The pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Tullian Tchividjian, has just published a book titled Jesus + Nothing = Everything. I know it's dangerous to write a post in reference to a book I haven't read, but Tchividjian has published enough material on his blog (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/) that I'm comfortable responding to his basic thesis about the nature of the gospel and Christian sanctification.
Tchividjian's thesis is that sanctification is nothing more than getting used to your justification. He teaches that the only way to grow in sanctification is to understand your justification better and that sanctification will automatically occur the more you learn to rest in Christ for justification. In response, I would say that while a growing grasp of justification is indeed foundational to sanctification, it is a mistake to say that justification is the only biblical motive for sanctification. What follows will not be an interactive critique of Tchividjian, but more of a positive statement of some of the issues at stake in this discussion.
The Nature of the Gospel
Tchividjian advances his thesis partly by identifying justification with the gospel. But, the gospel is not identical to justification. Justification is certainly very near to the heart of the gospel, and it is a sine qua non of the gospel, but the gospel is more than justification. The gospel is not only the message of Christ's work *for* us, but also of Christ's work *in* us (speaking here only of the gospel at the individual level, though there is certainly a corporate and global dimension to the gospel as well). Put differently, the gospel is not only the promise of justification to free us from the guilt of sin, but also the promise of sanctification to free us from the misery of sin. The gospel is not only the message that Christ is our Priest, but also the message that He is our Prophet and King who overrules the reign of sin within us. The good news is not that Christ is a paltry half-Savior who frees us from condemnation, but leaves us in our miserable sinful condition. Rather, the good news is that Christ frees us from our legal problem as well as our ontological problem.
The Law/Gospel Distinction
Part of the confusion about this distinction is that there are several ways to speak about it, all of which are valid.
1. Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant
This is a redemptive-historical way of speaking about the difference between law and gospel. On this way of speaking, the Mosaic Covenant is termed "law" because it made legal demands but did not provide any true or final way of forgiveness or redemption from sin, and because it did not provide any power to keep the demands of its own law. The New Covenant, on the other hand, does provide a way of redemption and forgiveness through Christ the mediator, and it provides power to keep the law because the law is no longer merely written on tablets of stone, but also on tablets of human hearts.
2. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace
On this way of speaking, the distinction between law and gospel is about the relationship of law-keeping to justification. Under the covenant of works, God said "do this and live," meaning, "Perfectly obey My commandments and you will be justified and have a right and title to eternal life." That's "law." But, the covenant of grace says, "live and do this to enjoy and experience life," meaning "Be justified and have a right and title to eternal life by faith alone because of Christ's righteousness alone, and in light of your justification imperfectly obey My commandments more and more to increase in the experience and enjoyment of the eternal life you already possess." That's "gospel." Notice that on this way of speaking, both law and gospel issue commands/instructions and promises. The difference is a matter of order, not the elements involved.
3. Command and Promise
On this way of speaking, every command or imperative is "law," and every promise of blessing or indicative is "gospel." The biblical commands to love, to keep the law, to enjoy God, and even to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are all "law." That is to say, they all require absolute, perfect, and inflexible obedience and therefore the Christian is doomed to failure in his efforts to obey any one of them absolutely. In that sense, none of them is "good news." They are the "law." The "gospel," on the other hand, is the good news that Jesus Christ kept every one of these commands perfectly in our place. He loved in our place, kept God's law in our place, enjoyed God in our place, and even believed God perfectly in our place. All of Christ's commandment-keeping procures for us an external righteousness, which is promised to us in the gospel for our justification. But, Christ's righteousness not only procures the gospel-promise of justification, it is also the legal basis of God's sending the Holy Spirit to sanctify us, which is His gospel-promise to change us to become more like Christ for our joy and His glory. Christ's righteousness justifies us *and* causes us to keep the commandments more and more (though imperfectly): to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, love, keep the law, and enjoy God.
The Law/Gospel Harmony
It should be clear by now that the law and the gospel are not at all enemies, but close friends. The law of God shows us our guilt and drives us to Christ for our justification in the gospel. Justification in the gospel, in turn, points us back to the law as our "rule of walking" as the means by which we may increasingly enjoy God and by which He glorifies His great grace poured out within us. The law exposes our need for the gospel. But, the end or goal of the gospel is that we would be conformed more and more to the law. So, the law and the gospel "do sweetly comply."
