Paul's Passing Thoughts

Q: There is a lot here, but let me start with the perspicuity of Scripture. Would you give the new believer any instruction as to how to approach the Scriptures?

Yes. I’d refer them to R.C. Sproul’s, Knowing Scripture, as a healthy hermeneutical guide.  That’s a great introductory resource, in my opinion.  From there, either Louis Berkhoff or Bernard Ramm would be a next hermeneutical reference.

Q: Aside from that, what would be your position on the new believer reading the Sermon on the Mount without any hermeneutical  perspective whatsoever?  Matthew 5:3 says that those who heard the sermon firsthand, the peasantry of that day, were “taught” by Christ. The new believer is therefore in no diiferent position than those who sat and listened to Christ that day. Everything needed to be “taught” is in that sermon. What do you think the hermeneutic is for that sermon? Was one presented in the sermon? If not, how should the believer listen to that sermon?

Hermeneutics guide our understanding of hearing/reading all things, all contexts.  Whether a book or a sermon, there are, “rules” for how we understand what is being communicated.  That’s what separates the sane from the insane J.

Again, in my understanding of not only the perspicuity of Scripture, but most forms of communication, I’d rely on that simplicity to guide the listener/reader’s heart and mind as he learns from Christ and the sermon on the mount.  Everything that is written/spoken has a context to it, even the sermon on the mount. A hyper-literal understanding by a listener would miss what Christ was saying.  Likewise, a hyper-spiritual understanding would also miss the boat.  However, of those whose hearts are being drawn by the Holy Spirit, Christ’s sheep, it is they who will press for clarification, to truly seek to understand what God’s voice, their Shepherd, is saying… to them.

Q: Where do you stand on Michael Horton’s view that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Scriptures are viewed in a redemptive context? He is clear on this, stating on page 62 of “Christless Christianity” that NOTHING brings life to the believer but the Spirit working “through the Gospel” when it is “revisited afresh.”

To be honest, I’m not much of a Horton fan, but there is some validity, I believe, in what his gospel centeredness is trying to communicate.

Jesus once rebuked the Pharisees by saying, “You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life…”  His point was, you do not have nor will you attain eternal life because your approach to scripture is not theocentric (i.e., gospel driven…).  That is, the heart, of what I believe Horton is trying to communicate.  It’s not a matter of, does the sermon on the mount teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone.   Hence, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit within the heart/mind of a listener/reader, they will never hear Christ’s voice, and listen.

The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is an ongoing and synergistic work of God, one whereby as his grace empowers and illuminates, our hearts are changed and our minds conform more and more to the image of Christ.  But again, the question then becomes, does the HS empower and illuminate only through the lenses of the gospel (i.e., the doctrine of sola fide), or does the term “gospel” carry with it a bit more of a broader meaning or understanding.  I would propose the answer, according to Scripture, is both.

Q: What’s your take on 2Timothy 3:16,17?; ” All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  This seems to be a strange place for the apostle to not mention anything about the centrality of the gospel in Scripture.

In fact, let me expand on that a little. In 2Peter ch1, Peter says the time of his departure was near and he was emphasizing the one message that was most important to him, and that he wanted to continually remind them of. His emphasis was to remind them to be continually adding eight things to their faith. Again, this seems to be a strange place to leave out any mention of the centrality of the gospel. Not only that, he emphasizes adding to the foundation of their faith, rather than going back to it. In Christ’s mandate to the church in Matthew 28, an emphasis on all that he had commanded verses the centrality of the gospel seems to be yet another place where the emphasis on the gospel is missing at a very opportune time. What would be your reply to this concern?

For starters, I agree with and believe 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.   Secondly, whether or not Paul explicitly interjects the centrality of the gospel into every doctrinal treatise, per se’, does not suggest the centrality of the gospel does not foundationally underlie his teaching.

In Galatians, Paul addresses a church whose life and practice is totally messed up because they have abandoned the gospel.  Hence, their poor sanctification is subject to their wrong understanding and continued application of their justification.  To the NC, the centrality of the gospel of glory and grace is foundational for living out 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

Scripture is God-breathed, but it is not ‘inhaled” by you or me unless the Holy Spirit has revived the heart to embrace the God centered value of what was divinely spoken.

Q: So, you wouldn’t object to our hypothetical new believer putting just as much stock in read, learn, and obey (as would obviously be taken from the 1Timothy text) ; as he would gospel appreciation, gratitude, doxology, obedience. Your saying both are important (?).

Yes, for in his reading, learning etc., he would learn of obedience, gospel appreciation, grace/gratitude, doxology etc.  He would learn how to, increasingly, please God.

Q: So here, you would differ from other NC like Michael Horton and Chad Bresson, ie., ” We cannot make the leap from description to commandment without violating the gist of the text.” You can add to this if I have interpreted incorrectly.

I have not read the entirety of this quote to adequately respond, but as I previously stated, I am a bit of NC hybrid, so that might be a reasonable assumption.

Q: In regard to your comments on Galatians, it would seem you’re toeing the NC line that Galatians is about sanctification and not justification (?).

I would say, yes, Galatians is dealing with the consequent doctrine(s) of sanctification and how an incorrect understanding of justification negatively affects one’s spiritual walk.  However, at the same time, I do believe Paul is being very direct to his “christian” audience, whereby he warns the antinomians that they are sadly mistaken if they believe their faith is genuine if they continue to, habitually, live the life of gross immorality that they continue to live.  To these “christians” I believe Paul is warning them, they are about to be, if not already, cut off from Christ (that is to say, the visible body of Christ, the Church).

It is herein I believe most Calvinists don’t quite know what the heck to do with passages that speak of the consequences of habitual disobedience, for those who would say they have taken the name and yolk of Christ.  Most reformed guys simply say, “We’re eternally secure in Christ, so there can’t ever be any reference to somebody [secure in Christ] losing their salvation.  For myself, I believe Scripture teaches the body of Christ is both visible and invisible.  All who are a part of the invisible body of Christ (united through faith alone), are also a part of the visible body.  However, not all that are a part of the visible body of Christ (i.e., tares and wolves in sheep’s clothing etc.) are truly united to Christ and the invisible church.  Of the latter individuals, who I believe live and breathe and walk in our midst as they did during Jesus’ day, I believe Scripture speaks directly to, warning such individuals, that their “faith” does not reflect one who has, authentically, repented and made Jesus lord of their life.

Q: But most NC teach that the Galatian error had to do with them thinking they could participate in sanctification, which is supposedly cutting in on the fruits of justification. In other words, instead of sanctification being 100%  fruits of justification, the Galatians were adding to the fruits of justification by their own efforts; ie., the gospel plus works. You say their distorted view of justification effected their sanctification. Could you clarify that a little more?

TO BE CONTINUED