Saturday, December 29, 2007
Contrary to that antinomian (against the law) vision of Christianity, Christ teaches that the only one who will enter the kingdom of heaven is "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:23). And, God's "will" is not limited to "faith alone," but includes faith, repentance, love, and good works of faithful obedience to God's law. Mark 13:13 says, "The one who endures to the end will be saved." Christ said that the man whose house stands is the one who "hears my words and does them" (Luke 6:46). In context, this "doing" of Christ's words cannot be reduced to the act of "faith alone," but includes a robust godliness (Luke 6:20-45). Christ very pointedly told the disciples "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love" (John 15:10).
The epistles are full of such admonition. 1 Corinthians 10:12 says, "Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands, take heed lest he fall." Then again in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 2 Corinthians 5:10 says, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." In Galatians, Paul warns us, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6). Later in the same letter, Paul wrote, "For the one who sows to his own flesh, will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" (Galatians 6:8).
In the book of Hebrews, we find many warnings that teach us of the necessity of perseverance for the experience of eternal live. "For we share in Christ, if we hold fast our original confidence firm to the end" (Hebrews 3:14). "Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear, lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it" (Hebrews 4:1). "Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience" (Hebrews 4:11). "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:9). "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for our sins but a fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26). "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).
The book of Revelation too, warns us that we must be overcomers in order to inherit the promised future blessing. "To the one who conquers, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7). "Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Revelation 2:10). "The one who conquers, I will grant to sit with my on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne" (Revelation 3:21).
Finally, "The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son, but as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:7-8).
1. Iain Murray, DM Lloyd-Jones (2 vols.)
2. Faith Cook, Grimshaw of Haworth
3. Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore (Adoniram Judson)
4. Timothy George, Faithful Witness (W Carey)
5. Andrew Fuller, Memoirs of Samuel Pearce
6. A Dallimore, George Whitefield (2 vols.)
7. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo
8. George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards
9. Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards
I would only add Charles Spurgeon's 2 volume autobiography and the missionary John Paton's autobiography.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Hebrews 10 says Christians are to stir one another up to good deeds, “not forsaking our own assembling together” (v. 25). But, what does that mean? The key term “forsaking” translates the GK word egkataleipontes (pres act ptc nom pl masc), which is from the lexical root egkataleipo. According to Mounce, the term is rightly glossed to read “to leave, to leave behind, to forsake, and abandon.” BDAG says it means “to separate connection with someone or something., forsake, abandon, desert.” Kohlenberger adds “to give up.”
The writer to the Hebrews uses the word only one other time. Hebrews 13:5 says, “God has said, Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” The word “leave” does not have the same finality as “forsake.” The idea of “forsaking” carries the notion of total abandonment. Paul uses the term in 2 Tim 4:10 and 4:16 to speak of those who totally abandoned him. “For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica” (2 Tim 4:10). “At my first defense, no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me” (2 Tim 4:16). Therefore, the GK term translated "forsake" in Hebrews 10:25 means that the believer must not abandon the Christian assembly.
In conclusion, this text does not mean that a person must come to the assembly every time the doors are open. Rather, it means that we must not “abandon” the assembly. But, what does that mean? Is the notion of abandonment purely subjective? If people come regularly for Christmas and Easter every year, have they “abandoned” the assembly? What if they come once a month and never more, but they come consistently every month? How do we know when someone has abandoned the assembly? Is it purely subjective? I submit that unless we have a clear doctrine of the Sabbath, then we have no objective measure by which to decide what “forsake” means. I would argue that to “forsake” the assembly means unrepentantly breaking the Sabbath (which includes exceptions for acts of mercy, piety, and necessity: Matt 12).
Thesis: The "one in seven" day “rest” (Heb: shabbath) is moral law and thus perpetually binds all human beings at all times.
This is evidenced first of all in that it is a creation ordinance (Gen 2:1-2) and not a law instituted after the fall for the purpose of typifying Christ. Therefore, Christ cannot be said to "fulfill" and abrogate it the way He fulfills and abrogates the ceremonial laws. Rather, Jesus fulfills the Sabbath command in the same way He fulfills the rest of the Decalogue - He is the perfect picture of Sabbath keeping and He brings the Old Testament Sabbath to redemptive historical maturity. So, Christians are to keep the Sabbath day in light of Christ and as it comes to us through His hands.
Secondly, the Hebrews kept the Sabbath before God gave the Mosaic law (Exod 16:30); thus, any abrogation of the Mosaic covenant cannot imply the abrogation of the Sabbath command itself because the Sabbath is not merely a "Mosaic law."
Thirdly, the clear NT abrogation of the Jewish ceremonial Sabbath (Rom 14:5; Gal 4:10; Col 2:16) does not imply the abrogation of the "one in seven" day “Shabbath,” i.e., rest (Gen 2:1-2; Exod 20:8-11), which is the essence of the eternal and moral law of the Sabbath. The substance of the Sabbath is not "adiaphorous" or an arbitrary "positive law," but a reflection of God's own character, which enjoys both "work and rest."