God's View of Believers' Sin and Obedience
In light of all this, how does God view believers when they sin and when they obey? We need to distinguish between the "legal" relationship to God as Judge and the "filial" relationship to God as Father.
First, in terms of the legal relationship, because of justification, God legally regards and treats believers like they are righteous, even though they are not ever truly righteous. Therefore, when believers sin, their standing before God is perfectly "righteous" and they are pleasing to God the Judge, no matter what they do.
But second, in terms of the filial relationship, God the Father accepts our imperfect (damnable) obedience in Christ, and our obedience pleases Him, even though it is imperfect and detestable in terms of strict justice. It's like a child bringing his parent a drawing and the parent being pleased with it, even though on terms of strict artistic quality, the drawing is ugly.
Just as the believer's obedience pleases the Father, the believer's sin displeases the Father. But, our sin doesn't displease our Father because it offends His justice (that's taken care of in justification; there is no more legal offense); rather, a believer's sin displeases God because it disrupts the believer's fellowship with his Heavenly Father. The Father is displeased with our sin because it causes us grief and because it inhibits both our enjoyment of Him and His Fatherly enjoyment of us.
Motives to Obedience
One final point that needs to be made has to do with the motives to obedience in the Christian life. The Bible provides many such motives. It teaches that we should obey God to please God, from the fear of God, because God the Creator and Sovereign is absolute authority, for the blessings of joy in God that come from obedience, because our disobedience displeases a holy God, because the angels are watching, etc. And, that is just a sample of some of the motives the Bible mentions.
The point to make is this. Each of the motives previously mentioned would have worked to motivate pre-fall Adam. That is, by themselves, each of those motives could have been fully functional in the covenant of works, apart from the mediation of Christ. Therefore, none of those motives may be preached to the believer without or apart from reference to justification by faith alone because of Christ alone.
On the other hand, in light of and on the basis of Christ's righteousness freely imputed to all who trust Him, all other biblical motives to obedience *become* gospel motives. Therefore, justification is not the only motive to Christian sanctification, contra Tchividjian, but it is the fundamental motive and the motive necessary to make all the other motives truly sanctifying.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Grace and Merit – Later Reformed Orthodoxy
In the previous post, we saw that John Calvin deplored the term “merit” and generally preferred not to use it because he believed it implied that creatures can do good works independently of their Creator. But, later Reformed theologians were not so reluctant. The concept of merit is expressed in Romans 4:4, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” Scripture also teaches that good works in justification would be meritorious: “If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about” (Rom 4:2). Abraham would be able to “boast,” if justification was his “due,” that is, if he “merited” his justification by "works."
So, what of Calvin's contention that providentially determined good works cannot be “meritorious” because they are gifts of God? Compatibilism is the doctrine that providentially determined works are “compatible” with moral blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. In other words, though God's providence determines the works of human beings (whether good or bad), human beings are responsible for their works and either merit reward or de-merit penalty. So, contrary to Calvin's belief that a creature's dependence on God eliminates the possibility of merit, the opposite is actually true. It is precisely because God the Lawgiver determines the acts of His moral agents that they are held responsible (blameworthy or praiseworthy) for what they do. For an excellent treatment of compatibilism, see Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will.
Let's apply compatibilism to Adam in the garden-covenant of works. All of Adam's works were providentially determined by God, and yet, all of Adam's works in the garden were responsible, such that he would deserve condemnation for sin and reward for obedience. Some don't like the idea that Adam could deserve a reward from God because they think it allows the creature to obligate or coerce the Creator. But, God *wants* to delight in and reward that which is good and penalize that which is bad. It is God's nature to love good and hate evil. To assert that He must do so does not trap God in His own creation or make Him dependent on men. Rather, it is simply to insist that God must be God.
Now, apply compatibilism to Christ in His obedience to the covenant of redemption. Where Adam failed in God's providence, Christ succeeded in God's providence. Though the acts of Christ's human nature were providentially determined, He was responsible for what He did. Christ's good works (in life and unto death) pleased a good God and merited the reward for all who are in Him. God "had to" reward Christ for His goodness, but He "had to" because He "wanted to" because He is good.
