Jesus Obeys For Us? Is That What We Really Believe?
“The fact that Christians buy into ‘the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,’ is just plain embarrassing.”
I guess the belief sweeping through Christendom that saints are unable to participate in the sanctification process is just fine with everybody. Also, we know that Christ died for our sins, but did he also live on earth for our works in sanctification? Was one of the primary purposes of His first appearing to fulfill the Law for us, and thereby nullifying a necessity to uphold the Law in the sanctification process by us? That seems like a major doctrinal angle to me with serious consequences regarding life application. But hey, I guess that’s just me. This neo-Reformed doctrine can be seen clearly in a recent post by Justin Taylor entitled “Imperatives – Indicatives = Impossibilities” on his “Between Two Worlds” blog. The title of his blog is a reference to the Biblical Theology of Geerhardus Vos. “Biblical Theology” is an interpretive process initiated by an eighteenth century liberal named Johann Philipp Gabler, who emphasized interpretation based on Historicism as opposed to dogma (ideas drawn from the text using literal interpretation). Vos supposedly took Gabler’s concept in a more conservative direction. Supposedly.
Obviously, all of the grammatical commands in the Bible with the saints being the object of the action (God commanding) is a serious problem for those who propagate this neo-Reformed doctrine, sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. Hence, the post by Taylor (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/03/imperatives-indicatives-impossibilities/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29&utm_content=Netvibes ), that states that all commands in the Bible are preceded by a historical account of God performing the foundation of the command beforehand. In other words, we are not really obeying, we are merely displaying the obedience of Christ, who obeys for us. The only problem is the following: to suggest that this is a consistent grammatical pattern throughout the New Testament is an insult to any intelligence one might possess. Throughout the NT, God also makes His actions contingent on our obedience. The fact that Christians buy into “the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,” is just plain embarrassing. I address this in one of the chapters of my book:
Click to access essay%2011.PDF
The link is the specific excerpt, and catalogs many examples.
In this particular post, Taylor also displays the attitude among GS advocates that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, and invariably on a mission from God to save the church from orthodox evangelicalism:
“The problem with the typical evangelical motivation toward radical or sacrificial living is that ‘imperatives divorced from indicatives become impossibilities’ (to quote Tullian Tchividjian). Or another way that Tullian puts it: ‘gospel obligations must be based on gospel declarations.’
This ‘become what you are’ way of speaking is strange for many us. It seems precisely backward. But we must adjust our mental compass in order to walk this biblical path and recalibrate in order to speak this biblical language.”
In addition, the post is very insightful because several GS cronies comment in unguarded fashion. How this theology fleshes itself out in real life can be ascertained by the many comments (which had to be closed due to the number of Kool-Aid drinkers rushing the alter to drink from the vat).
“Alex” said: “I hear Tim Keller doing this a lot in his preaching. He will often organize his message around, “Here’s what you need to do, but you’re not doing it and in fact you can’t do it. You will never be able to do this until you see what Christ has done/who Christ has made you”.
“Mike” said: “….And all along they’ve been doing it in their own strength, because no one tells them they can rest in the finished work of Christ: both His passive obedience on the Cross and, as Chad mentioned, His active obedience throughout the 33 years before the Cross.”
Is that true? In the sanctification process, are we to “rest”? And are we to totally rest in what Christ has already done in our place? Remember, Alex also said that it is not us doing it [the obedience], and we couldn’t, even if we wanted to. To exert effort is to do it in our “own strength” (Mike).
Chad Bresson, another advocate of GS and a Christian mystic / blogger, further propagates the whole “Jesus obeys for us” idea in his comment on the same post:
“I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.”
Bresson’s comment concerning Christ’s “imputed active obedience “ should need no explanation in regard to what he is saying.
Other disturbing elements of GS can be seen in a comment by “Bruce” who reiterates the GS belief that there is no difference between justification and sanctification, and that we are “justified” every time Christ does not obey for us- via our confession:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!”
