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
The Unborn Charge Us From Heaven: It’s Not About Remembering; It’s About Honoring Life
As a former Reformed pastor, viz, a Protestant, viz, a Calvinist, viz, a Lutheran, viz, an Augustinian, and all other roots of the poisonous tree that make up the Institutional church, I had no comfort for those who suffered the loss of their unborn and infants. I usually let the more expert pastors speak in those situations; you know, the ones with the seminary degrees.
“Is my baby in heaven? ‘We don’t know, but we trust that God is righteous in all that He does.’”
“Why did God allow this to happen? ‘We don’t know, but perhaps to save the child from some worse death.’” That is, something worse than the toddler getting run over in the driveway by their best friend.
Have you ever noticed? Despite trillions of dollars invested in Protestant education, and over 500 years to get it right, Protestants don’t know a lot of stuff. Remember, Jay Adams’ biblical counseling construct introduced in 1970 was considered to be revolutionary. One well-known evangelical even asked, “Could the Bible really be this practical?” Think about it: 1970. That’s how many years after the supposed brilliance of the Reformation?
Not long after 1970, an Adventist theologian named Robert Brinsmead was invited to the hallowed halls of Westminster seminary to inform the who’s who of Protestantism in regard to what a Protestant really is. Now go to Westminster and pay $80,000 for a degree; ya, do that, brilliant. They didn’t even know what the true Protestant gospel was until Brinsmead came along, and they are the experts? Really? So, don’t give me any of that crap about “historical precedent.”
Shortly thereafter, Brinsmead’s revelation was repackaged into things like the Sonship Discipleship Bible Study program and “second generation biblical counseling.” The latter was hatched by Dr. David Powlison who was mentored by another Westminster hack, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. This was the beginning of the New Calvinist movement and launched a Calvinist theological civil war that ended up being won by the New Calvinists who now control Protestantism for the most part. The only holdouts are small Baptist churches that pride themselves on theological ignorance which by the way is a Lutheran Gnostic concept.
But of course, Baptists put a hillbilly twist on that: “We don’t know nuttin about none of that-thar thee-ology stuff. All you do is talk in them 50-cent thee-o-logical words.” Well, at least they know they are ignorant and profess it openly.
Anyway, don’t miss the point: over 500 years after the Reformation Calvinist scholars were arguing about what the true Protestant gospel is. New Calvinism has taken over the evangelical church because no one could ultimately deny that Brinsmead was right. In a presentation at Dr. John Piper’s church, David Powlison stated openly that the difference between first generation biblical counseling and second generation biblical counseling is two different gospels. You do the math. The church is supporting confused men who can’t even agree on what the gospel is.
By the way; babies, born or unborn, go to heaven because they are not under the law. They are born under the law, but they are not susceptible to its condemnation until their consciences are developed. It’s not rocket science, unless your mind is warped with “the gospel of sovereignty.” Don’t bother looking for that in your concordance; it’s not there.
Other than learning real truth from being faithful Bereans, live events teach us well. This week, between our annual TANC conference and the death of my 3rd grandson, I learned a lot more about death. Already in heaven his body was released from what was the comfort of his mother’s womb. His name is now Isaiah, and his short life has taught me much.
The procedure was performed at Kettering hospital in Dayton, Ohio named after Charles F. Kettering the inventor. John Immel spoke of him during this year’s conference. One would do well to read about this man’s astounding life. It is evident at Kettering that they strive to live up to the name for which their facility is named. That’s a very high calling.
But why do we do what we do? Although Isaiah only lived 13 weeks and made no appearance outside of his mother’s womb, Kettering supplies numerous services to honor the life of the unborn. They have a team that focuses on the stillborn exclusively. When Isaiah’s body was delivered, he was placed in a little knit baby crib made by volunteers. Kettering also has a memorial garden for the unborn where ceremonies are held.
Why am I a part of the medical profession where billions of dollars are spent to serve the severely disabled? After all, what can they contribute to others? Why are there so many cemeteries? Wouldn’t it just be easier and cheaper to cremate everybody? For some reason, cemeteries often have “memory” in their names, but I have learned this week from Isaiah that it is not about memory at all. It is rather about defending life and honoring it.
Those who we know and love cannot be forgotten. They become a part of our lives and being. When we lose family and friends, truly the part of our lives they contributed to is lost for the time being. We never completely get over any loss in this lifetime. With each new day we regain more of our happiness and begin functioning according to a new normal of wellbeing. Our mind will find balance, but not because we forget anything. Loss is part of overall homeostasis. There will never be complete closure until the final enemy of God is defeated: death. Christ defeated sin on the cross by ending the law, sickness will be defeated in the Millennial Kingdom, and death will be completely defeated at the new heaven and new earth.
We do what we do because we stand for life. That’s why I no longer think cremation is ok, because of what Isaiah taught me this week. Something is defective in our thinking when dad is sitting on a bookshelf with the family pets. Pets are important, but our lives are worth more than sparrows according to Christ. This is why some cultures have cemeteries, and others just have mass graves. But it’s not about memory, it’s about honoring life—nobody forgets the part of them that is gone.
