Justin Taylor's Blog, page 320
June 15, 2011
Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
Doug Sweeney of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a top-notch historian, writes:
Well-researched and up-to-date, [John Fea's Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?] is full of timely wisdom on a topic far more complicated than many people think. If I could recommend but one source on the Christian America thesis, this would be it.
In a recent interview Professor Fea explained the importance of good historical investigation:
Most people who read the book expect me to jump headfirst into the political debate. About 90 percent of the interviews I have done have asked me to offer a "yes" or "no" answer to the question in the title of my book. It has alerted me to the fact that our schools have failed to teach good historical thinking.
Historians listen to people in the past. They empathize with them and try to understand them, even if they do not agree. They show intellectual hospitality to people in the past. The people historians encounter may be dead, but they have left us with documents to help us better understand them. I firmly believe that mature historical understanding can be an antidote to the culture wars because it decenters us. It forces us to go beyond our brief life and see ourselves as part of a larger human community created in the image of God. I realize that it is very unnatural to think this way, but I will continue to hold out hope that this kind of thinking about the world has its merits.
His answer to the question seems reasonable to me: "It depends where you look and how you define your terms."
HT: Scot McKnight
Succession Plans and Growing Older
John Piper, Tim Keller, and Don Carson talk about growing older, making transitions, and pastoral succession.
Note that Piper told the people of Bethlehem last Sunday:
My proposal to the elders—and it comes from Noël and me, not just me (we have talked a lot about this, as you can imagine)—is that I transition from pastor for preaching and vision to a fulltime writing and BCS [Bethlehem College and Seminary] teaching and mentoring and wider speaking role on June 30, 2014—three years from now. And that we be very intentional and prayerful and thoughtful about a successor in those years.
That's not the plan yet, because the elders have to think through all the implications and come to a mind.
The Gospel Coalition looked at this issue in a profile on "Gospel Integrity and Pastoral Succession," which includes an explanation of what Keller and Redeemer plan to do.
Should the Church Be World-Affirming or World-Denying?
Os Guinness and David Wells:
As Christians, and as the church of Jesus Christ, we are called by our Lord to be "in" the world, but "not of" the world. "No longer" who we were before we came to Christ, we are "not yet" what we will be when Christ returns. This bracing call to tension in both time and space lies at the heart of our faith. Individually and collectively, we are to live in the world in a stance of both Yes and No, affirmation and antithesis, or of being "against the world/for the world."
This tension is crucial to the faithfulness of the church, and to her integrity and effectiveness in the world. When the church of Christ remains faithful to this calling, she lives in a creative tension that is the prerequisite of her transforming power in culture and history.
For the Christian faith is unashamedly world-affirming, and has a peerless record in contributing to education, to philanthropy, to social reforms, to medicine, to the rise of science, to the emergence of democracy and human rights, as well as to building schools, hospitals, universities, orphanages, and other beneficial institutions.
Yet at the same time, the Christian faith is also world-denying, insisting on the place of prophets as well as priests, on sacrifice as well fulfillment, on the importance of fasts as well as feasts, and on the place for exposing and opposing the world when its attitudes and actions are against the commands of God and the interests of humanity.
Not surprisingly, the church's constant temptation has been to relax this tension from one side or the other, so that the Christians in different ages have sometimes been so much in the world that they are of it, or so much not of the world that they were "no earthly use." Either way, such unfaithfulness means that the church grows weak, but unfaithfulness in the direction of worldliness is worse than weak, for it puts the church, like Israel in the Old Testament, under the shadow of the judgment of God.
—From their Lausanne paper, "Global Gospel, Global Era: Christian Discipleship and Mission in the Age of Globalization."
Sanctification by Justification
In light of the recent discussion between Kevin DeYoung and Tullian Tchividjian, I thought it'd be helpful to hightlight an excellent essay by Dane Ortlund published in the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, "Sanctification by Justification: The Forgotten Insight of Bavick and Berkouwer on Progressive Sanctification."
Here's an overview:
Herman Bavinck and G. C. Berkouwer, each in his own way, explained spiritual progress—what we are calling "sanctification"—as taking place not by moving beyond justification but by feeding on it.That is, sanctification does not occur by graduating on from God's justifying grace in the gospel but by reflecting on, enjoying, and appropriating it more and more deeply throughout one's life. Counterintuitive though it be, one is sanctified not by moving past justification but by ever-deepening re-orientation toward it.
Ortlund's essay proceeds in three parts:
We first explore the way Bavinck expresses his understanding of sanctification's relation to justification.
Second, we do the same for Berkouwer.
Third, we synthesize the basic point held in common between these two thinkers. This synthesis will include incorporating Jonathan Edwards into the discussion in light of a neglect in Berkouwer's understanding of sanctification, as well as briefly placing the Bavinck/Berkouwer insight into the larger soteriological context of union with Christ.
