John Murray on Lev 18:5

January 16, 2024 at 12:00 pm (Faith, Justification, Mosaic Law, OT-Deuteronomy, OT-Leviticus, Romans, Sanctification, Westminster Larger Catechism, Westminster Standards)

posted by R. Fowler White

In his understandably celebrated commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Professor John Murray wrote pointedly about Paul’s reference to Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 and then elaborated on the theology of that OT text in Appendix B of the commentary. Regarding Paul’s allusion to Lev 18:5, Murray wrote:

[Lev. 18:5] does not appear in a context that deals with legal righteousness as opposed to that of faith. Lev. 18:5 is in a context in which the claims of God upon his redeemed and covenant people are being asserted and urged upon Israel …. [It] refers not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework but to the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God.

Apart from his commentary on Romans, it is also helpful to know that when Murray chaired the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Committee on Texts and Proof Texts (whose report was adopted by the denomination’s 1955 and 1956 general assemblies), the committee inserted Lev 18:5 as a proof text for WCF 19.6. Since the insertion supports the sentence in 19.6 pertaining to the promises of the law to “the regenerate,” it is clear that Murray and his committee took Lev 18:5 to be addressed to that group, otherwise identified in 19:6 as “true believers.” The committee’s insertion, then, sheds light on Murray’s statements about Lev 18:5 in his Romans commentary and in its Appendix B.

Understanding Murray’s reasoning. Reflecting on the details above, we notice first that Murray characterizes Israel’s relationship to God in Lev 18:5 in its redemptive-historical context: they are God’s redeemed and covenant people (emphasis added), and Lev 18:5 speaks of “the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God” (emphasis added). Clearly, Murray is focused on the grace of Israel’s redemption from Egypt and their consequent reconstitution as God’s covenant community. Furthermore, Murray takes the law-keeping mentioned in Lev 18:5 to be the fruit of saving and sanctifying grace, a point confirmed in his exposition of that text in Appendix B of his commentary (see further below). When therefore Murray asserts that Lev 18:5 “does not appear in a context that deals with legal righteousness as opposed to that of faith,” we understand him to mean that Lev 18:5 appears in a context where God deals with His people according to His grace, not in a context where God deals with them according to their works (two contexts otherwise known as “the covenant of grace” and “the covenant of works”).

We must go further, however, to understand Murray’s position. If the law-keeping required in Lev 18:5 is that of a people redeemed by God and bound to Him by covenant, Murray recognizes that a question arises: how could Paul properly appeal to that text as an illustration of works-righteousness when its original context is not about works-righteousness? Does Paul, in fact, misuse Lev 18:5? Murray’s answer is forthright: in the original context, the terms of Lev 18:5 properly expresses law-keeping, in his words, as “the way of sanctification” for believers, but those same terms in themselves also express law-keeping as “the way of justification” for the ungodly. To clarify his point, he reminds us that in justification law-keeping is done by Christ and is imputed to the believer’s account; in sanctification law-keeping is produced in the believer’s life. Murray sums up his view of Lev 18:5 in Appendix B to his commentary:

We must bear in mind that righteousness and life are never separable. Within the realm of justification by grace through faith there is not only acceptance with God as righteous in the righteousness of Christ but there is also the new life which the believer lives. The new life is one of righteousness in obedience to the commandments of God. … In the renovated realm of saving and sanctifying grace, we come back to the combination righteousness–approbation–life. The witness of Scripture to the necessity and actuality of this in the redeemed, covenant life of believers is pervasive. It is this principle that appears in Lev 18:5 ….

Assessing Murray’s reasoning. Murray’s view initially commends itself when he points out that law-keeping (i.e., righteousness, obedience) has a bearing on both justification and sanctification. But is he right about Lev 18:5 and its use in Rom 10:5? If, for our purposes, we set aside Murray’s curious inattention to the typological nature of Israel’s redemption and reconstitution and focus on God’s grace toward Israel, we can understand why he says that “Lev 18:5 is in a context in which the claims of God upon his redeemed and covenant people are being asserted and urged upon Israel.” We also appreciate his point that in the realm of grace, righteousness and life are inseparable. As far as it goes, Murray’s analysis of Lev 18:5 in its context is a plausible working hypothesis. Plausible as his proposal appears, there are holes discernible in it.

One hole in Murray’s analysis is that he does not reckon with the two types of congregants to whom Moses knew that he was speaking. Moses knew that his hearers included those with circumcised hearts of faith and also those with uncircumcised hearts of unbelief, those who heard him with humility and also those who heard him with pride (Deut 1:32; 9:6-7, 12-13, 16, 23-24, 27; 10:16; 29:4; 30:6; cf. Jer 4:4; Ps 106:24; Acts 7:51; Jude 5). In the same vein, Murray does not take into account the two types of hearers mentioned in WCF 16.6-7 and 19.5-6: those who heard the law were not only believers (i.e., regenerate), but also others (i.e., unbelievers, unregenerate). Overall, then, Murray does not consider the reality that Moses himself faced: the redemption and covenant that he mediated was able only to expose but not to change their make-up as a spiritually mixed multitude. There is no doubt that this reality determined how Israel would examine themselves in the light of Lev 18:5.

