Reading 'Riting and 'Rithmetic

Calvin: Daily Meditate on the Law

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 23:57:00 +0000

The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth. David had this use in view when he pronounced this high eulogium on the Law, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” (Ps. 19:7, 8). Again, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,” (Ps. 119:105). The whole psalm abounds in passages to the same effect. Such passages are not inconsistent with those of Paul, which show not the utility of the law to the regenerate, but what it is able of itself to bestow. The object of the Psalmist is to celebrate the advantages which the Lord, by means of his law, bestows on those whom he inwardly inspires with a love of obedience. And he adverts not to the mere precepts, but also to the promise annexed to them, which alone makes that sweet which in itself is bitter. For what is less attractive than the law, when, by its demands and threatening, it overawes the soul, and fills it with terror? David specially shows that in the law he saw the Mediator, without whom it gives no pleasure or delight.

Calvin on When to Pray

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 23:38:00 +0000

John Calvin, Institutes 3.20.50:

But although it has been said above (sec. 7, 27, &c.), that we ought always to raise our minds upwards towards God, and pray without ceasing, yet such is our weakness, which requires to be supported, such our torpor, which requires to be stimulated, that it is requisite for us to appoint special hours for this exercise, hours which are not to pass away without prayer, and during which the whole affections of our minds are to be completely occupied; namely, when we rise in the morning, before we commence our daily work, when we sit down to food, when by the blessing of God we have taken it, and when we retire to rest. This, however, must not be a superstitious observance of hours, by which, as it were, performing a task to God, we think we are discharged as to other hours; it should rather be considered as a discipline by which our weakness is exercised, and ever and anon stimulated. In particular, it must be our anxious care, whenever we are ourselves pressed, or see others pressed by any strait, instantly to have recourse to him not only with quickened pace, but with quickened minds; and again, we must not in any prosperity of ourselves or others omit to testify our recognition of his hand by praise and thanksgiving.

Calvin on Private and Public Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 23:29:00 +0000

John Calvin, Institutes 3.20.29:

The true object of prayer being, as we have already said (sec. 4, 5), to carry our thoughts directly to God, whether to celebrate his praise or implore his aid, we can easily see that its primary seat is in the mind and heart, or rather that prayer itself is properly an effusion and manifestation of internal feeling before Him who is the searcher of hearts. Hence (as has been said), when our divine Master was pleased to lay down the best rule for prayer, his injunction was, “Enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly,” (Mt. 6:6). Dissuading us from the example of hypocrites, who sought the applause of men by an ambitious ostentation in prayer, he adds the better course—enter thy chamber, shut thy door, and there pray. By these words (as I understand them) he taught us to seek a place of retirement which might enable us to turn all our thoughts inwards and enter deeply into our hearts, promising that God would hold converse with the feelings of our mind, of which the body ought to be the temple. He meant not to deny that it may be expedient to pray in other places also, but he shows that prayer is somewhat of a secret nature, having its chief seat in the mind, and requiring a tranquillity far removed from the turmoil of ordinary cares. And hence it was not without cause that our Lord himself, when he would engage more earnestly in prayer, withdrew into a retired spot beyond the bustle of the world, thus reminding us by his example that we are not to neglect those helps which enable the mind, in itself too much disposed to wander, to become sincerely intent on prayer. Meanwhile, as he abstained not from prayer when the occasion required it, though he were in the midst of a crowd, so must we, whenever there is need, lift up “pure hands” (1 Tim. 2:8) at all places. And hence we must hold that he who declines to pray in the public meeting of the saints, knows not what it is to pray apart, in retirement, or at home. On the other hand, he who neglects to pray alone and in private, however sedulously he frequents public meetings, there gives his prayers to the wind, because he defers more to the opinion of man than to the secret judgment of God. Still, lest the public prayers of the Church should be held in contempt, the Lord anciently bestowed upon them the most honourable appellation, especially when he called the temple the “house of prayer,” (Isa. 56:7). For by this expression he both showed that the duty of prayer is a principal part of his worship, and that to enable believers to engage in it with one consent his temple is set up before them as a kind of banner. A noble promise was also added, “Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed,” (Ps. 65:1). By these words the Psalmist reminds us that the prayers of the Church are never in vain; because God always furnishes his people with materials for a song of joy. But although the shadows of the law have ceased, yet because God was pleased by this ordinance to foster the unity of the faith among us also, there can be no doubt that the same promise belongs to us—a promise which Christ sanctioned with his own lips, and which Paul declares to be perpetually in force.

Logic of Volitional Statements

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:44:00 +0000

In the context of a parent's speech to a child, or any context expressing volition, there are three basic categories of speech. This image lays it out nicely:

A statement can be obligatory, optional, or impermissible. The source of this image (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/) goes on to say that "all propositions are divided into three jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive classes: every proposition is obligatory, optional, or impermissible, but no proposition falls into more than one of these three categories." These three are mutually exclusive and cover every possibility. Since that assumes the presence of an assertion in the first place, we need to add one more possibility: silence. A parent could say nothing.

Thus we have four mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive types of instruction:

"You shall..." (obligatory/command)
"If you want, you may..." (optional)¹
"You shall not..." (impermissible/prohibition)
Silence

Notice how the optional type of statement is effectively deferring to the child's will: "if you want..." This indicates the lack of strong opinion on the part of the parent. Both command and prohibition express a strong statement, whereas the optional statement type simply defers the decision to another.

The value of an action is a separate category, which is simply either good or bad. When comparing the value of actions against each other, we have the familiar spectrum:

Best (most beneficial)
Better (beneficial)
Good
Bad
Worse (detrimental)
Worst (most detrimental)

The value judgment of an action as beneficial, useful, or profitable is an assertion of goodness. Such an assertion, however, says nothing about the oughtness of the act. Value and oughtness are separate categories. An act can be obligatory and good, or, if the law-giver is himself bad, an act could be obligatory and bad. Likewise all the possible combinations of good/bad and optional/impermissible.

Now, let's employ these categories. Starting from the state of silence, and without any contextual assumptions, it would be fallacious to assert that silence implies either command or prohibition. If a child is in doubt concerning the oughtness of an act which the parent has been previously silent, the child can ask. In this instance, the parent has the choice of instructing the act as one of our three: obligatory, optional, or impermissible. If the parent responds that the act is beneficial, a judgment of goodness, that does not, in fact, answer the question as to the act's oughtness.

If there is no room for follow up, we must conclude that the parent views the act as optional. This is because the three choices vary in the strength of volition, since both commands and prohibitions are strong statements, whereas the optional statement is not. If the parent abstains from issuing a strong statement of either command or prohibition when given the opportunity, it reveals aloofness concerning the act, and thus it is optional.

If there is room for follow up, the child would ask whether the act is obligatory or optional. A prohibition is clearly ruled out. If the response is, "You may if you want to," we know the parent views the act as optional, not obligatory.

I said above that silence does not imply either command or prohibition. However, in certain cases, there may be contextual assumptions which do allow for such an implication. If the canon of law is closed, such that no more volitional statements can be made, then silence on a matter within the canon (apart from good and necessary consequence) implies it is optional. In another case, a set of laws may, in its introduction for example, state that it uses the positive format, which means if something is not positively commanded or permitted, the silence implies prohibition. This would be something like totalitarian rule, where you may not do anything unless I say you may. If we are only looking at a portion of the canon or body of teaching, and there is silence on a matter, we cannot conclude anything until we have searched the entire canon.

Thus we should keep clear in our minds these four exhaustive and exclusive terms: silence, command, option, and prohibition. And, we should remember that a value judgment of an action as good or bad, or beneficial, is categorically different from oughtness. Use of these categories in discussion and daily life is not only obligatory for clear communication, but it is also beneficial.

¹ I recognize that I am conflating permissible with optional in the language of "you may." Strictly speaking, as shown in the image, permissible spans both obligatory and optional. "You may, or you may not" is how to properly express optional. However, my usage here is acceptable since in practice "you may" is never understood as obligatory.

John Owen on the Sense Which the Old Man is Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:39:00 +0000

Indwelling sin is compared to a person, a living person, called "the old man," with his faculties, and properties, his wisdom, craft, subtlety, strength; this, says the apostle, must be killed, put to death, mortified,— that is, have its power, life, vigour, and strength, to produce its effects, taken away by the Spirit. It is, indeed, meritoriously, and by way of example, utterly mortified and slain by the cross of Christ; and the “old man” is thence said to be “crucified with Christ,” Rom. vi. 6,and ourselves to be “dead” with him, verse 8, and really initially in regeneration, Rom. vi.3–5, when a principle contrary to it, and destructive of it, Gal. v. 17, is planted in our hearts; but the whole work is by degrees to be carried on towards perfection all our days. -Mortification of Sin I.4.3, emphasis mine

He tells us whence it is that we have this baptism into the death of Christ, verse 6; and this is from the death of Christ itself: "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed;" συνεσταυρώθη, "is crucified with him," not in respect of time, but causality. We are crucified with him meritoriously, in that he procured the Spirit for us to mortify sin; efficiently, in that from his death virtue comes forth for our crucifying; in the way of a representation and exemplar we shall assuredly be crucified unto sin, as he was for our sin. This is that the apostle intends: Christ by his death destroying the works of the devil, procuring the Spirit for us, hath so killed sin, as to its reign in believers, that it shall not obtain its end and dominion. - XIV, emphasis mine

Notwithstanding the meritorious mortification, if I may so speak, of all and every sin in the cross of Christ; notwithstanding the real foundation of universal mortification laid in our first conversion, by conviction of sin, humiliation for sin, and the implantation of a new principle opposite to it and destructive of it; — yet sin doth so remain, so act and work in the best of believers, whilst they live in this world, that the constant daily mortification of it is all their days incumbent on them. - II.6, emphasis mine

If you say that "the old has passed away" (2 Cor 5:17) 100% without qualification in some sense, then John Owen disagrees with you. He says that the "old man" is crucified with Christ--"utterly" dead and gone--in these qualified senses:

meritoriously
efficiently
in example

But as far as being "really" dead and gone, it is only true "initially." Regeneration is not a complete change but "the implantation of a new principle." It is not a new structure altogether but only a new "foundation."

This should be encouraging for the newer believer who sees the same old sins creeping back when he thought they were totally gone. Don't worry that maybe you aren't saved. This is normal.

Notes on Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by Walter Marshall

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:25:00 +0000

The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by puritan Walter Marshall was first published in 1692. A short biography of Marshall is here. There's also some good info here. The following are some of my notes and reflections on the book. A free pdf of the book which I'm reading from is here.

To give an idea of the theological persuasion he writes from, I would say we'd know him as Reformed. When he addresses baptism, he clearly isn't a (credo-) Baptist (13.2.4). When he addresses the Lord's Supper, he indicates it is more than a memorial and so wouldn't align with most evangelicals today, but he also disagrees with Roman Catholics and Lutherans (3.2). So by elimination this would make him Reformed. (Of course there's more to this than views on sacraments, but it's a pretty good initial indicator.)

The book is about sanctification. The end goal is "that we may acceptably perform the duties of holiness and righteousness required in the law," or "the immediate practice of the law," or "cheerful obedience to God":

It consists not only in external works of piety and charity, but in the holy thoughts, imaginations and affections of the soul, and chiefly in love, from whence all other good works must flow, or else they are not acceptable to God; not only in refraining the execution of sinful lusts, but in longing and delighting to do the will of God and in a cheerful obedience to God, without repining, fretting, grudging at any duty, as if it were a grievous yoke and burden to you. (1.1)

Before getting into details, in chapter 1 Marshall gives a sort of preface. He basically says a critical part of growing in sanctification is to understand it more. It isn't enough for a Christian to simply be told what to do and then be expected to do it. We need to have an understanding in our minds of how sanctification works. He didn't write the book as a mere theoretical exercise, but because he believed readers like me need an understanding of sanctification's process in order to grow in holiness. In the act of studying this topic, we are on a crucial step towards becoming holy. I think this says a lot about the importance of doctrinal teaching and theology in the life of a believer. However he does also say later that sanctification is a mystery that happens in us without fully understanding it.

By Faith

The essential point to learn from the book is: the maturing Christian life should be viewed as growing in faith. While there is much effort involved on our part, deepening and strengthening faith in Christ is to be the goal of that effort. Especially when he addresses means of grace, he is concerned to emphasize their value only insofar as they are done with faith.

Why is faith so essential? Obviously cheerful obedience to God is impossible for the unregenerate person. Faith is essential to becoming regenerate. This happens when a person hears the gospel and the Spirit graciously works faith into the heart. As a "new creation," having a new state of being, a person will then live in cheerful obedience to God. However, even as a new creation, the old nature is still present in that person, and thus obedience continues to be difficult as the old man and new man are in conflict. Faith is essential at this stage because, according to Marshall, it is only by faith that we are united to Christ and can walk according to the new nature, which is Christ himself living in us. The stronger one's faith in Christ, the more he will operate as the new man, and thus the greater his obedience to God. Section 11.4 is so good that I have to quote here large portions of it:

If the new nature be really in us by regeneration, it will have an appetite to its own continuance and increase until it come to perfection, as the new-born babe (1Peter 2:2). And we are not only to receive Christ and a new holy nature by faith, but also to live and walk by it, and to ‘resist the devil’, and to ‘quench all his fiery darts’ by it; and also to ‘ grow in grace’, and to ‘perfect holiness in the fear of God’; for we ‘are kept by the mighty power of God through faith unto salvation’ (1Peter 1:5). As all our Christian warfare is the good fight of faith (1 Tim. 6:12), all spiritual life and holiness continue, grow or decay in us, according as faith continues, grows or decays in us, but when this faith begins to sink by fears and doubtings, the man himself begins to sink together with it (Matt. 14: 29-31). Faith is like the hand of Moses; while it is held up, Israel prevails; when it is let down, Amalek prevails (Exod. 17:11). This continuance and growth in faith will require our labor and industry as well as the beginning, though we are to ascribe the glory of all to the grace of God in Christ, who is the finisher, as well as the author of it (Heb. 12:2)... You must therefore endeavor to continue and go on in the same right manner as I have taught you to begin this great work of believing in Christ, that your faith may be of the same nature from the beginning to the end, though it increase in degrees, for our faith is imperfect and joined with much unbelief in this world and we have need to pray still, ‘Lord, I believe; help my unbelief’ (Mark 9:24), and therefore we have need to strive for more faith, that we may receive Christ in greater perfection... Beware also of trusting on faith itself, as a work of righteousness, instead of trusting on Christ by faith. If you do not find that your believing in such a right manner as I have described does produce such fruits of holiness as you desire, you ought not to diminish, but rather to increase your confidence in Christ, knowing that the weakness of your faith hinders its fruitfulness. And the greater your confidence is concerning the love of God to you in Christ, the greater will be your love to God and to His service... Strive to keep and to increase faith by faith, that is, by acting faith frequently, by trusting on God to keep and to increase it, ‘being confident, that He which has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 1:6). (11.4)