In his conclusion, Ortlund expresses his view that the two Dutchmen have rightly articulated a crucial insight for the fight of faith:
Justification is not only relevant for entrance into the people of God and for final acquittal, but, in between these two events, is the critical factor in the mind of the believer for healthy progressive sanctification.
However, he wants to make sure that this insight is placed into the larger soteriological framework of union with Christ, such that "sanctification by justification" is not the only means of being conformed to the image of Christ:
As has been argued by many in the tradition to which Bavinck and Berkouwer belong, union with Christ should be seen as the broadest soteriological rubric, within which both justification and sanctification are subsumed. This is to suggest neither that a robust appropriation of union with Christ is somehow in tension with the Bavinck/Berkouwer insight nor that they overlook union with Christ. Both (Berkouwer to a lesser degree) incorporate union with Christ into their discussions of sanctification. Still, these two Dutch thinkers—especially Berkouwer—could have been truer to the soteriology of the NT if they had more self-consciously placed their discussions of "sanctification by justification" within the broader conceptual category of being united to Christ. Paul himself, after all, countered the objection that justification provides a license to sin by first appealing to union with Christ (Rom. 5.20–6.23).
While Bavinck and Berkouwer have an important insight into how sanctification actually works in the daily lives of believers, then, it is not the only thing to be said in a full explication of progressive sanctification. Their insight must itself be incorporated into a broader portrait of salvation in which union with Christ encompasses the other salvific metaphors such as justification, sanctification, reconciliation, adoption, and so on. It is in Christ that believers are both justified (2 Cor. 5.21; Phil. 3.9) and sanctified (1 Cor. 1.2, 30; 6.11).
Though this is a mild critique, it is more importantly a reminder that this essay has concentrated on only one aspect of Bavinck's and Berkouwer's understanding of progressive sanctification. Much more—union with Christ, the Spirit, regeneration—must be incorporated for a theologically holistic portrayal of their understanding of sanctification.
In this regard, Ortlund is a bit more critical of Berkouwer than Bavinck:
Berkouwer makes the point [of sanctification by justification] more starkly than Bavinck, and in so doing wrongly downplays the new inclination or sense of the heart implanted in regeneration. Had Berkouwer listened more closely to an American strand of his own Reformed tradition (especially Jonathan Edwards), he could have had the more balanced view of Bavinck while retaining his basic point as to the critical role justification plays in ongoing sanctification. And it would be helpful if both Bavinck and Berkouwer placed their understanding of sanctification more explicitly against the broader soteriological backdrop of union with Christ. Nonetheless, Bavinck and Berkouwer share a significant insight into the nature of healthy progressive sanctification—one which wonderfully preserves the centrality of the gospel for all of life.
June 14, 2011
The Most Significant Thing about the Ten Commandments
Trevin Wax has a good excerpt from Jim Hamilton's God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment on the focus of the Ten Commandments.
Preaching the Entire New Testament: Verse by Verse
This past Sunday, June 5th, 2011, John MacArthur accomplished something that is extremely rare in Christendom. He finished preaching through the entire New Testament, verse by verse.
To our knowledge here at Grace, this hasn't been done in over a hundred years or more. The one person that comes immediately to my mind is John Gill, who preached through both the OT and NT, but that was in the 1700s.
It was an emotional moment. John's last sermon was on the longer ending of Mark, chapter 16:9-20. It was a encouraging message that explained the confidence we can have in the integrity of the Scriptures.
The message can be downloaded here: A Fitting End To Mark's Gospel
The Sunday evening before that, John did a Q&A with the audience. He opened by sharing a bit about his thoughts and feeling with finishing the NT. A number of the questions asked had to do with his ministry. It, too, is worth the download to listen. Q&A Part 58
You can listen to all 42 years worth of his expositional preaching online for free. This is a gift to the Church, both in its original delivery and its modern availability.
Praise be to God.
Are God's Covenants Conditional or Unconditional?
One of the marks of a good theologian is good thinking marked by good distinctions based on the whole counsel of God. I think Vern Poythress demonstrates that in this interview when asked to think through the differences between conditionality and unconditionality regarding the biblical covenants:
One of the challenges with respect to understanding covenants is that there is more than one particular covenant in the Bible. We must be careful to study the particularities of each covenant, as well as to see lessons with respect to the general pattern (an overall covenant of grace).
For example, God makes a covenant with Noah after the flood, in Gen. 9:1–17. It includes Noah's descendants (9:9). God makes a promise not to bring another flood to destroy the earth, and gives the rainbow as a sign. The promise is valid for all Noah's descendants. In the ordinary sense, this is an "unconditional" covenant. There is no extra condition, no "if" clause. God does not say, "I promise this only if your descendants obey me." Similarly, we can find no obvious added conditions when God promises to Abraham that he will bring the Israelites out of Egypt (Gen. 15:13–16).
