Shepherd the Flock

“If one is looking primarily for a book of stories designed to teach a moral lesson, the Bible may not be as good as Aesops’ fables. All of the biblical heroes represent sinfulness, disobedience, half-heartedness and pride as well as faith and obedience. The real hero is God, who remains faithful to His promise in spite of human sin. No, moral instruction comes easily to us, but the gospel is not in us by nature; it must be revealed from heaven. This is chiefly why we have the word of God.

“To preach the Bible as ‘the handbook for life’, or as the answer to every question, rather than as revelation of Christ, is to turn the Bible into an entirely different book. This is how the Pharisees approached scripture; however, as we can see clearly from the questions they asked of Jesus, all of them amounting to something akin to Trivial Pursuits: ‘What happens if a person divorces and remarries?’ ‘Why do your disciples pick grain on the Sabbath?’ ‘Who sinned -this man or his parents- that he was born blind?’ For the Pharisees, the scriptures were a source of trivia for life’s dilemmas. To be sure, scripture provides God-centered and divinely-revealed wisdom for life, but if this were its primary objective, Christianity would be a religion of self-improvement by following examples and exhortations, not a religion of the cross.” - Michael Horton: Repentance, Recovery, and Confession, The Formal Papers of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ Summit, quoted in Spirit Empowered Preaching, by Arturo Azurdia

Although it’s been a few months since I posted some initial thoughts and review of the book, Five Views on Law and Gospel, I’d like to pick the topic back up and, in time, give a full review of this book. Because of the length and depth of the book, my intention is to post a separate review of each author’s position on the subject of Law and Gospel. This is the second of what I hope to be six total sections of reviewing this book.

Thus, in order to properly understand the context of this post, please start with Post 1 before continuing below, as I anticipate that each post to build upon each other.

Aim of this Review
Please understand that I have no intention of fully presenting each author’s point of view. Instead, my aim is to present a basic overview of each man’s position, as I understood it, and then provide some quotes to highlight the strength and weaknesses of each author.

Overview of Willem A. Van Gemeren’s “Reformed” Essay on Law and Gospel
Though I myself adhere to the ‘Reformed’ view on Law and Gospel, I found this essay by Willem A. Van Gemeren to be the weakest in the book. Though I agree with his view on just about every point, I did not find his essay convincing or properly presented for the format of this discussion (which was debate-style, apologetic type book). The essay simply seemed unorganized, broad, with no real progression of argument, and written as if the reading audience was one that was already convinced of his position.

Summary of the Reformed position:
The Reformed position is one that believes there to be continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament Law, with discontinuity only being identified by NT texts. This is in contrast to total discontinuity argued for by Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology (NCT). The Reformed position divides the Law of God into 3 categories: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial Law. Moral Law in the Old Testament is not repealed for Christians in the NT. Civil Law, in contrast to Bahnsen’s Theonomic view, has (largely) been repealed by the New Testament/New Covenant. And Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in the appearing, Person, and work of Jesus Christ. These categories are helpful in helping us understand the OT Law in relation to the NT law, but are not categories explicitly used in scripture. In addition to this, the Reformed position sees the 10 commandments as the summary of the ‘moral’ law, and from texts like Romans 2, would argue that this same moral law has been written on the hearts of all men.

Here are some choice quotes to help you understand for yourself what the author presents: [My comments here will be preceded by ‘–NW‘]

P15: “…Law and Gospel are not in opposition to each other because Law contains Gospel and the Gospel contains Law. Both Law and Gospel affirm the place of the moral law as a “perfect rule of righteousness.”

p16: “The total witness of the Old and the New Testament has a “basic unity and continuity of the biblical ethic.”

P16: “…the Reformed view of the law of God is the result of integration of exegesis” P16 –NW: On this point I believe the author makes a very important point. Throughout the book it becomes clear that Strickland and Moo, and to some extent Bahnsen, rely on arguments that are largely theology and structurally driven. However, I also saw Van Gemeren’s essay as severely lacking in exegesis as well, but I believe his overall position (which is almost identical to Kaiser’s) is the only one explicitly driven by exegesis of the text rather than an overarching system of theology ruling the interpretation.

P20-21: he argues from the Hebrew that the nouns and verbs that describe Noah being ‘righteous’ and Abraham who “obeyed Me and kept My requirements”, anticipated the revelation at Mount Sinai. In other words, the obedience of these men is described as synonyms of obedience to the Mosaic (moral) Law –thus the moral portion of the Law given to Moses was not something new, a very important point.

P20-21: he argues that the moral law revealed in the Creation order is the same law that Noah and Abraham had ‘internalized’, though unwritten, and that “the written law became necessary because of human sin and hardness of heart.” But “Since the will of God does not change, the law remains virtually the same throughout redemptive history.”

P25: after quoting Psalm 147 and Psalm 19: “Far from looking at the law as a negative experience, saints in the Old Testament rejoiced in this revelation…” Many similar passages/comments are made.

P27: “Moses’ ministry prepared the people for the coming of Christ. Hebrews portrays him as a witness to the coming of Jesus Christ (Heb 3:5)…Moses witnessed through the Torah to the spirituality of the covenant and to the need of a redeemer whose atonement would remove the burden of the law.” –NW: Here is a great section identifying the Christocentric nature of the OT Law, culminating in the following statements, which show that the Law has never been an end or focus itself, but has always had Christ at its center.

P28: “The Mosaic covenant is a development of God’s covenant with creation…and with Abraham…In other words, the Mosaic covenant is a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated a people to Himself under the sanctions of His holy law…The Law was never intended to be the focus or the end in itself.”