Over and over again, Moses urged Israel to be careful to hear God’s claims on them with the humility of faith and not with their historically demonstrated pride of unbelief (see especially Deut 1-11). He reminded them as those who would be heirs with Abraham that they, like their father, must trust in God’s oath of suretyship, since it was His suretyship that was the gracious basis of all that they would inherit (Gen 15:6-18; Deut 1:35; 4:20, 32-40; 7:6-11; 9:1-6; 10:14-16; 11:9). To those, then, who heard Lev 18:5 with faith in the Lord as their surety, the words of WCF 19.6 would apply: “the promises of [the law] … [showed] them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.” Presumably, this is what Murray and his committee had in mind when they inserted Lev 18:5 as a proof text for WCF 19.6. Yet we observe this: the blessing promised in Lev 18:5 was not due to the regenerate by the law. On what basis was it due to them? We would all agree that the basis of blessing would be the righteousness of their surety, and we have no doubt whatsoever that Murray confesses that truth. Our concern here, however, is that that truth does not figure into his exegesis of Lev 18:5. To appreciate better how it should figure into the exegesis of Lev 18:5, it seems fitting and necessary to reflect on how believers and others examined themselves in its light.

What might we justifiably infer about those of faith when they examined themselves in light of Lev 18:5? Would they see themselves as law-keepers to whom justification and life were due by the law? We know better. No, they would humbly see themselves as law-breakers to whom condemnation and death were due by the law. They would also see how much they owed to the Divine Surety for fulfilling the law’s righteousness and for bearing its curse in their place and for their good (cf. WLC Q97a). And, yes, further, they would be spurred to more gratitude, expressing that gratitude in greater care to conform themselves to the law as the rule of their obedience (cf. WLC Q97b).

Now let us ask about the others who heard Moses, particularly those others among the covenant people. What might we justifiably infer about them when they examined themselves in light of Lev 18:5? Should it not have caused them to see their standing as law-breakers and awakened them to flee God’s wrath (cf. WLC Q96a)? Should it not have caused them to see their need of the Divine Surety and the perfection of His righteousness and driven them to Him (cf. WLC Q95-96)? To be sure. Nonetheless, we know, as Moses knew, that those without faith would seek to establish their own righteousness as law-keepers to whom justification and life would be due by the law (cf. Rom 9:31-32; 10:3). Indeed, we know, as Moses knew, that many in Israel’s mixed multitude persisted in the pride of unbelief and self-righteousness, and that the law left them without excuse and under its curse (cf. WLC Q96). Thus, Lev 18:5 in its context does refer to the truth that justification and life were due only to the law-keeper and that any law-breaker who would seek to establish his own righteousness as a law-keeper was condemned. The law-breaker’s only hope was to repent and heed the witness that the law itself bore to the Divine Surety and the perfection of His righteousness.

The preceding considerations lead us to a second hole in Murray’s exegesis of Lev 18:5 (cf. Deut 27:26). Despite Paul’s two citations of Moses in Rom 10:5-8, Murray does not appear to give enough attention to how Paul’s appeal to Moses in Rom 10:5 correlates with his appeal to Moses in Rom 10:6-8. In Rom 10:5 Paul shows that in Lev 18:5 (as in Deut 27:26) Moses taught the righteousness of the law according to which justification and life would belong only to the seed who fulfilled it. By contrast, in Rom 10:6-8 Paul shows that in Deut 30:11-14 Moses also taught the righteousness of faith according to which the justification and life promised by the law were available to every law-breaker who believes in the Surety, to whom alone justification and life belonged according to the perfection of His own righteousness (Rom 10:4-13; 1 Tim 3:16 [KJV, ASV, NKJV]; Rom 3:21-22; cf. Gen 15:6-18; 12:3; 22:17b-18). In keeping with his heart’s desire and prayer for Israel (Rom 10:1), Paul’s overall message, especially to his Jewish readers, was that they should do as he did: follow Moses, who taught not only the righteousness of the law but the righteousness of faith also. So, yes, Moses taught both contrasting principles in the one Sinai covenant, and he could do so because those two principles were made compatible by the Surety who fulfilled God’s word (Rom 10:4, 6-9; 9:32b-33). Evidently, as Paul understood it, it was with a view to faith in that Surety that Moses discipled Israel in the contrasting but compatible principles of the righteousness of (i.e., required by) the law and the righteousness of (i.e., received by) faith.

