesses the marks of a covenant is not subject to any doubt. From this it follows that the latter must also have been a covenant. In fact, Scripture repeatedly sets the old and new covenants in opposition with each other (cf., e.g., Heb 8:8). To be sure, in such places the opposition is not directly between the covenant in Christ and that in Adam but between the new dispensation of the covenant of grace and the old. However, one must bear in mind that the old dispensation of the covenant of grace bore a legal character for Israel as a nation, and therefore in its external form once more kept the covenant of works in view, although the core of what God established with Israel was of course the continuation of the Abrahamic revelation of the covenant of grace.

d) In Hos 6:7 the translation “they have broken the covenant like Adam” seems to deserve preference, despite every objection.1

e) The parallel that is drawn in Rom 5:12–21 between Adam and Christ, in relation to the doctrine of justification developed elsewhere by Paul, cannot be explained other than by the theory of the covenant of works. In justification, this is what was essential for Paul: that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us without our personally contributing something to its acquisition. This applied to Adam immediately gives all the relationships of the covenant of works.

f) All other theories are subject to such objections that the federal theory is to be preferred over them.2

1. See B.B. Warfield’s “Hosea VI.7: Adam or Man?” in Selected Shorter Writings, vol. 1 (USA: P & R, 1970), pp. 116-129. For a summary of Warfield’s position, see Fred Zaspel’s digest of it in The Theology of B.B. Warfield 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:58 pm and is filed under Featured, Headline. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

View the original article here

The Most Important Overlooked Doctrine?

What is the most important overlooked biblical doctrine? Without hesitation, I would suggest that it is the doctrine of definitive sanctification.1 It was the late Professor John Murray who first articulated and popularized this doctrine. As he studied the exegetical statements of the New Testament that spoke of believers having been sanctified through the death of Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 10:10, etc.), Murray suggested that “it is a fact too frequently overlooked that in the New Testament the most characteristic terms used with reference to sanctification are used not of a process but of a once-for-all definitive act,” and that  ”it would be, therefore, a deflection from biblical patterns of language and conception to think of sanctification exclusively in terms of a progressive work.” Still many tend to think of sanctification as something entirely progressive, and, therefore, miss out on understanding one of the richest and most spiritually impacting Gospel truths. In order for us to understand why this is the most important overlooked doctrine, it will help us to consider what definitive sanctification is, why it has frequently been overlooked and how it ought to impact our Christian lives.

What is Definitive Sanctification?

As he unfolded the meaning of definitive sanctification, Murray explained that certain portions of Scriptures, such as Romans 6:1-23, teach that “there is a once-for-all definitive and irreversible breach with the realm in which sin reigns in and unto death,” and “that our death to sin and newness of life are effected in our identification with Christ in his death and resurrection.” In further explaining how union with Christ makes definitive sanctification a reality, Murray wrote:

It is by virtue of our having died with Christ and our being raised with Him in His resurrection from the dead that the decisive breach with sin in its power, control, and defilement had been wrought…Christ in his death and resurrection broke the power of sin, triumphed over the god of this world, the prince of darkness, executed judgment upon the world and its ruler, and by that victory delivered all those who were united to him from the power of darkness and translated them into his own kingdom. So intimate is the union between Christ and his people that they were partakers with him in all these triumphal achievements and therefore died to sin, rose with Christ in the power of his resurrection…

When the Apostle Paul said of Christ that “the death that He died, He died to sin once for all” (Rom. 6:10) he was referring to something that happened to Jesus in His death, and which subsequently has had an impact on us by virtue of our faith-union with Him. While Jesus knew no personal sin, as our representative He subjected Himself to the guilt and power of sin. When He died, He died to the power of sin’s dominion. This is how we are set free from the power of sin’s dominion in our lives when we are united to Him by faith. Distinct from the blessing of justification–which deals with the guilt of sin–definitive sanctification deals with the power of sin…

Was Abraham Lincoln a Christian?

Over at the First Thoughts blog, Mark Movsesian offers a brief note on the question of whether Abraham Lincoln was a Christian, or even claimed a religious affiliation at all.

In April of 2000, Brian Lamb of C-SPAN’s Booknotes asked about this when interviewing Allen Guellzo, author of the intellectual biography Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, which goes into detail about Lincoln’s views on religion): 

Prof. GUELZO:  . . . Many religious people, many Christian believers who read this book experience a sense of disappointment, because they may have read in a number of other places or heard from a number of other quarters that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian.

