Ted Black: “Covenantal Historical” is a Much Better Argument Than Redemptive Historical
As previously discussed on this blog, New Covenant Theology, Heart Theology, Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics, and Christian Hedonism are the four pillars of the antinomian doctrine sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. This doctrine is gaining rapid, widespread acceptance among evangelicals, and is so subtle that many teachers propagate its elements unawares.
New Covenant Theology argues that the new covenant replaced the Law with a new “higher Law of love” (or other such references like “higher law of Christ”). Heart Theology is the practical application of Gospel Sanctification’s narrow role in regard to our participation in the sanctification process. Christian Hedonism attempts to explain how Gospel Sanctification is experienced. But Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics is an interpretive prism that makes Gospel Sanctification plausible.
Gospel Sanctification, in a nutshell, synthesizes justification with sanctification and extrapolates the same means of monergistic justification into sanctification, reducing the role of the believer in sanctification to almost nothing, except for the same role we would have in justification. Heart Theology then attempts to answer the question: “So what are believers supposed to do in the sanctification process?” But all in all, the four pillars work together to eliminate an upholding of the Law *by believers* in the sanctification process.
Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics was developed by Geerhardus Vos and coined “Biblical Theology” sometime between 1894 and 1932 while he was a professor at Princeton. Most of what I have learned about this hermeneutic is from Ted Black’s “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: an Analysis, Critique, and Reconstruction.” Black wrote the paper as a requirement for a project while at Covenant College located in Georgia. Two things should bring Vos’s approach into immediate suspicion: First, the complexity of it. Blacks Critique, though a masterpiece, is 150 pages of mind-numbing theology. Certainly, especially when one considers the Sermon on the Mount, the expectation of such a complex prerequisite to understanding God’s word does not seem likely. Secondly, it’s new, with similar theories nowhere to be found before the eighteenth century.
As I said, this theory of interpretation is extremely complex, but it primarily teaches that the Bible is a historical account of redemption. Hence, the name: “Redemptive Historical.” It goes without saying that not many Christians would argue with that, but what they don’t understand is that this theory of interpretation teaches that the Bible is exclusively a redemptive narrative concerning the works of Christ and nothing else. Therefore, as one example, what seems to be commands directed towards us in the Bible can now become commands that God knows we cannot obey with the intention of driving us to the one who fulfilled the Law on our behalf: Christ. In other words, when you look at Scripture through a Christocentric prism, the purpose of commands are to drive us to the knowledge that we are unable to uphold the Law, as apposed to the idea that obedience is our part in a covenant between us and God (but as a way of loving God and submitting to the Lordship of Christ, not as works for salvation) So then, when Paul the apostle referred to the Law as a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ, this can also apply to sanctification as well (supposedly).
This now sets the table for Black’s contention. He proposes on pages 53-62 of the above cited paper that covenants are a much more pronounced theme in the Scriptures than the works of Christ. He does this in a string of brilliant arguments, but I will only enunciate the ones I can best get my mind around. On page 59, he says the following: “As I argued above, the particular purpose of Gen. 1-2 is not redemptive, but covenantal—its purpose is the presentation of the covenant.” This brings to my mind (and I will use it to make my first point) the assertion by John Piper in his message at the the 2010 T4G conference that the theme of the gospels is redemptive because of how each gospel ends. This is also a continuing mantra heard among proponents of GS, that the end determines the theme. No wonder, because at the beginning of the Bible you have God as creator, and the God who makes a covenant with man, not redemption. Also, let me add that in a grand display of weak discernment in our time, nobody at the T4G blinked at what Piper said, regardless of the fact that the gospels do not even end with redemption as well, but rather Christ announcing that He had been given all authority by the Father and His mandate for the church. In fact, the Bible as a whole doesn’t even end with redemption, but rather the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth and the apparent restoration of God’s covenant with man.