A Mystery: Union With Christ

What is the "gospel mystery" of sanctification? It is the mystery of the believer's union with Christ. How exactly a person is united to Christ is a mystery that Marshall puts up there along with the Trinity and the incarnation. But this mystery of union with Christ relates to sanctification because the "new man" which is ready and able to obey is actually Christ himself living in us. This is, again, why it comes back to faith: a person is united to Christ by faith. This concept of union with Christ is important because it changes how we think about becoming holy. It is the difference between struggling to become holy and living in Christ's holiness as we receive it from him. As Marshall says, we are no more active in producing a new nature as we are in producing original sin:

One great mystery is that the holy frame and disposition, by which our souls are furnished and enabled for immediate practice of the law, must be obtained by receiving it out of Christ’s fullness, as a thing already prepared and brought to an existence for us in Christ and treasured up in Him; and that as we are justified by a righteousness wrought out in Christ and imputed to us, so we are sanctified by such a holy frame and qualifications as are first wrought out and completed in Christ for us, and then imparted to us... So that we are not at all to work together with Christ, in making or producing that holy frame in us, but only to take it to ourselves, and use it in our holy practice, as made ready to our hands... Therefore many that are seriously devout take a great deal of pains to mortify their corrupt nature and beget a holy frame of heart in themselves by striving earnestly to master their sinful lusts, and by pressing vehemently on their hearts many motives to godliness, laboring importunately to squeeze good qualifications out of them, as oil out of a flint. They account that, though they be justified by a righteousness wrought out by Christ, yet they must be sanctified by a holiness wrought out by themselves... If they knew that this way of entrance is not only harsh and unpleasant, but altogether impossible; and that the true way of mortifying sin and quickening themselves to holiness is by receiving a new nature, out of the fullness of Christ; and that we do no more to the production of a new nature than of original sin, though we do more to the reception of it - if they knew this, they might save themselves many a bitter agony, and a great deal of misspent burdensome labor, and employ their endeavors to enter in at the strait gate, in such a way as would be more pleasant and successful. (3.1)

So, the short answer: How do we attain cheerful obedience to God? By believing in Christ and walking in Him by faith. Just as initial faith is created in a person by the Holy Spirit as the person hears the gospel, and the person is therein united to Christ, so faith grows throughout the believer's life by continuing to hear, understand, and believe the gospel more and more. What specifically should we believe? This is one aspect of the book that is really helpful and so I'll attempt to outline everything here. He says there are essentially two things to believe: "Saving faith...contains two acts in it: the one is believing the truth of the gospel; the other is believing on Christ as revealed and freely promised to us in the gospel, for all His salvation," (11.2). These two principal parts he further breaks down as follows:

You must believe with a full persuasion that you are a child of wrath by nature, as well as others, fallen from God by the sin of the first Adam; dead in trespasses and sins, subject to the curse of the law of God, and to the power of Satan, and to insupportable misery to all eternity; and that you cannot possibly procure your reconciliation with God, or any spiritual life and strength to do any good work, by any endeavoring to get salvation according to the terms of the legal covenant... This is all necessary to work in us true humiliation, self-despair and self-loathing, that we may highly esteem, and earnestly seek the salvation of Christ as the one thing necessary. (11.2.1.1)
You are to believe assuredly that there is no way to be saved without receiving all the saving benefits of Christ: His Spirit as well as His merits, sanctification as well as remission of sins, by faith... It is also the ruin of souls to seek only remission of sins by faith in Christ, and holiness by our endeavours, according to the terms of the law; whereas we can never live to God in holiness, except we be dead to the law, and live only by Christ living in us by faith. (11.2.1.2)
You are to be fully persuaded of the all-sufficiency of Christ for the salvation of yourself, and of all that believe on Him; that His blood cleanses from all sin (11.2.1.3)
You are to be fully persuaded of the truth of the general free promise, in your own particular case, that if you believe on Christ sincerely, you shall have everlasting life, as well as any other in the world, without performing any condition of works to procure an interest in Christ, for the promise is universal: ‘Whoever believes on Him, shall not be ashamed’ (Rom. 9:33), without exception. (11.2.1.4)
You are to believe assuredly that it is the will of God you should believe in Christ, and have eternal life by Him, as well as any other; and that your believing is a duty very acceptable to God; and that He will help you, as well as any other, in this work, because He calls and commands you by the gospel to believe in Christ. (11.2.1.5)
Add to all these a full persuasion of the incomparable glorious excellency of Christ, and of the way of salvation by Him. You are to esteem the enjoyment of Christ as the only salvation and true happiness, and such happiness as has in it unsearchable riches of glory, and will make our cup to run over with exceeding abundance of peace, and joy, and glory, to all eternity. (11.2.1.6)
You are to believe in Christ as alone sufficient, and all sufficient for your happiness and salvation, despairing altogether of any attainment of happiness by our own wisdom, strength, works of righteousness, or any fleshly, worldly confidences whatever. (11.2.2.1)
You are also to receive Christ merely as a free gift, given to the chief of sinners, resolving that you will not perform any conditions to procure yourselves a right and title to Him, but that you will come to Him as a lost sinner, an ungodly creature, trusting on ‘Him that justifies the ungodly’, and that you will ‘buy Him without money,’ and ‘without any price’ whatever (Rom. 4:5; Isa. 55:2). Look not on your faith or love, or any good qualifications in yourselves, as the grounds of your trusting in Christ, but only to the free grace and loving-kindness of God in Christ. (11.2.2.2)
Another thing to be observed diligently is that you must come to Christ for a new holy heart and life and all things necessary for this, as well as for deliverance from the wrath of God and the torments of hell. You must also come to Him with an ardent love and affection to Him, and esteem Him better than a thousand worlds, and the only excellent portion, loathing and abhorring yourself as a vile, sinful and miserable creature, and accounting all things dung in comparison of His excellency; that you may be able to say from the bottom of your heart, ‘Whom have I in heaven but You? There is none on earth that I desire besides You’ (Ps. 73:25). (11.2.2.3)
Lastly, you must endeavor to draw near with ‘full assurance of faith’ (Heb. 10:22), trusting on Christ confidently for your own particular salvation, upon the account of that general promise ‘that whoever believes on Christ shall not be ashamed’ (Rom. 9:33). (11.2.2.4)

The Logical Progression

Let me now step back and walk through the logical progression. You can see this for yourself in the chapter summaries below but I find it helpful to put into my own words:

How can I cheerfully obey God? By having a will that is inclined to obey. "An inclination and propensity of heart to the duties of the law is necessary to frame and enable us for the immediate practice of them," (2.1). He argues at length that a free will isn't enough to choose right. We need to actually be inclined towards choosing right.
How can my will become inclined to obey? By being persuaded of three things. Since we are intelligent creatures, he says that attaining to such an inclination happens by reason. So the following speaks of being "persuaded" so as to make our will inclined towards good in a rational way:

"We must be persuaded of our reconciliation with God," (2.2). He goes on here to make clear justification is by grace alone apart from works. "God has abundantly discovered to us in His Word that His method in bringing men from sin to holiness of life is first, to make them know that He loves them and that their sins are blotted out," (2.2.5).
"We must be persuaded of our future enjoyment of the everlasting heavenly happiness," (2.3). Here he makes a case for the hope of heavenly reward as motivation in obedience. I understand him to speaking of heavenly happiness as something promised us in justification/adoption, not as a reward for works. "Persuasion of our firm reconciliation with God by our justification... includes a persuasion of this future happiness," (2.3.1). But he also affirms that the way to eternal happiness is holiness: "Perfect holiness is a necessary part of that happiness, and that though we have a title to that happiness by free justification and adoption, yet we must go to the possession of it in a way of holiness (1John 3:1-3)," (2.3.3). Because I want happiness for myself, my will is inclined to obey God when I realize my eternal happiness is found in holiness.
"We must be persuaded of sufficient strength both to will and perform our duty acceptably, until we come to the enjoyment of the heavenly happiness," (2.4). I think he's saying we can and must believe God will provide us the power/strength/ability to obey.

How can I attain a will persuaded of these things? By receiving a new nature "out of the fullness of Christ, by fellowship with Him." The old nature is incapable of willing good or of being persuaded.
How do I receive a new nature? By being united to Christ.
How can I be united to Christ? The Spirit unites me to Christ by faith through the gospel. By faith in Christ I receive Christ himself. His Spirit dwells in me. In receiving the Spirit of Christ I become persuaded of the items above. (See 3.3.3.4 and 3.3.3.5 in particular for connecting this point back to my point 2.)
The old nature and new nature coexist in a regenerate person, so how can I operate more and more as the new man? By setting my mind on the principles which correspond to the new nature. The "elementary principles" as scripture speaks of are what correspond to the old nature, which is to take in a rule or law and work hard to perform it. The principle corresponding to the new nature is faith in Christ, relying upon him and in his power.
What means or practices correspond to the principles of the new nature to grow in faith? The means he finds appointed in scripture are as follows.

Means of Grace: God's Word

We must endeavor diligently to know the Word of God contained in the Holy Scripture, and to improve it to this end that we may be made wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2Tim. 3:15) (13.2.1)

But here our great work must be to get such a knowledge of the Word as is necessary and sufficient to guide us in the receiving Christ, and walking in Him by faith.

He encourages a continual seeking of the law in its first use in order to flee more and more to Christ. He then cautions:

Yet let me caution you lest, instead of gaining Christ by your knowledge, you rather lose Him by putting your knowledge in the place of Christ, and trusting on it for your salvation. One cause of the Jews perishing was that they rested in a form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law (Rom. 2:20). And, doubtless, all that many Christians will gain by their knowledge in the end will only be to be beaten with more stripes, because they place their religion and salvation chiefly in the knowledge of their Lord’s will, and in their ability to talk and dispute it, without preparing themselves to do according thereunto (Luke 12:47). Much less are you to place your religion and hope of salvation in a daily task of reading chapters, or repeating sermons, without understanding more than the Papists do their lessons in the Latin mass and canonical hours; as sad experience shows that many seemingly devout and frequent hearers of the Word do notwithstanding remain in lamentable and wonderful ignorance of the saving truth.

Means of Grace: Self-Examination

The next means is self-examination. This is not at all about "sin-sniffing" but is actually more like "grace-sniffing," to see if there is any hint of holiness in our lives.

Another means to be used diligently for the promoting the life of faith is examination of our state and ways according to the Word, whether we be at present in a state of sin and wrath, or of grace and salvation; that, if we be in a state of sin, we may know our sickness and come to the great Physician while it is called today; and, if we be in a state of grace, we may know that we are of the truth, and assure our hearts before God with greater confidence, by the testimony of a good conscience (1John 3:19, 21); that so our hearts may be more strongly comforted by faith and established in every good work; and that, if our ways be evil, we may turn from them to the Lord our God through Christ; without whom none come to the Father (Lam. 3:40; John 14:6). But your great care in this work of self-examination must be to perform it in such a manner that it may not hinder and destroy the life of faith, as it does in many, instead of promoting it. Therefore, beware lest you trust upon your self-examination, rather than upon Christ, as some do, that think they have made their peace with God merely because they have examined themselves upon their sick bed, or before the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, though they have found themselves stark naught, and do not depend on Christ to make them better, but on their own deceitful purposes and resolutions. (13.2.2)

He offers a list of questions to ask ourselves (below) with this encouragement, "If you find in yourself a faith that has these properties, though as small as a grain of mustard seed, and opposed with much unbelief and manifold corruptions in your soul, you may conclude that you are in a state of salvation at present, and that your remaining work is to continue and grow in it more and more, and to walk worthy of it."

Are we made thoroughly sensible of our sinfulness, and of the deadness and misery of our natural state, so as to despair absolutely of ever attaining to any righteousness, holiness or true happiness, while we continue in it?
Are the eyes of our understanding enlightened to see the excellency of Christ, and the alone sufficiency and all sufficiency of His grace for our salvation?
Do we prefer the enjoyment of Him above all things, and desire it with our whole heart, as our only happiness, whatsoever we may suffer for His sake?
Do we desire with our whole heart to be delivered from the power and practice of sin, as well as from the wrath of God, and the pains of hell?
Do our hearts come to Christ and lay hold on Him for salvation, by trusting Him only, and endeavoring to trust on Him confidently, notwithstanding all fears and doubts that assault us?

Means of Grace: Meditation on Scripture

Meditation on the Word of God is of very great use and advantage for the attainment and practice of holiness through faith in Christ. (13.2.3)

A habitual knowledge of the Word will not profit us, without an active minding of it by frequent meditation.

He indicates this is to be our mind's focus all the time, "yes, ‘day and night’ (Ps. 1:2), even in our ordinary employment at home and abroad." But again a caution:

But here our greatest skill and chiefest concernment lies in practicing this duty in such a manner as that it may be subservient, and not at all opposite to the life of faith. We must not rely upon the performance of a daily task of meditation as a work of righteousness for the procurement of the favor of God, instead of relying on the righteousness of Christ - as indeed we are prone to do, to catch at any straw, rather than to trust only on the free grace of God in Christ for our salvation. And the end of our meditation must not be mere speculation and knowledge of the truth, but rather the vigorous pressing it upon our consciences, and the stirring up our hearts and affections to the practice of it...But, that we may receive this life and strength, by which we are enabled for immediate performance, we must meditate believing on Christ’s saving benefits, as they are discovered in the gospel; which is the only doctrine which is the power of God to our salvation, and by which the quickening Spirit is ministered to us, and that is able to build us up, and give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified (Rom. 1:16; 2Cor. 3:6; Acts 20:32). You must take special care to act faith in your meditation; mix the Word of God’s grace with it, or else it will not profit you (Heb. 4:2).

Means of Grace: Baptism

Next is reflecting on one's baptism.

Though baptism be administered to us but once in our lives, yet we ought frequently to reflect upon it, and upon all occasions to put the question to ourselves: ‘Unto what were we baptized?’ (Acts 19:3). What does this ordinance seal? What did it engage us to? And accordingly we must stir up and strengthen ourselves by our baptism to lay hold on the grace which it seals to us, and to fulfill its engagements. We should often remember that we are made Christ’s disciples by baptism, and engaged to hear Him, rather than Moses, and to believe on Him for our salvation; as John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to people that they should believe on Him that should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. We should remember that our baptism sealed our putting on of Christ, and our being the children of God by faith in Christ, and our being no longer under the former schoolmaster, the law (Gal. 3:25-27); and that it sealed to us the putting off the body of sin, and our burial and resurrection with Christ by faith, and the forgiving of our trespasses (Col. 2:12, 13); our being made members of one body, Christ; and to drink into one Spirit (1Cor. 12:12, 13). We may find by such things as these, which are more fully discovered in the gospel, that it is the proper nature and tendency of baptism to guide us to faith in Christ alone for remission of sins, holiness and all salvation, by union and fellowship with Him; and that a diligent improvement of this ordinance must needs be of great advantage to the life of faith. (13.2.4)

And also warnings:

Beware also of making an idol of baptism, and putting it in the place of Christ, as the Papists do, who hold that it confers grace by the very work that is performed in the administration of it, and as many ignorant people do, that trust rather on their baptism than on Christ - like the Pharisees, who placed their confidence on circumcision and other external privileges (Phil. 3:4, 5).