P29: “The Decalogue…opening provides a constant reminder that the context of law is God’s work of redemption: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2)”. Obedience to the commandments is in response to God’s grace in being Israel’s deliverer.” –NW: A good point when we consider all the NT texts which refer to our salvation as ‘redemption’, and other phrases drawing from the imagery of the Exodus from the bondage of Egypt. The people of Israel and their Exodus is a picture of the People of God and the Exodus found through faith in Christ. And the giving of the Law has always been an act of God’s grace; and our obedience has always been first and foremost out of love in response to what God has done for us.

P34: Regarding the concept of love that underlies the Law: “C. Craigie sees rightly law and covenant in the context of love: “The Decalogue was representative of God’s love in that its injunctions, both negative and positive, led not to a restriction of life, but to fullness of life.”

P34: “Obedience to the law always begins with a heart that fears the Lord…” And he goes on to examine several Old Testament texts such as Prov 3:5-7, Psalm 15 and 24, Isa. 57:15 and 66:1-2, Mic. 6:8, Hos 6:6 and Zech 8:16-17, to demonstrate that obedience to God’s law, even OT law, always entails heart obedience rather than just outward obedience.

P36: “The Ten commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God. By the Spirit the letter becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.”

P38: “Jesus gave a stricter observance of external concerns than the rabbis. He rejected the mere observance of external concerns and complacency with tradition…He abrogated not one commandment but instead intensified them all.” –NW: Furthermore, the entire New Testament intensifies the commandments. The New Testament opens them up, expands them in revealing their true nature, builds principles/inferences upon them, and presses them home at the root level of the heart. This is much different than the replacement idea of a ‘new’ law that is argued for by Dispensationalism/NCT.

P38: quoting John Murray: “…Jesus came to realize the full measure of the intent and purpose of the law and the prophets…to bring to full fruition and perfect fulfillment the law and the prophets.”p39: “…Jesus simplified the complexity of the Mosaic law by focusing on one word (”love”)…Because He is greater than Moses…He authoritatively summarized the moral law of God in two commandments…”

P42: “…I agree with Ladd when he says, “more than once he [the apostle Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that enables the Christian truly to fulfill the Law (Rom. 8:3-4; 13:10; Gal. 5:14).

P45: Quoting E.F. Kevan: “Any change in relation to Law that occurs in Christianity is not in the Law but in the believer…To say that Christian conduct is now governed by holy principles is…incorrect…if it meant that any withdrawal or modification of the Law.”

P45: Discussing the need and relevance of the Law: “Sin and rebelliousness keep humans from reflecting the divine perfections and from understanding the moral law as revealed in creation….The Law at Mount Sinai made much more explicit the moral law and supplemented the moral law with ceremonial and judicial regulations.”

P48: “The Mosaic administration by itself is incomplete but has an eschatological and Christological focus.”

P51: “The law is “the heart and core of Scripture” (quoting Hesselink on Calvin). “…the prophets and psalmists, apostles and Christ Himself are all nothing but expounders and interpreters of the law.” –NW: Again, Christ and the NT authors expound and interpret the Law; they never replace it.

P51: The law…”used to be a pedagogue…but now that Christ has come, He is the focus, the perfection, the complement, the fulfillment of the law…whatever perfections the law has, they reveal Christ.” –NW: Again, the Christocentric nature of the OT Law clearly continues on, as Christ continues on. To replace the OT Law is to annul its Christocentric nature.

P51: Quoting Hesselink, “The whole of the law then -not only the covenant but also its promises, threats, rules and regulations, sacrifices and ceremonies- finds its meaning in Christ who is its life, soul, spirit, substance, fulfillment and goal.”

P52: “What then is the power of the moral law since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Negatively, it no longer has the power to bind (Rom 7:6; Matt 5:17) or condemn us…by its teachings, admonishments, reproofs, and corrections, the law is the instrument of growth in faith and sanctification (2 Tim 3:16-17).

P53: “The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments and was supplemented by the ceremonial and judicial laws.”

P53: “The moral law is the rule of perfect righteousness.” –NW: This is supplemented by Jesus and the Apostles as well (Matt 19:16).

P54: “These commandments (Ten) put our love for God to the test, because it is all too easy to assume to one’s relationship with God is good.”

P55: “Berkouwer express it pointedly, “There is no difference between Christian liberty and being ‘under the law of Christ.’”

Here are some excerpts of Greg Bahnsen’s reply to this essay:

P59: “Our hearts surely beat in tune with the recurring and tender not throughout Dr. VanGemeren’s essay that Sprit-given understanding of the Law of God serves to magnify our need and love for the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.”

P61: “The task of critically analyzing VanGemeren’s essay…however, is made almost impossible by his manner of presentation. To go right to the point: there is simply nothing like an argument here -no discursive and systematic unfolding of a particular and clearly defined conclusion (or interrelated set of conclusions)…It is sometimes not easy to find natural transitions, logical connections or subordination between points, interfacing of of interpretations of texts, conceptual synthesis, or precision.”

P64: “…the judicial code is simply the application of the Decalogue (and thus an unpacking of its meaning).” –NW: With this I agree, though I do not see how his argument for Theonomy then follows from this premise. (More on this when we get to Bahnsen’s essay.)

P65: “…when God’s people get embroiled in moral dilemmas, they desire more inspired law (guidance), not less. It is surely no blessing to be left only with broad generalities: e.g., see how many people are blessed and happy by trying to play a basketball game under the single rule of ‘play fair’.” –NW: A very poignant reminder that all forms of antinomianism down through history have lead to eventual shipwreck. 

P65: “In the teaching of Jesus (as well as of Paul), love does not replace the law (or its complexity then), but provides a summary statement. A summary does not abrogate that which it summarizes.”