With Murray we ought to affirm that Paul did not misuse Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5. We ought also to agree with him that Lev 18:5 appears in a context in which the claims of God upon His covenant people, redeemed from Egypt, are being asserted and urged upon Israel. Still, there is reason to conclude that Murray’s exegesis of Lev 18:5 has holes in it. Addressing Israel as a mixed multitude, in Lev 18:5 Moses taught that justification and life were due only to the law-keeper and, conversely, that condemnation and death were due to all law-breakers. Yet Moses also taught in Deut 30:11-14 that the law-breaker’s only hope of blessing lay in the Surety whom Abraham trusted and to whom the law of Moses itself bore witness. All who refused to submit to God’s righteousness through faith and sought instead to establish their own righteousness would be without excuse and under the law’s curse. Having severed themselves from the Divine Surety in the pride of their unbelief and self-righteousness, they turned the Sinai covenant into just another covenant without a surety and consigned themselves as law-breakers to condemnation and death (Gal 5:4; 2 Cor 3:7, 9).

6 Comments

A Point to Ponder on 1 Peter 5:6-7

January 17, 2022 at 9:00 am (1 Peter, Faith, Prayer)

Posted by R. Fowler White

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. (1 Peter 5:6-7 ESV)

“Casting one’s cares on God is a recognition of God’s monopoly on justice as well as a deep-seated confession of God’s power to accomplish his purposes. It is an enacted credo.”

— Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Eerdmans, 2007), 179.

1 Comment

A Change in Strategy

April 4, 2019 at 2:43 pm (Church and State, Culture, Evangelism, Faith)

Satan has changed his strategy with regard to his warfare against the church in the West. For the period of the 1960’s up through most of this current decade, his strategy has been to entertain Christians into an oblivion of forgetfulness and numbness. It has worked to a spectacular degree until recently. The signs are that the church in the West is not quite so much in decline as secularists and many Christians believe. This means that Satan must change his strategy. The carrot is no longer working. The stick must replace it.

It has already begun with some opening salvos, the baker in Colorado and similar stories. If the Equality Act passes, however, the stick will begin in earnest. Of course, Satan doesn’t ever seem to learn from the past. Neither the carrot nor the stick can override God’s purposes in the world. The best he can hope for is to hinder the church. Will Christians stand firm? You see, the most insidious thing about the transition from carrot to stick is that the carrot leaves many Christians soft and unwilling to stand up for what they believe. Then when the stick comes, they cave in, rotten from within. Now is the time for Christians to pray that the Lord will restore our marrow, our backbone, our moral fiber.

How will the Lord God do this? The same way He has always done: through the regular means of grace. It is God’s grace that turns invertebrates into vertebrates. It is a steady diet of the Word of God, the Lord’s Supper, remembrance of and meditation on the meaning of baptism, prayer, and fellowship with other like-minded Christian vertebrates that will instill strength into us so that we will stand in the face of hatred masquerading as tolerance.

The only remaining question is this: are we willing to pay the price? The price will be necessary. Churches need to plan on losing their luxurious tax-exempt status. Pastors need to plan on doing jail time, for they will not typically be able to afford the fees. Will we see these things as opportunities to witness to the world about how Christians suffer for the cause of Christ, or will we do nothing but bellyache about it all?

As Western Christians finally realize that persecution is coming their way, maybe the most salutary effect it will have on us is that we will be far more conscious of our brothers and sisters around the globe who are suffering far more. Their lives are in danger, and they are being taken, especially right now in Nigeria. The worship of God is being hampered in China. All too often, Christian reaction to these things has been almost complete indifference, followed by a quick return to our mind-numbing entertainments. That possibility is coming to an end.

2 Comments

A Resolution on New Year’s Resolutions

December 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm (Faith, Prayer)
Tags:

by reed depace

A Weekly Prayer Devotional Seeking God to Pour Out His Spirit in Revival on Us*

[This is a weekly prayer devotional I write for our church. It focuses on some aspect of our need for the Holy Spirit to bring revival to our church. Will you not revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you? (Ps 85:6;Isa 44:3-4) Each week, we ask our members to pick a 15 to 30-minute time-block, and use this devotional to focus their prayers for our revival.]

Image courtesy of Norwood Themes, Unsplash

Don’t Make New Year’s Resolutions

I talked with a brother this week who noted that he and his wife were not going to make their traditional New Year’s resolutions. They find the process only results in greater pressure and frustration in their lives. My response to him was, “Praise God!” Not that the custom of New Year’s Resolutions is inherently wrong for a Christian to engage in, yet this secular rooted custom presents some painful missteps for the child of God trying to learn to walk by faith.

The making of New Year’s resolutions goes at least back to the earliest period in the Babylonian kingdom, in the third millennium BC (around the time of the Tower of Babel, Gn 11:1-9). The Roman Empire also had a custom of making New Year’s Resolutions (around the time of Jesus’ birth). This ancient secular custom is basically the same as our secular custom. We make resolutions about making our lives better. Typically, about 40% of Americans make New Year’s resolutions.* Almost all of them can be categorized as self-help commitments to make one’s life better. Most of these resolutions are abandoned quickly: 25% after one week, 40% after one month, and 55% after six months. By year’s end, only 9% of people who made resolutions say they fulfilled them. As we might expect with efforts based on a resource that 100% of the time dies, New Year’s resolutions are but another example of the futility of life without a saving relationship with God (Eccl 12:1-8).