Means of Grace: The Lord's Supper

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is as a spiritual feast to nourish our faith, and to strengthen us to walk in all holiness by Christ living and working in us, if it be used according to the pattern which Christ gave us in its first institution recorded by three evangelists (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20), and was extraordinarily revealed from heaven by Christ Himself to the apostle Paul (1Cor. 11:23-25), that we might be the more obliged and stirred up to the exact observation of it. Its end is not only that we may remember Christ’s death in the history, but in the mystery of it: as that His body was broken for us, that His blood is the blood of the New Testament, or covenant, shed for us, and for many, for the remission of sins, that so we may receive and enjoy all the promises of the new covenant which are recorded (Heb. 8:10-12). Its end is to mind us that Christ’s body and blood are bread and drink, even all-sufficient food to nourish our souls to everlasting life; and that we ought to take, and eat, and drink Him by faith; and to assure us that, when we ‘truly believe on Him, He is as really and closely united to us by His Spirit, as the food which we eat and drink is united to our bodies’. Christ Himself (John 6) does more fully explain this mystery. Furthermore, this sacrament does not only put us in mind of the spiritual blessings wherewith we are blessed in Christ, and our enjoyment of them by faith, but also it is a means and instrument by which God does really exhibit and give forth Christ and His salvation to true believers, and by which He does stir up and strengthen believers to receive and feed upon Christ by present actings of faith, while they partake of the outward elements. (13.2.5)

And also warnings:

There are other abuses of this ordinance, like to those of baptism fore-mentioned, by which it is rendered opposite, rather than subservient to the life of faith. Some put it in the place of Christ, by trusting on it as a work of righteousness for the procuring of God’s favor, or an ordinance sufficient to confer grace to the soul by the very work wrought. Others make it so necessary that they account faith is not sufficient without it; and therefore they will partake of it, if they can possibly, though it be in a disorderly manner, upon their sick-beds, when they are in fear of death, as their viaticum [i.e. deathbed eucharist]. The Papists do horribly idolize it by their figment of transubstantiation, and the adoration of the bread as god, and their sacrifice of the mass for the sins of the quick and the dead. We ought warily to conceive that the true body and blood of Christ are given to us, with the bread and wine, in a spiritual mysterious manner, by the unsearchable operation of the Holy Spirit, uniting Christ and us together by faith, without any transubstantiation in the outward elements."

Means of Grace: Prayer

Marshall defines prayer as, "the making our requests with supplication and thanksgiving," (13.2.6). Of prayer he says:

Though [God's] will will not be changed by this means (prayer), yet it is accomplished ordinarily and His purpose is to accomplish it this way. And therefore, trusting assuredly should not make us neglect but rather perform this duty (2Sam. 7:27).

Prayer is so essential to the life of faith that he has strong words for those who don't pray: "Prayerless people are dead to God. If they are children of Zion, yet they are but stillborn, dead children, they cry not (Acts 9:11), not written among the living in Jerusalem; heathens in nature, though Christians in name (Jer. 10:25)."

When should we pray?

Hence the frequent use of this duty is commended to us (Eph. 6:18): praying always, on all seasons and opportunities and, by the example of the saints, in public with the congregation (Acts 2:42; 10:30, 31). Solemn acts of prayer should be continued daily (Matt. 6:11); yes, several times in a day, as morning and evening sacrifice (Dan. 6: 10; Ps. 92:2); or thrice (Ps. 55:17); besides special occasions (James 5:13, 14), and brief ejaculations that hinder not other business (Ps. 129:8; 2Sam. 15:31; Neh. 2:4). Prayers should be solemn, in our closets (Matt. 6:6), in families (Acts 10:30, 31). And as sacrifices were multiplied on the Sabbath days and days of atonement and at other appointed seasons (Num. 28), besides the continual burnt-offering, so ought prayer also.

How should we pray? First, he emphasizes prayer must be done with the heart and spirit along with understanding (13.2.6.1). This is contrasted with thoughtlessly saying words, which prayers he says God does not hear. Second, we must pray in the name of Christ (13.2.6.2). This is more than simply ending a prayer "in Jesus name, amen." I understand him saying we must pray with a sense of dependence on Christ's merits alone for anything we ask. "Praying in the Spirit is on gospel, not legal principles (Rom. 7:6; 2Cor. 3:3), with great humiliation and sense of unworthiness (Ps. 51), with a broken spirit, with despair of acceptance otherwise than upon Christ’s account (Dan. 9:18)." Third, we must pray "in faith of remission of sins and your acceptance with God," (13.2.6.4). And so he says, "This faith you must endeavor to act, and therefore, if any sin lie on your conscience, you must strive first to get the pardon of it (Ps. 32:1, 5; 51:14, 15), and purification of it by faith, that you may lift up holy hands without wrath and doubting (1 Tim. 2:8)." He offers a few other points which I'll leave to you (section 13.2.6.5-8). I'll only mention what he says about forms (13.2.6.8). He commends the use of all Scripture as a prayer book. It is better to use forms than not pray at all. But we should go beyond these: "If you know the principles of prayer, and have a lively sense of your necessities, and hearty desires of God’s grace and mercies, you will be able to pray without forms, and your affections will bring forth words out of the fullness of your heart." Praying in only forms is to "quench the Spirit" and we must trust the Spirit to provide us with words.

How can prayer be made contrary to faith? By trusting in the act of prayer itself as a work of righteousness. Or by believing a certain form of prayer, like the Lord's prayer or other scripture, can be used like a spell, where God will more readily help us if we say just the right words. Or to think the physical place we are in can make a prayer more acceptable. (13.2.6.3)

So how does prayer strengthen faith? I'm still struggling to make sense of this. It's clear that prayer should be an expression of our faith. But how does prayer feed back into greater faith? It seems the answer is simple: God gives the grace of strengthened faith when we pray for it. "And as we act grace [in the work of prayer], so we obtain grace by it, and all holiness (Ps. 138:3; Luke 11:13; Heb. 4:16; Ps. 81:10). Our riches come in by it."

Means of Grace: Singing

"Another means appointed of God, is singing of psalms, that is, songs of any sacred subject composed to a tune, hymns or songs of praise and spiritual songs of any sublime spiritual manner, as Psalm 45 and the Song of Solomon," (13.2.7). He commends both the singing of scripture as well as writing our own songs. He says scripture teaches it is lawful for us to make songs provided "they be according to the Word (Isa. 38:9-14)."

The right use of singing is this: "You must use it for the same end as meditation and prayer, according to the nature of what is sung, that is, to quicken faith (2Chron. 20:21, 22; Acts 16:25, 26), and joy and delight in the Lord, glorying in Him (Ps. 104:33, 34; 105:3; 149:1, 2; 33: 1-3)... and also to get more knowledge and instruction in heavenly mysteries, and in your duty, teaching and admonishing (Col. 3:16). Many psalms are Maschils (as their title is), that is, psalms of instruction." The warning for the wrong use of singing is: "Trust not upon the melody of the voice, as if that pleased God, who delights only in the melody of the heart (Col. 3:16). Neither let the recreating your senses be your end, which is but a carnal work: Non musica chordula, sed cor; non clamans, sed amans, psallit in aure Dei: ‘Not a musical string, but the heart; nor crying, but loving sounds in the ear of the Lord.’ This spiritual music was typified by musical instruments of old."

He says psalms have two aspects that make them suited to teaching: the meter which makes them easily memorized, and the melody which creates delight in us "as a physical dose sugared."

He addresses singing Psalms that speak in the first person of things not true of ourselves. He says it isn't lying if we understand them to be for teaching: "David speaks of Christ as of Himself, as a pattern of affliction and virtue, to instruct others; and we sing such psalms, not as our words, but as words of our instruction... as in Psalms 6, 26, 46, 101 and 131."

Means of Grace: Fasting

"Fasting is also an ordinance of God to be used for the same purpose and end and is commended to us under the New Testament (Matt. 9:15; 17:21; 1Cor. 7:5). And we have examples of it (Acts 13:2,3; 14:23)," (13.2.8). It is to be used "as a help to extraordinary prayer and humiliation, that the mind may not be unsuited for it by eating, drinking or bodily pleasures (Joel 2:13; Isa. 22:12, 13; Zech. 12:10-14)."

If a fast doesn't actually help you focus on prayer, then you shouldn't go on with it. "Some have not enough of spiritual-mindedness to give up themselves to fasting and prayer without great distraction; and such had better eat than go beyond their strength in a thing not absolutely necessary, which produces only a slavish act, as in the case of virginity (1Cor. 7:7-9, 34-36). Christ would not have His weak disciples necessitated to the duty (Matt. 9:14, 15). In the meantime, such should strive to be sensible of the weakness and carnality that hinders their use of this excellent help."

The warning of wrong use: "Trust not in it as meriting or satisfying, as Papists and Pharisees do (Luke 18:12), putting it in the place of Christ; or as a means of itself conferring grace and mortifying lusts, as many do, who may sooner kill their bodies than their lusts; or as any purifying rite; yea, or in or for itself acceptable to God (1Tim. 4:8; Heb. 13:9; Col. 2:16, 17, 20, 23). Imagine not that prayer is not acceptable without it, for this is against faith. Fasts, as well as feasts, are no substantial parts of worship, because not spiritual, but bodily... The kingdom of God consists not in these things (Rom. 14:17). The soul is hardened by trusting in them (Isa. 58:3, 6; Zech. 7:5, 6, 10)."

Means of Grace: Not Vows

If anyone is expecting vows to be on this list, Marshall simply says they aren't useful:

You may expect here something to be spoken of vows. But I shall only say this of them. Think not to bring yourselves to good by vows and promises, as if the strength of your own law could do it when the strength of God’s law does it not. We bring children to make promises of amendment, but we know how well they keep them. The devil will urge you to vow, and then to break, that he may perplex your conscience the more. (13.2.9)

Means of Grace: Fellowship

The last identified means of grace is fellowship: "Another great mean is fellowship and communion with the saints (Acts 2:42)," (13.2.10). This is a larger section with lots of wisdom for church matters.

He doesn't really explain how fellowship strengthens faith. It's evident that some means mentioned above come to us in a church context, such as Word and sacrament. But having already addressed these he chooses to discuss "holy acts, by which we are rather doers than receivers, and which we perform towards others." I can see that such "one anothers" are good for mutual encouragement but he doesn't route this through faith so it seems to wander from his overall argument.

He argues that fellowship ought to be used for growth in holiness because:

"God communicates all salvation to a people ordinarily by, or in a church, either by taking them into fellowship, or holding forth the light of truth by His churches to the world." (13.2.10.1.1)
"Manifold helps to holiness" are received in fellowship, including (13.2.10.1.2.1):

The Word and sacraments (Acts 2:42; Isa. 2:3; Matt. 28:19, 20)
All the ministerial office and labor in watching our souls (Heb. 13:17; 1Thess. 5:12,13; Isa. 25:6)
Mutual admonition, instruction, consolation, to help each other when they are ready to fall, and to promote the good work in each other (1 Thess. 5:14).
External supports, which mitigate afflictions, and are to be communicated mutually (Eph. 4:28; 1Pet 4:9, 10).
Excommunication
The lively examples of saints are before our eyes in church fellowship, to teach and encourage (Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 2Tim. 3: 10, 11; 2Cor. 9:2).

By holy duties which we perform towards others:

Godly discourse, teaching, admonishing, comforting others in Christ
Doing good to other church members, which is to do good to Christ himself since it is his body. "We do good to Christ in His members in church fellowship; and we ourselves as members of Christ act as well from Christ as towards Christ; whereas, if we do good to others without [outside the church], we do good only for Christ’s sake, but not to Christ (Matt. 25:35-46; Ps. 16:2, 3)."

On excommunication, it is to be done "when offences are exceeding heinous or men obstinate in sin. This ordinance is appointed for the ‘destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved’ (1Cor. 5:5)." He says that such a person is still regarded as a church member, but "a pernicious rotten member at present, not fit for acts of communion. Besides, admonition is still to be afforded (2Thess. 3:15), and any means are to be used that may serve to cure and restore him."

The warnings for wrong use of church fellowship are:

"One rule is ‘Do not trust in church membership’, or on churches, as if this or that relation in fellowship commended you to God of itself, whereas, a church way is but a help to fellowship with Christ and walking in the duties of that fellowship."
We should not follow a church that doesn't follow Christ. "We are indeed to hear the church, but not every one that calls itself so, and none any farther than it speaks as a true church, according to the voice of the Shepherd (John 10:27). We must subject ourselves to ministers of Christ and stewards of His mysteries (1Cor. 4:1), but must give up ourselves first to Christ absolutely, and to the church according to the will of Christ (2Cor. 8:5)."
Don't refrain from joining a church because you are not mature enough. You become mature through joining the church.
Church fellowship must be done "in Christ’s pure ways only," which I understand as a call to reformation according to scripture. "Every Christian is bound to seek a better church fellowship by reformation; and those that do so are the best sons of Christ’s church, who inquire, ‘Is this the way to enjoy Christ?’ a church way being appointed to enjoy Christ therein." We should see our fellowship extending to other churches, so that if we are temporarily away from home we would join fellowship wherever we are. He adds that we are to join a church in proximity to our home, "that you may have the more frequent and constant communion."
Don't leave the church in the midst of persecution.

Two Natures At Once

One of the most important truths set forth in the book is this: "the best in this world have in them flesh as well as spirit, and may act according to either state in some measure," (6.2.2). He speaks so highly of the new man, 100% holy, that it could be discouraging if we think of regeneration as becoming 100% the new man when we know we still sin. A misunderstanding of the "new creation" and "the old has passed away" (2 Cor 5:17) leads us to think we are not truly saved unless we are perfected in holiness and can cause us to fake how good we are before others. But Marshall clears this up by saying the regenerate person still carries the old man along. Every act has "some measure" of both the old man and new man in it. The new man is 100% holy, but we might at times only act as the new man in 20% capacity. This is entirely consistent with the exhortation to "put off the old man." If the old man is entirely gone, as the errant "new creation" perspective has, then why be told to put him off?

Now, seeing the degree and measure of our reception and enjoyment of Christ, with all the blessings of our new state in Him, in this life is imperfect, it follows clearly that our contrary natural state, with its properties, remains still in us in some degree and is not perfectly abolished; so that all believers in this world do in some degree partake of these two contrary states. Believers have, indeed, put off the old man, and put on the new, where Christ is all and in all (Col. 3:10, 11); yet they are to put the old man off and the new man on more and more, because the old man remains still in a measure. (12.2.1)

Perhaps the most surprising fall out of this is what he says regarding original sin and the punishment for sins we experience.

And what reason is there to question that the old state remains in believers in some degrees, seeing all sound Protestants acknowledge that the sinful depravation and pollution of our natures, commonly called ‘original sin’, which is one principal part of this old state, does remain in all as long as they live in the world?

He goes on to say that just as we remain subject to physical death on account of the curse, so "all the miseries of this life, and death itself, are inflicted upon believers at least in some respect as punishments of sin." Before I would have said that Christ bore our curse and so any miseries of life are strictly in the category of discipline. That's true in a sense, but I think it is more biblically accurate to see ourselves in this twofold state. So Marshall says that miseries inflicted on the old man are good for us since they serve to put him more and more to death:

...all the guilt, pollution and punishments of sin, and all evils whatever, which [believers] are subject to according to their natural state, do them no harm according to this new state but work for their good, and are no evils, but rather advantages to them, tending to the destruction only of the flesh, and to the perfection of the new man in Christ. (12.2.1)

Along with this twofold nature concept, Marshall goes on to condemn making of resolutions or commitments to holiness as a vain effort to make the old man better (12.2.2). Even if they are done with a trust in Christ to help us keep them, it is misguided.