Well, the truth of the matter is that, no, he was not. He was exposed to Christian influences all through his life. He knew Christian people. He worked with Christian people, worked with Christian ideas. But Lincoln never joined a church, never was actively involved in any kind of Christian organization; in fact, really had only the most minimal religious profile in his own day.

What has happened, though, is that after Lincoln’s death, there was no shortage of people who wanted to claim Lincoln as being one of their own. They could do this because Lincoln was a very private person. He was often described as being shut-mouthed and reticent, and he really was. He did not like to talk about himself or his inner life.

His law partner, Herndon, who knew him probably as well as anybody could know someone not being part of the immediate family—Herndon said of Lincoln that Lincoln kept half of himself secret, away from the general public, and then he kept half of what was left even from his closest friends. People have rushed into that vacuum and tried to suggest, well, Lincoln was really heading in this direction or Lincoln made some kind of secret statement about this direction.

There was a very famous story that suggests that Lincoln was about to join the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church on Easter Sunday 1865.

LAMB: In Washington.

Prof. GUELZO: In—right here in Washington. And, of course, he’s assassinated on Good Friday. And the line of reasoning is that had not Lincoln been shot, he would have joined. He would have made a public Christian association of himself with the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church the following Sunday. It’s a very famous story. I’ve bumped into it any number of times, and there is not a single shred of evidence that it’s true.

LAMB: You say he was a deist?

Prof. GUELZO: He was something close to a deist.

LAMB: What is that?

Prof. GUELZO: He believed in a very general sense that there was a God, or at least there was a force that gave order and shape and predictability to the world and to the universe. But he would not move beyond anything more than that, anything more explicit than that. He believed there was some kind of God. But whether this God was a personal God, whether this God gave active direction and intervention to human affairs, that was a subject which, over years, he tended to shift his position on a good deal.

LAMB: I’m going to mention different things that you write about and–and just tell us what impact they had on his life. The Baptists.

Prof. GUELZO: Well, he was born into a Baptist family—in fact, a Baptist group who were very sectarian, very come-outerish. They were radical predestinarians. In other words, they believed that God ordained every event, whatever comes to pass. For that reason, this particular Baptist group, sometimes known as the Separate Baptists, would not sponsor missionaries. If the heathen were going to be converted, God would do it. You did not put yourself into a place where you were going to accomplish it. They did not have a professional paid clergy. They did not have Sunday schools. They even frowned on involvement in reform movements.

Lincoln grows up in that environment, and, in fact, he is so good at understanding that environment that, in his youth, he would get on top of tree stumps and deliver sermons that he had heard from the Sunday previous almost word for word, because his memory was so good. But this was acting; this was not being part of something. He never joined a Baptist church, never committed himself to a religious organization that way.

But he does carry with him—and this is the interesting thing—he does carry with him the stamp of that belief in predestination. He secularizes it into a belief in necessity or determinism. But like those folks that he grew up with, he does not believe that human beings have free will. He does not believe that human choices come from within ourselves. And he often described himself all through his life as a fatalist and would speak to people, “I do not believe that human beings make their own choices.”

LAMB: The Methodists.

Prof. GUELZO: The Methodists he knew because so many of the Methodists were so aggressive on the frontier in building churches, and sometimes not only building churches, but building public profile. One of his most famous political opponents in Illinois was a Methodist circuit-riding preacher, Peter Cartwright, and it was Cartwright, first of all, who was his opponent for the congressional seat that he ran for in the 1840s. Cartwright was running as a Democrat; Lincoln as a Whig. But Cartwright also started what Lincoln called a whispering campaign through the Seventh Electoral District, which suggested that people should not vote for this man, Lincoln, because he was an unbeliever and an infidel and, therefore, could not be trusted.

That accusation provoked the single-most important statement Lincoln ever made about his own personal religious beliefs, and that came in the form of a handbill, which was printed and circulated throughout the district prior to the election, in which Lincoln said, “It’s true that I do not belong to a Christian church, and it’s true that I have never made any profession of Christian belief, but I’ve never scorned Christians. I’ve never criticized Christian churches. I’ve never been an open scoffer at Christianity. And what’s more, I believe in this doctrine of necessity. But isn’t it true that there are some religious denominations that also believe in a doctrine of necessity?”