While the practice of making resolutions can be found in Church history, the adaptation of the secular custom goes back to John Wesley’s Covenant Renewal Service (1755), usually held on New Year’s Day. This was a service in which Christians recommitted themselves to discipleship. Notwithstanding the theological differences we have with Arminian Methodism, the liturgy for this service is Christ-focused. If informed by a specific commitment to the doctrines of grace, this adaptation might have some discipleship benefit.

Nevertheless, as is usually the case when the church adapts a secular idea, many Christians who make New Year’s Resolutions actually follow the secular practice. Being gospel presumptive, they’ve forgotten or were never taught that not only is salvation by the gospel alone, but so is growth in the Christian life (Col 2:6-7). Relying on self-help effort to grow in Christ, they’ve forgotten or never learned that there is no power for lasting change in their own efforts (Joh 6:63). Even with Jesus’ name on their lips and the intention to serve him in their hearts, Christians who rely on self-help techniques such as New Year’s Resolutions have forgotten or never learned that the Christian life is only lived by faith through the Spirit, not by flesh through self (2 Cor 5:7).

So, with my brother, I say, “Praise God! And good riddance!” to the custom of making New Year’s Resolutions.

Do Make New Year’s Prayers

Now, lest you think I’ve left the poor baby hanging by his fingernails on the window ledge in throwing the New Year’s Resolution bathwater out the window, I do think making a biblical resolution is a healthy discipleship practice. For example, Daniel and his three friends resolved not to break their faith in God by disobeying through eating King Nebuchadnezzer’s food (Dan 1:8). Paul made a resolution to travel to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21), a resolution he kept even after being told he would face persecution (Acts 21:10-14). Finally, the Scriptures themselves urge on us the practice of making resolutions as part of our discipleship:

To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Th 1:11-12, emphasis added

If we begin with a firm commitment to the sovereignty of God, recognize that our role is to express our God-given repentance and faith, want to achieve something which will glorify God, and rely on the Holy Spirit to be the presence whose power transforms us, then resolving to grow in Christ is actually a very spiritually healthy thing. Indeed, as we consider Paul’s admonition here for resolutions that are good works of faith by the Spirit’s power, and as we consider the generally weak and anemic condition of many Christians’ lives, we might even conclude that we need to make more such resolutions (1 Pt 4:7)!!

But what makes such resolutions expressions of faith-by-the-Spirit, instead of flesh-by-self? It is found in Paul’s words at the beginning of these verses, “To this end we always pray for you.” The difference between a secular resolution and a Christian resolution is found in believing prayer.

It is not found merely in prayer. A Christian who prays, “Lord, this year I promise I am going to do such and such …” is basically telling God what they intend to do this year, in their own flesh-based, self-help power. The only difference between that and the atheist who doesn’t pray, or the goof who prays to the Spaghetti God is, well, nothing. A self-help prayer does not honor God. Instead, it simply builds on “The Waterboy” lie Satan told our first parents, “You can do it!” (yourself)!+

The potency of biblical resolution making is found in believing prayer. Trusting in God’s sovereignty, wanting to show God’s glory, relying on the Spirit, it is through such believing prayer that we express our repentance and faith. So, instead of New Year’s Resolutions, let me encourage you to make New Year’s Prayers. Jot down a handful of sinful traits or habits you know are dishonoring God. Pray for these each week. Write down the four or five godly habits you want to develop (e.g., Bible reading, weekly worship – personal, family, and church, being discipled, regular witnessing, etc.). Then pray these each week as well. Don’t worry if you forget to pray for these in a given week. Just repent the next week and pray for them again! What you will find is that the Spirit will do exactly what Paul prayed for the Thessalonians (and us!). The name of Jesus will be glorified in and through you this year in more powerful ways, with a more lasting glory than even the most potent New Year’s Resolution could achieve!

Prayer Advice

Dear Lord, we confess that too much of this past year has been given to self-indulgence. Be it wicked sins we don’t want anyone else to find out about, or the common sins we excuse every day, because Jesus is the Resolute One who never wavered in his commitment to face the cross for your glory and his and our joy, forgive and cleanse us.

Then Holy Spirit, who love us enough to resolve to complete the work of holiness in us until we are perfect like Jesus, guide us to what we should be praying for this year. Show us the sins we need to regularly pray the promise of repentance upon. Show us the obedience we need to regularly ask for in faith that hears only Yes and Amen from our Father. Use us this year that your glory in and through us might draw others to yourself. We long for your glory!

Restore to us the years the locusts have eaten. Pour out Your Spirit in revival on us. To Your glory, together with Your Father and Your Spirit, we ask, Amen.

olivia-snow-265289

Photo courtesy Olivia Snow, Unsplash

______________

* Statistics on New Years’ resolutions found at: https://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/.

