You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April, 2008.
During my time spent taking undergraduate classes at a dispensationalist institution, I’ve encountered both professors and students who happen to think that our understanding of federal headship should really be quite flexible. After all, the Bible doesn’t emphasize federal headship to the exclusion of other more important concepts we need to bring to the table when studying this doctrine. What has emerged is a soteriological soup of a doctrine which hesitantly affirms aspects of federal headship, and quickly runs to the “clearer passages of Scripture” which presumably provide the needed theological balance. What’s this theological balance? According to some, we must also stringently emphasize the reality of seminal headship and mediate imputation. This has logically concluded in a position which outright excludes the Reformational emphasis upon man’s federal union with Adam in his sin, along with the corresponding understanding of the immediate imputation of this sin to all mankind. This position has opted for an exclusively biological understanding of imputation and headship, with the disastrous results of entirely misunderstanding and confusing the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the active and passive obedience of Christ, and the consequent imputation of this righteousness to the elect.
Here’s what I’ve been thinking- Without a Reformed/ confessional understanding of the covenant of works, we run the risk of running into all kinds of soteriological confusions. Witness the federal vision! Federal Vision advocates have outright denied the confession’s clear treatment on the covenant of works, and have muddled the doctrine of justification by faith alone into a pseudo-Roman Catholic view of union with Christ which refuses to affirm cardinal doctrines like the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, justification by faith alone to the exclusion of works, etc. etc. etc. By denying the covenant of works as articulated in the Confession, Federal Visionist’s have created a theory of imputation which denies the need for Christ’s active obedience, and the imputation of this active obedience to all who believe. Let’s look at the other extreme. As noted above, dispensationalist’s run from a Reformational understanding of federal headship, substituting it instead for a borderline semi-Pelagian understanding of imputation and headship which emphasizes biological unity to the exclusion of federal/legal unity. Why is this so? I’d like to contend that it arises from the very same soteriological pre-suppositions of the Federal Visionist’s. Dispensationalist’s (at least in their classic variety) outright deny any notion of a covenant of works. Could it be that an anti-Reformed spirit of dispensational novelty has lead to a denial of the covenant of works, which in turn has lead to an outright denial of federal headship, which in turn has lead to countless theological blunders with respect to justification, imputation, faith alone, etc. etc.? As I’ve been thinking about it, I can’t but conclude that this be the case. A denial of the key covenantal concepts so integral to the Reformed system of thinking can and does conclude in some really serious soteriological problems on a massive scale.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m obviously aware that not all dispensationalist’s hold to the kind of semi-Pelagian understanding of exclusive biological union taught by more extreme dispensationalist’s with an unconfessed affinity for Arminianism. I’ve talked to many dispensationalist’s who embrace federal headship whole-heartedly. I guess my question is this: What’s keeping you from embracing the bi-covenantal structure of the Biblical narrative, specifically the covenant of works? Reformed covenantal theology emphasizes Adam’s conditional probation in the garden, reward grounded exclusively in obedience/merit, and all mankind’s federal or covenantal union with Adam in his obedience or sin. These concepts Biblically and historically correspond to the suzerain-vassal treaties of the Ancient Near East, and therefore rightly deserve to be understood covenantally. The Covenant of Works is the logical corollary to the doctrine of Federal Headship. In my mind, one can’t be affirmed without the other.
The beauty of this particular doctrine lies in its intimate connection with that of Christ’s redemptive work. Just as Adam was placed into a conditional probationary period on the basis of works, his obedience or failure determining the spiritual destiny of those united to him, so Christ, our Second Adam, perfectly fulfilled the covenant of works on our behalf. Christ actively met the conditions of this covenant for his elect, and unlike Adam, was faithful and obedient to the point of death. So we see that the covenant of works is the divine starting point for a Biblical understanding of our fall in Adam and the reversal of that fall in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Here’s a quote which burned into my heart with conviction. I just started the book, and really appreciate Pipa’s careful exegesis, pastoral concern, and “Puritanesque” love for the Sabbath.
“Is it not possible that one reason for the spiritual weakness of the church is her failure to honor God on the Lord’s Day? Is it not possible that one reason our churches are not more effective in reaching the lost is because we are not practicing the Sabbath-keeping that brings us victory? Could this be true of us as individuals as well? Is it not possible that you continue to fall under the dominion of some particular sin because you have refused to sanctify God’s day in your heart? We lack victory because we have failed to recognize and utilize one of the God-given means of victory, while those who keep the Sabbath have victory.”