However, in all of the comments that were made, there was one voice of sanity that arose. Though I doubt the individual realizes the gravity of this false, antinomian doctrine; what he said, he said well, and I will use it for my conclusion. “Andrew” said the following:
“To be honest, at least in Reformed circles, I find that there is an equally large problem of total fear of ever trying to live in a godly way. No one would express it like this, of course, but the “I don’t want to work my way to righteousness” attitude means that almost any time a pastor doesn’t mention the gospel before he mentions godly living, the Reformed community jumps on him for it.
And of course there is something very right about this. But if I’m pasturing a church where I have been faithful to proclaim our total dependence on Christ’s righteousness in the gospel and I’m preaching through James, can’t I pound on the need to live a godly life? And here is exactly the problem: there are real parts of Scripture that simply don’t expound the indicative first.
For that matter, imagine that James was a Reformed blogger and wrote his letter as a blog entry first. Can you imagine the fury of the rest of the Reformed bloggers? “There is not nearly enough gospel in here, James! How can you expect us to live godly lives when you’ve given us no gospel?!?! Justification by works? Are you mad?!?!”
Now I don’t think that James and Paul are contradictory. But I do think that this statement: “This is not how Paul and the other New Testament writers motivated the church in light of the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit. They did give imperatives (=what you should do), but they do so only based on indicatives (=what God has done).” is mostly true, but overstated.”
(Andrew Faris blog: http://www.christiansincontext.org/ )
P.S. to Andrew,
Andrew,
They believe that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel.
paul
Is Elder Infallibility a Tenet of Christocentric Theology?
I am presently working on a lengthy, in-depth article regarding a particular elder that teaches at a church that propagates the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification, an extreme form of Christocentric theology. As part of my research, I decided to read one of his sermons entitled “How to Listen to a Sermon.” I know, bizarre, but welcome to my world as I research the wacky world of the “gospel-driven life.” It is a world that is like a bottomless Cracker Jack box, where the surprises never end, and the reading of this sermon produced yet another one.
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from *preaching and teaching,* and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added-in to mask the disturbing part of this statement, “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, if I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could not do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that “it” in his statement refers to God’s word, not Paul’s preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes *through* the “preacher” first, before getting *to* the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion:
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear very sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also says the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“ -introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process, “ in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? Or, is this just unique in regard to this particular church? Yet, another question could be asked: how many parishioners who heard either of the above mentioned sermons ran for the exit doors? But to answer the first question, I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Christocentric theology.
paul
Death by Good News: Living the “Gospel-Driven Life” Isn’t Really About Living “by” the Gospel
“The cross-centered gospel and cross-likeness are not an exact replica of discipleship activity.”
“At any rate, advocates of this doctrine go undetected because of their mastery in presenting the vertical realities of truth minus horizontal responsibility, and the application to life thereof, i.e., obedience. Can we have an abundant, God honoring life in Christ without our own effort being involved? I doubt it. In fact, such a way will rather lead to death.”
I could start this post by complaining about the lack of Scooby-Doo’s inquisitive “er?” among God’s people in regard to some concept of “living by the gospel” *every day,* but we’re way past that in our day and age. We have rather gone to the other kind of dogs; the one frantically running for the bacon flavored “Kibbles and Bits” while chanting, “I love bacon, I love bacon, I love bacon.” If it sounds good, it’s bacon baby. Never mind some possible chemical reaction taking place inside the cranium area that would insight a small, still voice saying: “Wait a minute here. We are saved by the gospel, which is a fairly narrow concept; how does one also live by that same narrow concept every day? Not only that, believing the gospel gets us into the kingdom, once in, why do the saved still need it?” I don’t know if I will ever get remarried or not, but certainly, if I were ever on a date and the lady asked such a question, it would be a sure sign from God.