May I be frank? This is why my knowledge of the Protestant Reformation has caused me to set my face completely against it. If you have followed my teachings on the founding documents of the Protestant Reformation, you know that it is an ideology of zero-sum-life and a doctrine of death. Martin Luther and Charles F. Kettering represent the antithesis of two ideologies in regard to state of being. One loved life so much that he only wanted to know about problems so he could solve them to make life better; the other cursed life and despised anything that improved the quality of it, calling such improvements “the glory of man story” as opposed to the “cross story.” When Christians come to me and Susan for counseling via the electric starter invented by Charles Kettering and end up lecturing us about how spiritual wellbeing only comes from suffering, where does this come from? It comes from the root of the tree. No matter how old a tree is, the fruit is determined by the roots.
We make much ado about the dead because they once lived. We don’t honor their memory—we honor their life. Their memory charges us that when times are good they would have us rejoice, but when times are bad, we are to consider because the creator of life is watching. In this way they speak from the grave.
Sin hates life and brought death. And its advocates despise the idea that man can choose life because they believe he has no right to it. As I walked through the hallways of Kettering Medical Center yesterday I thought about Martin Luther. I thought about how much he would hate that place if he were here today. I thought about how he would rail against it as the “glory of Charles Kettering story” and not the “cross of suffering story.” How he would despise the comfort my daughter received there and its subsequent circumvention of real knowledge in his Book of Concord. This is a vile misrepresentation of the true gospel of life.
But Isaiah and his horde speak of a better testimony…one of life and the upholding of it.
paul
John MacArthur Jr. is Prime Example of a Confused Calvinist
Few Calvinists really know what Calvin believed. One of the best examples is the scholarly John MacArthur. In an article MacArthur wrote in 2014, he claims that sanctification is a paradox:
In Philippians 2:12–13, Paul presents the appropriate resolution between the two. He makes no effort to rationally harmonize the believer’s part and God’s part in sanctification. He is content with the paradox and simply states both truths, saying on the one hand, sanctification is of believers (Philippians 2:12), and on the other hand, it is of God (Philippians 2:13).
The truth is that sanctification is God’s work, but He performs it through the diligent self-discipline and righteous pursuits of His people, not in spite of them. God’s sovereign work does not absolve believers from the need for obedience; it means their obedience is itself a Spirit-empowered work of God.
John MacArthur Jr. ~ The Apparent Paradox of Sanctification: Wednesday, July 2, 2014
John Calvin believed no such thing. In fact, like Martin Luther, he believed that any merit given to man for works in sanctification amounted to a false gospel. So, in other words, while MacArthur proudly proclaims himself a Calvinist, Calvin would have deemed him unregenerate and the propagator of a false gospel. MacArthur is also a confused Protestant (as most are) because Luther would have attested to the same view of sanctification.
Both Luther and Calvin believed that sanctification is the progression of justification, so both (sanctification and justification) must be obtained by faith alone. A paradox view makes man a participant in some respect; Luther and Calvin both would have deemed that works salvation. While Calvinists are fond of accusing people of semipelagianism, this is what MacArthur would have been accused of by Calvin and Luther both. Calvin referred to salvation as “twofold” in regard to justification and sanctification (“twofold grace” or “double grace”). In his soteriology both are a part of the salvation process.
In order to present salvation as a twofold process, Luther presented the “believer” as a passive being; specifically, dead before and after salvation. Therefore, ALL acts performed by the “believer” are dead works according to Luther unless God acts and brings about a resurrection act in the life of the “believer” who is unable to distinguish between his own passive dead acts and God’s active acts. In this way, the Christian life was said to be “subjective.” The “believer” merely experiences the acts of God as if he/she is conducting them, but must believe that any good work experienced is of God and not ourselves. According to Luther, every act of people lost or saved can be forgiven if they believe every action by man is sinful. This is venial sin. But, the belief that one can do a good work is mortal sin and cannot be forgiven.
While Luther primarily framed all of this according to state of being, Calvin framed it in context of law. According to Calvin, perfect law-keeping defines justification, and it is impossible for anyone saved or otherwise to sufficiently obey any law at any time to the satisfaction of God. Calvin made this absolutely clear in 3.14.9-11 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. He begins 3.14.11 by stating that no believer has ever performed a work that falls short of God’s condemnation.
Paradox allows for the possibility of a believer to perform a work pleasing to God other than a confession that we can’t. That’s antithetical to Reformed ideology.
People who call themselves Calvinists should know what Calvin believed. But we shouldn’t expect such because most Protestants don’t even know what Protestantism is to begin with. Including John MacArthur.
paul
Galatians: Protestantism is No New Thing Under the Sun; Law-Based Justification is Functioning Antinomianism
Projected Publication: 2017
The law was NEVER the standard for righteousness, but it is the standard for love and the work of faith.