P67: “The judicial law was not…’abrogated’…what was binding in the judicial laws was not their specific cultural form, but their underlying principle or purpose.” –NW: Here Bahnsen simply disagrees with the statements made by VanGermeren that the judicial laws have been abrogated. I think Bahnsen makes a great point, but again, I do not see how his position then follows; this is something I will expand upon when we get to his presentation.

Here are some excerpts of Walter Kaiser’s reply to this essay:

P70: “The covenant of Grace is divided into two ‘administrations’: Law and Gospel, even though neither administration is devoid of either Law or Gospel, since Law contains the Gospel and Gospel contains the Law.”

P70: “The focus of biblical ethics remains very much the same for both Old and New Testaments…It is the call for holiness of life. Since God is holy, His moral law is holy.”

P71: “Following the lead of Calvin, VanGemeren argues for the existence of a moral order in creation prior to the publication of the will of God in the Mosaic covenant…This natural law reveals both the will of God and His attributes. It is for this reason that the human race was accountable to the same standard of righteousness even prior to the publication of the law of God under Moses…I find this to be an especially strong argument.”

P72: Discussing apparent contradictions in statements of the Apostle Paul, “…the Christian belongs to the new creation of God and therefore may use the law of God only as it is internalized by the Holy Spirit in producing righteousness and in creating a new community that fulfills the law of love. This is not to argue for some new replacement theology wherein the Spirit now replaces the law, but it is to recognize the key role that the Holy Spirit plays in transforming us to apply the moral law of God.”

P75: Discussing the third use of the law, Kaiser says, “This third use of the law guides believers in righteousness, provides a basis for obedience, yet does so without enslaving any who are so bound to this, which may now also be called the “law of Christ”.

P75: “God’s law can only be kept by His grace. Moreover, as VanGemeren concludes, it may only be appreciated in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and kept by the power of the Holy Spirit –all this is true for either Testament!”

Here are some excerpts of Wayne Strickland’s reply to this essay:

Strickland focuses on some details like some NT commands that aren’t found in the Old, or that contradict the Old, like marriage to non-Jews (P79).

P80: commenting on Heb 8:6, “…there has been an abrogation of the entire Mosaic law with the coming of Christ…”

P80: “…it is not the moral law of the Mosaic code that the Holy Spirit employs to supervise the believer; rather, it is the law of Christ that is made imperative by the Spirit.” –NW: Note, throughout the book, neither Strickland nor Moo ever really define this ‘law of Christ’, other than implying that it only contains what is repeated in the New Testament alone. Very ambiguous.

P81: Strickland mentions that the Sabbath commandment ‘provides a mechanism for testing the accuracy and coherency of the Reformed paradigm with regard to the applicability of the law in ethics.” –NW: This is an fairly accurate observation, but it fails to recognize the greater implications of the differences between the Reformed and Dispensational/NCT position. The Sabbath is often seen as the crux, but it is the overall hermenutic that has greater (often unseen on the surface) and more serious implications.

P81: Strickland then goes on to argue that the Sabbath was never a creation ordinance, that it has been abrogated in the NT, that it has not changed to Sunday, thus the authority of the entire Decalogue is undermined. –NW: Weak arguments that fail to account for the development and support of the Sabbath in the New Testament, not to mention the explicit upholding of the Decalogue in the New Testament. But this is surprisingly one of the only times in the book the Sabbath comes up, so I will not deal with it here. 

P82: “…submission and obedience must be to the law of Christ rather than to the law of Moses.” –NW: A very misleading statement, for Reformed theologians would agree that Moses is not our head or our teacher. We would argue that the ‘law of Christ’ has the Law of Moses as its foundation and support. Just like the ‘Israel of God’ is not an entirely new creation, but a starting with ethnic Isreal and then expanding to all the nations, the Law of God starts with Israel as its foundation and is opened up by Jesus and the Apostles to reach its true meanining/intention.

Here are some excerpts of Doug Moo’s reply to this essay:

P83: “I commend VanGemeren for insisting on the clear and unchanging standards of God’s moral law.”

P85: “I want to make clear that I am not denying that the Mosaic law, especially the Ten Commandments, contains principles and requirements that reflect God’s eternal moral will. My point, rather, is that the Mosaic law is not identical with this eternal moral law.” –NW: Reformed theologians would agree that the 10 are not exhaustive of the moral law, but is rather how God/scripture summarizes the essence of the moral law, but would disagree that the Ten are (ultimately) subjective/optional principles, retaining instead their status as commands.

P85: “What is the evidence for treating the Ten Commandments as eternal moral law in distinction from the rest of the Mosaic Law? VanGemeren provides little. He notes that these ‘ten words’ are apodictic in form, expressing therefore principles upon which the rest of the law is built.” –NW: He is right in that Van Gemeren provides little justification of this, but he would be wrong in assuming that this Biblical justification does not exist.

P85: Commenting on Col. 2:14: “Clearly…Paul would not be thinking only of sins committed against the ceremonial law; he must be thinking of the Mosaic law as a whole.” –NW: Of course, but this fails to grasp the Reformed position, and deal properly with the issue of obedience/sanctification of the law, rather than simply justification only. This error by Moo and Strickland can be seen throughout.

P86: “Paul claims explicitly that Christians, led by the Spirit and subject to the ‘law of Christ’…are not ‘under law’ (the Mosaic law).” –NW: A shallow dealing with Paul’s argument, what Paul means by ‘law of Christ’, and how not being ‘under law’ means the Mosaic law only. Too many questions/contradictions not dealt with here.

P87: “There is no evidence that Jesus isolated the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic law and put them in a separate category.” –NW: One wonders how Moo can say this considering the most famous and far-reaching sermon of all time, the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 19…etc.

P87: commenting on Mark 7 where Jesus declares all foods clean, “…Mark is telling us that Jesus teaches that His followers need no longer obey large sections of the Mosaic law. I am not necessarily claiming that this means that we, as new covenant believers, no longer obey the law in the form it was originally given; we are not directly under its authority.” –NW: We are not under the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant Law is the foundation upon which the New Covenant is built and sustained.

P87: “It is only as we look at the way that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament treat the commandments of the Mosaic law that we can know which ones continue to apply directly to us and which ones no longer do.” –NW: This is as close as he gets to defining this ‘law of Christ’. However, Moo makes a great point here; the NT and the Spirit teach us how to interpret, apply, and divide the OT Law.

P88: “…(Christ) is the ‘filter’ through which the whole law must go…”

P88: “…worshiping on the first day of the week is not what the fourth commandment requires: It explicitly requires cessation of work on the seventh day.” –NW: Clearly Moo misses the point of the command, and fails to account for the full, biblical development of the 4th commandment (which continues on into eternity…thus it is a moral issue; a baffling oversight on his part), particularly in what we see in Isaiah 58, etc.

P88: Just like Strickland, Moo argues that the Sabbath commandment is the “crucial ‘test case’, suggesting that the Ten Commandments, in their Mosaic form, were not intended by God to be eternally binding on all people everywhere.” –NW: This, like Strickland, fails to see the greater implications of the disagreement.

P89: Speaking of the other 9 commandments (minus the Sabbath), “They are binding on us not because they are in the Ten Commandments but because the New Testament makes clear that they are expressions of God’s eternal moral law.” –NW: One is left wondering how such a position can be consistently maintained and applied. This example shows why Moo is repeatedly the most ambiguous and subjective of all the participants in the book.

P89: “…Christians live under the ‘law of Christ’ and not under the Mosaic law.” –NW: The crux of the matter here is that Moo (as we will see) argues for a form of Replacement theology that exegesis simply cannot support.

That is certainly more than enough for this portion. Next I will attempt to review Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomic position, which I hope will be a much shorter post.

Trials. Afflictions. Trouble. Frustrations. We all go through them: young or old, rich or poor, saved or lost. And right now there are a few trials and just general disappointments that my family is going through right now. We’re sad over a few providences, disappointed in some endeavors that just haven’t worked out as we’ve planned, and maybe even a little exhausted from the rigors of a busy life.

And though I haven’t had much time to blog lately, I’ve been eating up Volume 1 of John Flavel’s Works. In this volume there are 42 sermons entitled, “The Fountain of Life: A Display of Christ in His Essential Mediatorial Glory“.

Recently I came across this little section on patience under trials, and I thought it might benefit a few of my readers as it certainly has done for us during this time:

“Methinks I should persuade you to it: yea, everything about you persuades to patience in your sufferings, as well as I: look which way you will, upward or downward, inward or outward, backward or forward, to the right-hand, or to the left, you shall find all things persuading and urging the doctrine of patience upon you.

First, Look Upwards, when tribulations come upon you: look to that sovereign Lord, that commissionates and sends them upon you. You know troubles do not rise out of the dust, nor spring out of the ground, but are framed in heaven, Jer 18:11…

…It is for want [lack] of looking up to God in our troubles, that we fret, murmur, and despond at the rate we do.

Secondly, Look Downward, and see what is below you, as well as up to that which is above you. You are afflicted, and you cannot bear it. Oh! no trouble like your trouble! Never man in such a case as you are! Well, well, cast the eye of your mind downward, and see those who lie much lower than you…

…Surely, if you can see any creature below you, especially any reasonable being, you have no reason to return to ungratefully upon your God, and accuse your Maker of severity, or charge God foolishly. Look down and you shall see grounds to be quiet.

Thirdly, Look Inward,…and see if you can find nothing there to quiet you. Cast your eye into your own hearts; consider either the corruptions or the graces that are there.

…Hath not that proud heart need enough of all this to humble it? That carnal heart need of such things as these to mortify it? That backsliding, wandering heart need of all this to reduce and recover it to its God?

…And as your corruptions call for it, so do your graces too. Wherefore think ye the Lord planted the principles of faith, humility, patience, etc., in your souls? What, were they put there for nothing? Did the Lord intend they should lie sleeping in their drowsy habits? Or were they not planted there in order to exercise?

Fourthly, Look outward, and see who stands by and observes your carriage under trouble. Are there not many eyes upon you?

…To the wicked there can scarcely be an higher gratification and pleasure, than to see your carriage under trouble so like their own; for thereby they are confirmed in their prejudices against religion, and in their good opinion of themselves…Oh, how do you dishonour Christ before His enemies, when you make them think all your religion lies in talking of it!

Fifthly, Look Backward, and see if there is nothing behind you that may hush and quiet your impatient spirits; consult multitude of experiences past and gone; both your own and others.

…O what cause have you to be quiet now, and patiently wait for the salvation of God! Did He help you then, and cannot He do so now?…[Or] Have you kept no record of past experiences? How ungrateful then have you been to your God, and how injurious to yourselves, if you have not read them over in such a day as this? For to that end they were given to you.

Sixthly, Look Forward, to then end of your troubles; yea, look to a double end of them, the end of their duration, and the end of their operation.

…Alas! What are a few days and nights of sorrows, when they are past? Are they not swallowed up as a spoonful of water in the vast ocean? But more especially look to the end of their operation. What do all these afflictions tend to and effect? Do the not work out an exceeding weight of glory? Are you not by them made “partakers of His holiness”?

Seventhly, Look to your right-hand, and see how you are shamed, convinced and silenced by other Christians and it may be such too, as never made that profession you have done; and yet can not only patiently bear the afflicting hand of God, but are blessing, praising, admiring God under their troubles; whilst you are sinning against, and dishonouring Him under smaller ones. It may be that you will find some poor Christians that know not where to have their next bread, and yet are speaking of the bounty of their God; while you are repining in the midst of plenty.

Eighthly, Look to your left-hand, and there you will see a sad sight, and what one would think should quiet you. There you may see a company of wicked, graceless wretches, carrying themselves under their troubles, but too much like yourselves. What do they more, than fret and murmur, despond and sink; mix sin with their afflictions, when the rod of God is upon them?

Reader, such considerations as these, I am persuaded, would be of singular use to they soul at such a time, but above all, thine eying the great pattern of patience, Jesus Christ; whose Lamb-like carriage, under a trial, with which thine is not to be named in the same day, is her recommended to thee. O how should this transform thee into a lamb, for meekness also!”

[P364-368]

I’ve never done this before, but because of a few requests, and in hopes that a few family and friends will benefit from a sermon that I benefited from myself, below I’m going to place a few excerpts from a sermon I preached this past Lord’s Day evening. If you’ve never heard me preach (trust me, you haven’t missed anything), here is a sample of what I recently presented.The text was 1st John 3:16-18, which had hit me like a ton of bricks a few weeks earlier, and proved very profitable to me as I meditated on it in preparation to preach.

“By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.”

[These are a few random notes contained within my sermon; this is not a presentation or outline of my thesis]

“Love is defined and bound up in the person of Christ and His laying down His life for us; And it is His work, on the cross, that teaches to love, motivates us to love, and binds us up in duty to love.”

“We offended God through our sin, failure to worship, failure to give thanks, our failure to walk righteously, and our abuse of His gracious gifts of life and liberty. And though God is the one offended, HE is the one who stoops to reconcile with us, though we were yet enemies and fully guilty under Divine justice. And not only does He stoop down to reconcile with His enemies, in order to satisfy His Divine justice and demonstrate His righteousness, He sends that which is most precious to Him, His own Son.”

“God is holy, righteous, and just, and He cannot overlook sin and remain a just being. And to satisfy His divine justice and yet still redeem fallen man from sin and our misery,  the holy and righteous God in the Person of Christ descended and became sin for us on the cross.”

“Have you considered how vile it was for Christ to submit to death, and to bear our sins on the cross? Let me give you an example: think of an upright, chaste woman being propositioned by a filthy pervert on the street. See how she recoils at the thought of such vileness! Infinitely more so, see the Son of God, perfect and holy, upright to a measure we can never understand, having our sins placed upon His back. The scripture says He BECAME sin for us. All manner of wickedness, adultery, murder, lying, stealing, blaspheming, hate, rebellion, homosexuality, uncleaness - things that EVEN WE SINNERS utterly abhor and recoil at, He became…in our place…there is no greater evidence of God’s love for us than His becoming sin on our behalf, and His death on the cross.”

“The apostle here is stirring our affections and our DEVOTION to Christ because of HIS love towards us. Because of His great love, we love. Because of His great service, we serve. Because of His great humbling and submission to both God and man, we are to be humble and submissive. As chapter 2 verse 6 says, we are to ‘walk just as He walked’.”

“‘laying down our lives’, is not in the heroic, battlefield type of ‘laying down your life’.  Sure, there are many stories of bravery where soldiers forfeit their lives for the sake of their fellow soldiers.  This is a wonderful and commendable thing, no doubt. But just because someone lays down their life doesn’t mean that they have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them. What we see in the text, however, is that John goes on to give an example of the point he just made (READ 17-19). This is a level of extreme care/concern/love. It means that we deny others nothing, even if it costs us our life! We hold back no material good or service to those in need, even to the point of our death.”

“Brethren, consider this deeply: the opposite of Love is NOT hate as we understand it; rather, it is indifference. It is selfishness. It is only noticing your own personal needs, not even paying attention to the needs of others.”

“The Law says ‘love your neighbor as yourself’? And how do we love ourselves?–by clothing, feeding, nourishing, watching our diet and health, exercising, making every effort to live as long as possible and in the best means possible. So obedience to this command is: though it cost you life, liberty, house and home to care for a brother in need, the prospect of death does not hinder you from loving others as yourself.”

“It is the cross is what motivates us to love, springing us into action, and binds us to love others. And the gospel does this in several ways:

1) Loving others gives us a picture of Christ. It is not simply a duty or an obligation (though it is) to love because He loved, but it is a communion with Him through a more deeper appreciation and understanding of His glory in the gospel. Loving leads to adoring, to worship, to greater communion with God, which is the highest, chiefest good. In contrast, NOT loving others diminishes our capacity to see Christ, know the gospel by experience, love Him, commune with Him. Failing to love alienates us from the gospel and what Christ saved us to do, and it brings God’s displeasure upon us.

2) The cross is the attraction that fuels our love for others by pulling us away from ourselves. What should consume our thoughts and affections is not following a list for how to ‘love’, but the glory and grace of God revealed at the cross! Christ GAVE HIMSELF, to the point of death, FOR SINNERS! This thought, properly and consistently meditated on, forces us to look outside of ourselves to something greater.

In contrast, NOT loving others; not mimicking Christ, leaves us vulnerable to being seduced by selfish ambitions and self-righteousness. When we lose the foundation, the cross, and yet still try to love, we will be seduced by our own corruptions and desire to please the flesh. A natural man may yet love, but not out of any beauty that he sees in it, not out of and love for Christ and a desire to glorify Him, but for his own self-righteousness, or because he sees them to be a bridge to heaven and he cannot get there without it. The gospel as the foundation for our love pulls us out of ourselves, our work, and our self-righteousness by declaring that we were enemies of God until Christ was formed in us.

“Our infatuation with the cross should lead us to love, and to love deeply. When we do not love, we declare that we have MISSED THE MESSAGE of the gospel. [Repeat] WE have MISUNDERSTOOD THE GOSPEL, its purpose, its power, its implications, if we fail to love. And what could be more frightening? This is the most important message of all.”

“An inference of application that we can infer from this text is that, understanding the providence of God, the reason we have been given extra food/drink in this life is precisely to care for others. God uses, in His providence, your graces and your abundance to feed/clothe/preach to others.  If we think that the stuff in this life is ours for our own wantonness, our own comforts or selfish pleasure, we have misunderstood the gospel and the Christian duty of love.”

“Another application could be considering the hindrances of our love in relation to the gospel. What usually hinders us from loving? Is it not when we see pride in others, a lack of appreciation? Basically, isn’t it when we see the sin in others that we tend to pull back and be indifferent to their needs? But the gospel reminds us that we are to love what God in Christ loves; because He loves, He gives, serves, and is patient despite sin, we are to be as well. Loving our neighbor is not predicated on their receiving it with thanksgiving, or upon them being in some way righteous enough to receive it. If we love how Christ loved, seeing their sin will cause us to love them even more.”

“This passage ends with ‘the truth’: And what is the ultimate truth? Is not Christ the way the truth and the life? Brethren, again, we must run back to Christ and the gospel! To love in the truth is to love and speak the truth. Our deeds are to be such that they adorn the gospel, and are in step with what Christ has done on our behalf. We are to love by deed and by declaring the truth!

“I say this as carefully and sincerely as possible, but serving and loving without bringing the gospel IS NOT truly  LOVE. People need the gospel, they need ‘the power of God unto salvation’ more than anything, whether they’re saved or lost. So when you serve, do not assume the gospel; Do not assume that that people know it already. Even if they’re in church; under sound preaching; Don’t assume that they know it or at least don’t need to be reminded of it.”

Means of Grace: instruments that God uses to convert and bless people, like the reading and preaching of the word, prayer, singing (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; Acts 16:25; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)…baptism, and the Lord’s supper.

During a discussion on the ‘means of grace’, a man once told me that the only true ‘means of grace’ was faith. That is, according to his view, with faith he could worship God mowing his grass to the same (or more) profit to this soul as participating in corporate worship, and without faith he could do nothing pleasing to God or worthy of drawing God to be pleased with him.

Now on one hand this is an excellent point. Faith is of course absolutely necessary for any worship, grace, or even good deed in the site of God. Without faith, we can participate in any and all ‘means’ of grace and only heap condemnation and divine judgment upon our heads.

However,  I do not believe we have the liberty to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I do not believe that this position can be sustained biblically. Faith is necessary for any ‘means’ to truly be instruments of grace, but there are very specific things that are given by God to convey His goodness to our hearts.

Consider for example, Matthew chapter 18. In the context of talking about ‘the church’, V17, Jesus says,

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Now, this passage has for some time been ripped out of its context and made to mean all sorts of mystical things in modern evangelicalism, but the clear implication of Christ’s words is that there is a special presence of Christ when the church is gathered, specifically in His agreement with the decisions of the elders He has raised up.

This presence/agreement of Christ cannot be said to take place when we’re alone, or when just any two or three believers are gathered. He is giving special significance to the gathering of the local church.

Secondly, consider Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11 when he rebukes the Corinthians for abusing the Lord’s Table:

“...in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse…When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?”

Notice a few things: the coming together was a corporate context of celebrating the Lord’s Table, and Paul implies that their behavior, though shameful in this context, would be permissible (or at least more permissible) in their own ‘houses’. But their conduct was certainly not at all permissible in ‘the church of God’.

Notice also a few verses later, Paul concludes by saying:

“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”

Does God’s word ever threaten and/or indicate judgment upon the one who profaned His name by not ‘discerning the body’ while mowing his grass? Doesn’t common sense (and a proper interpretation of this chapter) teach us that the Lord’s Table is a more important, holy, and indeed, means of grace to us than just normal everyday duties?

So the conclusion of this matter is this:

Just as faith comes by hearing God’s word preached, according to Romans 10:17, God has chosen specific instruments to channel grace/faith/edification/sanctification to His people. These ‘means’ of grace are not just anything; there is a special presence of Christ in them when His people gather in His name. This calls for our great attention, sincerity, care, and reverence, as we like Moses walk here on holy ground. Paul all throughout 1 Cor 11-14 teaches/corrects the Corinthians on ‘proper conduct’ in the household of God (corporate gathering), and we too, less we displease God and bring His divine judgment upon us, had better regulate our corporate worship by the instructions/traditions given to us in Holy Scripture.

In a recent Time magazine article on the new phenomenon, Twittering in church, a pastor of a church in Charlotte, N.C, Todd Hahn, made the following statement:

[Regarding Twittering during Church]: “if God leads you to continue this as a form of worship by all means do it.”

Now, I use Twitter, I enjoy it, and whether or not Twittering during the Lord’s Day service is right or wrong is not the main question I am approaching today.

However, any student of the Bible should be somewhat taken aback by this notion of ‘God leading’ us into other ‘forms of worship’, to be ultimately determined by our personal experience/preferences/inclinations/feelings.