But actually, I can answer that question. Yes, there is a sense in which we should live by the gospel every day. When we forgive somebody we are forgiving them in the same way that we were forgiven:
Ephesians 4:32
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
There you go, that’s living by the gospel, and we should most certainly practice that every day if necessary. What about patience towards others in the same way God was patient towards you until you surrendered your life to him?:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Again, this is living by the gospel. Yet another example, perhaps the most viable, is a daily dieing to self:
Matthew 10:38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Luke 9:23
Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Luke 14:27
And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Mark 8:35
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.
Furthermore, daily service to others is living by the gospel:
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Pity though, this is not what proponents of the “gospel-driven life,” or Christocentric theology, or Christ centered (you fill in the blank), or gospel centered (fill in the blank), or cross centered (you fill in the blank), and Gospel Sanctification have in mind. But hold that thought. Even if they did have this in mind (which would be a good start), here are three major reasons why Gospel Sanctification would still be a fraud:
1. It’s a part of being a disciple and not the whole thing. We are not only called to live a cross-like life, we are also called to “follow” him:
Matthew 10:38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
For example, we are to follow Christ who also pleased God the Father in many other ways other than obedience to the cross. Before Christ went to the cross, here is what the Father said of Him:
Matthew 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Christ said of Himself:
John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
John 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”
All of these statements are before the cross. Walking as a disciple is more than cross-likeness, it is also observing “all that I have commanded” (Matthew 28:20).
2. The cross-centered gospel and cross-likeness is not an exact replica of discipleship activity. For example, we obeyed the gospel unto salvation by faith and repentance. As believers, we still repent daily, but it’s not the same kind of repentance that saved us, there is a difference. Specifically, it is the difference between repentance that justifies and repentance that takes place during sanctification. Jesus made it clear that there is a difference:
John 13:10
Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”
Christians have clean bodies (salvation); they now only need to wash their feet daily. Gospel Sanctification clearly teaches that we need the same gospel that saved us every day. This is impossible because to satisfy a connection with the gospel daily, we would need the same repentance, which is no longer needed by the believer. Not only that, the faith is not the same either. The gospel requires a faith alone. As J.C. Ryle rightly notes in his 20 letters on holiness, though the Scriptures say specifically that we are justified by faith alone, they never say we are sanctified by faith *alone.* In fact, James clearly states that the blessings of sanctification come “in” obedience (James 1:25) and not faith alone. Here is what J.C. Ryle said accordingly
“It is Scriptural and right to say faith alone justifies. But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say faith alone sanctifies.”
Simply stated, faith and repentance differ between justification (gospel) and sanctification. Therefore, we can live by the gospel implicitly as believers (note above examples), but not explicitly because the body has already been washed. The gospel can have serious implications to our lives as believers, but it is our goal to rather live out the commands of Christ as explicitly as we can. This is the second reason that Gospel Sanctification is a fraud.
3. To begin with, the gospel is not about the cross in totality. The gospel means “good news.” Though the cross is very, very, good news, it is not the only good news Jesus spoke of. In fact, the herald of the beginning of His ministry was the following:
Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
Matthew 9:35
Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.
The good news was not just the cross, it was also the kingdom. As a matter of fact, the kingdom was a dominate theme in the presentation of the gospel throughout the book of acts, and in some cases, mentioned as separate from Christ in the same presentation:
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 14:22
strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.
Acts 19:8
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:25
“Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.
Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
Acts 28:31
Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Even in the latter days just prior to the return of Christ, He said Himself,
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
The “good news” is not only concerning God’s Son (Romans 1:9). The gospel (good news) of His Son, is also the good news of the kingdom. It begs the question: have Reformed teachers frantically erected a cross-only “good news” in fear that a future kingdom with Jewish implications will be discovered in the Scriptures? Is the constant drumbeat of a cross-only gospel building a scriptural Dome on the Rock? But more to the point, wouldn’t a *living by the kingdom* be much more applicable than living by a narrow (but none the less profound) cross-only *good news*? In fact, a *living by the kingdom* seems to be the dominate theme of the Sermon on the Mount. If we are going to live “by” something, or “according” to something daily, why would it not be a kingdom mandate rather than a once and for all washing of the body? After all, Christ’s mandate for the church was not to make disciples who observe the gospel everyday, but rather those who observe “all that I have commanded” which is much more indicative of kingdom living than the continual revisiting of the death, burial, and resurrection, which is often spoken of as a foundation that we build on, and other times we are even exhorted not to continually lay the same foundation:
Romans 15:20
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.