So, what of the rest of fallen humankind? The actions of fallen human beings in Adam are providentially determined (Prov 16:9; 21:1; Jer 10:23; Eph 1:11). But, they don't merit anything from God because they don't do anything good: “There is none who does good” (Rom 3:12). Instead, their providentially determined sinful actions can only de-merit the penalty of death: “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).
What, then, of the providentially determined actions of believers in Christ? The providentially determined sins of those in Christ cannot de-merit condemnation because Christ paid the penalty for their de-merit (Rom 8:1). But, Christ's merits also purchased good works to be produced within those who are in Him. So, are the providentially determined good works of those in Christ meritorious? Absolutely not! Christ has already “filled-up” divine justice with His merit; so, there is no room for any more merit. Those in Christ are “under” Christ's perfect merit, and the good works in them simply flow from Christ's already perfect merit. Therefore, the good works of those in Christ are not in themselves meritorious but are gifts of God's grace, which are free to us, but meritoriously costly to Christ.
So, here we see that in later Reformed orthodoxy, grace is built upon merit. Providentially determined merit is the foundation of providentially determined grace. God's providential determination is not only the foundation of grace. It is also the foundation of both merit and de-merit, which are more fundamental than grace.
This means that grace does not flow to us directly from the divine decree and through divine providence. Rather, grace flows to us through the merits of Jesus Christ.
So, what of Calvin's contention that providentially determined good works cannot be “meritorious” because they are gifts of God? Compatibilism is the doctrine that providentially determined works are “compatible” with moral blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. In other words, though God's providence determines the works of human beings (whether good or bad), human beings are responsible for their works and either merit reward or de-merit penalty. So, contrary to Calvin's belief that a creature's dependence on God eliminates the possibility of merit, the opposite is actually true. It is precisely because God the Lawgiver determines the acts of His moral agents that they are held responsible (blameworthy or praiseworthy) for what they do. For an excellent treatment of compatibilism, see Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will.
Let's apply compatibilism to Adam in the garden-covenant of works. All of Adam's works were providentially determined by God, and yet, all of Adam's works in the garden were responsible, such that he would deserve condemnation for sin and reward for obedience. Some don't like the idea that Adam could deserve a reward from God because they think it allows the creature to obligate or coerce the Creator. But, God *wants* to delight in and reward that which is good and penalize that which is bad. It is God's nature to love good and hate evil. To assert that He must do so does not trap God in His own creation or make Him dependent on men. Rather, it is simply to insist that God must be God.
Now, apply compatibilism to Christ in His obedience to the covenant of redemption. Where Adam failed in God's providence, Christ succeeded in God's providence. Though the acts of Christ's human nature were providentially determined, He was responsible for what He did. Christ's good works (in life and unto death) pleased a good God and merited the reward for all who are in Him. God "had to" reward Christ for His goodness, but He "had to" because He "wanted to" because He is good.
So, what of the rest of fallen humankind? The actions of fallen human beings in Adam are providentially determined (Prov 16:9; 21:1; Jer 10:23; Eph 1:11). But, they don't merit anything from God because they don't do anything good: “There is none who does good” (Rom 3:12). Instead, their providentially determined sinful actions can only de-merit the penalty of death: “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).
What, then, of the providentially determined actions of believers in Christ? The providentially determined sins of those in Christ cannot de-merit condemnation because Christ paid the penalty for their de-merit (Rom 8:1). But, Christ's merits also purchased good works to be produced within those who are in Him. So, are the providentially determined good works of those in Christ meritorious? Absolutely not! Christ has already “filled-up” divine justice with His merit; so, there is no room for any more merit. Those in Christ are “under” Christ's perfect merit, and the good works in them simply flow from Christ's already perfect merit. Therefore, the good works of those in Christ are not in themselves meritorious but are gifts of God's grace, which are free to us, but meritoriously costly to Christ.
So, here we see that in later Reformed orthodoxy, grace is built upon merit. Providentially determined merit is the foundation of providentially determined grace. God's providential determination is not only the foundation of grace. It is also the foundation of both merit and de-merit, which are more fundamental than grace.
This means that grace does not flow to us directly from the divine decree and through divine providence. Rather, grace flows to us through the merits of Jesus Christ.
Monday, July 04, 2011
Grace and Merit – John Calvin
The Reformed tradition does not agree on how to understand the relationship between “grace” and “merit.” Merit is about the value of actions. A meritorious action is an act to which God owes a reward. More precisely, a meritorious human action is a good work that justly requires a holy God to reward it. Conversely, “grace” is a reward God gives to someone who has not merited it. It is a gift God freely gives to someone who not deserve it.
Calvin deplored the term “merit” because he believed it an unnecessary philosophical addition to the teaching of Scripture. He abhorred the idea that a creature could merit anything from God because that would imply that the creature is independent of the Creator. The good works of human beings do not originate from themselves. Rather, the good works human beings do are themselves grace gifts of God. Therefore, human beings can never be said to merit anything by their good works. The rewards God gives to good works are, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, “grace upon grace.”
One interesting implication of Calvin's denial of merit is that there is no reason to exclude human works from justification. Now, Calvin did clearly exclude human works from justification and affirmed imputed righteousness along with its corollary: faith alone. But, if good works are gifts of God's grace and have no merit in themselves, then it is not necessary to exclude them from justification in order to retain the gracious character of justification. Perhaps this is why Calvin didn't fault Augustine too much for holding exactly that viewpoint. What Calvin opposed was the Roman Catholic notion of meritorious human works in justification, which human beings independently added to God's grace.
But, there are a few questions that emerge from Calvin's view. First, if human beings cannot merit anything before God, then should we also deny that the human nature of Christ merited eternal life by His righteousness? Second, if human beings cannot merit anything before God by their good works, then why is it important to deny a place to good works in justification? Third, if the good works of human beings cannot merit reward from God, then why should we affirm that the sins of human beings de-merit a penalty from God? This third question leads to some controversial matters, but Calvin taught that the creature is never independent of the Creator, even when the creature sins. And, if the creature is dependent upon the Creator, even when he sins, then how can the creature de-merit a penalty from God as if his sins originated independently of God?
In another post, we'll examine some developments in later Reformed Orthodoxy that sought to answer the questions above.
Calvin deplored the term “merit” because he believed it an unnecessary philosophical addition to the teaching of Scripture. He abhorred the idea that a creature could merit anything from God because that would imply that the creature is independent of the Creator. The good works of human beings do not originate from themselves. Rather, the good works human beings do are themselves grace gifts of God. Therefore, human beings can never be said to merit anything by their good works. The rewards God gives to good works are, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, “grace upon grace.”
One interesting implication of Calvin's denial of merit is that there is no reason to exclude human works from justification. Now, Calvin did clearly exclude human works from justification and affirmed imputed righteousness along with its corollary: faith alone. But, if good works are gifts of God's grace and have no merit in themselves, then it is not necessary to exclude them from justification in order to retain the gracious character of justification. Perhaps this is why Calvin didn't fault Augustine too much for holding exactly that viewpoint. What Calvin opposed was the Roman Catholic notion of meritorious human works in justification, which human beings independently added to God's grace.
But, there are a few questions that emerge from Calvin's view. First, if human beings cannot merit anything before God, then should we also deny that the human nature of Christ merited eternal life by His righteousness? Second, if human beings cannot merit anything before God by their good works, then why is it important to deny a place to good works in justification? Third, if the good works of human beings cannot merit reward from God, then why should we affirm that the sins of human beings de-merit a penalty from God? This third question leads to some controversial matters, but Calvin taught that the creature is never independent of the Creator, even when the creature sins. And, if the creature is dependent upon the Creator, even when he sins, then how can the creature de-merit a penalty from God as if his sins originated independently of God?
In another post, we'll examine some developments in later Reformed Orthodoxy that sought to answer the questions above.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
What Does it Mean to Love Christ?
Adapted from Holiness by J.C. Ryle.
The answer to this question is no different from what it means to love anyone. What does it mean to love your husband or wife, or to love a parent or a child, or to love a good friend? Love to Christ is not substantially different from love for any person.
If we love Christ, we like to think about Him. He is often present in our thoughts. It is that way between a true Christian and Christ. Eph 3:17 says that Christ “dwells in his heart.” True Christians think thoughts of Christ.
If we love Christ, we like to hear about Him. We find pleasure in listening to those who speak about Christ. True Christians most enjoy sermons that are full of Christ, and they enjoy the company of those who speak of Christ. “Did not our hearts burn within us, while He talked with us on the road, while He opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32)?
If we love Christ, we like to read about Him. The true Christian delights in the Scriptures because they speak of Christ. It is not wearisome to read a letter from a loved one. “You search the Scriptures . . . it is they that bear witness about Me” (Jn 5:39).
If we love Christ, we like to please Him. We are happy to find out what He likes and what He dislikes. We are willing to deny ourselves to please Him. To someone who loves Christ, the Ten Commandments are not burdensome, if they are what pleases Him. “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15); “And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:3).
If we love Christ, we like His friends. Even before we meet a friend of a friend, we are inclined to like him. True Christians regard all other Christians as friends because they are friends of the Lord Jesus Christ. “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15).
If we love Christ, we are jealous about His name and honor. We do not like to hear anyone speak against Him. We feel jealous to maintain His interests and reputation. “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
If we love Christ, we talk to Him. The true Christian has no difficulty in speaking to his Savior. We tell Him all our thoughts. We have no hesitation about telling Him anything that is on our mind. We are not happy until we have spoken our minds and hearts to our friend. We ask for comfort in difficulty. “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:6-7).
Finally, if we love Christ, we like to be with Him. Thinking, hearing, and talking are all important, but if we really love a person, we want to be near him. The true Christian wants to hold communion with Christ without interruption. The true Christian longs for that day when he will see Christ face to face. “Surely I am coming soon. Amen! Come Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20)!
These are the marks of true love. It is no hidden or secret thing that is hard to understand.
The answer to this question is no different from what it means to love anyone. What does it mean to love your husband or wife, or to love a parent or a child, or to love a good friend? Love to Christ is not substantially different from love for any person.
If we love Christ, we like to think about Him. He is often present in our thoughts. It is that way between a true Christian and Christ. Eph 3:17 says that Christ “dwells in his heart.” True Christians think thoughts of Christ.
If we love Christ, we like to hear about Him. We find pleasure in listening to those who speak about Christ. True Christians most enjoy sermons that are full of Christ, and they enjoy the company of those who speak of Christ. “Did not our hearts burn within us, while He talked with us on the road, while He opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32)?
If we love Christ, we like to read about Him. The true Christian delights in the Scriptures because they speak of Christ. It is not wearisome to read a letter from a loved one. “You search the Scriptures . . . it is they that bear witness about Me” (Jn 5:39).
If we love Christ, we like to please Him. We are happy to find out what He likes and what He dislikes. We are willing to deny ourselves to please Him. To someone who loves Christ, the Ten Commandments are not burdensome, if they are what pleases Him. “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15); “And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:3).
If we love Christ, we like His friends. Even before we meet a friend of a friend, we are inclined to like him. True Christians regard all other Christians as friends because they are friends of the Lord Jesus Christ. “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15).
If we love Christ, we are jealous about His name and honor. We do not like to hear anyone speak against Him. We feel jealous to maintain His interests and reputation. “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
If we love Christ, we talk to Him. The true Christian has no difficulty in speaking to his Savior. We tell Him all our thoughts. We have no hesitation about telling Him anything that is on our mind. We are not happy until we have spoken our minds and hearts to our friend. We ask for comfort in difficulty. “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:6-7).
Finally, if we love Christ, we like to be with Him. Thinking, hearing, and talking are all important, but if we really love a person, we want to be near him. The true Christian wants to hold communion with Christ without interruption. The true Christian longs for that day when he will see Christ face to face. “Surely I am coming soon. Amen! Come Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20)!
These are the marks of true love. It is no hidden or secret thing that is hard to understand.
Friday, May 13, 2011
What was Adam's Sin in the Garden?
We're all familiar with the fact that Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But, was that his only sin? Eating from the forbidden tree only violated a "positive law," which is a law that could have been something else and is not itself "moral."
But, think of all the moral laws Adam broke when he ate from the tree.
He broke the first and second commandment: You shall have no other gods before Me. And, no idols. By eating of the tree, Adam valued something over God and idolized the devil's false promise.
He broke the third commandment: You shall not take (or carry) God's name in vain. When Adam ate from the tree, he profaned God's name and reputation.
He broke the fourth commandment: Six days you shall work, but the seventh is the Sabbath. Whether Adam sinned on a workday or the Sabbath day, his sin violated the fourth command. If it was a workday, Adam was living idly and was distracted in the pursuit of something he should not have been pursuing. If it was the Sabbath day, Adam was not resting by faith in God, and he was not worshipping God as God required, but was pursuing a false form of worship.
He broke the fifth commandment: Honor your father and mother is about obeying authorities. God was Adam's father (Lk 3:38) and Adam directly disobeyed God's command.
He broke the sixth commandment: Do not murder. Adam watched as Eve murdered herself (by eating the fruit) and he murdered himself by eating the fruit.
He broke the seventh commandment: Do not commit adultery. Instead of defending, leading, protecting, and seeking the good of his wife, he and his wife both pursued satisfaction in an idol. This violates the positive aspect of the command, which relates to marital fidelity.
He broke the eighth commandment: Do not steal. God did not give Adam the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve stole the fruit.
He broke the ninth commandment: Do not bear false witness. Adam's silence while Eve ate the fruit was pure deception. Adam refused to tell the truth to Eve in the moment she needed to hear it.
He broke the tenth commandment: Do not covet. Adam was not grateful for the Garden, for his wife, for life, or for sweet communion with God in the cool of the day. He was not content with what God had given him, but instead coveted godhood. Adam wanted to be God; so, he believed the devil's lie.
Adam broke each of the Ten Commandments when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”
But, think of all the moral laws Adam broke when he ate from the tree.
He broke the first and second commandment: You shall have no other gods before Me. And, no idols. By eating of the tree, Adam valued something over God and idolized the devil's false promise.
He broke the third commandment: You shall not take (or carry) God's name in vain. When Adam ate from the tree, he profaned God's name and reputation.
He broke the fourth commandment: Six days you shall work, but the seventh is the Sabbath. Whether Adam sinned on a workday or the Sabbath day, his sin violated the fourth command. If it was a workday, Adam was living idly and was distracted in the pursuit of something he should not have been pursuing. If it was the Sabbath day, Adam was not resting by faith in God, and he was not worshipping God as God required, but was pursuing a false form of worship.
He broke the fifth commandment: Honor your father and mother is about obeying authorities. God was Adam's father (Lk 3:38) and Adam directly disobeyed God's command.
He broke the sixth commandment: Do not murder. Adam watched as Eve murdered herself (by eating the fruit) and he murdered himself by eating the fruit.
He broke the seventh commandment: Do not commit adultery. Instead of defending, leading, protecting, and seeking the good of his wife, he and his wife both pursued satisfaction in an idol. This violates the positive aspect of the command, which relates to marital fidelity.
He broke the eighth commandment: Do not steal. God did not give Adam the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve stole the fruit.
He broke the ninth commandment: Do not bear false witness. Adam's silence while Eve ate the fruit was pure deception. Adam refused to tell the truth to Eve in the moment she needed to hear it.
He broke the tenth commandment: Do not covet. Adam was not grateful for the Garden, for his wife, for life, or for sweet communion with God in the cool of the day. He was not content with what God had given him, but instead coveted godhood. Adam wanted to be God; so, he believed the devil's lie.
Adam broke each of the Ten Commandments when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The American Mind
Have you ever wondered why intellectual childhood is prolonged in our culture? Has it ever bothered you that fully grown adults are so susceptible to advertisements and the suggestions of mass media? Do you find it disturbing that many educated people are unable to follow logical arguments and speak to the question at hand, or that irrelevant material crops up in committee meetings, or that people regularly fail both to define their terms and stick to those definitions? Why do young people forget most of what they learned in school?
In her classic essay, The Lost Tools of Learning, Dorothy Sayers raised many such questions and offered an obvious solution based on the history of education. Schools stopped teaching students how to think and how to learn for themselves in favor of making them memorize information. Educators stopped emphasizing the “method” of learning in favor of teaching “subjects” in hermetically sealed compartments. The result is that students who are most capable of memorization finish school with heads full of data, but their minds are not equipped to process, question, analyze, and draw conclusions about information. The social effect of such education is a public that is generally incapable of thinking clearly and critically about life. But, it was not always this way.
Dorothy Sayers reminds us that classical schools emphasized the “Trivium,” which is designed to teach students how to think, how to learn for themselves, and to become lifelong learners who love books and love learning. The Trivium is a three stage method of education that follows the normal course of childhood development.
When children are very young, their minds are like little sponges. They are most suited at this developmental stage to absorb large amounts of raw information. Classical education takes advantage of this by teaching them the grammar, or basic facts, of language, history, science, and math. This is called the grammar stage of the Trivium.
When they reach early adolescence, children begin to argue with their parents and to challenge the things they are told. At this stage of development, they are prepared to study formal logic. In the logic stage of the Trivium, they learn the rules of right thinking, logical fallacies, and are taught how to process information properly, to make fine distinctions, and to get behind the mere data to the presuppositions and philosophy underlying school subjects such as math, science, history, language, etc. No longer are students merely handed information on a platter to be stored in memory, but they are taught to think about what foundations undergird the information, the logical consistency of the information, and the logical implications of the information. Furthermore, the various subjects are integrated so that it is shown how science relates to history, how math relates to art, how science relates to literature, and so on. Our world is one great unified creation, the product of one divine mind. We need to be taught to think about all of it wholistically and in light of the total Christian world-and-life-view.
In their later years of schooling, youth become most concerned about appearances, what others think about them, and how they present themselves. Now, they are prepared to learn how to present their thoughts in ways that are attractive to others. They are ready to learn the art of beautiful communication from the best classic literary communicators of history. They are taught to write well, speak well, and read good books. It isn't enough to know the facts or to process the facts. They need to be taught how to communicate winsomely. This is called the rhetoric stage of the Trivium.
The Bible commands, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition” (Col 2:8), and Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Classical Christian Education aims to help train children and young people to do this. This is the vision of Cornerstone Classical Christian Academy, which was born out of the vision of Morningview Baptist Church. I commend Cornerstone to your consideration for the education of your children.
In her classic essay, The Lost Tools of Learning, Dorothy Sayers raised many such questions and offered an obvious solution based on the history of education. Schools stopped teaching students how to think and how to learn for themselves in favor of making them memorize information. Educators stopped emphasizing the “method” of learning in favor of teaching “subjects” in hermetically sealed compartments. The result is that students who are most capable of memorization finish school with heads full of data, but their minds are not equipped to process, question, analyze, and draw conclusions about information. The social effect of such education is a public that is generally incapable of thinking clearly and critically about life. But, it was not always this way.
Dorothy Sayers reminds us that classical schools emphasized the “Trivium,” which is designed to teach students how to think, how to learn for themselves, and to become lifelong learners who love books and love learning. The Trivium is a three stage method of education that follows the normal course of childhood development.
When children are very young, their minds are like little sponges. They are most suited at this developmental stage to absorb large amounts of raw information. Classical education takes advantage of this by teaching them the grammar, or basic facts, of language, history, science, and math. This is called the grammar stage of the Trivium.
When they reach early adolescence, children begin to argue with their parents and to challenge the things they are told. At this stage of development, they are prepared to study formal logic. In the logic stage of the Trivium, they learn the rules of right thinking, logical fallacies, and are taught how to process information properly, to make fine distinctions, and to get behind the mere data to the presuppositions and philosophy underlying school subjects such as math, science, history, language, etc. No longer are students merely handed information on a platter to be stored in memory, but they are taught to think about what foundations undergird the information, the logical consistency of the information, and the logical implications of the information. Furthermore, the various subjects are integrated so that it is shown how science relates to history, how math relates to art, how science relates to literature, and so on. Our world is one great unified creation, the product of one divine mind. We need to be taught to think about all of it wholistically and in light of the total Christian world-and-life-view.
In their later years of schooling, youth become most concerned about appearances, what others think about them, and how they present themselves. Now, they are prepared to learn how to present their thoughts in ways that are attractive to others. They are ready to learn the art of beautiful communication from the best classic literary communicators of history. They are taught to write well, speak well, and read good books. It isn't enough to know the facts or to process the facts. They need to be taught how to communicate winsomely. This is called the rhetoric stage of the Trivium.
The Bible commands, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition” (Col 2:8), and Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Classical Christian Education aims to help train children and young people to do this. This is the vision of Cornerstone Classical Christian Academy, which was born out of the vision of Morningview Baptist Church. I commend Cornerstone to your consideration for the education of your children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