-Joseph Pipa, The Lord’s Day (p. 13)
Dr. Clark has written more about the nature of Reformed theology and practice here. I highly recommend reading his thoughts!
My friend Tim over at Broken Wills and Saving Grace has graciously provided a link to R. Scott Clark’s brief thoughts on Colin Hahnsen’s new book. I think Clark’s criticism’s go right to the heart of what it means to be Reformed, and how a reductionistic view of Reformed theology can, however unintentionally, be devastating and misleading. The the resurgence of Calvinistic soteriology is a blessing, especially in a largely Arminian evangelical subculture. Notwithstanding, Reformed theology is much more than the 5 points of Calvinism. The Canons of Dordt, in which the historic 5 points are systematized and confessionally explained, are only one theological component of a much larger system of doctrine. The canons can’t be taken in isolation from their confessional counterparts: The Belgic Confession and Heidelburg Catechism. Southern Baptist’s, so called “Calvinistic Charismatics”, or any other evangelical subgroup have no right to parade around as genuine Reformed scholars, much less leaders of Reformed revival. Most of those who claim the name Reformed would have been ousted from Calvin’s Geneva in a heartbeat for their abberant views on ecclesiology, eschatalogy, or the supernatural gifts. What’s at stake in this issue is a blatant disregard for the entire system of Reformed teaching: covenant theology, paedobaptism, Calvin’s eucharistic theology, realized millenialism, Reformed hermeneutics, the authority of the church, the character of the church as the divine mediator of supernatural grace- just to name a few! A love for the doctrines of grace combined with a disdain for the entire system of Reformed doctrine has the potential to breed devastating consequences. This isn’t a matter of a harsh parochialism clothed in theological bigotry- this is a matter of historical accuracy and theological consistency. Let Baptist’s be Baptist’s, charsismatics charismatics- but let them never claim the name Reformed simply for believing in Calvinistic soteriology. Sorry to say, but you can’t have one foot firmly planted in Baptist ecclesiology or 20th century expressions of evangelical thinking, with the other firmly planted in the doctrines of grace, and then proceed to label yourself Reformed. Again, this is not a trivial argument over words. This is a matter of serious alarm for confessional Christians, especially when some of their core theological doctrines are being trampled upon. If you want to read a far better rant concerned with the very same issues, I’d highly recommend you read Richard Muller’s article How Many Points? Read it over and over and over again.
I’m now back home after a wonderful week of spiritual refreshment. Together for the Gospel 2008 was perhaps one of the most theologically and spiritually beneficial conferences I’ve ever attended. The speakers displayed a zeal for truth as they defended the gospel. The fellowship with other believers from a variety of different theological contexts was edifying. Most importantly though, the affection for the gospel in all its fulness left an indelible impression of spiritual earnestness and joy that I hope will continue to characterize both the speakers and the attendees. The conference opened up with Ligon Duncan’s lecture on the necessity of systematic theology. His premise was that systematic theology, in the midst of severe criticism from orthodox and unorthodox alike, must be celebrated and defended in our post-enlightenment age. Particularly interesting was Ligon’s Biblical defense of systematic theology. In an age where Biblical theologians often scornfully degrade systematic theology as a scholastic concession to modernity, Christians must be aware that the systemization of doctrine is a process used by Christ and the apostles repeatedly in Scripture. From Jesus’ words to the disciples on the road to Emmaus wherein he systematically revealed Himself in the OT Scriptures, to Stephen’s sermon before his martyrdom- its obvious that systematic theology is much more than a modern method used by Christians influenced by enligthenment thinking.