[The natural man] is desperately wicked, past all cure. It will unavoidably lust against the Spirit of God, even in the best saints on earth (Gal. 5:17). Its mind is enmity to the law of God and neither is, nor can be subject to it (Rom. 8:7). They that would cure it and make it holy by their own resolutions and endeavors do act quite contrary to the design of Christ’s death, for He died, not that the flesh, or old natural man, might be made holy, but that it might be crucified, and destroyed out of us (Rom. 6:6), and that we might live to God, not to ourselves, or by any natural power of our own resolutions and endeavors, but by Christ living in us, and by His Spirit bringing forth the fruits of righteousness in us (Gal. 2:20; 5:24, 25). Therefore, we must be content to leave the natural man vile and wicked as we found it, until it be utterly abolished by death; though we must not allow its wickedness, but rather groan to be delivered from the body of this death, thanking God that there is a deliverance through Jesus Christ our Lord. Our way to mortify sinful affections and lusts must be, not by purging them out of the flesh, but by putting off the flesh itself and getting above into Christ by faith, and walking in that new nature that is by Him.

The biggest question this creates for me is in regard to children or Christians with addictive behavior. Is there not some value in first restraining their flesh before they destroy themselves? And then once some stability is in place, we can transition from law principles to gospel ones?

This twofold perspective also speaks to assurance and doubt. Just as the old and new man coexist, so doubt can exist in us along with true faith: "But is there not flesh, as well as spirit, in the best saints on earth? (Gal. 5:17) Is there not a law in their members warring against the law of their minds? (Rom. 7:23) May not one that truly believes say, ‘Lord, help my unbelief?’ (Mark 9:24) Can any on earth say they have received any grace in the highest degree, and that they are wholly free from the contrary corruption? Why then should we think that assurance cannot be true, except it is perfect and free the soul from all doubtings?" (10.1.3).

The Holy Spirit Prior to Christ's Incarnation

There are lots of opinions on the kind of activity the Holy Spirit performed in the Old Testament period. The New Testament seems to show the Holy Spirit coming on the scene in a whole new way. But if sanctification works a certain way now by the Holy Spirit's activity, then it had to have worked the same way before Christ. In 3.3.3.6 Marshall argues that saints who lived before Christ's incarnation were united to Christ the same way we are today. Back in 3.3.3.4 he affirms that union with Christ means the same thing as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So together that says OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit no differently than NT saints.

It is in this context that Marshall gives an interesting perspective on Psalm 16:

Now, this Spirit was able and effectual to unite those saints to that flesh which Christ was to take to Himself in the fullness of time, because He was the same in both, and to give out to them that grace with which Christ would afterwards fill His flesh, for their salvation as well as ours. Therefore David accounts Christ’s flesh to be his, and spoke of Christ’s death and resurrection as his own, beforehand as well as any of us can do since their accomplishment: ‘My flesh also shall rest in hope; for You will not leave my soul in hell; neither will You allow Your holy One to see corruption. You will show me the path of life’ (Ps. 16:9-11). (3.3.3.6)

I'm still wrapping my mind around this but I'm pretty sure it's amazing. Marshall affirms with Peter (Acts 2) that this passage is about Christ, but he suggests that David took these words for himself because he knew himself to be united to Christ. That would also mean every believer can take the words of such psalms for themselves.

Law and Gospel

There's been a debate among Evangelical/Reformed people about "law and gospel" and whether that way of speaking is Antinomian or too Lutheran. So I found these passages interesting:

The difference between the law and gospel does not at all consist in this, that the one requires perfect doing; the other, only sincere doing; but in this, that the one requires doing; the other, not doing, but believing for life and salvation. Their terms are different, not only in degree, but in their whole nature. (6.1.2)

And what a lamentable disappointment is this to those that have attempted to alter the Protestant doctrine, and to pervert and confound law and gospel, and have bred much contention in the church, that they might secure the practice of sincere obedience against Antinomian errors, by making it the procuring condition of their salvation, when, after all this ado, the remedy is found to be as bad as the disease, equally unserviceable and destructive to that great end for which they designed it, and that it has an Antinomian effect and operation, contrary to the power of godliness! (6.2)

You also should learn the true difference between the two covenants, the old and the new, or the law and the gospel: that the former shuts us up under the guilt and power of sin, and the wrath of God and His curse, by its rigorous terms: ‘Do all the commandments, and live; and, cursed are you if you do not do them, and fail in the least point’; the latter opens the gates of righteousness and life to all believers (i.e. the new covenant) by its gracious terms: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and live,’ that is, all your sins shall be forgiven, and holiness and glory shall be given to you freely by His merit and Spirit. (13.2.1)

He does however affirm, "We are to look upon holiness as a very necessary part of that salvation that is received by faith in Christ," and says we are obliged to obedience by more than just gratitude:

And others, when they are taught by the Scriptures, that we are saved by faith, through faith, without works, do begin to disregard all obedience to the law, as not at all necessary to salvation, and account themselves obliged to it only in point of gratitude; if it be wholly neglected, they do not doubt but free grace will save them harmless. (8.2)

In the next quote Marshall argues for the abiding value of the ten commandments in the third use of the law, demonstrating his covenant theology:

But the Ten Commandments bind us still, as they were then given to a people that were at that time under the covenant of grace made with Abraham, to show them what duties are holy, just and good, well-pleasing to God, and to be a rule for their conversation. The result of all is that we must still practice moral duties as commanded by Moses, but we must not seek to be justified by our practice. If we use them as a rule of life, not as conditions of justification, they can be no ministration of death, or killing letter to us. Their perfection indeed makes them to be harder terms to procure life by, but a better rule to discover all imperfections, and to guide us to that perfection which we should aim at. (6.1.3)

It is odd to me in the Antinomianism debate that so few are up in arms over the widespread denial of the ten commandments, particularly Sabbath keeping, as in New Covenant Theology. As Marshall says below, all "sound protestants" should regard New Covenant Theology as Antinomian:

Sound Protestants have accounted the denial of the authority of the moral law of Moses to be an Antinomian error. And though our late prevaricators against Antinomianism do not maintain this error, yet they establish a worse error, justification by their sincere gospel works. I think the denomination of the Antinomians arose from this error. The law of Moses had its authority at first from Christ, for Christ was the Lord God of Israel, that ordained the law by angels on mount Sinai in the hand of Moses, a mediator for the Israelites, who were then His only church, and with whom we believing Gentiles are now joined, as fellow members of one and the same body (Eph. 3:6). (6.1.3)

The Chapter Summaries

Here are the chapter summaries:

1. That we may acceptably perform the duties of holiness and righteousness required in the law, our first work is to learn the powerful and effectual means by which we may attain to so great an end.
2. Several endowments and qualifications are necessary to enable us for the immediate practice of the law. Particularly we must have an inclination and propensity of our hearts thereunto; and therefore we must be well persuaded of our reconciliation with God, and of our future enjoyment of the everlasting heavenly happenings, and of sufficient strength both to will and perform all duties acceptably, until we come to the enjoyment of that happiness.
3. The way to get holy endowments and qualifications necessary to frame and enable us for the immediate practice of the law, is to receive them out of the fullness of Christ, by fellowship with Him; and that we may have this fellowship, we must be in Christ, and have Christ Himself in us, by a mystical union with Him.
4. The means or instruments by which the Spirit of God accomplishes our union with Christ, and our fellowship with Him in all holiness, are the gospel, by which Christ enters into our hearts to work faith in us, and faith, by which we actually receive Christ Himself, with all His fullness, into our hearts. And this faith is a grace of the Spirit, by which we heartily believe the gospel and also believe on Christ as He is revealed and freely promised to us in this, for all His salvation.
5. We cannot attain to the practice of true holiness by any of our endeavors while we continue in our natural state and are not partakers of a new state by union and fellowship with Christ through faith.
6. Those that endeavor to perform sincere obedience to all the commands of Christ, as the condition by which they are to procure for themselves a right and title to salvation, and a good ground to trust on Him for the same, do seek their salvation by the works of the law, and not by the faith of Christ, as He is revealed in the gospel and they shall never be able to perform sincere and true holy obedience by all such endeavors.
7. We are not to imagine that our hearts and lives must be changed from sin to holiness in any measure, before we may safely venture to trust on Christ for the sure enjoyment of Himself and His salvation.
8. Be sure to seek for holiness of heart and life only in its due order, where God has placed it, after union with Christ, justification and the gift of the Holy Ghost and, in that order, seek it earnestly by faith as a very necessary part of your salvation.
9. We must first receive the comforts of the gospel, that we may be able to sincerely perform the duties of the law.
10. That we may be prepared by the comforts of the gospel to perform sincerely the duties of the law, we must get some assurance of our salvation in that very faith by which Christ Himself is received into our hearts. Therefore, we must endeavor to believe on Christ confidently, persuading and assuring ourselves, in the act of believing, that God freely gives to us an interest in Christ and His salvation, according to His gracious promise.
11. Endeavor diligently to perform the great work of believing on Christ in a right manner, without any delay; and then also continue and increase in your most holy faith, that so your enjoyment of Christ, union and fellowship with Him, and all holiness by Him, may be begun, continued and increased in you.
12. Make diligent use of your most holy faith for the immediate performance of the duties of the law, by walking no longer according to your old natural state, or any principles or means of practice that belong unto it; but only according to that new state which you receive by faith, and the principles and means of practice that properly belong thereunto; and strive to continue and increase in such manner of practice. This is the only way to attain to an acceptable performance of those holy and righteous duties, as far as it is possible in this present life.
13. Endeavor diligently to make the right use of all means appointed in the Word of God for the obtaining and practicing holiness only in this way of believing in Christ and walking in Him, according to your new state by faith.
14. That you may seek holiness and righteousness only by believing in Christ and walking in Him by faith, according to the former directions, take encouragement from the great advantages of this way and the excellent properties of it.

2 Cor 7:1 Is About Church Discipline

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:07:00 +0000

Missing the Point

2Co 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

This verse is more about church discipline (or corporate holiness) than personal holiness.

I have for some time had this passage as a favorite, starting back at 6:16 where the “promises” of 7:1 are identified. I've taken it as a call to strive towards personal holiness. However, having just now read it with concern for the context, I think I've been missing the point.

If this is about personal holiness, what does it have to do with the context both before and after it? There seems to be a shift in topic from 6:13 to 6:14, and then again at 7:1 to 7:2:

2Co 6:13 In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also. 2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

2Co 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. 2Co 7:2 Make room in your hearts for us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.

This apparent shift in topic should suggest to us that we might be misunderstanding the passage. If it can be understood without a shift in topic then that is probably the correct contextual understanding. Even more indicting is the fact that the topic in 6:13 (“widen your hearts also”) is the same topic at 7:2 (“Make room in your hearts for us”). I’m inclined to think our passage is not a tangential, parenthetical thought inserted randomly, but intentional teaching on the same topic.

The Context

So what is Paul’s topic at 6:13 and prior? His statement at 5:12 is helpful: “We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart.” It is evident starting all the way back at chapter 2 that Paul is on the defensive against people who question him and the legitimacy of his ministry. Such people “boast about outward appearance.” These critics say of Paul, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account,” (10:10). These people prefer preachers that Paul labels “peddlers of God’s word,” whereas Paul and company are “men of sincerity...commissioned by God,” 2:17. The term “peddlers” suggests these are the type of preachers that capitalize on a church’s financial support. Paul, on the other hand, “preached God's gospel to you free of charge,” 11:7. While some Corinthians consider these preachers “super-apostles” (11:5), Paul calls them “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ,” 11:13.

Judging by outward appearance, Paul and his traveling company did not have God’s so-called blessing--they endured “beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger” (6:5). If God approved of Paul and his ministry, the critics said, surely God wouldn’t put them through all this suffering. To the contrary, Paul argues, his suffering is evidence of his sacrificial love for the sake of others. He says that he and his company experience death (suffering) so that the Corinthians would have life (spiritually), 4:11-12. Not their lack of suffering but their endurance through suffering is an opportunity for God to display His power: “But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us,” (4:7). I could go on with such examples because it is all over chapters 3-7. To reiterate, the context (including chapter 6) is Paul’s defense of the legitimacy of his ministry.

This sort of contrast between a life of “blessing”--material and social ease--and a life of difficulty and sacrifice is best described as the “theology of glory” versus the “theology of the cross” (terms that I understand Luther originated). If the world rejected our Lord, Christians in this age should not expect any better treatment. (I hope to explore this more sometime through the perspective of union with Christ.)

The Passage in Light of the Context

Coming then to 6:11-13, just prior to the supposed change of topic, what is it about? It says:

2Co 6:11-13 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.

Just after our passage of interest, it says something similar:

2Co 7:2 Make room in your hearts for us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.

Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians is that they would see how much he loves them so that they would love him in return. He’s kind of saying, “I’m sacrificing my life for you, and this is the treatment I get? That some of you doubt me?” It isn't that he really wants to be liked by them. The problem is that rejection or doubt of Paul translates into doubt of his message. Those who are doubting him and his message are being led astray from the truth of Christ into falsehood. He isn't concerned that they be faithful to him, but that they would be faithful to Christ:

2Co 11:3-4 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

With this context in mind, we come to 6:14, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” If your first thought of this verse is that Christians shouldn’t date/marry non-Christians, then you’ve missed the context. Sure, that could be an extended application of this principle, but it isn’t why Paul says it. The ESV Study Bible (2 Cor notes by Scott J. Hafemann) says, “In context, it refers especially to those who are still rebelling against Paul within the church, whom Paul now shockingly labels unbelievers.” In saying this, Paul is calling for the Corinthian church to execute discipline against those causing this controversy. Until they repent, they are to be excommunicated and regarded as unbelievers. “Do not be unequally yoked” means a local church should refuse fellowship to members who are unrepentant.

Realities of Old Testament Shadows

In further support of this interpretation of this passage is the striking connection Paul makes between the local church in Corinth and the Old Testament community and temple:

2Co 6:16-18 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

In the administration of the old covenant, God gave all kinds of cleanliness laws. Here Paul quotes a number of Old Testament passages, including “touch no unclean thing” from Isa 52:11. In OT Israel, what were the consequences for someone who touched an unclean thing? You would not be allowed to join the assembly for worship (or else be struck dead by God). You would be regarded as unclean for a duration of time and be more or less shunned by the community, lest you make others unclean as well. Once the period of uncleanness is done, and/or you make the specified restitution, all goes back to normal. (See a sampling of passages at the end.)

One of the most significant things to realize here is that God himself was in the midst of the Israelites. When they were nomads living in tents, God had a tent too (the tabernacle). Once they settled into houses, God got a house too (the temple). To approach God’s dwelling place while unclean would be to treat Him like any other person, but God is not to be taken lightly or treated as ordinary. To do so is often termed “defiling” the temple. Many of the things that God said made one unclean were completely arbitrary, without any moral value in themselves (like touching a dead lizard); God’s purpose was simply to make it clear that approaching Him is different than anything else. “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean,” Lev 10:10.