And he’s, of course, thinking about the Separate Baptists and a number of other denominations, like the old-school Presbyterians. And he defends himself by saying, “It’s true I believe in this doctrine of necessity, but, look, there are other religious people who believe in it, too. Therefore, the accusations that Cartwright is making against me really fall to the ground because you could just as easily make them about religious people.”

LAMB: Presbyterians.

Prof. GUELZO: He came to Springfield in 1837, and for many years did not associate himself with a church. In fact, he wrote back to New Salem at one point saying that he’d been in Springfield now this period of time and hadn’t gone to church because he was afraid he wouldn’t know how to behave there. I think that there’s some truth to his statement about his anxiety about behavior, but I think lying behind that is the fact that he really did not have anything in the way of religious beliefs. In fact, people who knew him in those early years in Springfield said that he would gather around him a number of his friends and he would take up the Bible and he would read parts of it aloud and criticize it, scoff at it, say that this couldn’t possibly be true, sometimes to the point where a number of his friends thought he was an atheist.

When he married Mary Todd, she was kind of religiously chilly herself, and for a number of years, neither of them went to church. But then in 1850, Lincoln’s second oldest son, Edward, dies and this provokes a crisis in the Lincoln household. It’s a crisis that is met by the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Springfield, a Scotsman named James Smith. He ministers to Mary Todd and has a very effective ministry to her, counseling her in her bereavement, and Lincoln goes to him–to Smith–with his perplexity, his questions. `Why did God take my son? I’m perplexed about predestination and providence.’ And from that point on, the Lincoln family affiliates with the First Presbyterian Church and Lincoln rents a pew there. He doesn’t join the church. In fact, sometimes he doesn’t even come, but he does take this step of associating his family, if not himself personally, with the First Presbyterian Church.

And he comes to like First Presbyterian because among the Presbyterian Churches, First Presbyterian is an old school church. It’s an old school church meaning that it was very loyal to the old traditional standard teachings about predestination. It was a very Calvinist church. And not only will Lincoln feel comfortable with that, because he is a fatalist, but when he comes to Washington as president, the church that he will affiliate his family with here, the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, is also an old school Presbyterian Church. If he is going to feel comfortable with any kind of formal religion, it will be the old school Presbyterians.

The Old Testament in 10 Minutes + the New Testament in 10 Minutes

Jason Derouchie (who teaches Old Testament at Bethlehem College & Seminary and is the editor of the highly praised What the Old Testament Authors Really Cared About: A Survey of Jesus’ Bible [Kregel, 2013]) and Andy Naselli (who teaches NT and theology at Bethlehem College & Seminary and is co-author with D. A. Carson and Doug Moo of Introducing the New Testament: A Short Guide to Its History and Message [Zondervan, 2010]) walk us through the whole Bible in 20 minutes:

Update: Here is the manuscript for Dr. Derouchie’s talk. See What the Old Testament Authors Really Cared About: A Survey of Jesus’ Bible for more details.

The Bible describes how God reigns, saves, and satisfies through covenant for his glory in Christ. The Old Testament provides foundation for this kingdom message, and the New Testament details the fulfillment. Jesus’ Bible was the Old Testament, which highlights through narrative and commentary how the Mosaic old covenant was established in the Law, enforced in the Prophets, and enjoyed in the Writings.

The Bible opens with the five narrative books of Moses, which together are called the Law. Here the old covenant is established.

Genesis introduces God’s universal kingdom program by highlighting the need for and provision of universal blessing. It also supplies the context for Israel’s global mission. Sin has resulted in world-wide curse, and Abraham and his offspring climaxing in a single, male, royal descendant in the line of Judah would be the means for the curse to be overcome by blessing.

The remaining four books of the Law then clarify how the promise of offspring and the hope of the promised land find initial fruition in the Mosaic old covenant, all in the anticipation of the royal redeemer.

Exodus highlights King Yahweh’s global purposes through Israel, stressing the centrality and necessity of his presence and detailing both Israel’s salvation and mission–they are to serve as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation in the context of the world.

In Leviticus, holy Yahweh calls his people to be holy and clarifies how their pursuit of God will be empowered by his sanctifying presence and promises of blessing and curse.