1 Corinthians 3:10
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:12
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
So, it is a pity that proponents of Gospel Sanctification do not at least propagate an implicit living *by* the gospel because it at least approaches Scriptural semblance. But then what does Michael Horton, Paul Tripp, John Piper, Tim Keller, and others mean when they speak of “living *by* the gospel”? It is simply the following:
1. The gospel is confined to the cross and finished work of Christ, there is no other *good news.*
2. We are sanctified by the “same” gospel that saved us.
3. We cannot not think that we are saved by “the gospel,” and then we can “move on to something else” [and I will give you three wild guesses as to what the “something else” is].
4. The Bible is a gospel narrative (only) that gives us the ability to continually revisit the gospel daily. As Jerry Bridges often says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”
Therefore, there will be a strong emphasis on teaching and preaching that focuses on the glory of God in the gospel only. Supposedly, meditating on various forms of the gospel and God’s glory from Scripture will change us “from the inside out.” There is no room here to discuss all of the various theories in regard to our supposed passive (obviously) participation in the sanctification process, but I can tell you that the teaching and preaching will be almost entirely vertical; and, all but completely void of practical application of biblical precepts. Think about it; what could you do to be saved? Well, if that same gospel sanctifies you, what can your participation be in the sanctification process? Not much. An excellent example of this is a book written by J.F. Strombeck in the forties entitled “Disciplined by Grace.” I believe that Jerry Bridges wrote a similar book entitled “The Discipline of Grace.” Strombeck’s book was a masterful work concerning the gospel of Christ and the glory of God, but the thesis of the book was that the realization of this is what disciplines us, not our own efforts. I would contend that it is both. At any rate, advocates of this doctrine go undetected because of their mastery in presenting the vertical realities of truth minus horizontal responsibility, and the application to life thereof, i.e., obedience. Can we have an abundant, God honoring life in Christ without our own effort being involved? I doubt it. In fact, such a way will rather lead to death. I will often hear Christians rave about a certain teacher or preacher, and inform me that I “must run now and get this book.” On several occasions, I have told them to point out practical application of biblical precepts as taught in the book, and if they can, then I will buy it. Per the usual, their initial response is an emphatic “no problem.” But later, they come back surprised that the book is void concerning hands-on instruction.
So what? Well, the following from Luke 6:46-49 is the “so what?”:
46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.
48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.
49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”
First, we see that Christ expects to be Lord (master) in any legitimate relationship with Him. His question is obviously rhetorical. Because GS teachers despise any notion that we can colabor with God in sanctification, you can bet that they will not tolerate any inkling of what they perceive as self effort in justification. Therefore, repentance will often be conspicuously missing from their gospel presentations. As a result, you could well argue that they teach a false gospel based on this point alone:
Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, [you must call on Him as “Lord”].
Acts 5:31
” He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 17:30
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus [note they “must” have faith and repentance both].
Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Secondly, under “so what?“; Christ was also clear as to the ill effect on believers in regard to neglecting the art of applying God’s word to life in obedience:
“But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete” (Luke 6:49).
Therefore, those who sit under GS teachers receive a steady diet of the sweet stuff. It’s like the name of my favorite desert at Chilies: “Death by Chocolate.” Round-up a bunch of toddlers and feed them nothing but chocolate for two weeks and see what you get. It’s what the Neo-Reformed movement is looking like more and more as they are fed the unbalanced diet of the vertical only. Michael Horton’s favorite reference regarding biblical imperatives is, “it‘s just more bad news.” Really? To the contrary, an unbalanced diet of monergism in the sanctification process is really death by good news; what Jesus called a “complete destruction.”
paul
Will the Creation Museum Add a Wing Dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.”