Paul references this very concept of God’s presence by saying “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them.” Even though the temple still stood in Jerusalem when Paul wrote, he claims that “we are the temple of the living God.” So just as the OT people gathered to God’s dwelling for worship and family-like fellowship with Him and each other, so the NT church regularly gathers for the same purpose. The difference is that God’s dwelling is no longer one particular piece of real estate. A church may gather anywhere and God’s presence will be there.

While this truth has a lot of implications, for Paul the purpose in this discussion is to carry in to the NT church the concept of OT cleanliness. If God’s presence is in the midst of a gathered people, then those people must take this assembly seriously. It is to be treated differently than other aspects of life. Just as OT Israel, we are to “distinguish between the holy and the common.” The difference between then and now is that the shadows of arbitrary cleanliness laws are removed, so that now cleanliness means the same as moral purity. Therefore, a person who is morally unrepentant is not to be welcomed into the church gathering.

To summarize this OT stuff, the NT church is to operate in essentially the same way as OT Israel, but with these key differences: (1) the location of God meeting with his people is not at the temple but anywhere they find to gather, and (2) cleanliness is equated to moral repentance since arbitrary cleanliness laws are removed.

Reading again 2 Cor 7:1 with this perspective, we can see its meaning much more clearly. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.” “These promises” is not per se the future hope of family-like fellowship with God in heaven, but the present reality of God’s presence with the gathered church. If that much is true, then the gathered church must be maintained as clean; “let us cleanse ourselves” does not mean to try really hard to stop sinning, but to bar any person from the church gathering that is known to be in sin and doesn't care to stop. The word “defilement” should also ring bells, since it is the way of speaking of an unclean person approaching God’s dwelling. “The fear of God” is understood much more when we have this appreciation for the way OT Israel had the fear of literally being struck dead if they came to worship while unclean. This passage is so drenched with Old Testament motifs that we really miss the point without this background. At least I have.

Nuances

Having emphasized the gathered church, I should also mention how this applies beyond Sunday morning gatherings. Just as one in OT Israel would be unclean by eating with a Gentile, so in the NT church community we are not to even eat with an unrepentant person (1 Cor 5:11). But when we start talking this way, it needs to be clarified that we are still talking about people who claim to be Christians. The world is full of unrepentant people that we are allowed to share life with (it would be impossible not to), but for those who are “brothers” and yet don’t care about a particular sin we are to shun them in a manner similar to OT Israel, whether at church or at home. (I am merely paraphrasing 1 Cor 5.)

A push-back to what I’m saying against the individualistic take on this passage is this: Doesn't this passage still commend us to strive for personal holiness? Of course it does. But I think we shortcut around some rich details when we go straight to that conclusion. A very real part of the motivation to repent of sin given in this passage is “the fear of God,” i.e. the fear of His fatherly discipline, even being literally struck dead (1 Cor 11:30-32). Included as well is motivation by the fear of feeling shamed by the church community. I've heard multiple times people express a disdain for judgmentalism in churches (over homosexuality, for example). While many churches today probably do err on the wrong side by teaching moralism instead of gospel grace, I'm saying that this sort of shameful feeling is more appropriate than we might think.

But my biggest concern with taking this verse only in an individualistic way is the phrase “let us cleanse ourselves.” If this means personal obedience and fighting sin, there is a real problem with thinking that I am able to cleanse myself. I am not to cleanse myself from sin but to rest on Christ to cleanse me. When I sin I am to feel remorse for forgetting the precious blood of Christ by which he bought me, and in that sort of repentance and faith I am being continually cleansed by him. I do not cleanse myself. I don’t have the ability to. I ought to strive after holiness in prayerful dependence on his grace to empower me for the task. I don’t bring my own holiness to completion; God, not me, completes the work that He started. That’s the problem with missing the point of this verse.

But when we take this verse corporately, we don’t get stuck in all this clarification. A church community really does have the ability to “cleanse ourselves” when this means refusing fellowship to a particular person. While this still requires the grace of God to give us such discernment and bravery to take such painful actions against someone, it is doable. Church discipline is messy but this verse must be seen as a command to do it.

More Questions Than Answers

This study opens up questions on a lot of other issues. Maybe I'll explore them more someday. Things like:

Christ’s real presence not only in gathered church, but particularly when we gather for the Lord's Supper. And what exactly does his "presence" mean? Is it a feeling?
How church discipline takes shape in the Lord's Supper, and what that means for "open communion."
The importance and responsibilities of church membership, and how discipline takes shape when people today could just leave one church community and join another when discipline comes up. That leads to questions on how to interact with Christians who aren't members of my own local church, or even Christians part of my local church but not official members.
The responsibilities of a pastor that are distinct from the rest of the church. Does the pastor represent God's presence in any way? Or are we all ministers?
What sort of gathering exactly constitutes a church? Is God present in a Mormon gathering? Is God present when "two or three" have a Bible study? What defines a "church"?
How we ought to think of corporate worship and the question of "the regulative principle." How we apply this idea of distinguishing the holy versus common. Is all of life worship, or is gathered worship different in any way than the rest of life? This connects to how to understand our individual selves, not just the gathered people, as God's temple. Exactly which things change between OT and NT life and worship?
What exactly constitutes repentance? At what point in our struggle with sin is it deemed unrepentance? Where does discipline officially start? Is there a particular class of sins more directly subject to discipline?
Questions/concerns/objections that you probably have and I'm not thinking of.

Some Verses on Cleanliness

With emphasis mine...

Lev 15:31 "Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst."

Num 5:2-3 "Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell."

Num 19:20 "If the man who is unclean does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. Because the water for impurity has not been thrown on him, he is unclean.

Lev 7:21 And if anyone touches an unclean thing, whether human uncleanness or an unclean beast or any unclean detestable creature, and then eats some flesh from the sacrifice of the LORD's peace offerings, that person shall be cut off from his people."

Lev 5:2,5-6 or if anyone touches an unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean wild animal or a carcass of unclean livestock or a carcass of unclean swarming things, and it is hidden from him and he has become unclean, and he realizes his guilt;...when he realizes his guilt in any of these and confesses the sin he has committed, he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation for the sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Joh 18:28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.

Reflections on Liberate 2014

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:33:00 +0000

Kendra and I went to Ft. Lauderdale, FL for a few days in February. We went for the Liberate 2014 conference, hosted by Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. (We maybe also went to escape winter.)

I'm always a little too critical so I'll start with good things. I think the main thing I took away from it is to relax a little. God really does love me. He isn't disappointed with me. I don't need to be so uptight. I don't know if it's actually from the conference or just getting away from life for a while, but so far this has actually taken root. Kendra and I are laughing more. We have freedom to laugh at ourselves and each other without being so uptight. You might say it's been liberating.

This perspective came from Elyse Fitzpatrick and Steve Brown. Elyse Fitzpatrick said that three fruit of knowing God's unconditional love are transparency, laughter, and rest, which is what we're experiencing. I had never heard of Steve Brown before. He's got a crazy low made-for-radio voice. He reiterated a memorable Latin phrase for dealing with stress: quid inferorum. "God is in control. God is good. Quid inferorum." Google can tell you what it means. It reminds me of Seinfeld's "Serenity Now."

I really appreciated some statements by David Zahl. He spoke about loneliness. He clarified that his (and Liberate's) challenge against transformation (essentially one's growth in holiness) is not against the hope of transformation, but the guarantee of it. He pointed out that people's observed gap between the "new creation" they think they are supposed to be and how sinful they actually are has in some cases led not only to depression but suicide. I couldn't agree more with calling out this problem.

Paul Tripp emphasized the "my" in Psalm 27:1 (The LORD is my light and my salvation), saying that theology needs to be understood as personal. Reflecting on this, I see my need for theology to lead to doxology. In practice I'm starting to ask myself after my Bible reading/study how it leads me to worship. Tripp said something about guys who carry themselves as theology-know-it-alls and are so quick to criticize everyone, and how no one wants to be around such people. I don't know anyone like that...

There was some good poking between Baptists and Presbyterians. Tullian (or what I call him, T Squared, since it's such a bother to pronounce/spell his name) recalled a conversation with a Baptist who called him "brother." Paraphrase: "You know you are talking to a Baptist when he calls you 'brother.' Presbyterians don't talk like that, because we aren't sure if you're elect. Brother? Yeah, we'll see." It was funny.

I also appreciated the worship music throughout the conference by Zac Hicks and Coral Ridge Worship. My favorite is probably the song Once For All. I've got baggage with worship music (worthy of another post some day) and although I wasn't sure how I felt about everything, it was refreshing. To start my criticism, the vocals were drowned out by the guitars and drums and made it hard to sing along. And I could do without the colored light show.

One observation is that the talks weren't all that expository or from the Bible. I think each speaker had a text of scripture, but they more talked around the concept rather than explained the text. It turns out this goes both ways for me. It's bad because a speaker can too easily deliver his own message rather than God's. I'm not easily convinced of what a speaker says if I don't see it coming from the text. On the other hand, it's good to make for a more relaxing weekend--I wasn't spinning my wheels the whole time figuring out if the speakers were properly handling the text.

I went to a lunch session where Paul Zahl talked about preaching grace from the pulpit. It was basically his pointers for preaching. He's Episcopalian so I'm not even sure what preaching means to him. The tips were basically, from my recollection, to use some humor to reduce resistance with the audience; to dwell in the text personally for the prior week so that you can talk about its impact in your own experience, because an audience will resonate with you that way; and to use illustrations because people understand better that way and they are more memorable (Jesus modeled this with parables). In the end I keep wondering how any of that fits with the Apostle Paul's "foolishness of preaching" (1 Cor 1:21). Those pointers are useful in any sort of speech or writing, secular or otherwise, which suggests to me that it doesn't align with the Apostle's at-odds-with-the-world mentality (1 Cor 1:20, 27). I can't conceive of the Apostle considering whether he's got the proper amount of humor in his preaching. Or maybe I'm just too uptight.

Another thing that stood out to me was the demeanor of some speakers. I first observed T Squared at a Desiring God conference a few years ago, and he struck me as arrogant and impatient. I hadn't previously listened to him speak or read any of his books, just some blog posts. So I've got a really small sample size. But again this time he came off to me as angry. His speaking/preaching was often angry or cynical. I also found Elyse to be cynical/grumpy. While I find this very unbecoming of those proclaiming freedom in the gospel, Kendra pointed out that people at this conference probably tend to appreciate this kind of transparency. They aren't putting on a fake smile. It gets back to what David Zahl said about the guarantee of transformation. If speakers are always so happy and appear so awesome in their holiness, the effect it has on me is not to draw me in to the same joy but rather to make me feel despair over the perceived gap between them and me. I need to try harder to have joy like them. No, instead they show what they're really like--they are still sinful like me. And we meet together at the cross. That's liberating.

There's probably more to say but that's all I've got right now.

Law and Gospel, 5

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:28:00 +0000

It's time to finally bring this thing full circle. I started exploring law and gospel from questions about parenting. How is establishing rules for my kids consistent with the gospel of grace?

The place for rules or law in parenting is basically given by the three uses of the law mentioned last time (part 4). In the civil use, the law is useful to establish a relative amount of peace and cooperation in a society. This can apply directly to parenting and the home. It doesn't matter whether or not we're talking about regenerate people. Everyone has a self-preserving interest. Nobody ultimately enjoys pain. The establishment of rules and corresponding consequences for breaking them has the effect of compelling people to obedience. A well-ordered, peaceful home is a good thing. Beyond the home, I'm setting up my kids to avoid a whole lot of pain in life if they simply understand that actions have consequences.

Too often I think my tendency, in wanting to champion the gospel of grace, is to downplay the value of obedience when it is merely out of selfish motive. Aren't we just training kids to be Pharisees? My kindergartner's public school experience so far has a lot of positive reinforcement awards for good behavior--but I'm questioning this standard of "good." No one is truly good, right?

What I think I miss in that tendency is a value for God's common grace. My child's school, our broader society, and even my home should all degenerate into absolute chaos because of the unregenerate sinners in their midst, but they maintain some semblance of peace and order because of God's restraining, common grace. While it is a confusion of terms to say that the rules are gracious, it is nonetheless true that peace in a home is God's gift, and that it comes about by the means of established rules and consequences.

All that is to say that the theological concept of the law's civil use means I should establish in my home and for my children clearly stated achievable rules and understood proportionate consequences.

Yet, my mission in my home is not merely to establish peace. What good is external peace and quiet when there's storm and turmoil within the souls of my children? It may still seem like a home's civil law would train kids to be Pharisees and thus is actually working against my mission to train my kids to know Jesus. But I think this civil law in the home thing is actually working with me. Rules in my home train children to understand how actions have consequences. Good actions have joyful consequences and bad actions have painful consequences. Children need to understand this sort of merit system in order to have a framework to understand the gospel. That's because, in our relationship to God, we are saved by works. Not our works, but the works of Jesus. But works nonetheless.

Adam's sin reaps terribly painful consequences for us all. Jesus' obedience reaps joyful consequences for his people. A home's system of rules and consequences trains children to understand that framework. Rules work with us, not against us, in bringing up children to know and understand the gospel of grace.

But because this degree of external peace and civil righteousness is at a lesser standard than God's perfect standard of righteousness, our use of the law in training children to know Christ cannot stop at a civil use. We need to go further, and Lord willing I'll get there in the next post.

Inconceivable: 1 Cor 10:31

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:18:00 +0000

I don't think that verse means what you think it means.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1Cr 10:31 ESV)

I regularly read of and hear this verse used to prove that we ought to live life, especially in mundane tasks, to the glory of God. This has been popularized by John Piper applying this verse to the drinking of orange juice.

My contention is that this verse has a very specific meaning in context. I affirm the truth that all of life should be lived for God's glory. But that is at best a peripheral concept to be taken from this verse. It has a more specific meaning. There might be ways to extend a principle from a given passage into a broader context, but when we only regard the passage's meaning in that extended sense my concern is that we forget the original sense. And it's pretty hard to get the extended application right when you haven't nailed the main point.

In my humble opinion, this verse is essentially identical to Romans 14:21:

It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. (Rom 14:21 ESV)

In the context of 1 Cor 8-10, "eat or drink" doesn't include drinking orange juice in private. Paul is speaking of specific issues of conscience, brought out more explicitly in Romans as eating meat or drinking wine. I don't know of any person or people group that has questions of conscience over orange juice. I don't know anyone that could possibly get offended if they saw me drinking orange juice. Drinking OJ in private doesn't even involve other people and is therefore really far removed from the context.

From the context and the place within the argument, "eating" and "drinking" has been in reference to eating and drinking food offered to idols. Paul's purpose has been to show that, "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do," (8:8). Which is to say, food itself has no moral value. However, the problem in the Corinthian church being addressed is not that they lack this knowledge; rather, the primary problem is that those who have this correct knowledge do not use it properly toward those who do not. Some people still aren't quite convinced that such food is OK before God. While they ought in all things to build each other up through love, some having clearer understanding of their liberty in Christ became proud towards others, thinking themselves superior, and offended those with weaker consciences by eating and drinking food offered to idols, thus tearing down the bonds of unity. This, to me, is the primary sense of "eat or drink."

Applying this verse to our present day contexts still doesn't involve drinking OJ in private. To do all things for God's glory, from this verse, means to value other people's consciences before Christ as more important than my own freedom in Christ. Doing something "to the glory of God" is in contrast to behaving for one's own glory; it is to put the interests of others before yourself. The primary sense of "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" is then, "In issues of conscience your guiding principle by which to act is not what is permissible for you but what is beneficial for others around you, that you may help guard them from sin in acting contrary to their conscience and promote belief in Christ. In doing so you demonstrate that your ultimate desire is God's honor. If, rather, you flaunt your own liberty before others, you demonstrate that you only seek glory for yourself."

Go ahead and enjoy orange juice to the glory of God. Please go ahead and consider how doing the dishes and other mundane tasks are actually valuable before God. But don't stick 1 Cor 10:31 on it. From its context such applications are, to me, inconceivable.

Law and Gospel, 4

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:07:00 +0000

Having said that both law and gospel run straight on through the whole Bible, and both are active even today, something needs to be addressed: what law exactly is in force today? Are people in this age subject to all those laws in the OT? The short answer is that I'm talking about the moral law.

In The Transforming Power of the Gospel by Jerry Bridges, he says:

Impossible though it is for us to fulfill this standard, God has nevertheless called us to be holy as He is holy, and in order that we might understand what it means to be holy as He is holy, He has given to us His law (and here I am using law as a shorthand expression for all the moral will of God found throughout Scripture). God's law is both an expression of His moral will for us and also a reflection of His character.

God is holy and never changes. Therefore His moral standard never changes. In order for human beings to enjoy relationship with God, we must be holy as He is. And so, just as Jerry Bridges said, God gave us His law so that we could know how to live in order to enjoy fellowship with God. Another word for this "giving" act of God is revelation. In revealing His law, God was revealing a bit of Himself.

There are essentially two sorts of revelation to be considered: general and special. General revelation is what we see in creation, while special revelation is what we have in the Bible. God has revealed His moral standard in both general and special revelation. In Romans 1-2, it is indicated that human beings are able to perceive God's revelation of Himself in creation, His "eternal power and divine nature" (Rom 1:19-20), and that human beings innately have a knowledge of God's moral standard built in to the conscience (Rom 2:15). Every human being to ever live has a sense of right and wrong, but note especially that all people who lived from Adam to Moses knew God's moral law.

Once we come to Moses, however, God published his moral law through special revelation. The very first text humans ever received from God was written by God Himself: the Ten Commandments. Following the idea that the law runs straight on through the whole Bible, these Ten Commandments are an explicit and specific recording of the same moral law that Adam had in his conscience. In other words, the moral standard that God published in creation He republished at Sinai.

What about all those other laws that God gave through Moses? In at least the Reformed tradition, there is understood to be three aspects to the law of Moses: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The civil aspect are laws similar to any government would have in order to uphold peace in a society, including laws for the punishment of criminals. The ceremonial aspect are laws regarding worship and sacrificial practices. The civil and ceremonial laws were new things that Adam never knew of, although they were based upon the moral law and the promise of the Messiah about which Adam did know. But now, just as that nation of Israel has been dissolved so the civil law of Moses is no longer in force. The ceremonial laws foreshadowed and pointed to Christ, so now that he has since come and fulfilled them those laws are not binding on us. The moral law, however, is as abiding as God's holy character.

There's a lot to get confused about in the law of Moses and the OT, but getting a feel for God's purpose in that covenant through Moses has helped me make more sense of the OT. The covenant through Moses was not given as a way for eternal salvation. The promise to one who kept all the law of Moses was not eternal life but long life in the land. It was a national covenant. The promise of eternal life, on the other hand, was announced to Abraham; all who believe that promise like Abraham did receive eternal life. Salvation of the human soul, even of those in national Israel, has always been by grace through faith in God's promise of a savior. God's primary purpose in this national covenant and in giving the law of Moses was to cause humanity to understand our total depravity, our inability to reach God's righteous standard, so that we would look to a savior. (See Gal 3:15-4:7.)

This leads to the so-called "three uses" of the abiding moral law. The first use of the law is to drive a sinner to his knees so that he sees his need for a savior. This is related to 1 Tim 1:8-11 where Paul says the law is for "lawless and disobedient" people. The second use is civil, so that evil acts receive punishment and thus, appealing to people's self interest, crime is deterred and relative peace established in a nation. Just as God's law says not to murder, so it is beneficial for a civil government to criminalize murder. The third use of the law is as a guide for the redeemed sinner, that as he desires to glorify and express gratitude to God he knows what to do.

Because they affirmed the abiding moral law, and since that moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments, reformation traditions (Reformed, Reformed Baptist, Lutheran) all include teaching on the Ten Commandments in their catechisms. The first four commandments, or "first table" of the law, teach how to love God; the last six commandments, the "second table," teach how to love your neighbor. So the abiding use of the Ten Commandments is entirely consistent with Jesus' teaching on love as the greatest commandment.

For more on the three uses of the law, R.C. Sproul Jr. has a great article here.

Law and Gospel, 3

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:34:00 +0000

This is part 3 of a series looking at Law and Gospel. Links to the previous installments: Part 1 Part 2.

Having said that both concepts of Law and Gospel are present throughout the whole Bible, it could be helpful to substantiate that claim with some examples. I contrasted this view with that of seeing Law as Old Testament era and Gospel as New Testament (into the present) era. Here's how I'd depict the contrast:

Erroneous view

More accurate view

Since it is usual to see Law in the OT, I will only show examples of Gospel in the OT and likewise only examples of Law in the NT.

Gospel in the OT

By Gospel I mean anything that God gives to humanity out of sheer grace based on Christ's merit, apart from any merit of the recipients.

And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. (Gen 3:21 ESV)

This may seem insignificant, but Adam and Eve's new clothes were really a gift from God that they did not deserve. The skins is an indication that animals were killed in order to provide these clothes. God indicated that to trespass his law meant certain death (Gen 2:17), yet here God shows that He is gracious to spare them by providing atonement in a substitute. Yet, what was it that allowed God to pass over their sin, allow them to live, and give them clothes? How could He neglect justice? Was it the death of these animals that satisfied His justice? Surely not. Only the atoning death of Christ could provide this (see Rom 3:23-26). The sacrifice of the animals was to indicate to Adam and Eve the severity of their sin, that it indeed deserved death, but that God is gracious, and that He is gracious based on the merits of a substitute. The animals were suggestive of the substitute concept, while Christ is always the actual substitute. I don't think Adam and Eve were confused on this, because previous to the gift of clothes God had announced the coming of a Messiah:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Gen 3:15 ESV)

Then, after pronouncing Eve's curse of pain in childbirth, this seemingly random statement comes:

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (Gen 3:20 ESV)

Though she had yet to give birth to anyone, it seems that to have called her "mother of all living" was their statement of faith in God's promise to provide in her offspring a savior, the true substitute, the victor over Satan. And the very next verse, on the basis of their confession of faith in the Messiah, comes the gracious provision of clothes.

This post has already gotten too long, but this understanding of the animal sacrifices as not sufficient in themselves but as pointers to the true sacrifice is a significant concept to remember throughout the OT (so I won't provide commentary for the following examples). It may seem that God's gracious favor can be merited through animal sacrifice, but in reality the one offering the sacrifice did so in faith of God's promise of the real sacrifice to come. God's grace is merited only by Christ's atonement and his righteousness accounted to the sinner when the sinner believes, whether that sinner was Adam or me or any in between.

(Gen 8:20-22 ESV) 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

(Gen 15:5-6 ESV) 5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

(Gen 22:17-18 ESV) 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.

As the NT explains in Gal 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.'"

Law in the NT

By Law I mean anywhere that God commands.

(Mat 5:17, 21-22, 27-28 ESV) 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ... 21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. ... 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

(Gal 5:19-21 ESV) 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Jam 4:11 ESV) 11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

(1Pe 1:14-16 ESV) 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."

(1Jo 2:15-17 ESV) 15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Sola Scriptura

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:35:00 +0000

I've been trying to learn about the solas of the reformation. Under desk piles I uncovered an old issue of Tabletalk (Nov 2012) that addresses them. I also found an old Modern Reformation article¹ that has been helpful. I've also referenced R.C. Sproul's book "What Is Reformed Theology?" The following are some notes on Sola Scriptura I gleaned from these sources. These aren't necessarily quotes but reflect my current understanding of the topic. Also, as I'm going about learning, I'm particularly interested in how the Reformation² perspective differed not only from the Roman Catholic view but also from the opposite extreme of the Anabaptist³ view.

Sola Scriptura is the Reformation view on this question: Where do we go to get God's Word? Christians might all agree that God is the highest authority and therefore His Word is the ultimate standard for all of life, but we disagree on how His Word is communicated to us.

This is essentially my understanding of the spectrum:

How does God speak to humanity today?
Roman Catholic	Reformation	Anabaptist
Trifold authority: Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium; but, primarily the pope, being the highest authority of the Magisterium.	Only the 66 books of the Christian Bible. We should no longer expect ongoing revelation now that God has finally spoken in His Son (Heb. 1:2).	Scripture, plus the Holy Spirit speaks directly to each believer, or perhaps directly to various charismatic leaders.

On Rome's side, the pope is viewed as the successor to the Apostle Peter, and so the pope's official pronouncements are the very words of God. In this way, the speaking and revealing work of the Holy Spirit did not end at the biblical Apostles but continues in the teaching offices of the Roman Church.

On the Anabaptist side, reacting radically to Rome's view, the Holy Spirit could and does presently speak to any Christian, not just the pope or official teachers. Yet, the great similarity this has with Rome is, again, that the speaking and revealing work of the Holy Spirit did not end at the biblical Apostles but continues for those who are sufficiently "tuned in."

The Reformation view, in contrast to both extremes, said that the Holy Spirit was done revealing with the close of the NT canon. The Holy Spirit continues to speak today, but only mediated through Scripture⁴. And, in my understanding, the Holy Spirit doesn't hijack the words on the page and make them mean something special to each reader; rather, the Holy Spirit meant something when He first inspired the writing, and He means for them to say the same thing today. So God speaks today in the contextual meaning of the words of the Bible.

It is interesting (and concerning) to me how some who would otherwise identify as reformational are reinterpreting passages that provide the basis for Sola Scriptura to support a continuationist view of prophecy, for example. The apostolic age was a unique period in redemptive history, a period which is not today. Lack of appreciation for this fact has most of evangelicalism today looking more like Anabaptists than Reformers. Similarly, Sola Scriptura is commonly misunderstood today to justify a view of "me, God/the Holy Spirit, and the Bible," which is radically individualistic and unappreciative of the rich history of traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. Reading scripture in isolation from the church (both present-day and historical) actually elevates the authority of the individual self over the authority of God in the scripture.

Related concepts to Sola Scriptura are the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture. Perspicuity goes to the issue of how to interpret the Bible. Rome said an official teaching office was necessary to interpret Scripture for everyone else, since the Bible is so confusing and all. But the Reformers argued that Scripture isn't that hard to understand, at least on the main points it addresses. So interpretation is performed by all people together, as Horton explains:

In interpreting it, the whole church must be included, including the laity, and they must be guided by the teachers in the church. Those teachers, though not infallible, should have considerable interpretive authority. The creeds were binding and the newly reformed Protestant communions quickly drafted confessions of faith that received the assent of the whole church, not merely the teachers.

Anabaptists get around interpretation by allowing any number of meanings, so long as it is what the Holy Spirit told you. But here the Reformers also argued for a literal meaning of the text which we come to by basic principles of hermeneutics and grammatico-historical method. As Sproul says, "Though a text may have a multitude of applications, it has only one correct meaning." Of the Holy Spirit card, Calvin said, "When the fanatics boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency is always to bury the Word of God so they may make room for their own falsehoods."

The sufficiency of Scripture goes to the conviction that everything we need to know regarding religious life⁵ is in Scripture, and to add anything else is to reduce Scripture's authority. The medieval Roman Church's official theology "was shaped more by the insights of Plato and Aristotle than by Scripture." On the other side, much of evangelicalism today following an Anabaptist stream takes more cues in its message and methods from contemporary politics, sociology, and marketing than from Scripture. In saying "Sola Scriptura," the reformers were rejecting any such influences from Christian theology or practice.

1 "The Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Reformation Essentials" by Michael S. Horton. Issue: "The Reformation Then and Now" March/April 1994 Vol. 3 No. 2 Page number(s): 12-19
2 I am deliberately avoiding the word "reformed." The Solas in particular trace back to Luther, so "Reformation" to me is inclusive of both Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist, Presbyterian) traditions. Besides, "reformed" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone anymore.
3 I am aware that some don't think bunching people into a category like Anabaptist is fair, since some Anabaptists were generally orthodox and others were crazies. But as I understand, most of them were crazies, so there.
4 I like how the Westminster Confession of Faith says with present tense, "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." WCF chapter 1 article 10: "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
5 By "religious life," I am intentionally qualifying the sphere in which Scripture is sufficient. Westminster Shorter Catechism question 3 is helpful: "Q. What do the Scriptures principally teach? A. The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man." The sufficiency of Scripture is not at odds with exercising practical wisdom, nor with learning from unbelievers about issues in a common grace realm. As Calvin said in his commentary on the creation in Genesis, "nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the Word. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." Or as I paraphrase him: if you want to learn astronomy, ask an astronomer (not the Bible).

Law and Gospel, 2

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 12:40:00 +0000

White Horse Inn is a radio program where four guys of different denominational backgrounds discuss the Reformation theology that unites them. The "usual cast of characters" is Rod Rosenbladt (Lutheran), Ken Jones (Baptist), Kim Riddlebarger (Presbyterian/Reformed), and Michael Horton (Presbyterian/Reformed). They talk about law/gospel a lot. I most recently came across this definition of law and gospel in an article by Ken Jones (in Modern Reformation, the magazine associated with WHI):

Law (which corresponds to the commands of Scripture) is what God demands of his image bearers, and gospel (which corresponds to the gospel declarations of Scripture as it relates to the person and work of Christ) is what God gives freely out of sheer grace.

In other words, anywhere in the Bible where there is a command we may call law. Anywhere in the Bible where there is an unconditional promise we may call gospel.

Understanding how these two words are different yet interact is incredibly important. Michael Horton quotes Theodore Beza (1519-1605, John Calvin's successor): "The confusion of law and gospel is the principal source of all the abuses that corrupt or have ever corrupted the church." Another Modern Reformation article quotes Luther: "Luther even declared of the person ignorant of this [law/gospel] distinction that 'you cannot be altogether sure whether he is a Christian or a Jew or a pagan, for it depends on this distinction.'"

For me, and many others I would guess, having been immersed in a Dispensational church culture, the tendency is to view "law" as the stuff of the Old Testament and "gospel" as the New Testament. In other words, law was then and is no longer. This is what's so radically different about the Reformation perspective: both law and gospel are at play throughout all the Bible. Therefore even our lives today need to be shaped by both law and gospel.

Seeing all the Bible unified around a law/gospel theme is correlated to seeing all the Bible unified around Christ. In Sally Lloyd-Jones's children's book, the Jesus Storybook Bible, she shows how Old Testament stories are really types and shadows of Jesus (gospel), not stories of moral heroes that we ought to try to be like (law). If a kid's Sunday School lesson is "dare to be a Daniel," that is, God wants you to try real hard to be brave like Daniel was, then not only did we miss the point of Daniel but we've given those kids all law and no gospel. And that means no Jesus. The fruit of this is kids who are either Pharisees or Philistines, moralists or rebels.

A man spoke the truth, but people rejected him. They executed him. He descended into the pit of death. But he miraculously emerged alive! Is this the story of Daniel or of Jesus? Daniel is a type of Jesus, a foreshadowing. Daniel was saved from death by trusting in God. The Sunday School lesson from Daniel should be to trust in Jesus for salvation.

Today this fresh perspective of the Old Testament may be perceived as a new fad in how we approach the Bible, but the reality is that this view goes back to at least the time of the Reformation. And, of course, if you hold this view you may also argue that the apostles and even Jesus himself (Luke 24:27; John 5:39,46) had this perspective of the Old Testament.

Jesus Christ himself stands as the solution to the law/gospel antithesis. That's why understanding law/gospel is so important: to confuse them together or to utterly separate them, to err on either side, is to lose Christ.

Law and Gospel, 1

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:45:00 +0000

My journey into learning about law and gospel began with parenting questions.

I remember reading Give Them Grace, and a line in there asking how a Christian's parenting is distinctly Christian. Jews, Muslims and Mormons can produce morally straight children, and if a Christian has merely the same goal, "good" kids, then what really is Christian about it? The book's answer is that parenting can be made distinctly Christian with grace.

Thinking through this naturally led me to consider all the rules we place on our kids. We have so many rules when I stop and think about it. Just look at table manners: sit straight, sit still, eat over your plate, chew with your mouth closed, don't talk with food in your mouth, keep your hair off your plate, keep your hands to yourself, don't touch anything until you've washed your hands, on and on. And so I asked myself, what is Christian about rules? Isn't Christianity about grace and the gospel? A free gift apart from works? So to make my parenting distinctly Christian, I suppose we should get rid of all the rules.

Yet I knew something wasn't right about that conclusion. For the record, Give Them Grace didn't draw that conclusion, but neither did it give me a satisfying reason. Having heard something of "law and gospel" from White Horse Inn, I turned there for answers.

To be continued...

Authority and Mission: In Charge and On Charge

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 03:58:00 +0000

In best-selling book The Shack, William P. Young writes from the perspective of God the Father speaking about the Trinity:

Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or "great chain of being" as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us.

The Jesus figure in the book also explains:

Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.

Now, I haven't read this book and don't intend to. My only purpose is to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the concept that a hierarchy of authority is bad. Young would have us think that authority is sinful. But what did Jesus actually say?

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

He said he has all authority. And with his authority he gives commands. If authority were sinful, we should expect Jesus to use his authority to expel authority, or something. It doesn't take much to see that Young's theology leaks like a sieve. The book reviews of The Shack that address this issue of authority are plentiful and sufficient so I won't add to them; if you are interested, consult the oracle.

What I want to do instead is elaborate on the connection authority has with mission. By mission, I mean that there is some kind of goal or objective. The problem William P. Young and our culture have with authority is the connection it can have with power. I would affirm that those in authority who feed on power trips are in sin. But the authority structure within the Godhead is not about a power trip. What this neglects is another possibility for why authority exists: to execute a mission in achieving an objective. The military and its rich authority structure does not exist because of power hungry sinners (well, maybe...); it exists because there are objectives to accomplish, because there is a mission.

Have you ever been a part of a mission that lacked authority? What about deciding where to go out to eat with a bunch of indecisive people? Or people that don't want to hurt others by being assertive? You know how it goes: it finally gets to the point where one says, "Will someone just decide?" This is a confession of need for authority. Or have you ever experienced a mission suffering disorganization? I remember joining the ranks of sandbagging lines that just couldn't get a rhythm. In these situations the question I usually ask myself is, "Who's in charge here?" (Then there's always the guy who wants a power trip, assumes authority, and doesn't actually know what he's doing. Ugh.)

Yes, when authority is put in the hands of sinners, it can be abused. But authority itself is not sinful. It existed before sin. Let's look at the world before the fall:

And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it..." Gen 1:28a

God gave man an objective, a mission, a job. God exercised His authority to tell man what to do. But God also gave man the authority to execute this mission:

"...and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Gen 1:28b

Did you catch that? Dominion. The mission is to "subdue" the earth. Force it into submission. Dominate it. Rule over it. Before sin, before the fall, there is a mission and there is authority. We must conclude that authority itself is not sinful. We see God exercising authority and putting man under a charge. To be "in charge" with authority is to be "on charge" with a mission. They go together. Part of God making man in His image was to establish the man with authority just as God has authority. We really need to go no further in showing that authority is good than observe that God has authority. (How Young misses that the world is God's to command as He pleases is baffling.) Authority is good in God's hands, and, because he endowed man with His image and charged man, authority is also good in man's hands.

But sin does indeed cause authority to go bad in man's hands because we will insist on using the authority to serve ourselves. We change the mission. The abusive husband's mission is to gratify himself. The oppressive government's mission is a life of fame and posh for those in power. The iron-fisted father's mission is to impress his community with his obedient children. The mission always turns selfish.

God the Father made a plan in eternity past to execute a mission, to achieve an objective. We are told that His mission is to "unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth," Eph. 1:10. His purpose in this was to bring about "the praise of his glory," Eph. 1:6,12,14. Part of how He designed to show us His glory that we would praise Him is His demonstration of power:

...When he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

So part of God's whole purpose, His mission, is to demonstrate His power, His authority, and He did this by sending Jesus to the lowest depths of weakness and then raising him to the highest place of authority. The Father made Jesus "head" over all things; he is the authority, the King of kings and Lord of lords. (Again, how Young can miss this, I can only conclude he hasn't read the Bible.) But Christ's continuing authority isn't without mission. Our forever purpose will be to praise the glory of God through being united to God. Christ's authority and our submission will forever be beautiful. This is God's mission to eternity.

So I ask of us: What is our attitude towards authority? Even if the authority we are under is sinful, do we submit and entrust ourselves to the greater authority (1 Pet. 2:23, 4:19)? Will we follow Christ's example of submission (Php. 2:5-11)? Will we heed the call to demonstrate God's character to the world through how we structure authority and submission in our relationships, including husband-wife (1 Pet. 3:1,7; Eph. 5:22-33), employer-employee (1 Pet. 2:18, Eph. 6:5-9), government-citizen (1 Pet. 2:13-14), pastor-lay (Heb. 13:17), and parent-child (Eph 6:1-4)? Will we keep sight of the mission to glorify God in our authority?

I pray that we the Church might reclaim a Biblical view of authority and submission and mission, that we would be in charge because we are on charge, to the praise of God's glory.

Theology of Christmas Gifts Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:30:00 +0000

Last time we began venturing to establish a theology around celebrating Christmas. But all we really established is that giving is good. Before continuing to frame out how traditions and celebrations can glorify God, I'll describe a practical result of our giving theology.

This Christmas, my family did not to make wish lists. Through all that talk about how giving is good, we did not talk much about the receiving end. We know it is better to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). But Christmas seems to cause our hearts to become selfish and focus on what we want, to the neglect of focusing on what others may need or be blessed by. So we resolved to pursue Christmas as giving, not getting. Therefore we avoided wish lists. But without wish lists, how can we know what to get each other? we wondered. We said that God gives compassionately, and part of that description is that He knows us so well that He gives the perfect gift. So instead of being told what to give each other, we tried to simply know each other. I should know my wife and children well enough that I don't need to ask what to give them. Sure, this makes shopping a little more difficult, but it helps focus our hearts on the task and joy of giving, not receiving. This had mixed results, but we'll try it again next year. I think it may help foster selflessness if the whole year long we were considering what gift would bless those around us, looking for clues, as though we were studying each other, instead of always thinking of what I want.

But even if giving is good and glorifies God, why celebrate Christmas?

God has performed miraculous works in history. The greatest of these is Christ's work on the cross, where God's seemingly contradicting attributes of mercy and justice are both, at the very same time, fully on display. God displays His glory in this. And He is glorified in us when people know and perceive and savor His great mercy and His great justice and how He can be both perfect love and perfect justice all at once. He is glorified when we remember His great works, because His works display His greatness.

Traditions serve our cause of glorifying and enjoying God when we realize one thing about ourselves: we are forgetful. We must remember what God has done. If we forget, we lose sight of His greatness and He is no longer glorified. God knew we are forgetful, as we see in Scripture that He instituted festivals for the people of Israel for the sake of remembering His works, such as the passover (Ex. 12:25-27, Deut. 16). The festivals were grace from God to help us forgetful people remember the source of our deepest joy. So when traditions help us remember God's greatness, they are good.

Those Christians who reject Christmas usually arrive there because they hold to the regulative principle. The regulative principle would teach that since God did not establish Christmas in Scripture, or any such festival celebrating Christ's arrival, we should not celebrate it. I will not address that here but only say that I do not hold to the regulative principle. (John Piper's Gravity and Gladness seminar is very helpful in addressing what worship means as new covenant believers; scroll down to the John Calvin quote). Though I agree that Christmas began in paganism and, as Spurgeon said, "the observance of it is purely of Popish origin," I do not believe its origins are the biggest factor to consider.

If Christmas were not celebrated in our culture I probably would not either. I would rather seek to foster a family culture of giving because God is a giver. But since Christmas is celebrated here, and that is not against the law of Christ, we can follow Paul's example and celebrate with the culture in order that we might save some (1 Cor. 9:21). The reason we need to celebrate in order to save some is that to not celebrate is offensive; it makes us a "Scrooge." The only offense we should present is the cross. To offend people for any other reason detracts from our message of the cross (Gal. 5:11; 1 Cor. 1:23, 10:32-33). Granted, there is no denying that God's people are peculiar and set apart, but let's not be weird for the wrong reasons; let's be weird for how lovingly, generously, compassionately and lavishly we give. Let's be weird for our extraordinary love (Jn. 13:35), which is nothing more than a picture of our extraordinary God. And to picture Him well as we love well glorifies Him and brings us joy.

Therefore I believe that our attitude towards Christmas should be informed by the connotations it has in the minds of the people we rub shoulders with, as opposed to how it may have originated. As R.C. Sproul pointed out, "Who associates Christmas today with Mithras? No one calls it 'Mithrasmas.'" We are called to proclaim the message of Christ to our contemporaries, those we work with and walk by in the grocery store. What do they think of Christmas? What can our attitude towards Christmas tell them about the greatness of our God? Instead of seeing our culture's Christmas as a problem we can see it as a great opportunity to glorify God. It is an opportunity to speak openly about Jesus and display God's giving character. It is only natural, if we are a giving people, to be giving at Christmas.

Another aspect of Christmas that protesting Christians have criticized is that of rest. By "rest" I mean spending your time in play or relaxation, as opposed to productive work. For example:

It is our duty to attend faithfully and industriously to that secular business which is incumbent on us, during the six last days of the week, and not to institute or observe sabbaths of human invention; that we may be prepared for the sanctification of the Lord's sabbath. --Ezra Stiles Ely (pastor, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.), A Synopsis of Didactic Theology (1822).

On the day called Christmas Day, the Governor called them out to work as was used. But the most of this new company excused themselves and said it went against their consciences to work on that day. So the Governor told them that if they made it a matter of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed; so he led away the rest and left them. But when they came home at noon from their work, he found them in the street at play, openly; some pitching the bar, and some at stool-ball and such like sports. So he went to them and took away their implements and told them that was against his conscience, that they should play and others work. --William Bradford (governor, Plymouth colony), Of Plymouth Plantation (1621).

Contrary to this type of thinking, when God instituted a festival for the purpose of remembering His works, He called for special Sabbaths (in addition to the weekly one) for rest, play, and feasting. The purpose of this was to celebrate and thank God for His blessings upon their work.

Deuteronomy 16:12-15 You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes. (13) "You shall keep the Feast of Booths seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your winepress. (14) You shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your towns. (15) For seven days you shall keep the feast to the LORD your God at the place that the LORD will choose, because the LORD your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful. (Emphasis added.)

This was a celebration seven days long, with a command to be joyful because of God's provision through human labor. Note that it is celebrated after gathering from the threshing floor and winepress, implying the use of the food and wine in the celebration. And it's a celebration that includes everyone. Resting, playing, and eating are good things when done in the proper spirit. For us now, my secular job gives time off at Christmas. So I can use this time as an opportunity to rest from work and thank God for His gracious provision. We can use His blessings from the past year of labor to celebrate and give to others. Rest is good, and it glorifies God when done in a spirit of thankfulness.

And so, our Christmas was marked with plenty of food, plenty of rest, and plenty of people. We kept away from wish lists. We shopped for each other under a budget. We played games. We enjoyed each other. And glorified God in the process.

We don't think the specific day is all that important. Because of timing with extended family on Christmas Eve, we had our gift opening on a completely different day. People are more important than the day. We gave each other pajamas the night before, and opened the rest of the gifts in the morning. And what about Santa? Our position is basically the same as described here.

Has this helped you think more about if and how you celebrate? I'd be glad to hear from you.

Theology of Christmas Gifts

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:39:00 +0000

Our goal: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Problem: Christmas gifts.

As my wife and I experienced our first Christmas as a family, we realized the traditions that each of us was accustomed to weren't the same. By necessity then, we thought about what Christmas will mean for us. What traditions will we establish, if any? We will give each other presents? Should we encourage our children to create wish lists? Will we open presents the night of Christmas Eve or Christmas morning? What about Santa?

Coming from the perspective that "all theology is practical and all practice is theological," we weren't about to just do whatever pleased us most. In everything, we have a great opportunity and privilege: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. There is much at stake here. So what do we do with our culture's Christmas?

Let's start with our goal, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and see if we can derive anything about Christmas gifts.

We have a saying in our home that God is glorified "when people know how great He is" (it has nice meter). And that goes without saying that when people know His greatness we will find Him to be supremely valuable and our source of deepest pleasure. So to seek to glorify God is to seek to know Him ourselves and make Him known to others. One thing we know about God and want to make known to others is that He is a giver: He gave Jesus to us, His "only begotten." That tells us His gift was extremely valuable, yet He gave anyway because of His great love (Jn. 3:16). And not only did He give lovingly and generously, He gave directly to our root need. He knows us so well that He knew exactly what we needed. I'll call this aspect of His giving character "compassionately."

We glorify God when we act like He does. So we should parallel His giving character. The direct parallel of how God gives to how we should give is not that we should give some wrapped, bow-topped box of earthly treasure. It is certainly not that. The direct parallel to God giving people Jesus is us giving people Jesus. That is primary. If we are to truly give lovingly, generously, and compassionately, we will tell people about God's holiness, their sin, and Jesus' cross. That is how we are to glorify God in making His character known to others.

But God gives more than Jesus. While it is true in one sense that Jesus is everything, and the gift we are to forever enjoy is God Himself, there are in this life lesser gifts that I believe God wants us to enjoy. God gave me a wife. She is a gift. Yet God created marriage (and sex) as a good thing, knowing full well that our selfish depraved hearts would make an idol out of it. Even after the fall, He gave me a wife knowing full well that I could make an idol of her, that she could take over the supreme place in my desires where He alone should be. A reason why he yet gives the gift in sight of this danger I will save for another day. For our purpose here, we can say that he not only gives to our root need, but he also gives to our "wants." And the danger involved is OK. The giver does no wrong, and the gift is not bad. Giving a gift to someone's lesser wants, in sight of the danger of idolatry, I will call giving "lavishly."