Fourthly, Christ has fulfilled the Jewish ceremonial Sabbath and we thereby have rest from the guilt and power of our sins by resting in Him and by freedom from the rigor of that ritualistic code, but there remains a Sabbath day rest for Christians because though our salvation is "already" it is "not yet" completed. Hence, Christian Sabbath (the term means “rest” not “Saturday”) observance on "one day out of seven" (Exod 20:8-11; Deut 5:13-14) in remembrance of the resurrection of Christ and in anticipation of heaven on the Lord's Day is wholly appropriate and obligatory for the NT saint. This is the apostolic example (Acts 20:7).
Fifthly, the underlying principle of the Sabbath command is permanent and thus will never be abolished, even in heaven (Rev 1:10). The principle behind the fourth command includes both work and rest. For all eternity, the redeemed of Christ will be at rest in Him, free from the toil and labor of work, which is a curse of the fall, but the redeemed in heaven will work, enjoying the tasks lovingly assigned by their Lord (Rev 22:5). Thus, those in heaven will keep the Sabbath command for all eternity.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Often God's Fatherly discipline exposes our sin and brings it out into the open, as in the case of David, and strips us of our idols by painful force. Perhaps David's idol was his high and exalted status as king. He was of such standing in the sight of the people that he felt free to remain home while his armies were at war. David felt free to order Bathsheba to come to him and to have her for himself. He was on a power trip and he felt he had the approval rating to sustain it. But, his lofty status and widely popular approval likely plummeted when his sins were made public for all to see. David wasn't as great as many thought. David's over-blown self-image was ripped away from him by force through God's gracious discipline for David's own good.
So, how should Christians be motivated by God's corrective discipline? We should think about the fact that our sins will either be mortified and godliness vivified through willing application to Christ or our sins will be painfully ripped away from us by discipline. Either way, God will sanctify us. Which way will you grow? Will it be through faithful application to the cross of Christ, or will God expose your sins and will your idols be ripped from you by God's merciful discipline?
The sanctified heart is overwhelmed and motivated by grace. The one who lives by faith in Christ is increasingly stripped of pride because he knows there is no way to pay for his own sins and there is nothing he can do to merit favor from God. He is humbled into the dust and motivated by faith in Jesus Christ and all that Christ is. All his works are like filthy rags for justification, though he knows that his works of faith and love to God are made acceptable in and through Christ. The one who is motivated by grace works to imitate Christ because Christ has won his affections! His costly love was manifested in his life, death, and resurrection, and the one who looks to Christ longs to emulate him. Christ captures the heart of the believer. All that Christ has done, is doing, and will do to shower us with love and grace proves to us that he really does love us. Scripture says that we love God (and thus obey him) because he first loved us! The Bible teaches that those who understand how much they are forgiven love (and thus obey) much! It is the kindness of God that leads us to daily repentance. God's consistent, steady and powerful love convinces us that his merciful instructions really are for our own good and for God's own glory. Our good works of evangelical obedience and worship don’t glorify God because they are in themselves glorious, worthy, or meritorious in any sense (they are too imperfect for that). Rather, they glorify God because they flow from a humble heart of faith in Christ, who is in himself glorious. They glorify God because they display the Spirit’s free and gracious work in us, which was purchased and applied by Christ’s righteousness, and they glorify God because we cannot claim that there is any merit or absolute worthiness (for justification) in them.
There are basically three positions on the distinction bewtween the law and the gospel: (1) antinomianism, (2) legalism, and (3) law-gospel balance.
These three categories are not completely distinct, but are the main points along a continuum of beliefs. There are intermediate and overlapping views, but these three will provide us with a good sense of the issues at stake. Obviously my outlining of these categories is biased toward what I think “balanced” means; so, the reader will have to judge whether or not I’m right.
The law-gospel distinction relates both to justification and sanctification, and the errors at the extremes (antinomianism and legalism) are the result of mixing and confusing justification and sanctification.
ANTINOMIANISM: The law is bad and the gospel is good.
Antinomianism teaches that there is a radical separation between the law and the gospel in both justification and sanctification. According to Antinomianism, the gospel is that we are under no obligation whatsoever, and that it is in fact wrong, to obey the law for our sanctification. Antinomians believe that all of God’s commands are law, and the law serves only to kill us and show us our need of Christ. We must renounce the way of the law and embrace the way of the gospel. The gospel shows us that Christ's work alone pleases God and that no Christian good works are pleasing to God. Therefore, God simply requires that we believe (passively and restingly) in what Christ has already done for us. Pure antinomianism teaches that genuinely saved people can live their whole lives without doing any good works. In this way Antinomianism takes the truth about justification and wrongly applies it to sanctification, mixing two things that should not be mixed.
Historically, this position became most prominent after the Reformation and found favor among some of the extreme Lutherans and Radical Reformers. Contemporarily, old school “no Lordship” Dispensationalism held to this school of thought.
LEGALISM: The law is the gospel.
Legalism teaches that we are obligated to keep the law for both our justification and sanctification. To the degree that we are sanctified (doing good works in faith and love), God declares us “not guilty” and “righteous,” but to the degree that we are unsanctified, God views us as guilty. On this perspective, the law is not at all too hard for us to keep for justification. Faith and good works are often understood as two ways of talking about the same thing, both of which are aspects of the obedience that is necessary to be constituted legally righteous before God. Legalism often speaks of God’s "graciously" giving the law and making us able to keep it, but it doesn’t speak much of a Substitute law-keeper who keeps the law on behalf of others. Legalism takes the truth that we must do good works for sanctification and wrongly applies it to justification, thus confusing the two.
Historically, post-Trent Roman Catholicism, some deviant forms of Arminianism, and those who held to Richard Baxter’s Neonomianism have been advocates of this view. Today, legalism is gaining ground again in various academic expressions of dynamic justification through the teachings of Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and advocates of the New Perspectives on Paul.
LAW-GOSPEL BALANCE: The proper law-gospel distinction.
While antinomianism applies principles of justification to sanctification and legalism applies principles of sanctification to justification, the balanced position sees the proper distinction between justification and sanctification. The balanced view teaches that there is a sharp law-gospel distinction in justification, but a gospel-law continuum in sanctification.
Justification. The law requires perfect obedience for justification (to be declared righteous before God the judge and to have a right and title to eternal life), such that nothing short of absolute holiness can make a man “just” in God’s sight (Gal 5:3). After the fall, justification by works is impossible because we are all sinners (Rom 3:23); therefore, the law serves only to kill us and show us that we fall far short of God’s glory (Rom 7:7). Personal law-keeping is thus utterly excluded from justification. But, the Gospel teaches that Christ has kept the law in full for His people both by enduring its curse and by meriting its blessing on behalf of all who believe in Him (Rom 3:23-26; 5:12-21). The “law” shuts us up to condemnation and out of justification by works (Gal 3:10-14), but the “gospel” teaches that Christ has kept the law for us, asks us to renounce all good works for our justification, and entreats us to trust in Christ in order to be robed in His perfect law-keeping (His righteousness) for our justification (Rom 4:5-8). This is the proper law-gospel contrast in justification.
Sanctification. The gospel not only reveals the way to be justified, it also reveals how to be sanctified, which is no less important. Christ’s redemptive work not only makes us just, it also makes us holy (Rom 6:12-14). It frees us from both the condemnation and the power of sin. Jesus Christ points all justified people to the law as a rule of walking (Rom 13:8-10) that must be obeyed out of love for Christ (Jn 14:15), gratitude for what He has done and will do (1 Jn 4:17-21), and for our own good (Deut 10:12-13). The law is good and holy and is God’s gracious gift to the believer, which should be cherished, esteemed, enjoyed, reverenced, studied, and diligently and meticulously obeyed (Rom 7:12; Ezra 7:6, 10). Justification frees the believer to obey the law and to continue in obedience even though we sin. What Christ has done wins our hearts (justification) and moves us to obedience for our own joy and for God’s glory (sanctification), but not for our justification. This is the proper gospel-law continuum in sanctification.
Historically, the sons and daughters of the Reformation embraced this balanced view. Though Luther made some extreme statements, if you read him carefully, you'll discover that he understood the balance. Calvin and the Calvinists all held a balanced perspective on the law and the gospel. Our Baptist forefathers also understood well the law-gospel distinction. Caleb Evans (1737-1791) wrote, “When I was only a youth, I beheld with admiration my father in the pulpit and was delighted with the heavenly sounds which flowed from his lips. Hearing the aweful terrors of the law and the astonishing grace of the gospel, I was brought into the very dust before the throne of a holy God, and enabled to magnify the riches of free grace.” During John Ryland Jr’s (1753-1825) funeral sermon, the preacher said, “Pelagian pride and Antinomian licentiousness; the first of which he detested as an insult on the grace of the gospel; the last on the majesty and authority of the law.” In Ryland’s last printed sermon, he wrote, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law [justification], not from the blessing of the law [sanctification]. For surely, it is a blessed thing to have a certain standard of duty, a directory to show us how we ought to walk and please God.”
Legalism and antinomianism are both reductionistic in their approach to law and gospel. Antinomianism denies the proper role of the law in sanctification. Legalism denies the proper role of the gospel in justification.
Both antinomianism and legalism produce ungodliness, while only the proper law-gospel balance consistently yields the holiness without which none will see the Lord. Antinomianism creates a permissive attitude, while legalism creates either pride (not holiness) or defeatism (surrender to unholiness because of repeated failure).
There is a sense in which legalism is antinomian and antinomianism is legalistic. Legalism is antinomian because it invariably diminishes the absoluteness of the law and makes it easy enough to keep. Antinomianism is legalistic because though it throws off God’s law it makes every man a law unto himself and a slave to his own passions.