Secondly, Black makes the point that the Old and New Testaments are structured / organized around the covenants. Each phase of Biblical history begins or encompasses a covenant. Also, he mentions the progressive nature of the Abrahamic covenant from Genesis 12 to the end of the Bible. When you follow Blacks reasoning as he unfolds his thesis in detail, you begin to see the dominant theme of God’s covenants with man throughout Scripture.
Thirdly, Black makes the point on page 57 that viewing covenants as a major theme in the Bible presents the Trinity in a more balanced, and biblical light: “Further, it appears that Scripture is not centered around Christ but rather around the Triune God, including Christ.” The propensity to present unbalanced views of the Trinity by GS proponents is an ongoing concern of great import. Obviously, if the Bible is primarily about the redemptive works of Christ, rather than His part in effecting the covenants between God and man, this is bound to happen, and for the worse. Black says the following on page 60: “The clear implication of this is that redemption, although a key theme of Scripture, and the distinguishing characteristic of any and all covenants of grace, is not the primary element of our present covenant in either its historical or inscripturated presentation, and neither was it primary in the past.”
But more importantly, Black, unlike proponents of GS, is suggesting covenants as a primary theme, not a single prism in which to interpret all of Scripture. I think he says the following on page 61 in sarcasm: “As such, and in different terms, we should understand that Scripture is not first and foremost based on the ‘history of redemption,’ but on the ‘history of the covenant’ I propose therefore, that we do not refer to our method of interpreting Scripture as ‘Redemptive Historical,’ but rather ‘Covenantal Historical.’”
By any measure, GS has a weak argument in regard to redemption being the *only* major theme of Scripture, and a far lesser argument for it being a single prism in which to interpret all of Scripture. Not only that, its unreasonably complex, and like its illegitimate child, NCT, which is thought by some to be only thirty years old, its way too new, implying that God’s children have been without a sufficient hermeneutic for 1900 years.
paul
Poems by Lara Moon: “Sin”
Poems by Lara Moon: “Enamored”
Jason Gray’s Anthem for Chan’s “Crazy Love”
“This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ ‘sweety-pie’? Or how about, ‘honey-bunch’?”
I wrote a review the other day on Francis Chan’s book, “Crazy Love.” In the review I state my case concerning the book’s overall antinomian theme. Basically, Chan attempts to make the same case echoed by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change”; namely, that a relationship with Christ isn’t about biblical imperatives being applied to life, but rather a relationship with Him based on “intimate” knowledge derived from creation and seeing Jesus in every verse of the Bible. After all, according to Tripp, “Christ is a person, not a cognitive concept.” This also apes the Postmodern notion that the Bible is a grand narrative and not a book of propositional truths. Supposedly, this deeper knowledge then leads to increased faith, which allows the Holy Spirit to do everything for us. John Piper calls this “beholding as a way of becoming.”
As I also stated, Chan’s book synthesizes Justification and sanctification, narrowing our role in the sanctification process to little more than faith only. Since our limited role in sanctification needs to be embellished, one of the weird concepts that has emerged from this contemporary antinomian doctrine is the idea that our relationship with Christ should be an intimate love affair, resulting in a mushy exuberance of love towards Christ and others. Hence, Chan’s book is replete with what I called “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology.
Well, just this morning I was coming home from being kept out too late by my girlfriend (this comment is just a test to see if she reads my articles; that’s my story and I’m sticking to it), and thinking to myself: “did I go too far in the article?” I kid you not, at that moment, a song by Jason Gray came on the radio entitled “More Like Falling in Love.” The words blew me away; the song is a perfect anthem for Chan’s book. When I got home, I googled the song and found the lyrics on a post by a girl named Christy ( http://community.livejournal.com/ljchristians/2504072.html). In a shocking display of discernment, she said the following in regard to the song: “….when I heard this new song, something gnawed at me. Perhaps I was being cynical, but I felt like the lyrics were emphasizing an antinomian “Jesus is my adorable boyfriend!” (By the way, I was in a church this morning where a praise song referred to Christ as the “Darling” of heaven). Christy then posted the lyrics:
“More Like Falling in Love” lyrics by Jason Gray
Oooo
Give me rules, I will break them
Show me lines, I will cross them
I need more than a truth to believe
I need a truth that lives, moves, and breathes
To sweep me off my feet
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love
Give me words, I’ll misuse them
Obligations, I’ll missplace them
Cuz all religion ever made of me
Was just a sinner with a stone tied to my feet
It never set me free
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling
Its like I’m falling in love
Love, Love
Deeper and deeper
It was love that made me a believer
In more than a name, a faith, a creed
Falling in love with Jesus brought the change in me
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love
I’m falling in love
Hey Christy: “ya think?” Lately, this contemporary antinomian doctrine sometimes known as “Gospel Sanctification” is the gift that just keeps on giving; this has to be the easiest post I have ever done on the subject. This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ “sweety-pie”? Or how about, “honey-bunch”?
Francis Chan’s “Crazy Love” is Really Antinomian Puppy-Love
“He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….’commands.’ In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: ‘Do you feel free in your Christian life?'”
Before I comment on “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan (2008), let me set the table. There is a “let go and let God” theology sweeping through Christianity which is sometimes referred to as “Gospel Sanctification.” Hereafter, I will refer to it as “GS.” Let go and let God theology, for all practical purposes, is antinomianism because it either advocates an inability to uphold the Law by Christians or the view that Christians are not obligated to uphold it in God’s eyes. Either way, use of the Law in the life of a Christian is denied.
Basically, GS teaches that we are sanctified in the exact same way that we are justified, by faith and repentance alone. Therefore, if the Law (by this term “Law” I mean the Scriptures in general and imperatives in particular) can’t save us, neither can it be used or recognized in sanctification either. They use Galatians 3:2,3 as a proof text for this position.
Secondly, it teaches that Christ came to not only die for our sins, but to fulfill the law by obeying it perfectly with His life. In essence, it teaches that Christ obeyed the Law for us, and His perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law is imputed to us in the same way righteousness is imputed to us in salvation by faith alone. Therefore, we are not obligated to the Law. This is sometimes referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Thirdly, It teaches that Christ not only fulfilled the Law, but replaced it with a new Law that only has one command: love God and others. Furthermore, in only being obligated by this one Law, our proper fulfillment of this one Law is judged by our intentions and conscience, not necessarily biblical imperatives. They use Matthew 22: 36-40 as a proof text for this position.
Fourthly, according to advocates, acts of true love will always be accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. Nothing should ever be done out of mere duty. The old Christian adage “obey God whether you feel like it or not” is considered to be anathema. Acts of true love are often described as a “mere natural flow.”
Fifthly, GS propagates the idea that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ working through the Holy Spirit. That’s why true love can always be expected to be a mere natural flow, because it is really Christ doing the work through us. They use Galatians 2:20 as a proof text for this position. This text is also used to advocate sanctification by faith alone.
Sixthly, sanctification is only accomplished through faith and deep introspection for purposes of repentance, which empties our soul of sin, and results in Christ living through us.
Seventh, the Bible’s sole purpose is to aid us in faith and repentance. As we see “pictures of Jesus” in the Bible, we learn more about who He is, and see Him more clearly. Our faith is then increased and we are changed from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18 is the proof text for that). The Bible also aids us in looking deep within our souls to see sin that we need to repent of. In addition, all of the vast imperatives we see in the Bible makes us more thankful for Christ, knowing that we could never uphold all of those commands and He has done it for us. Thank goodness they (commands) have all been abrogated by the love of Christ working through us, according to them, that is.
Eighth, since the primary goal is to know more of who Christ is (as opposed to learning what He has said for the purpose of applying it to our lives), which increases our faith and love for Him, we don’t necessarily limit that knowledge to Scripture. General revelation is seen as being almost as valuable, because the idea is to get to know Christ as a person, “not a cognitive concept that we apply to life” (Paul David Tripp). This is eerily similar to Postmodern thinking.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have gone through all of the trouble to explain the above if I didn’t think “Crazy Love” (hereafter “CL”) propagated Gospel Sanctification. Per the usual, advocates of GS partake in careful word-craft; it goes without saying that my before-stated description would be rejected out of hand by most Evangelicals. Though there are hints of GS in the first half of the book, the doctrine is not prevalent until page 101, thats when elements of the doctrine start becoming obvious.
Somewhat unique in CL is the heavy dose of “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology. Chan pours this on really thick, even by John Piper’s standard, who is also an advocate of GS. Piper, who likens true saving faith to a deep, romantic-like love for Christ, is quoted at least once in CL. Let’s face it, if we can’t love our Lord by obeying “everything I have commanded,” (as in most GS based books, the Lordship of Christ is conspicuously missing) then something else has to fill the gap; such as, a “sincere,” syrupy like romantic love similar to teenage puppy-love. In fact, according to Chan, regarding the account of his grandmother’s relationship with Christ: He was her “lover” (p. 100).
Throughout the book, Chan draws conclusions about how we should experience our relationship with Christ from horizontal relationships; namely, romantic ones. Hence, “Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.” This is indicative of the eighth element, which puts general revelation on the same par with specific revelation (The Bible). There is a very heavy dose of this in the beginning of the book as Chan emphasizes the study of creation in order to understand Christ as a “person.” Chan also uses the GS phrase “word pictures” to describe the Bible throughout CL. On pages 34 and 35, Chan categorizes general revelation and the Bible together as two ways of knowing God as set against what we can’t know about Him: “So far we have talked about things we can see with our own eyes, things we know about creation, and some of the attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. But many facets of God expand beyond our comprehension.”
Besides an overemphasis on general revelation as a matching bookend with specific revelation, there is only a hint of the GS doctrine in the first 100 pages. The first thing I began to notice was the dissing of practical application and obedience, which are both antithetical to GS doctrine. In regard to our supposed paramount goal of knowing Christ as a person rather than what he demands of us (number eight), Chan says the following on page 30: “If the ‘gravest question’ before us really is what God Himself is like, how do we learn to know Him?” Is the “gravest” question before Christians that of who God is? Or, is what God wants us to do of equal importance? I think we know the answer to that, and a balanced perspective by Chan is conspicuously missing throughout the book.
Then on page 101, Chan takes a hard left turn and launches into full-blown GS doctrine. After denying throughout the book (in nuanced fashion) that we are slaves obligated to obey Christ (because that doesn’t fit the gushy *Jesus as boyfriend* prism), and that God would use fear, guilt, or reward to motivate us, he says that Galatians 5:13-14 teaches the following: “When we love, we’re free! We don’t have to worry about a burdensome load of commands, because when we are loving, we can’t sin. Do you feel free in your Christian life?”
Just please stop and think about what he is saying. Words mean things. He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….”commands.” In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: “Do you feel free in your Christian life?” And: When we work for Christ out of obligation, it feels like work. But when we truly love Christ, our work is a manifestation of that love, and it feels like love” (page 110). Is that true? Does obedience to Christ always “feel (s) like love”?
The whole line of thought here clearly falls under element number three of GS doctrine. Furthermore, let’s be good Bereans and take a look at Galatians 5:13-14, the biblical text Chan cites to make his point:
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Paul is talking about our freedom from the Law in regard to being saved, and then using it as an excuse to live any way we want to: “Hey, I’m saved anyway, and the Law can’t get me into heaven, so why not live any way I want to?” Because it’s self-focused and the antithesis of love, that’s why. But Paul is not saying that love has no standard other than itself because it replaced the Law. That is a classic antinomian misrepresentation of that passage. In the same statement, Chan even comforts his readers by assuring them that they are not sinning by loving apart from biblical imperatives / guidelines: “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin” [that’s why we supposedly don’t need to worry about “burdensome commands”].
Chan reiterates his point by quoting the apostle in verse 6 of the same chapter: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” This doesn’t mean, as Chan implies, that love interprets itself because it comes from an undefined realization of who Christ is via a personal, nebulous, and supposedly intimate relationship. Do you think that is unfair as well? Here is what Chan says on page 104: “Something mysterious, even supernatural must happen in order for genuine love for God to grow in our hearts. The Holy Spirit has to move in our lives. It is a remarkable cycle: Our prayers for more love result in love, which naturally causes us to pray more, which results in more love….” The “cycle” that Chan describes here is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, but rather, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Or, “Peter, do you love me? …. [then] feed my sheep.” At the very least, Chan is propagating a love that always comes naturally through a cycle of prayer only. In the best case that can be surmised, he is clearly in serious error.
Also, Chan forgets to mention that the apostle Paul also said: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1Corinthians 7:19). About a year ago, I counseled a fellow who was having trouble with a church leadership that propagates the GS doctrine. He was utterly perplexed as to why they seemed to completely ignore clear biblical directives regarding his situation. The answer is simple: if their motive was love, they did not deem themselves as obligated to biblical imperatives. Throughout the rest of the book, Chan seems to make strong statements regarding the need to obey, but what he is talking about is obedience to the one single Law of love, not biblical imperatives. This is the type of double-speaking deception that I have come to expect from propagators of the GS doctrine.
Throughout the rest of the book after page 101, Chan draws a tight GS line that propagates spiritual growth by a narrow, passive concept of meditation and prayer only (p. 104, 148, 170, to cite a few), and acts of love always experienced as a mere natural flow accompanied by joy (p. 110, 120, 129, to name a few). It is fair to say that the second half of the book is saturated with GS doctrine in its usual nuanced form. But page 203 is worth mentioning before I close. Chan presents Galatians 3:3 as a Pauline contention against effort in the sanctification process which is also supposedly a false gospel. This is a typical GS stance. Concerning this passage, Chan says the following:
“I think each of us has a strong tendency to attempt to wrestle control from the Spirit and “do” this life on our own. Each of us tends to switch from living the gospel of grace to trusting in a system of works. That’s why Paul brings up this issue with the churches in Galatia.”
So, effort on our part (Christians) to “’do’ this life” is supposedly denying the gospel that originally saved us. This is the most basic element of GS which is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we can’t do anything to be saved, neither can we participate in sanctification either except for the same role we play in justification, faith and repentance only. However, Paul is not talking about sanctification in Galatians 3:3. He was talking about the Galatians possibly denying the gospel that saved them by faith alone, and doing so by returning to a salvation by works. Apparently, they were being tempted to consummate this decision by being circumcised, and therefore denying the true gospel by proclaiming a false one. This is absolutely clear by the way Paul summarizes his argument:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:2-4).
Paul makes it clear that he was talking about justification (“ You who are trying to be justified by law”) and not sanctification. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. Paul discuses that in the second part of the book, the first part deals with justification. This can be clearly seen by the fact that Paul uses the word “justification” at least ten times in the book while “sanctification” is not used once, even though it is a biblical word in the same way justification is (1 Corinthians 1:30 and 6:11; both are listed together with glorification).
It is no different than someone who is saved by the true gospel , but then leaves an orthodox community of believers for a community that professes a false gospel. Like Paul, we would “stand in doubt” of them. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. I believe the Young’s Literal Translation demonstrates this well:
“so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? “
In the final analysis, CL adorns GS with some challenges that the church needs to hear, but Chan’s solution is a false doctrine. The first hundred passages were subtle enough to keep me in denial while eating red herrings and ignoring straw men used to diss the conventional hearing of God’s word and the proper application to life thereof. Which is very annoying.
paul
leave a comment