Numbers contrasts faithful Yahweh with unfaithful Israel and describes an extended season of discipline in the wilderness where Israel was supposed to learn to wait on and follow God.

Deuteronomy is Israel’s constitution and calls for lasting covenant relationship. It also clarifies, however, that God would not overcome Israel’s stubborn rebellion and enable love until the latter days after Israel would enter, lose, and be restored to the land. Then he would circumcise their hearts, enabling them to love God with all.

Next is the Prophets, which are to be read in light of the law of Moses and the hope of the coming royal deliverer. Here the old covenant is enforced, and the material is divided into two parts.

The Former Prophets provide a narrative history of what happened to Israel from the conquest of the promised land, through the rise of the united and divided monarchies, to the exile from the land. The grouping begins with Joshua, which highlights Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness in giving the land and calls for Israel’s covenant faithfulness. Will the people meditate on the law day and night, or will they go their own way? Judges answers by detailing Israel’s covenant faithlessness and highlights that their chaotic, sinful existence was partly due to the fact that there was no king in Israel.

1-2 Samuel then overviews the rise of kingship, stresses the Davidic kingdom hope, and clarifies the importance of honoring Yahweh above all else.

The narrative portion of Former Prophets ends with 1-2 Kings, which outlines Israel’s covenant failure and the kingdom’s division and destruction and also retains hope in a Davidic king whose throne would last forever.

At this point the Old Testament narrative pauses, and the Latter Prophets offer prophetic commentary on why Israel’s history resulted in exile.

Jeremiah stresses Israel’s lack of covenant loyalty and the eschatological promise of covenant loyalty in the age of the new covenant when the law would be written on the heart.

Ezekiel focuses on Israel’s loss of God’s presence from Jerusalem and the eschatological promise of his Spirit in the age of resurrection.

Isaiah unpacks Israel’s rejection of God’s kingship and the eschatological promise of his universal kingdom through the peace-establishing, justice-working Servant king, who would reign over transformed ethnic Israelites and Gentiles in the new creation.

The Twelve minor prophets–Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi–are united into a single volume in Jesus’ Bible. Through the themes of sin, judgment, and restoration, they detail Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness and the eschatological promise of divine faithfulness. At this, the Prophets come to a close, and the focus on Israel’s sin now shifts to a focus on kingdom hope.

In the Writings, the old covenant is enjoyed. The Former Writings are principally poetic commentary on how the loyal remnant of Yahweh was to live in a context of darkness, maintaining their belief that Yahweh was still on the throne and would one day right all wrongs through his royal redeemer. This commentary portion opens with Ruth, a narrative prelude that affirms the kingdom hope of Yahweh’s redeeming grace through the line of David. Just as God used Boaz of Bethlehem to redeem king David’s ancestors, so also God would raise up another kinsman redeemer of Bethlehem to restore David’s descendants. Exile was not the final word, and this messianic hope provides the lens for reading Psalms and beyond.

The rest of the Former Writings detail specifically the type of lifestyle by which one gains real kingdom hope. Psalms stresses that there is hope for those delighting in and submitting to God’s kingship by walking, waiting, and worshipping in light of the Messiah. Through the five books of the Psalter, the messianic music moves from lament to praise and from kingdom crisis to kingdom consummation.

Job gives hope for those fearing God for who is he is and not for what he gives or takes away.

Proverbs then provides kingdom hope for those acting wisely, who fear God, turn from evil, and live in light of the future; in the process it details how the future royal deliverer would live.

Ecclesiastes details hope for those fearing and following God in pleasure and pain despite life’s enigmas.

And Song of Songs gives hope for those celebrating human sexuality in the context of marriage; only those who fan the flame of Yahweh in the proper context will enjoy the ultimate union of the groom of heaven with his bride.

Lamentations supplies hope for those remaining confident in God’s reign and faithfulness to his own. With the promise of fresh mercies at dawn, the laments of Lamentations end the commentary portion of the Old Testament and provide a bridge for the reader back into the context of exile, which is picked up in the four final narrative books.

In the Latter Writings, we gain tangible signs of kingdom hope. Daniel reiterates the promise of God’s universal kingdom: God reigns over every kingdom of the earth and will establish his kingdom over all through one like a son of man.

Esther details the preservation of God’s kingdom people through whom the Messiah would come; God would not let his kingdom promises die.