+ “You can do it!” is a line from the movie Waterboy (1998), epitomizing our culture’s belief in the power of self-help to overcome anything.

9 Comments

Faith In

February 13, 2016 at 10:49 am (Faith)

Geerhardus Vos has some careful and precise thoughts about the various formulations in the New Testament (Reformed Dogmatics IV, pp. 80-81):

Usually, however, faith is presented as something that is directed to the Mediator, Christ. It is called “believing in Christ” (πιστεύειν εἰς Χριστόν)- actually, “into Christ” (cf. Rom 10:14). That is, the action of the soul by which it abandons its own doing and relies on the doing of Christ is presented as a local movement of the will into Christ. There is a relocation of the resting point of life. Where it formerly lay in the self-righteous sinner himself, it now comes to lie in Christ. It is also called “believing in Christ” (πιστεύειν ἐν Χριστῷ). The thought here is not so much of a movement into Christ as of its result, “resting in Christ” (Gal 3:26). Also occurring is πιστεύειν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, “believing in Him” (Rom 9:33; 10:11, in a citation from the Septuagint of Isa 28:16), which has approximately the same meaning as εἰς Χριστόν. Finally, the apostle also speaks of a “faith of Jesus Christ” (πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) with the objective genitive-thus a faith of which Christ as mediator is the object, a trust by which one depends on Him (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16; 3:22).

I think especially important here is the nuance of the formulation “believing into Christ.” It is a change of address. What so many Christians talk about so much is “Christ living in me,” or “asking Jesus into your heart.” The Bible does speak of Christ living in us, though never of “asking Jesus into your heart.” The Bible speaks a thousand times more often of us believing into Jesus Christ.

163 Comments

Douglas Bond hit it out of the park in Grace Works!

December 27, 2014 at 5:47 pm (Biblical Theology, Books (reviews and recommendations), Christology, Faith, Heresy, Historical Theology, Interpretation, Jesus, Justification, Law, Reformed, Sanctification, Theology, Westminster Standards)

Posted by Bob Mattes

Bottom line up front: Take a little of your Christmas cash and buy this book, then read it cover to cover. The gospel is under attack on many fronts, even from those with advanced degrees who claim to be Reformed. Mr. Bond sets record straight in the modern battle over the gospel of grace.

I have to admit my skepticism when I first received a copy of Douglas Bond‘s Grace Works! (And Ways We Think It Doesn’t). In this day and age, we see the free use of euphemisms like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which is anything but democratic or accountable to the people. The history of the Church records power and sovereignty of God in preserving Christ’s bride, but it also contains the record of heretics and their heresies that claimed to be true to the Scriptures whilst gutting the gospel of grace.

Douglas Bond’s book, though, remains true to its title and will prove to be a great blessing to the modern Reformed church if widely read. Mr. Bond serves as a ruling elder (RE) in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and writes as one with first-hand experience with the errors that he corrects in his book. Given the presbytery in which he serves, I have no doubt of what he sees on a regular basis. Overall, RE Bond displays an excellent knowledge of both church history and current controversies over the gospel.

Grace Works! provides an easy read. RE Bond broke the book into seven parts, each with several short chapters that end with discussion questions. Thus, the book would make an excellent Sunday school or small group resource. RE Bond wrote Grace Works! for real people in real pews, easily digestible yet powerful in its defense of the gospel of grace. You won’t find any clever, human “cutting-edge” theology here, just the matchless gospel of Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

RE Bond starts the book by appealing to history to show that any church can lose the gospel, and very quickly. He cites Calvin and Screwtape, C.S. Lewis’ demon from The Screwtape Letters, to illustrate Satan’s scheme for undermining the gospel down through the ages and even today. The strategy never changes because people never change. RE Bond doesn’t speculate or pontificate, he cites specific examples from church history of the slide into apostasy, of which there are no shortages. The worst of it lies in the fact that when a denomination slides into apostasy, it puts the orthodox on trial, not the heretics.

RE Bond hits the nail on the head on page 30 early in the book:

In our hatred of strife and controversy and in our love of peace and unity, we Christians sometimes play the ostrich. We hope controversy and gospel attack will just go away; we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that it won’t happen to us.

Those of us in the PCA have seen this time and again. I saw a popular teaching elder who started a secret political party in the PCA turn around and publicly declare as “cowards” 29 ordained church officers who together took a public stand against serious gospel error. The sizeable audience apparently missed the blatant hypocrisy displayed, but then it wouldn’t be polite to question a popular teaching elder, would it? The orthodox make easy targets because they just won’t change or compromise the gospel of Christ. How intolerant are the orthodox!

RE Bond goes on to lay the groundwork by clearly explaining the gospel from Scripture and the Reformed confessions. The gospel presents the matchless grace of God freely given to all those who will trust in Christ alone for their salvation. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone – how simple! Yet, sinful human beings prefer to obtain their salvation the way Smith Barney claimed they made their money, the old fashioned way – by earning it.

Then in creeps the mixing of works into justification, replacing  or “augmenting” grace with some form of legalism. RE Bond does a great job of tackling the errors and consequences of legalism. He adroitly covers the order of salvation (ordo salutis), the confusing of justification and sanctification, the Scriptural use of law and gospel, the proper place of faith and works, and the correct rules for Biblical interpretation – the analogy of faith.

In Part 6 of Grace Works!, RE Bond then deals with current errors creeping into the conservative Reformed denominations, including the mythical “objective covenant”, confusion on the sacraments, and final justification. He does so without naming names, although anyone who has been paying attention to the last 20 years or so can easily fill in the blanks. RE Bond clearly demonstrates the corrosiveness of those who take an oath that the Confessions contain the doctrines taught in Holy Scripture, yet write and teach against those same Confessions and doctrines. He also cautions against the “fine print,” where officers espouse orthodoxy but then caveat with fine print that guts the orthodox statement. I’ve seen this myself during Internet debates and even in church trials. As RE Bond quotes from various sources on page 222:

The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.

RE Bond encourages us, citing the apostle Paul, to be Bereans. Don’t accept the clever words or “cutting-edge” theology of PhD holding teaching elders at face value. Dig into the Scriptures and the Confessions to see if they are right. Paul commands us to do no less. We’ve seen several prominent examples in the PCA of officers denying errors at trial that they later lead and teach openly in seminary-like settings after their acquittal. The Enemy stands proud of such tolerance.

Grace Works! closes by encouraging readers to catechize their children, to actively teach them what Scripture teaches about the gospel of grace. If we don’t, apostasy is just a generation away. RE Bond lastly encourages us to stand in unity on the gospel and the law of Christ, the means of grace rightly understood and administered, and in our Reformed Confessions without small-print caveats. Only then will our denominations remain orthodox for the next generation and those to come.

Your church officers need to read Grace Works! Your congregation needs to read it. And not just read it, but stand for the gospel of grace and teach it to your congregations, your children, and you children’s children.

Full disclosure: Bob received a courtesy copy of this book from P&R for review.

6 Comments

JUSTIFICATION BY BELIEF

July 30, 2014 at 10:55 am (Faith, Justification)

The following is a post from Ron DiGiacomo, expressing some reflections on the recent discussion here on the nature of faith. Is it assent alone, or assent + trust?

It has recently been argued by some that we are justified by belief alone and that receiving and resting in Christ unpacks what it is to believe. In other words, receiving and resting in Christ is considered a figure of speech by which belief in Christ can be defined. Trusting in Christ does not complete justifying belief because trusting is synonymous with believing. Accordingly, to add receiving and resting in Christ to belief is either (i) redundant, (ii) strips belief of part of its meaning, needlessly placing it somewhere else, or (iii) to add something additional to the instrumental cause of justification. The first deviation would be a matter of muddled thinking, but the gospel would remain intact although jumbled. The second would be purely a matter of semantics. Whereas the third construct would undermine the grace by which we are saved, appropriated by belief alone.

Those who promote the belief alone view are sometimes met with tedious rejoinders such as the false dichotomy “we’re saved by Christ not propositional belief.” Notwithstanding, more serious objections have been raised by Teaching and Ruling Elders against the belief alone position because of the group’s insistence upon equating belief with assent. This is where things get a bit dicey. Most of the things we assent to, whether a priori or a posteriori, are not volitional. One does not will to believe that God exists any more than a child chooses to believe he is being fed by his mother. These are mental assents that are not discursive; they are immediate and without reflection. The will is bypassed. However, the gospel always engages the will as the unbeliever counts the cost and by grace abandons all hope in himself while looking to Christ alone, finding rest in Him. Accordingly, it is inadequate to reduce justifying faith to belief alone when belief is reduced to assent without remainder.

It is at this point someone will assert that assent is synonymous with resting in or relying upon Christ. In this context is it is opined that to assent to Christ dying on the cross for my sins is to trust the proposition is true. Albeit the premise is true, this observation turns on a subtle equivocation over the word trust. Indeed, to trust a proposition is true is no different than to assent to its truth. So, in that sense trust and assent are synonyms. However, to trust that something is true is not the same thing as to trust in that something. The latter idea of trust carries the meaning of reliance upon, whereas the former use of trust merely conveys an intellectual assent that might or might not be accompanied by the reliance sort of trust. Accordingly, to argue that trust and assent are synonyms in this way is to implicitly deny the need to willfully trust upon Christ alone for salvation!

As a last ditch effort some have argued that it is impossible to assent to the truth of the gospel without justification following. They draw a distinction between (i) assent in non-spiritual matters (allowing for assent to obtain without trust) and (ii) assent with respect to the gospel (suggesting that assent is inseparable to trust, even its equivalent). They reason that true assent to the gospel is only granted at conversion. Therefore, assent is trust because the two are inseparable where the gospel is concerned. Rather than debate the premise, it’s much easier to concede it for argument’s sake in order to save time in refuting the conclusion that assent is trust. Even if assent were a sufficient condition for pardon in Christ that would not mean that assent equates to trust any more than assent is regeneration. It would merely mean that when assent is present pardon obtains, just like when pardon obtains regeneration is present. Since when may a sufficient condition be equated with the relevant components that comprise the state of affairs within which the condition operates?!

In sum, assent pertains to accepting something as true, even possibly with no reflection, whereas trust (or non-trust) pertains to the degree of relevance a person might assign to the “assented to” proposition. Assent is a mental act that need not be accompanied by volition; whereas trust in Christ is always volitional in nature. Assent always pertains to accepting the truth of a proposition, whereas how one might respond in light of assent (e.g. trust, rest, exuberance, etc.) is commonly classified under the philosophical heading of disposition (which is not propositional assent). Whereas trust and other dispositions can evidence assent, dispositions need not accompany any given assent since assents can be mundane, occur without reflection and, also, be subjectively perceived as inconsequential. (This is why philosophers consider disposition to be a poor indicator of the presence of assent.)

If assent and trust were synonyms under the gospel, then either they both would mean cognitive conviction or else volitional reliance. Conviction of truth (assent) could never give way to reliance upon truth (trust).  If assent and trust mean the same thing, then either we cannot rely upon our convictions or else we can only rely upon things that don’t convince us. Conviction without reliance leaves no room for trusting in Christ; whereas reliance without conviction paves the way to trusting in Christ while not assenting to the gospel.

298 Comments

Dr. Ligon Duncan’s Seminar on the Marrow Controversy

June 18, 2014 at 9:53 am (Assurance of Salvation, Faith, Historical Theology, Justification, Law, Sanctification)

In today’s theological climate, antinomianism and the Sonship theology are rife within Reformed circles. The Marrow Controversy therefore has much to teach us about the relationship of grace and law.

Dr. Duncan started by sketching a short history of the Marrow Controversy, emphasizing Boston’s role in recommending the Marrow of Modern Divinity. The book, of course, caused waves in the Scottish Presbyterian church. There had been a professor at Glasgow who had showed affinity for Socinianism and Arminianism. This man was tried by the church and basically given a slap on the wrist. So those heterodox doctrines would find a refuge in the Scottish Presbyterian Church, but the evangelical Calvinism was not found congenial. The Auchterarter Presbytery had a question that they asked candidates about the relationship of coming to Christ and forsaking sin. Understood properly, the question was designed to make clear that a person does not forsake sin in order to come to Christ, but rather comes to Christ in order for sin’s hold on the person to be broken. The General Assembly rebuked the Auchterarter Presbytery for asking the question this way. What would later be called “moderatism” had its beginnings in the General Assembly. Enlightenment thinking took over, to the point where, as one writer puts it, a typical “moderatism” sermon was like a winter day: cold, clear, and brief. The Marrow, on the other hand, was condemned by the General Assembly. The defenders of the Marrow, such as Thomas Boston, and the Erskine brothers appealed the decision, which was rejected. This almost guaranteed that everyone in Scotland would purchase a copy of the book! There’s Scottish contrariness for you.

There are three interpretations of the Marrow controversy. Some argue that it was an internecine dispute of two sides that both held to the Westminster Standards. Those who condemned the Marrow quoted the Westminster standards against the Marrow men, which creates a certain plausibility for this view. This view is wrong in Duncan’s mind, though.

The second view says that the Marrow men represented a revolt against classical Calvinism (this is held by J.B. Torrance). In other words, the Marrow men were trying to liberate the Scottish church from the Westminster Standards. The Marrow men, however, vowed ex animo in strict subscription to the Westminster Standards.

The third view is that the Marrow men were the Westminster theology men. This is the proper view.

Dr. Duncan then shared many of the most important quotations from both Boston and Fisher.

13 Comments

Job and Bunyan Versus The Shack

July 15, 2013 at 11:00 pm (Apologetics, Atheism, Books (reviews and recommendations), Christology, Culture, Faith, Heresy, Holy Spirit, Jesus)

I am reblogging this book review of The Shack (originally posted January 7,2009), as it was a post most people found to be helpful.

The book entitled The Shack has been a marketing phenomenon among “evangelicals.” Blurbs compare the Shack to Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. I am here to tell you that the hype is a bit forced. Let’s do a bit of comparison, first with the book of Job, then with Bunyan, interjecting a bit of C.S. Lewis in for fun.

The Shack is the story of a man whose beautiful daughter is brutally murdered. The man leaves the faith, only to receive a message from God to meet him at the shack, the very place where his daughter was murdered. He then meets God. The Father is a big jolly black woman, the Son is a Jewish carpenter, and the Holy Spirit is a wispy, mysterious Asian woman (we’ll get to that blasphemy in a moment). The upshot of the plot is that God explains to the main character the why’s and the wherefore’s, and the man is healed. The theological upshot is that God is good, but not all-powerful. Young takes Rabbi Kushner’s prong of the dilemma. What is important to notice here is a combination of rationalism and experientalism. On the one hand, Young tears at the heart strings, making the reader bleed for the main character. On the other hand, in order for the man’s faith to be “restored,” God has to explain himself.

Contrast Job. Job lost much more than the man in the story (ten children!), and it was due to the prince of demons being opposed to him, not a mere man, even if Job didn’t know that. He lost all his possessions, and then finally his health. He had much more to complain about than the man in The Shack. He too wanted God to explain. He wanted to vindicate himself as well. But when God finally has His say, He tells Job that He does not have to come to the bar of human reason. Humans have to come to the bar of God. This is where C.S. Lewis comes in. In his brilliant essay entitled “God in the Dock,” he makes the point that the really important thing for autonomous man is that he is the judge, and that God is in the dock. The man may very well be a kindly judge and acquit God of wrong-doing, if God shows Himself up to the task of defending himself. But the really important thing is that man is the judge, and God is in the dock (on trial). Job shows us that the reverse is true. God is the judge, and man is in the dock.

Rationalism always results in God losing one of His attributes. If God is all-powerful and all-good, then how come evil exists? The Bible does not allow us to lessen the difficulty of this question by jettisoning one of these attributes. The reason the problem is so acute for the believer is that God is both all-benevolent and all-powerful.

Just to begin an answer (and not leave the readers hanging), God allows evil to exist for various reasons, but evil will not continue to last. God has dealt with the problem of evil on the cross and the empty tomb, and will finally eradicate the very presence of evil in this world in the future. No other religion, by the way, or atheism, has an answer to this question. Pantheism believes that evil is naturally part of the world. No hope of eradication there. Atheism cannot define right and wrong, so his faith in his own reason becomes shockingly apparent when he confidently talks about the problem of evil. Deists don’t believe that God has anything to do with the world. These all lack hope and eschatology.

Bunyan and Young go in fundamentally different directions. Christian’s journey is to the bar of judgment as a defendant whom God will acquit based on the spotless righteousness of Christ imputed to him. The man’s journey in The Shack is to the bench, where he magnanimously acquits God of wrong-doing, once it becomes evident that God is really powerless to stop it. Of course, if God is powerless to stop evil, then He is also powerless to eradicate evil, and so that road is also a dead end eschatologically speaking.

In talking with one of my friends, he made the very interesting point also about faith. What moves Christian? It is the scroll, the evangelist, the Interpreter, the fellow believers he meets on the way, the key of faith in Doubting Castle. It is the means of grace which compels Christian to a life of faith. In The Shack, it is a one-time rationalistic showdown where God pleads and begs with the man (in effect) not only to give Him a hearing, but to acquit Him of wrong-doing. Ultimately, the man’s faith is in himself.

My friend also noted the contrast between the way in which God is portrayed in the Bible as opposed to how God is portrayed in The Shack. The God of The Shack is hardly a God with the least little hint of awe and majesty. He is not the God of the whirlwind, which is how God treated Job. He is not the God before whom all bow their faces to the ground. Instead, He is a God whose booty sways to the music. Anyone who cannot see the blasphemy and rank heresy of this portrayal of God is seriously lacking in discernment. God is Spirit, and only the Second Person of the Trinity has a human body which exists only in hypostatic union with the divine nature, and is currently a glorified body. I choose to believe the God of the Bible, who will eradicate evil because He is completely omnipotent and completely free of sin.

58 Comments

Hints of Cessationism in NT?

April 29, 2013 at 8:40 pm (Cessationism, Church, Evangelicalism, Faith, Holy Spirit, Instructing the Body, Interpretation, New Testament, Reformed, Theology)

(Posted by Paige)

A perennial puzzle that arises as we rub shoulders with our neighbors in the wider church is how we are to understand the claims of “continualists,” who attest that signs and wonders and special manifestations of the Spirit are (and ought to be) normative parts of Christian experience today. As this is a live question in my neck of the woods right now, I recently started thinking through the NT’s teaching, both implied and direct, on the temporary nature of these “special effects.” I’ve come to some interesting, tentative conclusions based mainly on a close study of Hebrews; but before I set these out for scrutiny, I thought I’d offer a question for your consideration and see what good thoughts I get back. Here is my basic query:

Can you identify in the NT any evidence of a shift, whether anticipated or inaugurated, from faith supported by words, sacraments, and miraculous signs to faith supported by words and sacraments alone? (Assume inspired words and the illumination of the Holy Spirit in both cases!)

Note please that I am only interested in NT support for this shift, not what the ECFs had to say about it. I’m also already familiar with the basic cessationist arguments, so no need to repeat Warfield or Calvin on this. What do you see in the NT that suggests a transition from an era that included wonders/sight to an era characterized by words/hearing?

Thanks in advance!

Update:My own contribution can be found in this comment.

51 Comments

« Older entries