On the other hand, in the covenant of circumcision in Genesis 17, there is a kind of "condition": someone who is uncircumcised "shall be cut off from his people" (17:14). So circumcision is a kind of "condition" for Abraham's descendants. In Deuteronomy, as part of the covenantal relation between God and Israel, God requires that Israel remain faithful to him, and threatens to put them into exile if they persistently disobey (Deuteronomy 28). Their obedience is a "condition" for remaining in the land.
Many people are most interested in what to think about God's promises of final salvation through Christ. These promises are most fully articulated in the NT, and are associated with the new covenant. The promises always come in relation to Christ, who is both God and man (Heb. 1:3; 2:11, 14). As man, Christ was required to trust in God the Father and to obey the Father's will. These requirements for Christ were, in a sense, "conditions." Apart from his trust and his obedience, no one would have been saved. At the same time, because Christ is God, and because God promised in the OT that he would infallibly accomplish salvation (Isa. 42:3–4), Christ's obedience was guaranteed. That does not make his obedience easy or trivial. Remember how he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. Hebrews comments on the deep reality of his obedient suffering: "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered" (Heb. 5:7–8). Salvation involved a "condition," that is, Christ's suffering and obedience. These had to take place if we were to be saved. At the same time, God through his prophetic word unconditionally guaranteed that Christ would meet the conditions!
Since Christ is fully man, God as God had a relationship to Christ the man, and this relationship between God and the man was, in the general sense, "covenantal." God on his part made commitments to Christ in his OT promises. Christ, in his earthly life, committed himself to following the Father's way. This covenant between God and Christ was both "conditional"—involving the necessity of Christ's obedience—and "unconditional"—guaranteed by God. So the words "conditional" and "unconditional" must be used with care. We have to ask ourselves not only which covenantal relation we are discussing, but what aspect of that relation.
When we turn to God's promises of final salvation to us, they are based on Christ. These promises are secure, because Christ has accomplished full salvation, not merely the possibility of salvation:
"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54)
"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:39–40)
"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:29)
Thus, we can say that when we believe in Christ, we are "unconditionally" saved. But then is belief in Christ a kind of condition? Clearly it is. And belief means really trusting in Christ, not merely mouthing words in which we verbally say that we are trusting. Belief is itself a product of God's prior purpose for us: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44).
Some people have postulated that God's initiative in choosing us and "drawing" us goes back ultimately to his foreseeing our future faith. But this order reverses the order of the Bible. This reversal says, in effect, "as many as believed were appointed by God to eternal life." But the Bible says the opposite: "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). God's appointment, that is, his choosing us to be saved, is unconditional. It does not depend on our belief or on anything in us. "What do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). But when God draws us to Christ, he provides everything that we need, both faith and the power for new living in fellowship with Christ. Faith and new, holy living are both indispensable parts of the Christian life. They are "conditions" in this sense. But God undertakes through Christ to work in us; Christ's own power is the guarantee that we will continue: ". . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12–13).
We should also say that joining the church brings a person into a kind of covenantal relationship with God, since the person makes promises to God at the time of his baptism. But being baptized does not guarantee that a person is eternally saved. The Bible frankly described the possibility and the reality of apostasy—some people fall away from a faith that they earlier professed: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" (1 John 2:19). The "going out" describes apostasy, falling away from the Christian community, the church. Apostasy is like a negative condition. If you are to be saved, you must not apostasize. But this teaching is not inconsistent with the security of salvation for those who trust in Christ. First John says, "They were not of us." Apostasy reveals openly what was true even beforehand: that the apostate heart was never set on genuinely trusting in Christ in the first place.
A short summary might say that the instances of unconditional promises in the OT anticipate the security that God gives us when he guarantees eternal salvation in Christ. The instances of conditions in the OT anticipate both the necessity of Christ's own obedience, and the reality that when God works salvation in us, he brings about obedience in us. This working in us is part of the total process of salvation.
Gospel, Grace, and Effort
Tullian Tchividjian and Kevin DeYoung have been having a good dialogue online about the role and focus of effort in the Christian life as it relates to justification and sanctification.
Kevin, "Make Every Effort"
Tullian, "Work Hard! But in Which Direction?"
Kevin, "Gospel-Driven Effort"
One summary from Kevin: "Tullian's point is that sanctification requires the hard work of fighting to believe that we are justified by faith alone apart from anything good do or could possible contribute. I agree sanctification requires the fight of faith to believe this scandalous good news of the gospel of justification. I disagree that this is the only kind of effort required in sanctification."
When a Real Estate Agent Opens His Bible and Invites a Heavy Metal Guitarist to Church
Brian Welch, former guitarist for Korn, tells his story, including the way our extraordinary God used ordinary means to bring him to himself:
Justin Taylor's Blog
- Justin Taylor's profile
- 44 followers