Protestantism is the Galatian problem all over again. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians he attacks law-based justification, but functioning antinomianism has a slick way of dissing the law while applauding it. On the one hand the law is applauded as the standard for righteousness; ie., justification, but on the other hand some sort of substitute for the law fulfills it. This is anti-law while presaging to applaud it. And by the way, antinomianism is really anti-love.
Hence, while Protestants proudly proclaim themselves people of the book, evil and tyranny reins in the church. Those who show themselves reasonably equitable are really just good Germans. Why is this? Answer: law-based justification. Protestants are perhaps the wiliest in this falsehood because the banner over them is “justification by faith.” While proclaiming justification by faith alone apart from the law, it is really justification by the law. The key here is that like all law-based religions before it, Protestantism makes the law justification’s standard.
As a result, that standard must be met by some sort of substitutional ritual that fulfills the law FOR the “believer.” This actually leads to a “relaxing” of the law because we can’t fulfill its…watch for it….”righteous demands.” Why strive to obey the law when it demands perfection? In fact, Martin Luther and John Calvin both stated that any little falling short makes one guilty of violating every point of the law. Will this lead to a “relaxing” of the law which was the very thing that Christ accused the Pharisees of? Of course it will. As the institutional Protestant church rediscovers its true roots more and more will antinomianism increase? Of course it will. Is that the very thing we are witnessing in our day? Absolutely.
With the Judaizes, the substitute for functioning righteousness was a litany of manmade traditions including the recognition of days and circumcision:
Galatians 4:9,10,11 – But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
Again, Protestants are really slick at this game. One of their rituals is “living by faith alone.” Instead of salvation being a onetime act that makes us righteous, our salvation is maintained by ritual faith alone works. This is the sort of thing James addressed in his epistle and why Martin Luther had open contempt for that particular New Testament letter.
In Protestantism, like all law-based false gospels, the law is the standard. Righteousness is defined by perfect law-keeping coupled with a substitute for fulfilling the law. Let me repeat that:
In Protestantism, like all law-based false gospels, the law is the standard. Righteousness is defined by perfect law-keeping coupled with a substitute for fulfilling the law.
With the Judaizes it was circumcision et al, with Protestantism it is the manmade tradition of “double imputation.” What’s that? It is the idea that Jesus kept/keeps/fulfills the law for us. If we keep the law we will fall short of its “perfect demands” and will be guilty of violating the whole standard for righteousness. The very verse they use to prove this makes the opposite point (James 2:10) as we shall see further along. But, this very error can be addressed using Paul’s letter to the Galatians:
Galatians 5:2 – Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Note that in order to be justified by the law, the receiver of the justification must be the one who keeps it. Unless they alone keep the whole law, they are severed from Christ. “Every man” that wants to be justified by the law must keep it himself. This is why double imputation doesn’t cut it. And in regard to the whole idea of a substituted righteousness, what is the result in every case? A relaxing of the law, and a righteousness that does not exceed that of the Pharisees who substituted the law with their manmade traditions.
This is where double imputation keeps the so-called believer under the condemnation of the law and calls the “believer” to live by faith alone works (ritual) invented by men. Jesus is a substitute for perfect law-keeping which completely misunderstands the purpose of the Old Covenant. The OC uses the law to hold all sin captive. All sin is against the law. The OC imputes all sin to the law, and then Jesus came to end the law (Romans 10:4).
Galatians 3:19 – Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
When one believes on Christ, he/she is baptized in the Spirit and is no longer under the OC to which all sin is imputed. The believer is saved by “the promise” of new birth, NOT the law. In fact, if the law has anything to do with being made righteous, even if it is fulfilled by a substitute, that would make the law an additional “seed” BUT there is only ONE seed:
Galatians 3:15 – To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Protestantism, like all law-based salvation plans, makes the law an additional life source other than the new birth made possible by “the promise” of the Spirit who raised Christ from the grave. This changes the true believer’s relationship to the law. Instead the law condemning, it is the standard for loving God and others.
The law was NEVER the standard for righteousness, but it is the standard for love and the work of faith:
Galatians 5:6 – For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
This is the whole point of James 2:10 as set against many verses noting that love fulfills the whole law. The contrast is the point. The new birth is the standard for righteousness—not the law. This makes the whole Protestant “sinners save by grace” a lie from the pit of hell. Those who sin against the law are still under law. Grace in not a covering for sin, it is an ending of the law and its condemnation. Grace has a law: the law fulfilled by the believer’s work of love; read Romans 8 and…
1John 3:3 – And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (KJV).
Christ didn’t come to cover sin via obedience to Protestant orthodoxy which holds to a law-based standard for justification like all other false religions. He came to end enslavement to sin and the law’s condemnation in order to free us to live by love. The law is good for that purpose. In this sense, the law and its truth sanctifies us (John 17:17). In this sense, “If you love me keep my commandments.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments