Mercy and Cruelty

"Showing mercy to the wolf is showing cruelty to the sheep."

Unknown

Heb 9:1-5 - Christ - Prefigured in the Ceremonial Objects of the Tabernacle

Heb 9:01-05 - Christ - Prefigured in the Ceremonial Objects of the Tabernacle

Heb 9:1-5 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2 For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, 4 having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. 5 Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

The matters of the tabernacle, the ceremonial objects and the Ark of the Covenant were all very fraught with reverence and awe for the Jews. They had been trained that way. And that training was instituted by God Almighty, Who desired that they have awe and reverence and, yes, fear in these matters. But He had a higher purpose than simply wanting people to shake in their boots, or to be overcome with the opulence, as we shall see.

These things were sacred, almost secret, very exclusive and somewhat mysterious. And there were far more details to their institution and their use than needed to be given for the present argument. But that is not to say that every minute detail of the tabernacle and the ordinances of worship did not also have a spiritual significance as typical of the work and office of Christ. The writer, however, limits himself to a few salient points in the next number of verses.

Blasts From the PastThe Potter and the Clay - George Whitefield

It is in the nature of men to first honor, then lionize and finally make an idol of what they regard as great men of the past. This has happened outside the church with people from Julius Caesar to Charles Darwin, though each also has his detractors.

But there is no excuse for it inside the church. We may honor men of the past because we are to render honor to whom honor is due. We may respect their devotion, for those who proved true to the heavenly calling and thereby were found to be obedient to their responsibility to their Maker. But such great men of the past would never, themselves, have brooked anything bordering on their own glorification by men. They would have pointed to Christ as the author and Perfecter of their faith - and the Savior of their souls.

Such is George Whitefield. He, like all of the heroes of the Bible who went before him in history, was a man with feet of clay; imperfect, flawed, uneven. And God always has it so - that it may be seen that the transcendent power belongs to God, and not to the men in whom He deigns to work.

I think that the sermon presented here is an indicator of this truth. By Whitefield standards it is not long (only about 56 minutes). And while it is unquestionably Biblical in content, and clearly presents both law and gospel, it is in many ways unremarkable. Even allowing for the fact that moderns like me have short attention spans it drags on at times.

Of course, I don't have Whitefield's remarkable voice which resonated so much that, in days without microphones, he could be clearly heard by crowds of as many as 30,000 people - which number regularly were drawn to his outdoor preaching during the Great Awakening. But I think that the, dare one say, "mundane nature" of this offering serves only to underscore that fact that no matter how resonant, clear and studied the speaker - absent the power of the Spirit of the Living God all is just so many words and concepts.

Thousands flocked to hear Whitefield from England to the Colonies over a period of 40 years. Untold numbers were saved through his preaching. The Great Awakening was moved forward by this man's answering of the call of God on his life. But it was all moved forward by God working in and through such men in order to accomplish His eternal purposes. Had the Spirit not been working in the preachers, the words and the hearers then there would have been no Great Awakening. That's worth remembering as we honor Whitefield today. Here then, is his sermon "The Potter and the Clay"...

The Potter and the Clay - George Whitefield

Calvinism and Arminianism

This is the second lecture in two weeks from Bruce Ware at Biblical Training.org. The first lecture was posted last week here.

In this lecture the basic differences between the two prevailing systems of Evangelical belief in our present age are traced in history and critically examined. He rightly starts with the Augustine/Pelagius conflict and goes on from there. He is particularly gracious to Arminius and to Classical Arminianism, though not buying into their theological arguments. Yet the speaker is, in fact, a self-declared "4 point Calvinist"**, which troubles me. But that's for another time. (see Below)



**[If you want to hear a reasonable presentation of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption - which is usually the sticking point with 4 point Calvinists - listen to the sermon below:

Grace Secured: Limited Atonement - Brian Borgman

Heb 8:13 - Christ - Savior of Sinners

Heb 8:13 - Christ - Savior of Sinners

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


So, the old covenant was both inferior to and superseded by the new. Replaced. Done away with. Rendered obsolete. All of this constant hammering about obsolescence was all the more necessary for the Hebrew believers. The Gentiles certainly came to the faith with their own baggage (usually immorality), but they never had the self-inflicted baggage of thinking themselves able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make themselves acceptable to God by some variation or combination of law-keeping and ceremony.

This is why the Gentiles embraced the gospel so quickly and so readily. To them it was truly good news. They were immoral, impure, carnal creatures who knew what they were when convicted by conscience, but who previously had no hope of reconciliation to God. The Jews, on the other hand, carried all the advantages of bearing the oracles of God, along with all the disadvantages of thinking that merely possessing the law, or having been chosen to be the keepers of the oracles, gave them some sort of free pass. Or, if not, it certainly laid out for them the means by which they could reconcile themselves to God. Wrong!

Due to its inability to reform hearts and its limitation to convicting of sin, the old covenant of law was always a system destined to obsolescence in God’s plan. That time had arrived with the gospel age. Christ had come and so the new covenant had come and rendered the old obsolete. Remember, the old said, "If you do this, I will do that," without actually imparting the power for the hearer to do what was commanded and required. The new covenant said, "Because Christ has done this, I will do that," wherein God swore to and by Himself that he would regenerate a people and give them a heart that loved him.

Because of their tradition and their heritage, some Hebrew believers were tempted to either hold onto, or to go back to the old ways. They were in danger of mixing the gospel of grace with something else. That would make it "another" gospel, though there is really no other. This would, in effect, be apostasy and, if fully embraced, would be irrecoverable. That is why the writer has written to them - to guide them away from the deceptions of false teaching (Judaisers) and from an obsolete system (Judaism).

During this period (arguably after the resurrection, but before the destruction of Herod’s temple in 70AD) the two covenants seemed to overlap because outwardly they existed side by side, at least in the perceptions or memories of that generation. But the external had been exposed for what it was by the coming of Christ, and it was apparent that the kingdom of God was within and among believers, that the props and ceremonies of the past were now understood to be symbols of invisible and heavenly things pertaining to a kingdom that was not of this world, though it was manifested in it - a kingdom of the spirit, in which the Spirit of God was the power and the risen Christ was the King.

The symbols and ceremonies of the law were literally passing away. Temple worship and sacrifice were either already stopped by the destruction of Jerusalem, or were about to be. God was working to put the full stop on the old covenant by judging the unfaithfulness of Israel. No more sacrifices, no more (earthly) temple. But the symbolism was as valid as ever, as we shall see.

Tolerance

"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order.... when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order, but only anger, dispute, and destruction -- to be sure, only with the Word of God as our weapon."

Martin Luther

Heb 8:10-12 - Christ - The Monergistic Salvation of God

Heb 8:10-12 - Christ - The Monergistic Salvation of God

Heb 8:10-12 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”


How is this new covenant achieved and what are its characteristics? Who is doing what to whom? This is again from the prophet Jeremiah {Jer 31:33-34}. In it there is an unsolicited, freely given regeneration from God. He puts a new heart within a people that he calls "the house of Israel" - by which he means true Israel, the Israel of faith. It does not say that they will take a new heart for themselves, that they will decide to accept a new heart, or that they will create a new heart in themselves. God says that it will be He that does this thing. Regeneration must and does precede both faith and repentance. Through regeneration, God is, in fact, the cause or the source of these things in the sinner, making him a saint.

It will no longer be a question of keeping a set of rules and regulations in dizzying detail and with perfect compliance imposed from outside. It will be instead, an inner desire to please God by trusting and obeying him. This desire will spring from a newness of heart. A renewed essence. A holy seed. The indwelling Christ. The Holy Spirit. It will be us, but no longer us but Christ living in us. He will increase and we will decrease.

We will want to please God. And we will fully understand that this desire does not spring from what we have been since natural birth, nor what we have made of ourselves since we were born. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation - behold old things are passed away and everything is new. We regard ourselves as having died with Christ and as being resurrected with him. This is not "improvement"; it is radical regeneration - replacement, re-making, new creation by the Word of God through the Spirit of God, just as in Genesis.

Now God will truly be their God in their hearts and not by some externalized tip of the hat. They will be wedded to him, fused, partakers of the Divine nature. As such, His will be their desire. But all of this will come by grace from the initiating, upholding, infinite treasures of God in Jesus Christ. This will be relationship, familial intimacy; uneven, lop-sided, creature to Creator familial to be sure, but familial nevertheless. It will be intimate. We shall even ultimately know as we are known.

Not only will He be our God in a true sense, but we shall be his people. This is mutual ownership. This is Christ owning humanity and causing humanity to own God. (By "own" we do not mean "possess," but "take unto oneself".) Naturally, this God-initiated and growing intimacy will not require any intermediary, as did the old system. God himself is the intermediary in the form of his risen Son. No pope, priest, guru, teacher, latter-day apostle or prophet - no pastor or elder can come between God and a redeemed man. There is one authority in the church of Jesus Christ and all who claim to be acting in that authority must be found conformed to the word of God, which is the ultimate authority - the only rule of faith and practice.


And since every individual believer (this is the sense of the passage) will be in intimate personal relationship with God under the new covenant, each believer is ultimately responsible to God for ensuring that all teaching and authority with which he is in contact is according to the Word of God. And each will know, for He is in them - at their shoulder - to say to them, "This is the Way - walk in it." {Isa 30:21}

This has nothing to do with submission in the church. In the church every saint submits to all the other saints - and all do it for Christ’s sake. But they do not do so like blind fools and idiots. They are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Also God does call and equip some saints as pastors and teachers and there is to be submission to these fellow saints for the sake of order - always with the proviso that they are speaking according to God’s revealed will. (And God’s revealed will is found in the Bible)

"I, I am he who blots out your transgression for _______ sake, and I will not remember your sins." {Isa 43:25} Fill in the blank. On account of what or whom does God blot out sin and remove it as far as the east from the west in His remembrance? Is it on our account? Is it for anything in us, or foreseen in us? No! It is for His Own sake. For His Own pleasure, purpose and glory. And this was all done in the Name which is above all names - we are forgiven for Christ’s sake. Notice that we are not free of iniquity before God’s gift. God shows mercy to us in our iniquity for Christ’s sake. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly. Neither are we without iniquity after our regeneration. We live in this body of death which is at war with the spirit until the day we die. And we make war on it by the grace of God through the Spirit of the indwelling Christ, by faith in Him.

The Doctrine Satisfaction(The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ)B.B. Warfield

"The Biblical doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ finds full recognition in no other construction than that of the established church-doctrine of satisfaction. According to it, our Lord's redeeming work is at its core a true and perfect sacrifice offered to God, of intrinsic value ample for the expiation of our guilt; and at the same time is a true and perfect righteousness offered to God in fulfillment of the demands of His law; both the one and the other being offered in behalf of His people, and, on being accepted by God, accruing to their benefit; so that by this satisfaction they are relieved at once from the curse of their guilt as breakers of the law, and from the burden of the law as a condition of life; and this by a work of such kind and performed in such manner, as to carry home to the hearts of man a profound sense of the indefectible righteousness of God and to make them a perfect revelation of His love; so that, by this one indivisible work, both God is reconciled to us, and we, under the quickening influence of the Spirit bought for us by it, are reconciled to God, so making peace - external peace between an angry God and sinful men, and internal peace in the response of the human conscience to the restored smile of God.

This doctrine, which has been incorporated in more or less fullness of statement in the creedal declarations of all the great branches of the Church, Greek, Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed, and which has been expounded with more or less insight and power by the leading doctors of the churches for the last eight hundred years, was first given scientific statement by Anselm in his "Cur Deus Homo" (1098); but it reached its complete development only at the hands of the so-called Protestant Scholastics of the seventeenth century."

[Warfield then goes on to reference works by Francis Turretin and John Owen, as well as numerous more modern writers such as H. Bavinck, W.G.T. Shedd, R.L. Dabney and A.A. Hodge.]

B. B Warfield - "The Person and Work of Christ" (p368) Chapter X, "The Chief Theories of the Atonement". The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA., 1950

Heb 8:8-9 - Christ - The ONLY Way

Heb 8:08-09 - Christ - The ONLY Way

Heb 8:8-9 For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.


The writer now takes the Hebrews directly to the Prophet Jeremiah {Jer 31:31-32} to prove once for all from the ancient scriptures that Judaism itself supposedly held to be authoritative, that the system of law was insufficient for changing men - and only good for convicting them. It was prophecy that had been fulfilled in Christ. There was now a new covenant in Christ’s blood.

And this new covenant is specifically said not to be like the old one. The problem with the old covenant was that it was based on works of the law, which no child of Adam could possibly keep. And the proof of this is that they all broke it. David said so and Paul reconfirmed it. {Ps 14:1-2,Ro 3:23} The problem was not, however, with the law itself. The law is good. It is the revealed will of the Most Holy God for his creatures. The problem is and always was with the people to whom the law came. They all had an obligation to keep the law but none had the moral ability to do so. And if there is any argument on this point then a person need only be directed to {Ex 20:2-3} and asked if he has done this one thing perfectly all his life.

As we shall see, sin is a condition before it is an action. The heart of man is deceitful above all and desperately wicked and who can understand it? Who but God? It is therefore inevitable that, absent the ministry of God’s Holy Spirit, a person’s inclination is always and without fail to evil and sin. We would murder God if we had our way. And we have had our way.

But God made our murder of His Son into a willing sacrifice. Nevertheless, even those who did not actually drive in the nails, pronounce the verdict, scoff at the execution, flay the skin, spit in the face, pull out the beard or strike with rod and fist - were represented in those that did. They were doing externally on our behalf what we all wanted internally, in our heart of hearts. And if we now do not, and if there were or shall be any who do not, it is by the grace of God alone that this is so. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord - for God had purposed that in Him all things are held together and to give Him a Name which is above all names. The whole of human history and the entire universe itself depends upon Christ and is inextricably bound up in Him with God’s redemptive purposes, and their accomplishment to the praise of His glory.


Let’s put it another way. Natural men are incapable of keeping a covenant with God. God must keep both sides of the covenant. This is why He became a man - to keep perfectly the law and to fulfill perfectly the old covenant on behalf of the redeemed; to become the party of the first part and the party of the second part. We do not keep covenants. We cannot keep covenants. So the new covenant is something radically different from the old in this very respect. God’s new covenant is founded upon Christ’s perfect work being accredited to us by grace through faith plus absolutely nothing else whatsoever. Add anything to it and you are a heretic. Add anything to it and you will receive the scathing condemnation of the Apostle Paul, even though he will merely scold and upbraid and solemnly warn you for the worst kinds of immorality.

Why? Because though immorality is possible for a Christian, yet there is hope that, by God’s grace it is correctable. There can be repentance for all manner of sins. But deny the gospel of the fullness and completeness of Christ’s finished work by adding even the smallest thing to it and teaching others to do so, and you are outside the pale - a heretic, twice condemned and without hope in the world; you abide under the wrath of God. "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to the cross I cling..." Anything else is another gospel.

Now Israel (the Hebrews of old) had utterly failed as the poster boy for proper relationship with God. They had thoroughly, heartily, extensively and repeatedly broken the old covenant. This speaks of them as a nation. There were undoubtedly some in Israel at all times whom God had kept for himself. There was always a remnant according to the election of grace. But as the nation representing - illustrative, if you like - all men of all nations, as the keepers of the oracles of God, as the chosen people, favoured with the revelation of God’s law and graced with being the tree from which the Christ would come - in this capacity they were the perfect, eternal example of fallen man’s moral inability and culpable unwillingness to honour God.

For this reason, God had cut them off. For 400 years before the voice of one crying in the wilderness "Make straight the way of the Lord" at the coming of Christ, there had been no prophet in Israel. For 40 years after they had rejected their own Messiah God waited, but then acted to cut off Israel from the land altogether. After the quashing of the rebellion of AD70 the nation was broken up and it was forbidden by Rome for Jews to settle there. God was serious and He rightly held Israel accountable for their failures under the old covenant. Any professing Christian who lives under the old covenant by still trying to justify himself through observations, rituals, deeds and ceremonies is putting himself back under law - under the old covenant - and will be judged accordingly.

So, while God condemns all men for lawlessness, He saves some of them through grace. All members of the new covenant are in Christ and live as acceptable to God by His grace alone, through faith alone. The old covenant was good; the new covenant is infinitely better. Under the old, God was just to condemn. Under the new, He is just to show mercy to evildoers like us.

Haitian Disaster and Churches

There's no sermon of the week this time. Instead here is Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle describing his recent visit to the Haitian disaster area on behalf of Churches Helping Churches - a new joint work with John MacDonald's Harvest Bible Chapel(s) organization. This is offered without comment.(HT - Roxylee).

Intro to Systematic Theology

Here is a lecture from Biblical Training.org given by Bruce Ware. Part 2 follows next Saturday. There is some good balanced stuff in here giving reasons why systematic theology is valuable to our understanding of God. I especially appreciate this because many in the Emergent movement have framed systematic theology as "unnecessary", as a throw back from "modernism" and as epistemologically presumptuous. I think Ware has some good answers for such views, but without being overly polemical about it.

Heb 8:6-7 - Christ - Minister of the New Covenant

Heb 8:06-07 - Christ - Minister of the New Covenant

Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.


Once more the idea of the superiority of Christ is advanced, this time in connection with His ministry on our behalf. It has already been shown how vastly much superior the new covenant is to the old. And that it the basis upon which Christ’s ministry in heaven, before the throne of God, is vastly superior to the old ministry of the Levitical order.

The old ministry was based on a covenant of law and could only show how far short men really fell. All men, even the priests - including the high priest. The new ministry is based not upon anything men do, but upon what God has done in Christ on behalf of men. And beyond even that, what Christ did on behalf of men was based on the eternal counsel of God and was an entirely free gift arising from God’s grace - His unmerited favour. And the proof, the guarantor, the evidence is a Person - Jesus Christ the risen Son of God.

The writer, desiring in this sermon to disabuse the Hebrews of any notion that the old covenant still had some place in their worship and in their relationship with God, presses on relentlessly. The new covenant would hardly be needed if the old covenant actually effected salvation, instead of just pointing to the need for it.

Putting a Nick Knock on the Shelf

Putting a Nick Knock on the Shelf




This is my final response to Nick's assertion that Reformed theology is "almost heretical" and legalistic when it holds to both the active and passive obedience of Christ. There is no dispute about the historical Reformed position. And we both seem to be fairly set upon our views of the topic. So I don't see any profit in beating it to death with a stick. Nick expected a response to his last post in the comments section here. This is it. We'll have to agree to differ, I think.



Nick said

While you might not like it, I fail to see how two different Gospels don't result from the affirming or denying of active obedience.

And I fail to see how they do. How does this move the ball forward?

Nick said

It certainly cannot be optional, for it determines two different ways of salvation.

It’s not a question of whether it's “optional” but whether it's “essential”. There is only one true answer but does the answer either way fundamentally affect the gospel we all believed? I say “no” and you say “yes”.

You make people like me who hold to active and passive obedience to be in one place “almost heretics” and in another place propagators of the Galatian heresy. I’m not quite so hard on you and our Dispensationalist brothers. I don’t make you antinomian heretics; not even close.

Nick said

You get on the point of "standards" but the Sermon on the Mount is clear that Christ's New Standards surpass the Mosaic standards

Now this is where I think you go wrong. Christ’s standards in the Sermon on the Mount weren’t “new”; they were the same law properly explained and exegeted; they showed once for all the absolute impossibility of law keeping as a means of justification before God. The Sermon on the Mount is almost all pure law taken to the nth degree and explained by the giver and keeper of it.

Nick said

Mark 10:2-12 is especially enlightening, for it showed one could be righteous under the Law while divorcing their wife (which was allowed), yet for Christ divorce was unacceptable (and thus holds believers to a higher standard). So the Law, while still good, isn't even a perfect standard.

I believe it was “for their hardness of heart” that MOSES permitted divorce. God always did hate divorce and still does. It wasn’t the law that was at fault or that was “imperfect” in this illustration.

Nick said

But even that's not the 'problem' I envision, as you rightly point out my reasoning: If the Law was abolished, then keeping it as a standard to be met is implicitly denying it was abolished.

My whole point is that the law is abolished as a means of the self-justification of sinful men BECAUSE of Christ and all that He came and did. What He did was to keep the law on our behalf SO THAT when we sin we can come to God the Father through our advocate who DID keep the law for us as representative man.

But these are the same two snowballs being tossed back and forth all over. I hold to one view while allowing you the other. You hold to the other view while counting me and the Reformers to be legalistic Galatian heretics. I give you latitude to hold a different view. Seems like a fair exchange to me.

Nick said

You really should be saying the Law was not abolished, because sinners are in fact justified through a vicarious keeping of it.

Again – the law was abolished as a means of self-justification – all hope in it other than to show us the impossibility of us helping ourselves through compliance with it was demonstrably dispatched before us when Christ, having kept it on our behalf and having ultimately died to save us from our sins was declared to be Son of God in power by His resurrection from the dead.

It was the vicarious keeping of the law (the impeccable life of Christ) which made it possible for the law to be abrogated as the means of justification in the minds of men of faith. It was the life and death of Christ which were offered up to God.

But this is repetition of things already stated here and previously. Our ships keep passing in the night.

Nick said

For example, when the Colonialists rebelled against British authority, the Colonialists were no longer under English law, they didn't have to keep English law as a standard of what made an 'upright English citizen.' For someone to vicariously keep the English law for the Colonialists is illogical.

The problem with analogies is that they all break down eventually. There is no correlation in this example between English law and the law of God, under which BOTH nations found themselves regardless of their geo-political condition. Unless they were reborn of the Spirit of God, citizens of both nations were still accountable to God under the law of God.

Nick said

You mention Adam and Romans 5:17, but the key here is that Adam was not under the Law, the Law didn't exist until 450 years after Abraham (Gal 3:15-18). Rom 5:13-14 says "before the law was given, sin was in the world." This again affirms the Law wasn't God's standard but rather a temporary appendage of God's salvation plan (for 5:20 says the Law was "added").

Since the definition of sin is “lawlessness” let’s take a look and see if Adam’s sin met the criteria. What precept was given to Adam? “Of all the trees in the garden you may eat freely (note the generosity) but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you may not eat – for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die (or you shall surely die). Is that law or not?

Is the disobedience lawlessness or not? Is it the deliberate rebellion against an ordinance of the Most High? Is it refusing to love God with all his heart and mind and strength? Is it preferring the idol of his wife over the One True God? Is it stealing? Is it covetousness? Is it the murder of countless others (by condemning all future humans to spiritual death for the sake of a momentary lust)? You get the point.

You might ask whether God had specifically commanded or forbidden these things beforehand and I would answer “no”. But the act of disobedience was still lawlessness in the face of a specific ordinance. Had God laid down no law to Adam then Adam could not have transgressed. But Adam’s transgression was far worse than any subsequent one by him or any of his children because it was done in a more perfect light and from a heart not tainted by original sin.

So there was most certainly law with Adam. Law is a commandment or precept or ordinance of God. And since death reigned from Adam to Moses regardless of the absence of the Mosiac law per se, yet every imagination of the thoughts of men’s hearts was only evil continually. Evil means sin and sin means lawlessness. Or would you plead non-culpability for pre-Mosaic Amorites and all those who died in the Noahic flood? (That’s rhetorical, of course.)

The Decalogue is not something pulled like a rabbit out of God’s hat on Sinai. It is the confirmation of what men’s consciences and the wonders of the natural world ought to have taught men had they not suppressed the truth in unrighteousness from their youth (Read Romans Chapter 1). In fact the law is even written on the hearts of people who did not receive the codified Mosaic precepts (see Romans 2).

The Decalogue refocused God’s chosen people upon something they had lost or suppressed by willful sin. It did not save. It could not save. But it could reawaken conscience and convict so that people would come to the end of all hope in themselves.

If the law is not God’s standard for all men in all ages, then by what means are men justly judged and condemned? Ignorantia juris neminem excusat; ignorance of the law is no excuse – because all men have a moral duty to keep the law whether they know it or not.

I’d like to end this response by referring again to Psalm 119. O how I love Thy law! I love it because in it I see the perfect life of Christ given for me. When I see the precept I see not only the precept giver but the precept keeper. To love Christ is to love God’s perfect law. To love Christ is also to have rested (in Him) from striving to justify ourselves by keeping the law which, strangely, frees us to want to do all Gods revealed will, in the power of His Spirit.


All this said, Nick, I’ll give you last kick at the cat in this meta. I won’t be responding publicly to your next post, if you make it, because I don’t see any progress being made in either direction. Maybe some lurkers might be getting something but we’ve no way of knowing that. Feel free to follow up by email directly after that if you want.

Blessings to you and yours,

Hebrews 8:1-5 - Christ - Our Intercessor, Bodily in the Presence of God

Hebrews 8:01-05 - Christ - Our Intercessor, Bodily in the Presence of God

Heb 8:1-5 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”


Hammering home the contrast between the ineffable glories of Christ and the total insufficiency of the Levitical system the writer again makes a comparison. It is by the death and resurrection (especially here, the resurrection) of Christ that the vast superiority of the gospel of grace alone is realized. Christ is risen and lives evermore to make intercession for those who believe.

The true place of worship is in heaven, where God’s presence abides unveiled. There ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands declare His praises. There the cherubim walk in the midst of the stones of fire before the throne, singing "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty". All this goes on day and night without ceasing. This is where the risen Christ is found - in the very presence of the Father. He is there bodily. He is at the right hand of God - the place of favour, power and honour. It is the place of majesty.

Christ is eternal man and has that place in the holy of holies in heaven as our champion and representative. The fact that He is there bodily is the reminder that He is a man and that He died. The fact that He is there bodily is an eternal reminder that He rose again and was declared to be Son of God in power according the Spirit of Holiness by His resurrection from the dead. The grave could not hold him because, though he became sin for us and bore our just punishment, He was perfectly righteous. God declared His life acceptable. God declared His sacrifice acceptable - all by His resurrection from the dead.

The entire Levitical system was given as an illustration, a type, a representation of the true reality that was to be realized in Jesus Christ. All the ceremonies, all the dire warnings, retribution, chastisement - rigorous enforcement, the stunning detail - all of it given to Moses was of no eternal value in and of itself. It all foretold the One True Sacrifice that was to come. The thundering from Sinai, the terror of entering the Most Holy Place, the injunction not to offer strange fire - all of this was to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Person able to enter into the True Presence in heaven on His own merits, as a member of the human race.

Yet we are reminded that Christ is not a Levite. He is apart from that whole system. He ascended into heaven not as a Levite priest, but as a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. He is the Priest of His people of the promise by an oath of God. His ascension was in order that he could enter the true Holy Place and intercede with God on our behalf. Not intercede in the sense that God the Father is unwilling and Christ is begging for a change of mind. That is a false picture. He intercedes as the One Who accomplished all that God desired for Him to do so that His people would be saved. There is no conflict between Father and Son. They are of the same mind.

And the pattern that God desired Moses to be so careful to follow in the things of worship and the tabernacle were so precisely given and enforced because they represented aspects of the ministry and Person of the coming (now come) Messiah. Of course, only true faith is able to accept these things. The minds of fallen men can perceive them - can be fascinated with the patterns and parallels - but they cannot receive them apart from true faith. They cannot appropriate them personally. And some men get it entirely the wrong way around - seeing in Christ something patterned after the tabernacle, rather than something in the tabernacle patterned after Christ.

The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ Defended (Sort Of)

The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ Defended (Sort Of)

As I keep telling people, this isn’t a debate blog – it’s a devotional blog, and I’m not interested in the endless discussion of the finer points of theology, nor looking for cheerleaders in the blogosphere. Comments are open in order to keep me honest, but most of the time readers seem to be content to receive the material passively [/ironical smile].


A few days ago in the comments section of this post, my good friend and Christian brother Nick stated that he did not believe in the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. Normally I wouldn’t bother to pick up on this in a public forum as it isn’t necessarily a matter fundamentally affecting the gospel. I don’t put Nick in the heretic category just because he, like many other Christian brothers and sisters, holds a different view than I on this topic.

But Nick went further by saying that he considered the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ to be “almost heretical”. For myself, I am content to leave room for even this opinion – though I think it wrong, but some readers of this blog might miss the “almost” and think that a perfectly good, historical and orthodox Reformed doctrine was potentially damaging to their beliefs. It isn’t.

Let me start by saying that the doctrine of the active and passive (both) obedience of Christ has been the view of almost all Reformed believers for centuries. Of itself, that proves nothing, of course, but the fact that the teaching has been held by many thoughtful and entirely orthodox believers ought to give pause to anyone who might question it.

The elements of the doctrine, though not mentioned specifically, are contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith. They were held by the Puritans (of whom I mentioned Poole earlier) and by later giants of Reformed theology like Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield. In fact Reformed believers, almost to a man, and down to this very day hold to the doctrine of both the active and passive obedience of Christ. The two teachings are actually considered to be distinct, but inseparable aspects of the same doctrine of redemption/substitution.

Simply put, the passive obedience of Christ involved His enduring all the torments and punishments of the crucifixion and, by them, suffering the just penalties due to we who believe. Reformed folks have also believed that, by His life of perfect obedience, Jesus also fashioned and provided a positive righteousness for His people. John Owen (a Puritan) sums it all up in this short quote from his Works in which we see both the sense of distinction and the unity of these two aspects of the teaching:

“First, By the obedience of the life of Christ you see what is intended, —his willing submission unto, and perfect, complete fulfilling of, every law of God, that any of the saints of God were obliged unto. It is true, every act almost of Christ’s obedience, from the blood of his circumcision to the blood of his cross, was attended with suffering, so that his whole life might, in that regard, be called a death; but yet, looking upon his willingness and obedience in it, it is distinguished from his sufferings peculiarly so called, and termed his active righteousness. This is, then, I say, as was showed, that complete, absolutely perfect accomplishment of the whole law of God by Christ, our mediator; whereby he not only “did no sin, neither was there guile fold in his mouth,” but also most perfectly fulfilled all righteousness, as he affirmed it became him to do. Secondly, That this obedience was performed by Christ not for himself, but for us, and in our stead.”

The main reason given by Nick for rejecting the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ is:

Nick...

“I don't consider the notion of 'active obedience' Biblical for the very reason you state in your opening paragraphs: The Law was abolished.

The Mosaic Law is not (nor ever was) a standard that must be met for justification, so active obedience is a mistake at the very least, a form of Judaizing the the worst.”

We actually agree here in that my comments about the abrogation of the law were in the context of the law as a means of justification. We even agree that the law never was the means of justification for even Old Covenant believers. But it was most assuredly the standard that had to be met for any person to be acceptable in God’s sight. The fact that no natural man could meet that standard in no way diminished the standard. But the law, by its inflexible and unattainable standard took away all hope of self-justification through works of the law, and cast people upon God for Him to provide another way. That way is Christ. But God’s provision does not come to us without reference to the law. And the moral law was, is and always will be good.

I questioned Nick to be sure I understood him, since Reformed believers almost all hold to the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. This was the response, in part:

Nick

My point about the Law was that, as you said, it was abolished. For Christ to impute his perfect obedience to the Law to us is illogical and even heresy for it makes the abolished remain as a standard we must meet (even vicariously).”

What Nick seems to miss is that the reason there is righteousness apart from law for those who have faith in Christ is on account of what Christ did. Yes, our righteousness is “apart from law” for we fallen beings could never attain to perfect obedience. But that righteousness which we now enjoy through faith as attributed to us was not rendered in a vacuum as a diffusion of God’s character without intermediation.

Christ was a fully human being. He lived a fully human life in which he fully kept the law of God in Spirit and deed, including not only the moral, but also the ceremonial and civil laws. It is the fruit of that human obedience that we appropriate through faith, along with the covering of our sin debt.

The view that denies the active obedience of Christ ignores the Federal nature of God’s dealings with men. In Adam all mankind sinned and therefore all died. In Christ all the redeemed are counted righteous through faith in God's provision, and therefore all have eternal life.

If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Rom 5:17

Don’t overlook the use of the descriptor “man” here. Jesus was representative man. He is the man – the only man – who ever lived a life entirely conformed to God’s law ab ovo. He had no original sin because of the virgin birth, and lived an impeccable life as a fully human being fashioning for us a life pleasing to God – His life – to be appropriated by faith alone. And don’t overlook the word “righteousness” either. It doesn’t say sinlessness, but righteousness. Sinlessness is a passive condition whereas righteousness is an active, living condition. A rock is sinless. A cow is sinless. But only a man can be righteous because, made in the image of God, he was intended to be active and interactive with God and his fellows. Righteousness is a positive attribute displayed through conformity with God's will. Because Christ's absolute conformity to the will of God (His precepts and ordinances) that we are accepted and empowered to live sanctified lives, loving and revering God's precepts, just like the writer of Psalm 119.

I am rambling on now. I tend to do that. And there are points I haven't addressed. But I wanted to show that belief in the passive and active obedience of Christ together is not "almost heretical" and is, in fact, orthodox Reformed theology. But neither do I go so far as to call "almost heretics" those who hold only to the passive obedience of Christ (or else many of our Dispensationalist brothers would also be condemned in a swoop [/aside]) I encourage all to look into the matter themselves, which is easily begun by Googling the phrase "active and passive obedience".

Blessings to all,

Heb 7:26-28 - Christ - The Fulfillment of God's Eternal Purpose

Heb 7:26-28 - Christ - The Fulfillment of God's Eternal Purpose


Heb 7:26-28 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.


God could not have saved us apart from Christ. Some will say that we cannot know that. Maybe He had another way - or many other ways, but that He chose this way. But God is the author of all events and there are no probabilities to Him. All is certainty. Once the Divine Mind decides in infinite and unchangeable wisdom upon a course of action then no other course is even possible, much less desirable. God’s perfect thoughts lead to His perfect purposes and His perfect purposes lead to reality, of which there is only one, the philosophers notwithstanding.

It is better just to stick with the Bible and say that there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved. And from this to extrapolate the fact that the reason there is no other Name is because Jesus is Christ. Jesus the man is the Messiah and the Son of God. If Jesus had not been fully human then He could not represent men. If He had not been fully divine He could not have satisfied the demands of God’s holiness.

All this in order to make the point about the Son being "made perfect". He was never imperfect. But it was necessary, for the purposes of redemption, for Him to manifest all the characteristics of humanity, including maturing and growing and walking in the appointed task until the end. This is the sense of His being made perfect, and it refers to His full humanity being lived out in perfect obedience through faith. As a man, He walked in perfection, just as, as God, He was perfect in essence all the time. He had no taint of original sin, nor added any sin of His own.

The writer therefore rightly uses such words as "holy, innocent, unstained and separated from sinners" to describe our Great High Priest. Such language could not be used of any other member of the race since Adam and until the end of time. All have sinned. All but Christ.

Notice the phrase that described Christ as "separated from sinners." This doesn’t mean that He has no contact, no interaction, no relationship with sinners. Such are the ones He came to save. It means He is separated from the common fallen nature of men by which all but He are unholy, guilty and stained. He is the second Adam; He was like Adam before the fall, though I would argue that unlike Adam, He was immutable as to character and purpose. So it is fruitless to ask if Jesus could have failed. He could not, because He was God’s purpose from before creation of the world for the redemption of humanity - the nexus of that immutable, perfect and preordained reality from the counsels of eternity. As a human being, He walked in that reality through faith. But, unlike ours, His faith was perfect faith.

This is why we are not fatalists, despite the fact that all of history has been preordained. We are not fatalists because God in human flesh was not a fatalist. He drew a hand over His Own omniscience and lived by faith in the promises of God, just as we are to do. This is a part of what made Him fully human in every sense. He wasn’t just God in a human body, like a man in a machine. He was God as a human being - able to feel, suffer, be tempted, yet without sin. He is the pioneer of our faith, as well as its author; and He is the perfecter of our faith, also, having lived it perfectly as only he could do.


Note also that He offered Himself up as the infinite, eternal and perfect sacrifice. There was no hint of something happening that was ever outside the predetermined purposes of God. He came in order to die as the perfect sacrifice. It was not plan B. It was the only plan that ever existed and He came to fulfill it. And it wasn’t Jesus doing the compassionate thing to dissuade the Father from being angry at men. It was the Father sending the Son to accomplish His loving purpose of redemption - and the Son actually doing it.

So the contrast continues between the men who held the earthly office of high priest, sinful and in need of a Saviour as they were, and the perfect High Priest Who, both because of Who He was and what he did, was at one and the same time like them and utterly unlike them. He fills the office of true High Priest because He is different in very important and essential ways from the others; without sin, unstained, in a league apart, exalted above the heavens. No mere son of Levi or Adam could possibly be compared to this.

And His sacrifice was perfect and effectual because of Who He was and what he did. And His sacrifice was all these things because He came as the manifestation of the oath of God to appoint a Son to do what no fallen man could do. Then He did it as a man. So all who believe have a perfect High Priest who ever makes intercession for us, and on behalf of Whom, we are all made acceptable to the Father - just as He planned it from eternity.

Talk of the WeekDeconstructing Molinism

Here is a two-part program from James White's Alpha and Omega Ministries "Dividing Line". It was originally aired in May 2009. Just as I sometimes publish "Blasts from the Past" for a change of pace, so Dr. White and the crew sometimes put on "Radio Free Geneva", which is a program specifically designed to answer the critics of Reformed Theology.

For me, the introduction alone is worth the price of admission. Aside from the music you will hear various anti-Calvinists running on emotion, absent exegetical accuracy as they try to put down Calvinism.

But there is also in these two recordings a very useful deconstruction of the Molinist teaching of D. William Lane Craig. Luis de Molina (hence Molinism) was a Jesuit priest tasked with finding an answer for Roman Catholicism to the Reformed teachings of God's sovereignty in election and predestination. Molina came up with the so-called answer of "Middle Knowledge" wherein God computed all the possibilities of all the choices of all the people in all the possible worlds He could have created, and then decided to create only that world in which those people He wanted to actually did what He wanted. (If this confuses you - join the club.) This supposedly preserved freedom of the human will and reconciled it to the decretive and elective will of God. Craig propagates the Molinist view, even though he is a Protestant, and the Catholics long ago had the sense to abandon it.

This stuff makes my head hurt but I liked listening to Dr. White show the exegetical fallacies and the logical errors and inconsistencies of the Molinist view. This turns out to be an overview of the differences between the understanding of an academic philosopher (Craig) and an Biblicist theologian (White). If you have the stomach for it, it's a good listen.

Walk by Faith and Not by SightRoy Hargrave

Heb 7:22-25 - Christ - The Guarantor for All Believers

Heb 7:22-25 - Christ - The Guarantor for All Believers


Heb 7:22-25 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

The new covenant in the blood of Christ is better than the old covenant - whether we take it to mean the old sacrificial system or the covenant of law in which it was given. The new is both simpler and permanent. There is but one High Priest Who remains in that office forever because He is the One Eternal God. Yet, having lived a perfect human life He is also representative man. As Adam was the federal head of all mankind, so Christ is the federal head of all the redeemed. The acts of each of them have consequences for all who are their descendants. Once born men are still under condemnation and the wrath of God abides on them. Twice born men have passed from death to life based entirely upon what God has done in Christ.

So when there is mention of saving to the uttermost what can this mean? Isn’t a person either saved or not? And once a person is saved can he become more saved? Obviously not. The word "salvation" must take its meaning from the context in which it is used. "Salvation" can refer to regeneration, justification and sanctification - and it can include all three. But the sense is sometimes limited by the context. What this most probably means is that God is able to both save and to keep safe those who draw near to Him through Christ.

If while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly, then how much more shall we live through Him? If by dying God justified us, then what can His (resurrected) life mean for us but continued acceptance, assurance, forgiveness, life and joy? We may not "feel" saved sometimes, but faith holds fast to the truth that we are, and comes boldly to God through Christ in the knowledge that acceptance and forgiveness is freely given. And that assurance is, of course, tied to the fact that true faith has given us a heart that is always repenting. We may sin and fall and wander, but the child of God is miserable in his wanderings until he is right with God - and he always comes back for the forgiveness that God holds out to him all the day long.

For the Hebrews this is another reminder that they ought not to even think about going back to the impermanent, imperfect, ineffectual sacrificial system. A single sacrifice of eternal and infinite value has been made by which believers are always and ever able to approach God in the full confidence of their adoption as sons for Jesus’ sake. Their approaching Him through faith does not make them safe, but it does lay hold of the One Who does. It believes in the love of God and apprehends it personally. It identifies the believer as an object of God’s infinite love in Jesus Christ. It believes that Christ is both perfect and acceptable, and that His perfections are what make the believer acceptable to God and that nothing more needs to be done. It abides in love and grows there.

Warfield at War

A Pelagianism which out Pelagianizes Pelagius himself in the completeness of its naturalism is in fact at the moment intensely fashionable among the self-constituted leaders of Christian thought. And everywhere, in all communions alike, conceptions are current which assign to man, in the use of his native powers at least the decisive activity in the saving of the soul, that is to say, which suppose that God has planned that those shall be saved, who, at the decisive point, in one way or another save themselves.

B.B Warfield, 1851-1921