In other words, this is a prime example why the confession I subscribe to specifically says,

“Chapter 22:1._____ The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. ( Jeremiah 10:7; Mark 12:33; Deuteronomy 12:32; Exodus 20:4-6 )”

My friends, it is a form of idolatry to say that we are open to worship God in just any way we chose. Why would we have this notion that the one offering worship gets to decide the form of worship, rather than the One receiving the worship, and who has given us His Word which equips us for ‘every good work’?

Sure, Twittering isn’t prohibited by scripture, and neither is Twittering in church (explicitly). But saying that we are ‘worshiping’ by Twittering is a gross error. God has given us means by which to worship Him: Prayer, Song, the Lord’s Table, Preaching, Giving, Baptism, and even Church Discipline.

God giving us specific forms of worship is a protection against the lusts/desires/fleshliness of our nature. Sure, painting a picture in church, or holding a concert, or staging skits might be more entertaining. They might even make us feel like we’ve grown much more than when we sit under the same old routine. But God knows our hearts; He knows how to build/grow/sanctify His church. And He has given us means that are sufficient, indeed, more than sufficient, for all things pertaining to life and Godliness.

When we leave scripture and decide for ourselves what constitutes worship, we lose worship as a ‘means of grace’, and will always be led astray to end up worshiping ourselves.

Twittering might seem like a harmless thing, but once you decide that the word of God does not bound us to forms and methods of worship, where will it end? Why have church at all? Why have preaching at all? Why have song at all? Why not totally revamp things, even the Day God has given us to worship (the Lord’s Day/Sabbath), and come up with something that better fits our tastes, preferences, feelings, and schedule?

There is safety and indeed great freedom in the word of God. Safety not just from gross idolatry (indeed that is included), but safety from ourselves as well. What a great freedom it is to come to the Word, submitting to it thereby, knowing that God has promised to bless these means and grow us using them. What a freedom it is to know that God is wiser than we are!

Let us look to His word and be taught and grow thereby; looking anywhere else can and will only be destructive to our sanctification.

In my last post I said the following in an attempt to present the gospel of Jesus Christ:

“Salvation is by works alone. But man is incapable of working his way to salvation. You need an alien righteousness, the works of Another”

If scripture clearly and emphatically declares that salvation is by faith (in Christ) alone, why would I say that salvation is by works? Let me briefly explain.

First, I am attempting to follow the model of our Lord in breaking up the fallow-ground of self-righteousness when presenting the gospel:

Matt 19:16 - “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus broke this man’s self-righteousness by pointing him to the Law of God (the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments), and demonstrating to him his failure (inability) to keep it. He also upheld the necessity of a perfect law-keeping for eternal life (which is later explained to only be obtainable through faith in Christ, our substitute, who DID fulfill the law perfectly).

I am also attempting to follow the model of the Apostle Paul:

Rom 2:12 - “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

Paul has just shown the unrighteousness of the Gentiles in Romans chapter 1, and is now beginning to show the unrighteousness of the Jews in Romans chapter 2, which he brings to a head with ‘all have sinned’ in chapter 3. But important to Paul’s argument is how he demonstrates here in chapter 2 that the Jews had not really kept the Law at all –even in their zeal for outward observance. What a shock it must have been to the Jews to hear that perfect ‘doers’ of the Law are the only ones justified!

This type of groundwork is important, and I would argue, absolutely necessary for a faithful gospel presentation. Men must understand that they have broken the Law, and that God demands absolute perfection (not trying your best) in order to be justified. Oh, for more preachers of the Law in our day, who hold it up as a standard entirely impossible to keep by sinful man! Only then will men, in their despair, run to Christ for a covering, an atonement, indeed a righteousness not their own!

Secondly, I emphasize this need for ‘works’ because there is an intrinsic connection between the law of God in our justification that is often lost or undermined in our day.

Consider,

Matt 5:17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Notice that Christ Jesus had to ‘fulfill’ the law in order to become a substitute for sinners. It wasn’t Jesus’ inherent righteousness as the second Person of the Trinity that approved Him before God as our substitute (by faith), but it also included His coming to ‘fulfill the Law’, in our place, where we haven’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t.

As I have argued here, This text *specifically* references how a person is *saved* in the New Testament/New Covenant era. For verse 20 clearly references ‘entering heaven’, and the righteousness needed to do so.

Also consider,

Rom 8:1-4 “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

In accordance with the the Romans 2 chapter I quoted above (”it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”), and Romans 3:31 (”Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”), the Law of God is “FULFILLED” in us ONLY through Christ setting us free from the law of sin and death, and granting us His Spirit so that we may not walk by the flesh. This is where our justification (by grace/faith/Christ alone) and our sanctification (our obligation/duty/delight to obey the Law of God) meet perfectly, to the glory of God and not man.

Conclusion:
The works of the Law play an important role in salvation. That is, it is important to: presenting the gospel, our justification, and our sanctification. You may object and say ‘there is so much self-righteous, practical ’salvation by works’ in our day, the last thing we need is to mention anything about law-keeping!’. But I propose to you that Jesus and Paul lived in a far worse culture of self-righteousness and legalism, and yet they emphatically held up the true intention, purpose, and necessity of the Law.

We need to plumb these depths of our salvation more often! And we need to present the Law to men not as God grading on a curve or accepting imperfect conformity, but as the perfection necessary for salvation, only possible in running and throwing ourselves at the mercy of Christ by faith.

This week Greg Gilbert over at the 9Marks blog asked whether we could accurately present the gospel of Jesus Christ on Twitter –requiring that the text be 140 characters or less.  I thought this was an excellent and profitable question, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading some of the short gospel presentations.

However, as I thought about the shortest of space in presenting the gospel, I realized just how important it is to know your audience when presenting the gospel. Of course, the gospel (’good news’) is simply what God through Christ has done –and when we present the gospel we are simply pronouncing that news. And with this there is no need to ‘knowing your audience’. But there are many factors that go into what aspect of the gospel that we emphasize and/or mention when presenting it to unbelievers.

For example, we should present the gospel differently to a Roman Catholic than we would an atheist. A Catholic is likely to already acknowledge the Triune God, the truthfulness of scripture, the historical record of Jesus Christ, and even the reality of sin. An athiest, however, would need to be presented with something that defends and/or specificially proclaims the truthfulness of some of the stuff a Catholic already accepts.

Therefore, I found the ‘140′ limit quite challenging. Sure, it’s easy to mention some of the important aspects of the gospel in 140 characters, but what good is it to say ‘Jesus is the only way’ or ‘Jesus died for sinners’ to this outwardly-churchy but hypocritical land that we live in?

So, considering the state of our land, the popular church in our day, and most people’s already accepted beliefs concerning God, the bible, and Jesus Christ, I offered the following three attempts at communicating the gospel in 140 characters:

“Salvation is by works alone. But man is incapable of working his way to salvation. You need an alien righteousness, the works of Another”

“Christ/the cross is the only way to eternal life because you can neither escape punishment for your sin nor work your own righteousness”

“God through Christ did what we could not do ourselves: paid the penalty for sin & fulfilled all righteousness; we receive only by faith”

Our culture is inundated with the idea that salvation, in some sense, and in some degree, is dependent upon something in us. That is, what we do, what we say, what rituals we follow, what truths we accept, etc. Religion is about doing good, right? –so the ignorance goes.

But the Bible makes it abundantly clear that man’s works, even his best deeds, are filthy wickedness in His eyes outside of the merits of Christ. And that any trust or dependence in ourselves, or even any attempt to please God in our own power, is absolutely futile, not to mention offense to Him. I believe that this is a very important -and often lost- truth in our land, which led me to phrase the statements above like I did.

What are your thoughts? What aspect of the gospel should we emphasize above all others when only given 140 characters?

For the background of this post, please see my previous post introducing this subject.

Iain Murray, in his excellent book ‘Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism‘, sets forth a few arguments against the altar call that were voiced by men when the practice was just beginning. I thought it would be profitable to repeat a few of his objections here –in spite of the fact that many (most?) of my readers here have rightly seen the immense dangers of altar calls long ago.

(Continued from here)

3rd argument: “…It was claimed by those supporting the altar call that ‘a sinner who is not humble enough to take the step [come forward] is not humble enough to be saved’. On the contrary, the Old School [those who opposed the altar call] argued that it was entirely unsafe to suppose that it was spiritual influence which brought people forward. Those most likely to make an immediate public response were ‘the forward, the sanguine, the rash, the self-confident’. No spiritual power was necessary to secure a physical response.” (Emphasis his)

4th argument: “There was agreement on all sides that many who went forward in response to the appeal subsequently showed that they remained unconverted. But, it was said, ‘If only some souls are saved by the use of the new measures [newly instituted altar calls], we ought thankfully to own their power’…

…[The use of the altar call is justified] ‘because a few are truly converted, and make stable, useful Christians…the rest when they find out the shallowness of their experience, are simply where they were before.’

…This reply…rests on a number of fallacies. The lapsed who were once held up before public view as converts are not where they were before; they are likely to be more careless and more indifferent. Furthermore, in their lapse the reputation of the gospel has been brought down in the eyes of the world.” (Emphasis mine)

“…I would say that if good is done by these irregular means [use of the altar call], it is done at frightful expense. It is like slaying hundreds to save one.” (Emphasis mine)

Contrary to popular belief, the ‘altar call’ that is so popular in today’s churches has not been around for long. The practice of prolonging religious services, pleading for a public response, playing emotionally-laden music and using fervent exhortations for people to ‘make a decision for Christ’ got its start with the American ‘Revivalism’ in the 1800s. Charles Finney, whom I think was a heretic based upon his own writings, most notably made the altar call (or prayer bench, anxious seat) common-place in the church.

Opposition to the altar call was not real popular then just as it isn’t now. Other than the fact that the altar call finds no root in scripture or church history, opponents of the practice rightly identify the method as manipulative and a practice that greatly increase/encourages false conversions. There is a reason why the church in our day is filled with people who believe themselves to be saved but who’s lives bear little or no fruit of holiness, and altar calls and the decision-ism theology that goes along with it is a large reason why.

Nevertheless, because there have been many true believers who (naively) point to altar calls as their means of conversion, and because the greatest visible results of successful evangelism are always experienced using the practice, those who oppose the practice are usually seen as stingy and a hindrance to ‘what God is doing’.

But Iain Murray, in his excellent book ‘Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism‘, sets forth a few arguments against the altar call that were voiced by men when the practice was just beginning. I thought it would be profitable to repeat a few of his objections here –in spite of the fact that many (most?) of my readers here have rightly seen the immense dangers of altar calls long ago.

“They alleged (those opposing altar calls) that the call for a public ‘response’ confused an external act with an inward spiritual change…The hearer was given the impression that answering the public appeal was crucial because salvation depended on that decision…

“The whole matter is so managed as practically to encourage the idea that a veritable step towards Christ at least, if not actually into His arms, is accomplished in the act of coming to the anxious seat…”

“They argued further that this procedure had inevitable serious consequences. Those who come forward and who experience no saving change are liable either to go back to the world, hardened in the idea that ‘there is nothing in it’, or they may go to join the church, assured that they have done all that was required. Thus the anxious seat, in the words of Samuel Miller, favoured ‘the rapid multiplication of superficial, ignorant, untrained professors of religion.’” - Revival and Revivalism, P366

I’ll post more of Murray’s thoughts on this subject later in the week.