As my grandmother used to say: “nothing is sacred anymore.” Likewise, proponents of the “new Calvinism,” or “neo reformed movement,” or “the gospel driven life,” or “gospel sanctification,” or whatever other nomenclature you would like to attach, are busily writing articles that supposedly puts the beloved Creation Museum (just outside of Cincinnati, Ohio) into “proper perspective.” In their endeavor to save the church from the false gospel of exegetical interpretation of the Scriptures, they boldly proclaim that the age (how long ago they existed) of dinosaurs and how they became extinct is not the point; those dinosaurs were preaching the gospel, that’s the point. Therefore, attempts to arm our youth with creation science (what I thought the museum was doing, until being recently “corrected“) instead of redemptive historical hermeneutics is supposedly misguided, and many of these pundits have said as much. Granted, our children’s contentions in a public school setting that evolution is not the point, but the fact that all of creation is the gospel, may initially get the attention of opponents; that is, until they start asking how the creation of birds is a gospel presentation.
One article even insinuated that the founders of the museum installed the “Last Adam” film presentation at the end of the scientific gallery to emphasize that the Genesis, chapters 1 and 2 account is really a gospel presentation, and specifically speaks of Christ and Him only. However, though I doubt the Creation Museum folks reprinted the article because they really understood where the author was coming from; never the less, does this mean they will soon be installing a new wing dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.”
Some of you may be asking: “Who is Geerhardus Vos?” Well, he is known as the father of Reformed Biblical Theology. You say: “Oh, that’s the biblical theology of the second phase of the Protestant Reformation (begun by Luther) by the likes of Calvin and Zwingli.” No. Biblical Theology originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writing of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction. Also known as redemptive historical hermeneutics, the debate that came out of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands (in 1940) is helpful in defining the difference between biblical theology and more orthodox forms of interpretation. The following quote is a helpful description:
“Redemptive-historical preaching is a method of preaching that was forged in the fires of debate in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands in the early 1940s. The debate concerned itself with the question: “How are we to preach the historical narratives of the Bible?” On one side of the question were the proponents of “exemplaristic” preaching. This method of preaching taught that the biblical narratives in general, and the Old Testament stories in particular, were to be preached as examples of how Christians today should (or should not) live their lives. Old Testament believers were held up as examples (or anti-examples, as the case may be) of how we should conduct ourselves.
On the other side of the debate were the advocates of preaching that was “redemptive-historical” (the term used to translate the Dutch heilshistorisch). They argued that Old Testament narratives are not given to us by God primarily to be moral examples, but as revelations of the coming Messiah. The narratives of the Old Testament served as types and shadows pointing forward in history to the time when Israel’s Messiah [however, more contemporary versions include superessionism] would be revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. In support of this view, the advocates of redemptive-historical preaching drew heavily upon the text of Luke 24:27, where Jesus is teaching the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (English Standard Version). Further support was taken from verse 44 of the same chapter, where Jesus says, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
I might mention three things before continuing:
1. This hermeneutic is, by all accounts, very new in church history. Catch my drift?
2. It’s contention against orthodox hermeneutics is strange when one considers 1Corinthians 10:6; “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.” And 1 Corinthians 10:11; “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.”
3. Furthermore, Luke 24:27,44 doesn’t say that every narrative and verse in the OT is about Christ, but rather that He fulfilled prophesies about Himself contained in the OT. There are no adjectives in these verses that suggest a plenary, OT soteriolgy.
Today, the RHH is primarily carried forward and propagated by Northwest Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Westminster Seminary California. The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.
However, “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: an Analysis, Critique, and Reconstruction,” by Tim Black, is probably the most extensive and technical work ever done on Vos hermeneutics. It is a massive work that cannot even be summarized here, but I would like to glean some relevant observations by Black that cast additional information on RHH that falls under the category of ominous. But before I do, let me interject that Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.
“But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:”
Vos believed that the Bible is a historical revelation of one person and one thing only; Christ and his redemption (Don’t worry, I am not going to park here long. You will soon see the relevance of this promise in the following). He also believed that the Bible’s revelation is organic, like in the following example: It is a living organism like a large plant. All that the plant will be is contained in the seed, but as the plant grows, it gives continuing revelation (in regard to Christ and redemption only) as to what was originally contained in the seed. Therefore, the continued growth of the plant reveals the former. The Bible is a progressive revelation in regard to redemption, so everything from the beginning to the end is a evolving revelation in regard to Christ and his redemption. So, the New Testament interprets the Old; the new is a more exact representation of the full revelation to come. So then, the Old Testament is a limited revealing of redemptions fullness. This is also accomplished on two different plains, the earthly and the heavenly. Black explains it this way on page 38:
“Everything which falls between these two ends of both history and Vos’s system is a gradual process of synthesis whereby the definitive antithesis between the age to come and this present evil age is “organically” synthesized through the progressive motion from “earth” to “heaven.” The earlier and lower moves to the later and higher.”
In other words, earth’s history is redemptive, and is growing toward its heavenly fullness in an organic synthesis. I would then add that creation must also be in the act of progressive sanctification as we also are, though Black never makes this point in his thesis. Hopefully then, you can at least see why proponents of RHH would say the creation account in Genesis is, in fact, a gospel narrative. But we now move on to the point that is easier to grasp: Biblical revelation (according to Voss) is by historical narrative rather than “textually presented ideas.” Black presents this Vos concept in the following ways:
1. “Rather, Vos emphasizes that the historical events (redemptive deeds/acts of God) which are described in Scripture are revelatory in themselves, and even form the central and foundational core to all other revelation”(page 23).
2. “As a result, despite his recognition [Vos] of the existence of a distinction between word and deed, he [Vos] focused on the deeds of God [historical deeds] as if they were more central than God’s words to Biblical revelation” (page 25).
3. “For the present let it suffice to say that the intuition arises again that for Voss, it is more important for the interpreter of Scripture to follow the organization of the historical events than to follow the organization of the text of Scripture” (page 26).
4. “Thus Vos finds it better to focus in Scripture first and foremost on the events rather than on the textually-presented ideas” (page 28).
Black also eludes to one of my own primary concerns with RHH, an overemphasis on any one member of the Trinity always leads to trouble:
“Further, it appears that Scripture is not only primarily centered around Christ but rather around the Triune God, including Christ” (page 57).
Furthermore, Black also contends that interpreting Scripture through covenants would find much more biblical cause than redemptive history:
“As argued above, the particular purpose of Genesis 1-2 is not redemptive, but covenantal–its purpose is the presentation of the covenant” (page59).
“I propose, therefore, that we do not refer to our method of interpreting Scripture as “Redemptive Historical” but rather “Covenantal Historical” or even “Covenantal” under the assumption that the covenant has an historically-progressive aspect built into its structure. This is more true to the actual history to which Scripture refers, and concomitantly is more true to Scripture itself” (page61).
For sure. From a “plain sense of Scripture” viewpoint, as well as a pure biblical data perspective, a much stronger argument could be made for a “Covenantal Historical” hermeneutic if one was inclined to do so.
But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:
“It is the critical thesis of this SIP that Vos’s two main emphases were shaped in part by
the philosophical context within which he worked. It appears that his emphasis on the historical progress of redemption and revelation is influenced by Historicism, and that his view of the 2 ages is influenced by the modern Nature-Freedom scheme. Both Historicism and the Nature-Freedom scheme must be explained at this point. I do not know how to keep Vos’s two emphases separate in this critique, and so I will allow them to run together to some extent. Just as the 2-age construction seems to be found as the flower of the historical progression, the Nature-Freedom scheme appears to be built out of Historicism. I will begin with a discussion of Historicism, move to an analysis of the Nature-Freedom scheme, and then attempt to demonstrate the presence of both in Vos’s thought.
i) Historicistic
In order to understand Vos’s hermeneutics in context, it is necessary to understand the
nature of Historicism. It should become apparent in the following that Vos’s view of history and of the study of history follows the central structures of the basic ideas of Historicism.
The best understanding of the nature of Historicism to which I have been able to come is
summarized by Maurice Mandelbaum in his book History, Man, & Reason. Mandelbaum gives a helpful general definition of Historicism. His definition is that “Historicism is the belief that an adequate understanding of the nature of any phenomenon and an adequate assessment of its value are to be gained through considering it in terms of the place which it occupied and the role which it played within a process of development.” Mandelbaum fleshes this definition out throughout his book but the best summary of what he means is given in four points concerning the historicistic construction which is characteristic of Hegel’s thought as well as Compte’s and Marxism.
First, there is a unified historical process which involves all historical entities in its movement and which must be studied by the historian.
Second, beneath all historicistic thought “was presupposed an underlying substance or subject which changes. Thus, a pattern of change conceived in the terms made familiar by Aristotle and by Hegel is not to be construed simply as a sequence of related forms; these successive forms are regarded as having an inherent connection with one another because each of them is viewed as a phase in a single, unified process, and because each expresses some necessary feature of that process.”
Third, Mandelbaum notes that the the substance which changes has an organic nature. He states that ‘both Compte and the Marxists shared Hegel’s view that, during any phase of this developmental process, the various attributes of society were organically related to one another, forming a coherent whole.’
Fourth,
‘The second basic presupposition connected with treating history in terms consonant with the Aristotelian and the Hegelian views of developmental processes is the fact that the later stages of these processes were
considered as being higher realizations, or fulfillments, of what was only implicit in the earlier stages. To be sure, significant differences existed between the Aristotelian doctrine of the relation of act to potency and Hegel’s dialectical emphasis on the role of negation in change. Nevertheless in both cases the end was
conceived as representing a higher and more perfect level than had been attained in any of the developmental stages preceding it. This did not entail that, according to Hegel (or even according to Aristotelianism), the value of each of the earlier stages was wholly relative to the value of the end. Since the end could not be attained in one leap, but only through transformations from one stage to the next, each stage had its own value. That value, however, could only be adequately appreciated through understanding how each stage in the development was related to the goal-directed process of which it was a part….it is only in terms of the later stages of development, when latent powers have become fully explicit, that we are in a position fully to understand the nature of a developmental process and adequately interpret the earlier stages of that process. This familiar teleological theme is, of course, most manifest in Hegel’:
‘The living substance…is that which is truly subject, or what is the same thing, is truly
realized and actual (wirklich) solely in the process of positing itself, or in mediating with its own self its transitions from one state or position to the opposite….It is the process of its own becoming, the circle which presupposes its end as its purpose, and has its end for its beginning; it becomes concrete and actual only by being carried out, and by the end it involves.’’
Note here that although Mandelbaum calls this his second point elsewhere he considers it his fourth point. Mandelbaum’s summary of the essential features of Historicism, then, are 1) that it posits a unified historical process, 2) it posits a substance which changes according to the laws of that process, 3) it posits the organic nature of the substance, and 4) it posits that the not only the process as a whole but also each stage of the process and the organic substance which changes within that process all aim toward a goal and are all properly understood only in terms of the way in which they are progressing toward the attainment of that goal. Further, this goal-orientation assumes that the fulfillment of the goal is the best situation possible, and each stage along the way, although of some value in itself is yet not to be considered perfect. I must mention that every description of Historicism I have found has described it in similar terms to the terms used by Vos, but more importantly those descriptions have followed the general outlines which Mandelbaum has laid out.
While I do not think I understand Historicism as well as some other people, nevertheless it is undeniable that Mandelbaum’s general definition of Historicism fits Vos’s system to a ‘T,’ especially in regard to his focus on the progress of redemptive history toward the goal of heaven, and the fuller-meaning method of interpreting that progress which he roots in Paul’s eschatological interpretation of the Old Testament.’’”
Black continues on, in several pages filled with mind-numbing data and references to show the irrefutable correlations between Vos’s hermeneutic and pagan philosophies.
The bottom line is this: the gospel driven life, New Covenant Theology, gospel sanctification, and most other things that come out of Westminster Seminary, stand or fall on Vos’s hermeneutic, and it ain’t lookin’ good for the standin’ part. Vos’s hermeneutic is new, disregards the plain sense of textual content, contains pagan philosophy, and in reality, is just plain goofy. Furthermore, Reformed folks need to determine what type of Reformed they are: Calvin, or Vos? Secondly, editors should get some discernment before they print silly articles that make “cool, green grass” that squishes “between our toes,” synonymous with the gospel. And these guys built the Creation Museum?!
Lastly, in Proverbs 8, wisdom is personified as a women. She’s not a story, neither is she a narrative; she is, understanding (v.1), truth (v.7), justice (v.8), knowledge (v.9), instruction (v.10), wisdom (v.12) fear of the Lord (v.13), counsel (v.13), righteousness (v.20), the first fruits of God’s works (v.22). And guess what?: before creation, she was with God:
“23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”
I conclude with a pleading for Christians not to be led away from Lady Wisdom, but I think I will let her do the talking:
32 “Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not ignore it.
34 Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway.
35 For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the LORD.
36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.”
The Newest Fad Among Contemporary Antinomians: Skeletons
Life can be really interesting. Some people I know are infatuated with all the nuances of nature that they discover; for example, a type of butterfly they had never seen before and so forth. Me? I just love to watch all of the new “discoveries” found by propagators of the antinomian doctrine known as the *gospel driven life* or *gospel sanctification.* Gospel sanctification is a tenet of New Covenant Theology, and can best be described as plenary monergism in every aspect of salvation, whether justification or sanctification.
As with most false doctrines, the advocates are primarily focused on the novelty of it. So when the novelty wears off, some new twist in essence, or a “deeper” understanding must be brought forth to recharge the faithful as they wait with bated breath at the doors of the Church Of The Potted Plant. This is nothing new for this doctrine. J.C. Ryle contended against a very similar doctrine in the 19th century and had this to say accordingly:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
While I am still looking for new and exciting trends to come out of this movement like the anticipation of daily baptisms for believers (since we are saved by the gospel everyday), one has come forth that I never saw coming: the depiction of Christians as skeletons. Man! How could I not see that coming? It is a perfect picture of their theology; Christians are dead and can do nothing. From blog handles to Facebook status pictures, the GS faithful are proudly presenting themselves as empty skeletons, humbly praying, unlike those arrogant, hateful skeletons we often see in Hollywood movies. In Micheal Horton’s book “Christless Christianity (pg 189),” he presents Sunday worship as a valley of dry bones event; a reference from Ezekiel, chapter 37:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ.”
So in other words, Sunday worship, like the rest of the Christians life, is a passive event in which dry bones are brought to life on a continual bases. Christians are therefore just a valley of dry bones and unable to do anything but wait for God to give us life on a continual bases. And even if he does, we are only then able to get on our skeleton knees and pray for more life. The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan. Hopefully, the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang will not sue for copyright infringement.
But there is only one thing missing. They forget to put their favorite Bible verse (slogan) over the praying skeleton, Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
It would be perfect (even though the context of this passage is clearly justification by works): a black leather jacket with the praying skeleton, and an arching, fancy font of Galatians 2:20 over the praying skeleton. Then you could have a sub-title underneath like “Ride to Live. Live to Ride”; except we would say, “Live to Do Nothing. Do Nothing to Live.” Would that seem offensive? Why? Christians are more and more like motorcycle gangs these days; nether care very much for the Law of God.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments