Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic – A Classic Example
Originally published March 4, 2015
I came across an “interesting” blog article the other day. It appeared in my Facebook newsfeed because someone on my friend list commented on it when one of his friends shared it. Of course, since I am not friends with the one who originally shared it, I was unable to add my comment, thus the inspiration for this article today.
The title of the blog article in questions is, “If we sin, do we lose our salvation?” That mere fact that such a question is still posed in Christianity is indicative of just how biblically illiterate most Christians are. The fact that authors such as this one still address this question in the manner that he does is even more disturbing.
Before even addressing the issue of whether one can lose one’s salvation, the author begins his article by citing Jesus’ example of the two house builders found in Luke chapter 6. Let’s take a look at this passage ourselves before we move on.
47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: 48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. 49But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Luke 6:47-49
Clearly, Jesus is using a metaphor, but to properly understand the metaphor we must ask ourselves, what is the context of this passage? It should be apparent that the context is a contrast between two kinds of individuals. One kind is an individual who hears AND does. The second kind is an individual who hears only. The parallel passage in Matthew 7 goes even further in marking this contrast.
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Matthew 7:24-27
The individual who hears AND does is considered wise. The one who hears only is considered foolish. Herein is the point of this whole passage: the emphasis on hearing AND doing, which is considered to be wise. But please notice what the blog author chooses as his focus:
“Building a house is very similar to one’s experience as either a Christian believer or an unsaved nonbeliever. That is why Jesus drew a comparison between the two (Luke 6:47-49). If you start out with a good foundation that is level and built on solid ground, you can confidently add on walls and flooring and a roof and every other component that makes up a house, and be certain that, because the foundation is sound, the house will be sound. But if you lay a poor foundation that is uneven and shaky, the rest of the house will follow and all the components that are built on that poor foundation will be compromised. To have a soundly constructed house, you must have a good foundation; to have a rock-solid Christian faith, you must build it on foundational truth.”
This is one of the most intellectually incompetent and dishonest uses of the two builders that I have ever seen! This example from scripture has nothing to do with “foundations”. It has everything to do with wisdom and sanctification. The author completely ignores the part about wisdom in both hearing and doing and instead engages in what I call “spiritualizing the analogy”, making it about justification instead. He has interpreted this passage in the so-called “proper gospel context”. This is what happens when you interpret scripture using a redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Spiritualizing the analogy makes a false application of a metaphor that was never intended. It is a logical fallacy. Let’s examine what I mean by this.
If I am given the logical premises that A=B and B=C, I can logically conclude that A=C. This is the logic of the example of the two house builders.
A = B Hearing and doing = a wise man
B = C A wise man = building on a rock (a good foundation)
therefore
A = C Hearing and doing = building on a rock (will make one strong; i.e. aggressive sanctification)
The same holds true for the foolish man.
A = B Hearing only = a foolish man
B = C A foolish man = building on sand (a poor foundation)
therefore
A = C Hearing only = building on sand (will make one weak; i.e. little or no sanctification)
A metaphor makes no sense in and of itself. It has no relevance outside of the initial truth that it represents. If Jesus had only said, “Make sure you build on a rock foundation and not a foundation of sand,” that would have made no sense whatsoever. But Jesus clearly stated that hearing and doing is wise, and He further emphasized that point by using the analogy of building on a rock. Notice also that a correct logical progression in thought results in the proper application of the conclusions. One can reasonably conclude that this not a salvation passage but rather a sanctification passage for believers.
That is the proper meaning and intention of this passage. Contrast that with what the author did in the article. He took the metaphor all by itself and made it say whatever he wanted it to say in order to make his case. And what is his case?
“If you believe that Jesus Christ died on the Cross to pay for your sins, and turn to God in repentance of your sins, then you will be saved… This does not mean that after this occurs, you will never sin again, or even that you will not commit the same sin repeatedly. It means that your heart has been changed toward sin so that you can now see it for what it is… Fortunately, for Paul and for you and for me, that question has a definitively glorious answer: ‘Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!’”
Plain and simple, this is progressive justification. Notice it is an ongoing deliverance, not a onetime deliverance. So, then the question remains, what do we have to do to keep the deliverance going? Well, we repent, and that saves us, BUT we still sin. So what? Well, the “so what” is that we need perpetual saving by Jesus. This is what Paul David Tripp and Tim Keller and John Piper call a “daily rescue.” This is Luther’s theology of the cross, a perpetual mortification and vivification.
This is the very reason why the emphasis on the hearing AND doing is ignored. For us “to do” would be works, at least in this construct, if this were a passage on justification and not sanctification. We must live by “faith alone” and not build on the wrong “foundation.” We can only “experience” what it is to have the right foundation, because for us to try and work and build is building on the wrong foundation which is the reformed definition of the “unsaved”. But justification is a finished work. There is nothing we can do to add to it. Because it is finished, we can aggressively “do” the things we “hear” taught to us in the Word. Time and time again, the scriptures equate for us doing good with life and doing evil with death. Good = life = wise. Evil = death = foolish. When it comes right down to it, this really isn’t that hard to figure out.
Andy
Indeed, with Calvinists it’s always in the present tense (salvation, etc.). There’s no date/time they were saved (not even the leader of the wolfpack, MacArthur, has a “saving date.”). Why, Andy, do you think that is? What is it these liars want us to cling to/bow down to/worship every day? Men’s ideas? The church’s control? And who and what is behind it? It certainly makes Jesus’ death totally ineffective, surely.
This bit that she has written sounds good, “If you believe that Jesus Christ died on the Cross to pay for your sins, and (you) turn to God in repentance of your sins, then you will be saved…” but then she loses it with going right into the present tense and its perpetual saving leanings. The site her article is one is part of a major Calvinist site (gotquestions.lies). That should explain a lot in itself.
I am bold about it; I have been delivered/saved. I can even give you a date.
Great article, pointing out the subtle way in which the enemy works, or rather, operates.
LikeLike
What is truly the sad part is that I don’t believe the motivation is nefarious at the root. I think these men truly believe they are doing God a service and doing man a service by bringing men to God so that God gets the glory. They believe they have the mandate to use whatever means necessary because they are God’s elite, chosen mouthpieces to bring the mystery of knowledge of spiritual matters to the totally depraved. And therein lies the root assumption that drives all behavior that follows. We are depraved and they are the enlightened ones. And these men have bought into that lie truly believing it is the truth. They will be the ones in the last days who cry, “Lord, Lord, have we not ___________ in thy name?” And they honestly won’t have the slightest clue what they did wrong.
LikeLike
So, who is given them their mandate to bring mysteries to the (predestined damned) depraved? Calvin, Augustine, et al? You see what I am driving at? WHO sits behind that, a doctrine that condemns and condemns. The God of the Bible does not do that, then so who would love to see billions of depraved ones go to eternal damnation one day? I love your points and understand them clearly, and they make sense. Do you understand my little question. Oh, I can answer it: SATAN.
Be blessed, Andy, you are a great writer with a super sharp God-given intellect.
LikeLike
Well we know ULTIMATELY that’s the answer. I would have to say that the mandate is self-appointed. Their interpretation of election and God’s sovereignty is what I would say gives them their mandate. You always hear about pastors talking about being “called” to the ministry. Well it is that “calling” that gives the mandate. The mere fact that they are a pastor or elder is evidence of God sovereignly appointing them to their position, so that must mean that God wanted them to have the authority to rule, and so you must therefore submit. And if you follow that reasoning to it’s logical conclusion you end up in a chicken and the egg discussion of circuitous reasoning which is irrational. All the more reason you must “submit” because it’s something you just don’t have the ability to understand, so it all falls under “mystery”. That’s a very long way of saying that they would “claim” that the mandate comes from God because of their “calling”.
LikeLike
Andy,
Yes, when someone in that belief system is “called” (how many different ways are there to being “called”?), how dare mere mortals like you and I question that? How dare we usurp/question God’s sovereignty, and as a consequence, His “chosen ones” for that matter? It has a slight Charismatic feel to it, you know, “God’s anointed” and all that. And yes, indeed, it’s a strategy Calvinists use to claim and live out that “authority” in the most perverted ways. I see it all the time. And it is poisonous
LikeLike