If we are to glorify God by making His character known to others, we can do this by giving people lesser gifts: wrapped, bow-topped boxes of earthly treasure. We should do it lovingly, generously, compassionately, and lavishly. But giving lavishly must be tempered for a couple reasons: God gives out of His unlimited resources, while we can give out of only limited resources; and, if something becomes an idol to His children God will discipline us until He regains supremacy in our hearts, and so as we give to others we must be watchful of idolatry.

God's resources are unlimited. He "lavishes" grace upon us, because He has so much of it (Eph. 1:7-8). We seek to emulate that characteristic of God in our giving. But my bank account is finite. My hours-per-day isn't getting any bigger. So my resources are limited. This shakes down into meaning I need to budget what I spend on gifts, both my time and money. There are always a hundred things vying for my attention, and it may be that some other activity to put my time and money towards brings greater glory to God. That must all be weighed in a budget, and we can't go into that now. Suffice it to say here, it is required of us to seek to glorify God optimally with our resources, and only some can go towards giving gifts.

The second reason to temper our giving lavishly is that although God gives us gifts that are less than Himself, such as a spouse or children or apple pie, despite His knowing we will make an idol of the gift, He doesn't let the idolatry go on. He protects us as a good Father. He knows we are straying into lesser joys. He loves us so much that He insists we have the most pleasure possible, and that is only found when He is our deepest desire (Heb. 12:5-11). So when we prop up a gift as an idol He will discipline us. So in my fatherhood I can glorify God when I emulate His Fatherhood in protecting my children from idolatry. When I give a child a gift of earthly treasure I must be watchful of selfishness and possessiveness in his heart towards that thing. (It may be better to make this analysis prior to giving the gift.) Is the child willing to share it with others? Is the child thankful for other blessings like family or food, especially in the thing's absence? Or has it possessed the child? If so, I must consider how to wean the child of the idol. All this opens another big can of worms that I can't go into now, the issue of Christian parenting. In summary, when we give to our children we must be watchful and prayerful for their hearts. (We should be praying for them continually anyway.) But ultimately I do think giving lavishly to children is OK because we entrust their hearts to God. No matter how good of a father I could be, I cannot save anyone. And should my children be saved, God will deal decisively with their idols.

So if all this is true, we conclude that it serves our goal of glorifying God if we give gifts, and if we do it lovingly, generously, compassionately and lavishly. And, of course, we know that "God loves a cheerful giver," (2 Cor. 9:7) so we should add to the list giving "cheerfully."

But what does all this have to do with Christmas? I'll start there next time.

His Trials

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:10:00 +0000

You are those who have stayed with me in my trials.

Luke 22:28

Jesus endured trials while on earth. And he continues to endure them now.

Whenever his people sin.

Whenever there is false teaching.

Whenever wives are mistreated.

Whenever husbands are disrespected.

Whenever children are neglected.

Whenever widows are forgotten.

Whenever his people are persecuted.

Whenever a church is a mess.

These are his trials. And we get to receive the grace of experiencing them with him.

Will you stay with him?

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

John 13:20

Christ's followers endure hardships. If we suffer for doing good, if we suffer for simply seeking to do his will and not our own, then it is in a sense his suffering, his trial. When the world rejects us on account of him, they are rejecting him. We are just along for the ride. For those who stay with him through these trials he grants a reward: to rule with him.

You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30

But before we rule, it is fitting that we should first suffer. This is the way of Christ, and so it will be our way. And when he returns to consummate his rule, all will have been necessary to complete his work in us so that we are fit to rule. All will have been worth it.

Take heart, Christian. Stay with him.

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all.
Psalm 34:19

Cause of Death: Football

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:02:00 +0000

Those of you interested in the violence/football discussion may want to read this article. The author points out the alarming number of football players dying because of brain injuries, like this:

Cases like that of Nathan Stiles (reported by ESPN’s Outside the Lines series) drive such discussion. An A student, beloved by his church congregation, Nathan eluded tacklers like an avatar in a video game. In his final football game in September 2010, he covered the last thirty yards alone, leaving his would-be tacklers behind, a hero to his team and Kansas town. That night, he lay in a hospital bed, lost to the world. By the next morning, he had passed away, the homecoming king dead from a bleeding brain.

Do the risks outweigh the rewards of playing this game? Has something changed in this sport from 20 years ago?

Violence and Football

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 06:49:00 +0000

In response to the recent post on violence, the question was raised: If violence and being entertained by violence is wrong, then what about football?

I need to be careful with my bias here because I like football. I will offer my thoughts with an effort to be balanced but I hope if nothing else to stir us on to be more discerning with everything we watch, read, and do.

When a player doesn't get up after a play in football, people don't cheer. We don't want players getting hurt. When the same thing happens in boxing or mixed martial arts, people cheer. The very goal of such sports is the destruction of your opponent's body. This is where violence against another human is fundamentally wrong. God, being the Creator, is owner of all things and all people (Ps. 24:1, Exo. 19:5, Job 41:11, etc.). What's worse is that as humans we bear the image of God. That body belongs to God and we offend Him when we mess with His stuff.

Since the goal in football is to put the ball in the endzone and not to destroy players' bodies, I think football is different. To the contrary, I believe God is glorified in fine-tuned bodies and cooperating teammates that can place a pass in the perfect spot at the perfect time. That's what I'm entertained by, and I think it is good.

I realize this gets real sticky when we start thinking about the likelihood of players getting hurt in football. If all this is true, can a player in good conscience take the field and play aggressively knowing that he might accidentally injure someone? I think there is something to be said for the consent each player gives when taking the field. Each player goes in knowing he might get hurt. Still I don't know how to work this out exactly. Maybe Reggie White did.

The Grace To Evangelize

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:19:00 +0000

It has been suggested that one verse which exhorts us Christians to evangelize is 2 Timothy 4:5, "As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

In the previous post, I contended that most passages used to emphasize personal evangelism are misinterpreted or stretched at best and gave one example from Philemon. I believe this passage from 2 Timothy is also stretched at best. Here's why.

We just need a little context. The verse begins, "As for you." Who is Paul speaking to? Me? You? The verse ends, "fulfill your ministry." My ministry? What's that?

Paul is speaking to Timothy. He is telling Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, to fulfill his ministry. It would benefit us to study what this actually meant in the life of Timothy instead of jumping directly to applying it to ourselves as though Paul is speaking to us.

Let's look around 1 and 2 Timothy looking for clues as to what exactly Timothy's ministry is. I find:

1Ti 1:18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare.

There are specific words and phrases to key in on here. "Charge" and "entrust" are pretty important words you'll find throughout 1 and 2 Timothy. Paul speaks of himself being entrusted with "the gospel of the glory of the blessed God," 1 Tim 1:11. So Paul is "charging" Timothy to stay true to the gospel as it was "entrusted" to him. The "charge" comes to a climax in the final chapter, 2 Tim 4, where he invokes God Himself in the charge:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Just verses later this charge continues with, "Do the work of an evangelist."

What about the prophecy mentioned in 1Ti 1:18? We'll find in addition:

1Ti 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.
2Ti 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands,

The reference to prophecy and laying on of hands is likely similar to what we would call ordination. To get to the point already, Timothy was specifically called and gifted by God to be a minister of the gospel. He was ordained to be a pastor. Therefore I believe the charge to do the work of an evangelist applies today to pastors. And obviously, not every Christian today is a pastor. Therefore this call to evangelism does not apply to common Christians. It does not apply to me. If there's anywhere it could possibly extend to me, it's here:

2 Tim 2:1-2 You then [Timothy], my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Through this passage we can understand the charge to extend to others, to "faithful men." It could be that this is simply referring to more pastors, that Timothy also needs to pass the baton just as Paul is now doing. Whatever the case, it is not just "everyone" but qualified as those who are "faithful" and "able to teach." Related to this we find, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands," 1 Tim 5:22a. Maybe we should consider how well we steward the gospel of the glory of the blessed God. It isn't to be entrusted to just anyone.

Note also that this ministry entrusted to Timothy and pastors is a gift. The Greek for gift is charisma. The Greek for grace is charis. It is important to realize that whenever we speak or read of spiritual gifts that they are simply things of grace. Each Christian receives grace to use for building up the Church. We don't all do the same thing. We each receive a different measure of grace:

Eph 4:7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

To some is given that measure of grace to evangelize. It is different for everyone. Some are "fellow workers" like Philemon, while others are "fellow soldiers" like Archippus (Phm 1:1-2, Col 4:17). I feel as though we've made evangelism into the over-arching gift that everyone ought to exercise, whether it is their gift or not, and only after that do we each have differing gifts that we must also exercise. I am concerned for so many Christians who carry a burden of guilt because they don't evangelize as they are told they should, when in reality it just isn't in their measure of grace and isn't their fault. This is one reason why we need to focus on sanctification, so that each person's measure of grace can grow.

Any other verse?

Sanctification. Evangelism, Not So Much

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:14:00 +0000

I started to write what's below and then stopped at a point because I was not sure if I was saying something false, or at least something too controversial. Then Kevin DeYoung wrote this:

The fact of the matter is if you read through the New Testament epistles you will find very few explicit commands that tell us to evangelize and very few explicit commands that tell us to take care of the poor in our communities, but there are dozens and dozens of verses in the New Testament that enjoin us, in one way or another, to be holy as God is holy (e.g., 1 Peter 1:13-16).

So I'm going ahead with it...

I recently read a story of how excited a young man was when he first discovered J.I. Packer's Knowing God. The rich truth that "the basic fact of my life was living to know my creator" was something he never learned in church. Upon telling his youth pastor this, he was rebuked, "Your purpose isn't to know God. Your purpose is to win souls. That's what you are here on earth to do- be a witness and win others to Christ."

Sadly, I can identify with that attitude and I'm guessing you can too. Here's an idea: Our primary focus in the Christian life should be sanctification, not evangelism.

Maybe you don't see those two things as opposed to each other. They should both happen, right? Yes, they should both happen. But I am just trying to take my cues from scripture, and I find in every New Testament epistle the directions given to common Christians is focused on sanctification, on growing in holiness. It's all over the place. Where do we find focus on personal evangelism? To be honest, I don't find much.

Please keep in mind as you react to this that, because of The Great Commission, I believe evangelism is an important part of the Church's mission. But beyond that, I contend (shockingly I'm sure) that most passages used to emphasize personal evangelism are misinterpreted or stretched at best. It just isn't there.

Example: Philemon 1:6, "...and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ." I've heard Thabiti Anyabwile, a man with whom I am together for the gospel, use this verse to demonstrate how evangelism can cause one to grow deeper in knowledge of the gospel. By telling people about Jesus, they will probably have questions that you don't have an answer for, so you go looking for answers. This in turn better prepares you for the next evangelism opportunity. That is all true, but I don't believe that is what this verse is saying. I'd be pretty disappointed if that's all it meant.

The word for "sharing" in this verse could mean "communication" or it could just as well mean "fellowship." In the context of Philemon, we understand that Paul is writing to Philemon to urge him to lovingly receive Onesimus. Onesimus was a slave of Philemon's who ran away. Philemon had a right to punish him if he ever returned. But Paul's whole purpose in this letter is to inform Philemon that Onesimus is now a fellow believer in Christ and so he should receive Onesimus into his fellowship and forgive him.

In light of the context, I believe the phrase about "sharing your faith" refers to Philemon's fellowship with believers, not communication with nonbelievers. The greater context of verses 4-7 refers to Philemon's love and faith for Jesus and "for all the saints," and Paul says "the hearts of the saints have been refreshed" through Philemon. In verse 22, Paul asks Philemon to prepare a guest room for him, hoping to soon visit him. Notice in verse 2 the reference to "the church in your house," which indicates Philemon opened his home as a meeting place for Christians. All this suggests that Philemon was wealthy and probably provided for the needs of poorer believers in his community.

Paul's reference to "every good thing" is meant to contrast worldly wealth with spiritual wealth. His prayer is that through Philemon's sharing of his home and material "good things" that Philemon would realize the true blessings of good things he has in Christ which become apparent through the fellowship of faith. "The sharing of your faith" is exercising your gift of grace and participating in all those things a church should do: bear each other's burdens, encourage one another, rejoice together, serve one another, teach one another, worship Jesus together, and so on.

And we could say the purpose of all that was Philemon's sanctification.

I could go on but I will pause for objections. Can you find me a passage which exhorts me to evangelize?

Violence Only For Justice

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 05:59:00 +0000

I blogged several months ago saying of the topic that I would "expand a bit more soon." Now, when God starts a thing He is faithful to complete it. I am recognizing that I fail to glorify God when I start a thing and do not follow through with it. So I here am.

But before resuming that topic, here's something I want to tell you: Violence is only acceptable when it is coupled with justice.

There is a certain Christian subculture today that seeks to be manly by watching mixed martial arts fights such as UFC. I recently came across Mark Driscoll say the following in the sermon "The Weaker Christian":

If you’re a person who has no problem with violence, and last night you watched Matt Hughes beat Royce Gracie in the Ultimate Fight – thank you, Jesus. We all knew it was gonna happen. You don’t have a problem with violence – because you’ve read the Old Testament and you know it’s Biblical – you don’t have a problem with violence, then you can watch Ultimate Fighting. If you marry someone, though, like I did, and she says, “I don’t like violence,” then I watch it with my boys, not with my wife. My wife’s not into Ultimate Fighting. My boys? Totally into Ultimate Fighting. They take their shirts off and watch Ultimate Fighting with their dad – that’s what we do.

Though I have myself in one instance gathered with some guys to watch a fight, there is something unsettling about all this. I have two objections: violence itself is not Biblical and it is not manly.

Violence is in the Old Testament, yes, but it is not recreational. Violence per se is never condoned, let alone being entertained by and deriving pleasure from it. It is always the story of God executing justice using His people as agents to deliver His wrath on those well deserving for their sin. It is the same story in the New Testament and in our present age: Jesus Christ is the true Ultimate Fighter, the conqueror of sin and death.

If you want to be a man, take off your shirt with your Dad and get violent fighting your sin. Fight for justice in the world as agents of Christ's redemption and victory to the captive and oppressed. This is the ultimate fight.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. - James 1:27

Resolved, to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power; might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of. - Jonathan Edwards, Resolution #22

Things We Ought to Know #6: Facebook Replying

noreply@blogger.com (Jordan) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:53:00 +0000

If you use Facebook, you ought to know how to reply to a message sent to multiple people. When you type a response, the button clearly says "Reply All." This means your reply will go to every single person the original message went to. You don't want to do this. You may think everyone wants your address so we can all send our wedding invitations to you, but you would be wrong. You may think everyone wants to know about the intimate details of your life that are only relevant to the original sender and really ought to be kept private, but again you'd be wrong.

To reply to just the original sender, there is a little link that says "Reply" next to the original sender's name and the date of the message. This is what you want to use.

I know Facebook changes things a lot and will probably change this someday. But we can figure it out. It isn't that hard. Seriously, it's 2010.