Ezra-Nehemiah stand as one book in Jesus’ Bible and together foreshadow the restoration of God’s kingdom people and land that was still to come.

Then, with a focus on the Davidic covenant, 1-2 Chronicles recaps in positive terms the purposes of God from Adam to Cyrus’ call for the Jews to return to Jerusalem, thus affirming Yahweh’s universal kingship and kingdom promises.

The Old Testament closes without all the promises having reached fulfillment and therefore the end demands a sequel–a sequel that ultimately comes in the New Testament. God’s reign over God’s people in God’s land. God will see his kingdom purposes accomplished. The old covenant is established in the Law, enforced in the Prophets, and enjoyed in the Writings. While the old covenant bore a ministry of condemnation, the Old Testament itself ends in hope and provides a foundation for the fulfillment found in Christ and the New Testament. In the whole, God reigns, saves, and satisfies through covenant for his glory in Christ.

T4G Guys Talk Evangelism + a New Book on Evangelism

John Piper, Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, Matt Chandler, David Platt, Thabiti Anyabwile, and Ligon Duncan sit down at length for a very stimulating and edifying conversation about evangelism through the local church:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The conference will be April 8-10, 2014, in Louisville.

Mack Stiles’ Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus new book on evangelism will be out in time for the T4G conference.

“Anyone who knows Mack Stiles knows he would find it difficult to be boring, even if he decided to be. The book you are holding incites Christians, not least pastors, to burn to see evangelism become part of the local church’s culture, a driving component of its spiritual DNA. This book is rich in practical implications, not despite its incessant focus on Jesus and the gospel, but precisely because of such focus. It deserves to be read, pondered, and implemented.”
—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“The best book on evangelism would be a book that gets right to the heart of the issue and that is written by one who is himself an evangelist. In other words, it would be this book. Mack Stiles is one of the most natural, effective, determined, indefatigable evangelists that I know. I would want to know what he thinks about evangelism, whether it comes in a conversation, a letter, or an entire book. In this short volume, Mack conducts a clear and biblical exploration of how church fellowship multiplies individual evangelism. Every reader will be inspired, encouraged, and equipped to be a congregational evangelist. For the sake of the church, the gospel, and the world, this book belongs at the top of your reading list.”
—R. Albert Mohler Jr., President and Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“God gifted Mack Stiles as an evangelist, and this book is the overflow of that gift. I know of few works that combine the theological rigor, pastoral wisdom, and personal experience that Mack packs into this short book. In places I was encouraged, in others challenged. I loved reading this book and recommend it heartily.”
—J. D. Greear, Lead Pastor, The Summit Church, Durham, North Carolina; author, Stop Asking Jesus into Your Heart: How to Know for Sure You Are Saved

“Mack Stiles writes about developing a culture of evangelism in a way that allows the reader to see it! We not only read the truth in this book, we drink in a vision for how our church families can live in a rich, dynamic way. This may be the shortest but most important book you ever read for the life of your church and the spread of the gospel.”
—Thabiti M. Anyabwile, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman; author, What Is a Healthy Church Member?

“The church’s ancient mission to make disciples of all nations is still our top priority today. Our need to be equipped in sharing our faith is undeniably urgent. This is a book about real people learning to share the good news about a real Messiah. It is instructive, encouraging, and compelling—you won’t want to wait to apply what you learn in these pages. And if anyone knows how to equip people to speak of Jesus, it’s Mack Stiles!”
—Gloria Furman, Pastor’s wife, Redeemer Church of Dubai; mother of four; author, Glimpses of Grace and Treasuring Christ When Your Hands Are Full

“I am genuinely excited about this book. Stiles’ books on evangelism are terrific because they combine practical help with theological maturity. And he actually practices what he prescribes.”
—Kevin DeYoung, Senior Pastor, University Reformed Church, East Lansing, Michigan

“Mack Stiles has written an outstanding book not just about sharing the gospel (though it is about that) or about being a personal evangelist (though it’s that, too). He’s written a book about how the local church actually helps us share the gospel—eases the burden, instructs, excites, cooperates. Read this little book and be encouraged!”
—Mark Dever, Senior Pastor, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington DC; President, 9Marks

“I read this engaging book in a single sitting because I was so taken by its content and spirit. Evangelism is a primer on how the Bible addresses the crucial subject of sharing the gospel. I anticipate its wide and enthusiastic reception.”
—Daniel L. Akin, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Plenty of books discuss individual evangelism. This one, however, zeroes in on an entire culture. Not methods or programs, but an ethos. Spread this book through your church and see what happens.”
—John Folmar, Senior Pastor, The United Church of Dubai

“This is a Christ-exalting, gospel-saturated book on evangelism unlike any other. Rather than giving you a personal methodology, it deeply motivates you to proclaim and bear the fruit of the revolutionary news of Jesus as a church body. And what makes it even more valuable is that I have seen Mack Stiles model the attitudinal culture he writes about on several continents to the glory of God. He is the most gifted evangelist I have seen God use (so far), bar none. Evangelism is a must read for every pastor and church member.”
—Richard Chin, National Director, Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students; South Pacific Regional Secretary, International Fellowship of Evangelical Students

“I love Mack Stiles’ vision of ‘a culture of evangelism’ permeating our churches. May God work powerfully to bring this vision to reality. This book both encourages and challenges, and, like Mack’s previous books, is a great gift and blessing to God’s people.”
—Randy Newman, Teaching Fellow, C. S. Lewis Institute; author, Questioning Evangelism, Corner Conversations, and Bringing the Gospel Home

“It did not take long for this book to become my favorite book on evangelism—in part because I could not put it down! The gospel is so clear and the help I received is so tangible. But let the reader count the cost. It may stir something within you that you cannot shake. I will now never be satisfied with anything less than cultivating a culture of evangelism in the church I pastor. I praise God for what he gave me through this book and I pray for more.”
—Jason C. Meyer, Pastor for Preaching and Vision, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota

“Imagine a local church where every member knows the gospel and walks in step with it, where all are concerned for unbelieving people, where it is natural for leaders and members to talk about evangelistic opportunities, and where members are regularly inviting unbelievers to read the Bible together or to attend small group Bible studies or Sunday services. If that sounds encouraging to you, then you’ll want to read this book and let Mack guide you step by step toward a culture of evangelism where evangelism is simply a natural outflow of the gospel life.”
—Juan R. Sanchez, Jr., Pastor, High Pointe Baptist Church, Austin, Texas

Rosaria Butterfield After Wheaton: Three Unbiblical Positions on Christianity and Homosexuality

Rosaria Butterfield—a lesbian English professor who hated Christianity and later became a Reformed pastor’s wife and told of the story in her book, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith—is fresh off of her return from Wheaton College, where 100 students protested her invitation to speak as implying that her testimony should be seen as normative. (You can read President Phil Ryken’s response here. You can also read an interview with Dr. Butterfield about her interactions with the students.)

As I write and speak today, 14 years have elapsed since my queer activist days. I’m a new creature in Christ, and my testimony is still like iodine on starch. I’m sensitive to three unbiblical points of view Christian communities harbor when they address the issue of Christianity and homosexuality. Everywhere I go, I confront all three.

1. The Freudian position. This position states same-sex attraction is a morally neutral and fixed part of the personal makeup and identity of some, that some are “gay Christians” and others are not. It’s true that temptation isn’t sin (though what you do with it may be); but that doesn’t give us biblical license to create an identity out of a temptation pattern. To do so is a recipe for disaster. This position comes directly from Sigmund Freud, who effectually replaced the soul with sexual identity as the singular defining characteristic of humanity. God wants our whole identities, not partitioned ones.

2. The revisionist heresy. This position declares that the Bible’s witness against homosexuality, replete throughout the Old and New Testaments, results from misreadings, mistranslations, and misapplications, and that Scripture doesn’t prohibit monogamous homosexual sexual relations, thereby embracing antinomianism and affirming gay marriage.

3. The reparative therapy heresy. This position contends a primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God’s gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ’s body and still struggle with sexual temptation. This heresy is a modern version of the prosperity gospel. Name it. Claim it. Pray the gay away.

Indeed, if you only read modern (post 19th-century) texts, it would rightly seem these are three viable options, not heresies. But I beg to differ.

Worldview matters. And if we don’t reach back before the 19th century, back to the Bible itself, the Westminster divines, and the Puritans, we will limp along, defeated. Yes, the Holy Spirit gives you a heart of flesh and the mind to understand and love the Lord and his Word. But without good reading practices even this redeemed heart grows flabby, weak, shaky, and ill. You cannot lose your salvation, but you can lose everything else.

Enter John Owen. Thomas Watson. Richard Baxter. Thomas Brooks. Jeremiah Burroughs. William Gurnall. The Puritans. They didn’t live in a world more pure than ours, but they helped create one that valued biblical literacy. Owen’s work on indwelling sin is the most liberating balm to someone who feels owned by sexual sin. You are what (and how) you read. J. C. Ryle said it takes the whole Bible to make a whole Christian. Why does sin lurk in the minds of believers as a law, demanding to be obeyed? How do we have victory if sin’s tentacles go so deep, if Satan knows our names and addresses? We stand on the ordinary means of grace: Scripture reading, prayer, worship, and the sacraments. We embrace the covenant of church membership for real accountability and community, knowing that left to our own devices we’ll either be led astray or become a danger to those we love most. We read our Bibles daily and in great chunks. We surround ourselves with a great cloud of witnesses who don’t fall prey to the same worldview snares we and our post-19th century cohorts do.

Invest: Your Gifts for His Mission

It has been a few years now since I began serving as one of the pastors at Grace Fellowship Church here in Toronto. When I was first ordained, and when I first accepted a full-time position, we had a list of functions we anticipated I would fill. Yet very quickly the church entered a time of transition where we went from church planting to a time of growth and rebuilding, and my role inevitably changed. I found myself taking on new responsibilities, many of which were executive in nature: tightening and formalizing structures and procedures, and caring for many of the “trellis” functions necessary to maintain a healthy “vine” (to borrow the helpful metaphor laid out in The Trellis & the Vine). I still preach and teach regularly, counsel, oversee the weekly prayer meeting, and run the young adults ministry, so I spend plenty of time pastoring people. But that executive work still has a substantial claim on my time.

Because of the nature of this work, I was excited when I learned about Invest: Your Gifts for His Mission by Sutton Turner, a book written about and for executive pastors. Turner serves as executive pastor at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, but prior to this he was in the business world for many years, working in Texas and the Middle East. The skills he gained there are skills he has now brought into the church.

There are three parts to the book. In Part One, Turner defends the very idea of the executive pastor and offers an “invitation for business professionals to invest in the church—not only with their money, but also with their time, energy, and experience.” He says, “The church needs men who are willing to walk away from their careers and work as paid executive pastors, and the church needs men who will keep working their day jobs and serve as volunteer executive pastors.” The big question for this first section is simply this: Are you called to be an executive pastor?

Part Two explores the role of the executive pastor. When Turner refers to this position, he refers to the second-in-charge function within the church, the person who serves as the lead pastor’s right-hand man.

Early in the book, he shows that in the Old Testament there are three offices of human leadership: prophets, priests, and kings and these roles carry to the New Testament through Jesus Christ. He believes these divisions can also explain how pastors with different skill sets and capacities can function within a local church:

To a prophet goes the work of proclaiming the news of the kingdom, so that more people can receive it and be baptized. He is the primary leader, the main Bible preacher, and the visionary. If a church has any paid employees, it’s the prophet. To a priest goes the work of caring for the people of the kingdom, making disciples, and teaching the family of God how to enjoy new life in Jesus. The priest is a counselor, a midweek class teacher, or a small groups leader. A church typically has more than one priest, usually serving as unpaid volunteers. To a king goes the work of managing the kingdom, wisely stewarding the resources God has provided so that the church can grow until eventually the good news reaches all nations. The king administrates all or some of church business and operations. At a small church, the king is probably a volunteer, while a larger church might employ multiple staff to cover kingly functions.

While he admits that he may be pushing the prophet, priest and king terminology a little too far, he does believe it is helpful in understanding how God equips men to carry out different ministries.

It is important to note that he defines the executive role in relation to the lead position. He compares “the lead pastor and the executive pastor to the CEO and COO of a company; the captain and first mate of a ship; the owner and coach of a football team; the president and provost of a university; and the ‘dreamer’ and the ‘schemer’ in an entrepreneurial partnership.”

What does this partnership between lead pastor and executive pastor actually look like? Through the book he offers many glimpses into his relationship with Mark Driscoll and with the pastors, staff, and congregation at Mars Hill.

His role is to do things the lead pastor can’t, won’t, or doesn’t have time to do.His role is to implement the lead pastor’s vision. “The general sense is that one leader charts the course and sets the vision while another works behind the scenes to make it happen.”His role is to do some of the lead pastor’s “dirty work” by playing the bad guy. He describes a role he had prior to Mars Hill: “When I was working with Pastor Joe, we had an understanding: If somebody came to him with a request, he would either say ‘yes,’ or he would direct them to me. ‘Ask Pastor Sutton’ was our code for ‘no.’ If somebody came up to me after talking to Pastor Joe, I knew that my job was to graciously decline whatever it was they were asking for. In this way, I helped guard my lead pastor’s time and energy. The nos drain a lot more than the yeses.”His role is to be the one who allows the lead pastor to “dump his bucket,” or blow off steam, since “otherwise, he’s likely to pour down on the congregation from the pulpit, which can be devastating for a church and harmful to the mission.”His role is to provide strengths that complement the lead pastor’s weaknesses: “Wherever the lead pastor struggles—be it with fundraising, management, leadership development, guest services, or marketing—that’s where the executive pastor must be strong.”His role is to do or to oversee the executive work in the church, which may involve real estate, policies, hiring and firing, being the “steward-in-chief,” and on and on.

Part Three is given to extended interviews with several executive pastors Turner admires and is eager to learn from. A few practical appendices close out the book.

I found Invest both helpful and troubling.

I found Invest helpful in its call to successful, trained and called businessmen to consider bringing their skills from the world of business to the local church. While men can certainly honor and glorify God in the workforce, their skills can also be very helpful within the local church. We are accustomed to telling successful businessmen like this that God wants their money, but maybe he wants more than that.

I found Invest helpful in the way it deals honestly and forthrightly with the fact that the executive function within a church truly is important and that as a church grows, it becomes a critical role. Many churches grow to a certain extent and then collapse because the “trellis” structures have not been built to withstand the weight of the “vine.” This may reflect poor stewardship, and I appreciate Turner’s emphasis on the behind-the-scenes work that allows the church to thrive. While this kind of role may reflect pragmatism or the direct assimilation of unbiblical practices from the business world, it does not have to.

I found Invest helpful in the way Turner shows that the executive role is a serving role. This may be a difficult pill to swallow for men who are coming from the dog-eat-dog world of big business, but it is exactly what God calls pastors to.

I found Invest unhelpful in several ways as well.

I found Invest unhelpful in Mark Driscoll’s foreword where he anticipates the inevitable critiques of this book and immediately cuts them off. “Dear Bible Guy, please don’t be yet another nerd who proof texts verses on lovers of money, lording it over like the Gentiles with curse words like ‘pragmatism’ and ‘it’s all about the numbers’ criticisms. Stop using God’s word as a defense to keep working the upper body and ignoring the legs. Your church body needs some legs just like ours.”

I found Invest unhelpful in that it deals exclusively with the most mega- of the mega-churches, making it difficult to apply to a smaller setting. The list of people Turner interviews and quotes are second-in-commands to Andy Stanley, Ed Young, James MacDonald, Rick Warren, Perry Noble, Bill Hybels, and so on. These are men whose churches are attended by thousands or tens of thousands and whose annual budgets are in the millions or tens of millions. It is difficult to know how the executive role may function in a church just a fraction of that size.

I found Invest unhelpful in that it tacitly suggests that big churches are better than smaller churches, that numerical growth is intrinsically good, and that the primary mission of every church is to grow from big to bigger. As I mentioned earlier, Driscoll anticipates this and immediately attempts to take it out of play, but I believe he is unfair in doing this.

I found Invest unhelpful in that I am not convinced that this model can function well in a church that practices eldership as I understand it—as a plurality of men with equal authority. Yes, there may be one man who is “greater among equals” through his role as the one who preaches and who offers vision and direction, but ultimately, Turner’s model presupposes a kind of leadership that places one man at the head and that builds itself around that one big personality.

I anticipate three groups of people who may wish to read this book: businessmen who are considering taking their skills from the corporation to the church, executive pastors who wish to gain new perspective on their work, and lead pastors who are interested in learning how an executive pastor could serve them and their church. Each of these people will find much to learn, but I would caution them to think carefully before adopting all of what Turner offers. There are plenty of good elements in this book, but they are mixed with quite a lot that is troubling as well.