Thabite Anybawile’s lecture was a wonderful and unexpected call for “ethnic unity” grounded in our federal union in Adam and Christ. He labored in emphazing the point that the category of “race” doesn’t exist. Racial categories imply significant biological differences between people groups, a line of thinking which has logically concluded in biogotry, prejudice, and inhumane atrocities. A Biblical solution calls for an understanding of ethnicity, a fluid category which maintains biological unity, while simulatenously affirming the ethnic differences between cultures and people groups. This understanding of ethnicity as a fluid category, in which peoples of all cultures and people groups can enter in and out, has as its center the federal union of mankind in Adam and Jesus Christ. Regenerate and un-regenerate alike possess a biolgogical and spiritual unity manifested in both original and actual sin. We’re all born in Adam, dead in trespasses and sins, children of wrath, deceitful beyond measure, hostile to God, and plauged with corruption. On the other hand, the church possesses a spiritual unity in the person of Jesus Christ. Our federal union with Christ provides a spiritual unity which transcends any kind of ethnic, cultural, or geographic categories. This message burned into my heart, convicting me of my often unconcious ethnic prejudices. It also provided a Biblical summons towards ethnic unity in both the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
The next morning, John MacArthur spoke on total depravity. Throughout the past few months, I’ve spoken out against MacArthur’s theological ignoracne with respect to amillenialism. While I still don’t appreciate MacArthur’s views on the issue, I nevertheless profited greatly from this lecture. It was basically a systematic study of the doctrine of total depravity in the Bible, with an emphasis on the implications of this doctrine for preaching. One of MacArthur’s best comments was made during the panel discussion. The group was talking about evanglisim, and MacArthur made a comment to the extent of “My evangelism is really no different from my preaching. I try to get to the topic of sin as quickly as I can.” This made me think: While friendships and relationships are important, we must never think that our post-modern culture presents us with so much difficulty that we simply cannot go to the reality of sin before talking about other more important things. Post-modernism is one particular cultural manifestation of mankind’s hostile rebellion to God. People in all ages are blinded to the truth of the gospel, and they’ll always abhore its truths, regardless of what kind of conversational methods we try to use. We don’t see the apostles, reformers, or puritans, setting forth some kind of unique cultural methodology to use while evangelizing the lost. That’s because the unregenerate man desperately needs the law of God to reveal his sin, and this is true in all ages. Apart from the law, there is no conviction of sin, and no earnest thrist for gospel truth. The unregenerate man, once confronted with the law in all of its terror, must then be presented with the beauties of the gospel. Jesus Christ in all of his glorious spelndor is held forth to the unregenerate man as the perfect righteousness to be embraced by faith alone.
The next lecture was given by Mark Dever. Dever’s task was to examine unbiblical theology so that pastors and laymen alike might be aware of the current attacks the gospel is receving from false teachers. Dever’s message was a needed excercise in theological polemics, the kind of polemics which are being replacecd in the church by an all pervasive spirit of theological cowardice.
After Mark, R.C. Sproul gave a stunning lecture on the curse motif of the atonement. Unfortunately, R.C.’s health doesn’t seem to be in prime condition. Still, Sproul’s spirit was as youthful as any other time I’ve heard him speak. His passion for the cross was evident in every word. His premise was that the curse theme of the atonement is a Biblical concept which has been ignored in our day. In the beginning of the lecture I was taking notes. By the end of the lecture, I was so incredibly overwhelmed by a sense of Christ’s glory, that I put down my pen and soaked in every word. If you can only listen to one messsage from this year’s conference, I highly recommend that you listen to Sproul’s.
Wednesday’s night’s final message was delivered by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary. Mohler sought to explain the doctrine of penal substitution historically and theologically, while also examining some of the attacks which this particular doctrine has received by theologians like Clark Pinnock, Steve Chalke, etc. etc. Mohler’s lecture was a joyful defense of penal substitution, and reaffirmed in my mind the necessity of maintaing this doctrine in the midst of soteriological error.
John Piper delivered the first message on Thursday morning. While T4G is a wonderful conference, the schedule is nonetheless exhausting. So unfortunately, I was very tired during Piper’s lecture. Still, Piper’s words on “How the Supremacy of Christ Creates Radical Christian Sacrifice” were needed remedies to the lazy self-love inherent within all of our sinful hearts.
C.J. Mahaney presented the last lecture. His topic was “Sustaining A Pastor’s Role”, and he practically and Biblically laid a theological foundation for the specifics of pastoral ministry. What I personally love about C.J. and Sovereign Grace Ministries is their ardent love for Christ manifested in their careful attention to the application of Biblical truth. This is a struggle in my life, and I thank the Lord for men like Mahaney who keep re-enforcing the need for a lively and Christ-centered piety in the life of every Christian.
T4G 2008 was a wonderful experience. It displayed the kind of catholicity which is so needed in our churches. This unity isn’t some kind of ecumenical compromise of theological conviction, but a real unity grounded in the essence of the gospel. May this kind of gospel-catholicty be revived in a day of schism, cowardice, and needless division. If you would like to listen to any of the lectures, you can download all of them for free here. You can also find much better summaries of the conference written by Tim Challies here.
“Whenever Christ is exalted, God is honored. Whenever Christ is despised, God is dishonored. Only believers spend the Sabbath in exalting Christ in their own hearts, getting their hearts more and more rooted and built up in him. Be filled more and more with adoring thoughts of Him. Exalt Him before others, in your family. Especially do what Moses did, lift up the brazen serpent. So lift up Christ. It is the business of the eternal Sabbath. Let it be the great mark of your Sabbath: Glorify Christ!”
-Robert Murray McCheyne, Delighting in the Sabbath
“An unrestrained indulgence of the sensual appetite is in itself in many ways contrary to our own interest; living in such a way will naturally lead to ruin. Sensual lust or inordinate bodily appetites-which are the same thing-are a spring of woe and misery in whatsoever soul they reside, and especially in whatsoever soul they bear rule. They bring the greatest confusion into the soul, and therefore destroy its peace; they are contrary to reason, and therefore reason will be fighting against them, which will cause war and tumult in the soul. They bring guilt upon the mind, which is inconsistent with the tranquility of the mind, and naturally produces horror and misery. They also in many ways destroy one’s outward peace and comfort. A sensual life involves men in many kinds of misery and sorrow in this world.
But it is not so with respect to the indulgence of spiritual appetites. If one is never so craving of spiritual enjoyments, and takes never so full a swing in spiritual delights and pleasures, they are not contrary to any superior interest, nor ordinarily to any inferior interest. On the contrary, those appetites are the true spring of the soul’s peace and happiness; and the stronger they are and the more indulged, so much the greater is that soul’s happiness.” -Jonathan Edwards, Spiritual Appetites Need No Bounds
From D.G. Hart’s biography, John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist:
“The Reformed Church maintained that Christ’s person was present in the sacrament ’so far as the actual participation of the believer is concerned.’ Nevin noted that Calvin was even willing to use the phrase real presence as long it was understood as a ‘true presence’, meaning a ‘presence that brings Christ truly into communion with the believer in his human nature, as well as in his divine nature.’ Real too often designated a ‘local’ or ‘corporal’ presence, and consequently the Reformed church also spoke of a ‘spiritual real presence.’ According to Nevin this phrase meant that ‘the body of Christ is in heaven, the believer on earth; but by the power of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, the obstacle of such vast local distance is overcome, so that in the sacramental act, while the outward symbols are received in an outward way, the very body and blood of Christ are at the same time inwardly and supernaturally communicated to the worthy receiver, for the real nourishment of his new life.’”
This is probably some of the most encouraging material on the practical ramifications of sola fide that I’ve ever listened to. I’d highly recommend you pay the mere $3.45 for the mp3 and listen to this message over and over and over again. Some of you might know Rod Rosenbladt from the White Horse Inn. He’s a strong Lutheran thinker with a fervent love for the church and the gospel. Many of us have experienced the devastating consequences of moralism through the ministry of particular local churches. Rosenbladt contends that apart from a Reformation understanding of law and gospel, pastors will only confuse, dishearten, and burden their parishioners. This wonderful message of gospel-joy from this Lutheran scholar will be sure to encourage your heart! Here’s just a sample…
“Are we Christians saved the same way we were when we were baptized into Christ, or when we came to acknowledge Christ’s shed blood and His righteousness as all we had in the face of God’s holy law? That all of our supposed “virtue” – Christian or pagan – is just like so many old menstrual garments (to use the Bible phrase)? But that God imputes to those who trust Christ’s cross the true righteousness of Christ Himself? We are pretty sure that unbelievers who come to believe this are instantly justified in God’s sight, declared as if innocent, adopted as sons or daughters, forgiven of all sin, given eternal life, etc. But are Christians still saved that freely? Or are we not? We are pretty clear that imputed righteousness saves sinners. But can the imputed righteousness of Christ save a Christian? And can it save him or her all by itself? Or no?”
