Showing posts with label PCRT 2009 Sacramento. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PCRT 2009 Sacramento. Show all posts

16 March 2009

A weekend off

by Frank Turk



The last weekend, Phil spent the weekend with his dad, I spent the weekend with Phil and his dad, and Dan, as usual, did all the work when the hill gets high. Whilst Phil and I were essentially loafing all weekend, Dan was at PCRT 2009 blogging as if Western Civilization depended upon it. He may have actually and officially outblogged Challies this weekend, which is by itself its own kind of punishment and reward.

Now, I say that about my friend Dan because I am ridiculously jealous of his accomplishment this weekend. And the only assistance I can offer him at this point is to simply provide this post, which is an index of his work this weekend. Yes: he blogged all of this between Friday Morning and Saturday Night. I was laughing at Phil's concupiscence toward the Mac computing platform. You be the judge of who's the better man.
13 Mar 2009, 9:00 AM:
Words of Life (Rick Phillips)

13 Mar 2009, 9:45 AM:
Life of John Calvin (Steve Lawson)

13 Mar 2009, 11:00 AM:
Preaching of John Calvin (Steve Lawson)

13 Mar 2009, 1:30 PM:
Legacy of John Calvin (Steve Lawson)

13 Mar 2009, 2:30 PM:
Q&A (Lawson & Phillips)

13 Mar 2009, 7:00 PM:
The Great Exchange (Jerry Bridges)

14 Mar 2009, 9:00 AM:
Justification through Faith Alone (Derek Thomas)

14 Mar 2009, 10:00 AM:
God the Just & the Justifier (Steve Lawson)

14 Mar 2009, [Time not Noted]:
Q&A (Thomas, Lawson, Bridges)

14 Mar 2009, 1:30 PM:
Justification & union with Christ (Derek Thomas)

14 Mar 2009, 3:15 PM:
Faith and Works in Justification: A Consideration of Paul and James (Derek Thomas)

14 Mar 2009, 6:30 PM:
The Present Reality of Justification (Jerry Bridges)
If you see this and all the links aren't updated, I will fix them as the day permits. However, let me say with all joking aside that Dan did one amazing job of live-blogging this conference and set a standard (as he is wont to do) for others to follow.


14 March 2009

Fifth Address: The Present Reality of Justification, Jerry Bridges (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

NOTE: I have now added the pictures I took.

At 6:30, the host church's pastor Robert Briggs (who has the Scottish accent I wish I had) gladly introduced a chorale made up of members and attenders of Immanuel Baptist Church. The good brothers and sisters sang of God's gracious salvation.

This is a good opportunity for me to express appreciation for Immanuel. They were most gracious hosts, and made all of us welcome. I particularly want to thank Scott Blaising for making sure that I had internet access, to bring these posts to you. Scott was endlessly and cheerfully helpful, and took great pains to make sure I was set up. Also, thanks to ACE's Denise Malagari (who is also Managing Editor at the Reformation 21 site) for making me welcome in my role as your on-the-scene reporter.

My final session began at 7pm Saturday with a call to worship by Rick Phillips, who read 1 Corinthians 1:30-31. Then we sang the favorite hymn of at least two Phillipses (Rick and Dan) — "And Can it Be?" — and Pastor Briggs read Galatians 2:17-21). One more hymn, and Jerry Bridges came to preach.

Paul repeats over and over again in this section that we are not justified by works of law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. That is the focus of Galatians 2:15-21.

Galatians 2:20 is a favorite verse of those who take a passive approach to sanctification - I don't do anything, Christ lives through me. So all I do is trust Him for sanctification, as I had trusted Him for salvation; I am but a glove on His hand. But that is not what Paul is saying in Galatians 2:20. The passage has to do with justification.

Paul is emphatic that a curse is on everyone who does not do all the works of the Law (Galatians 3:10). A grade of 99% is a failing grade. That is why we must be justified by faith, not works of Law, or we are under a curse.

Faith has two elements. It involves a renunciation of any confidence in our performance as a basis for our relationship with God. It also involves reliance upon Jesus Christ alone. So we don't say, If I've had my quiet time, I have a relationship with God; if I have not, I might as well go back to bed. No, if I am relying on my own performance, in place myself under a curse.

Then Bridges focused again on Galatians 2:20, particularly on the words "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Bridges says "faith in the Son of God" means Paul is speaking of justification, and not sanctification. Paul never uses the phrase in another sense, he argued. So, given that justification is a point-in-time, past event, how does Paul speak of an ongoing life-dynamic?

The answer, Bridges says, is the most important thing he will say this evening. For Paul, justification was not only a past even that he could look back to, but also a present event having an impact on every day of his life. We have a tendency to base our ongoing relationship with God on our performance. We are saved by grace, but then we try to change the rules of the game, and live by performance. Every day, Paul looked outside of himself to Jesus Christ's shed blood and righteousness. As Romans 5:1 says, having been justified, we have peace with God, now.

We must work at turning away from ourselves and relying entirely on Jesus Christ. If we do not, we will default into a performance-based relationship. We must be proactive, we must preach the Gospel to ourselves every day.

John Owen
wrote in Communion with God that it is the daily of saints to consider the great provocation of our sins. Start the day confessing your sin. The Gospel is only for sinners. Then Owen says they lay down their sins at the Cross. Then, Owen says, draw night, and take from Him that righteousness which He has wrought out for you. "And you must do this every day," Owen adds.

What will happen when we do this? In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 we see that we will live, not for ourselves, but for Jesus Christ. The love of God squeezes us in from all sides and points us in one direction, to live for Jesus Christ. God's love as shown in the Cross focuses us and aims us, not like a shotgun blast, but like a rifle bullet.

And so, the impetus for sanctification is the Cross, which is not only the beginning of our Christian life, but its eternal focus.

Dan Phillips's signature


Faith and Works in Justification: A Consideration of Paul and James, Derek Thomas (PCRT 2009, Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

This was a seminar held at 3:15pm Saturday.

Thomas began by praying, then reading James 2:14-22. (When he read "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" [v. 22], Thomas quipped, "It's right there in the Bible.") Then he read Romans 3:28, which seems to say the opposite. Then Thomas added Romans 2:13, that the doers of God are justified, and said it's worse than Paul against James. It is in fact Paul against Paul!

His point: the issue can't be resolved by taking Liberal Scissors and just slicing off James from Paul. There is in fact a strand of teaching in the NT that we will be judged according to our works. This is shocking to some; many of his students answer wrongly, when asked whether there will be, on the last day, a judgment according toworks. How to fit it into the whole?

Passages such as Colossians 3:24-25, and 1 Peter 1:17, and many others suggest an important relation of works to our Christian lives, and to God's judgment of us.

Thomas says Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:10, suggests the key to understanding this teaching. Paul is addressing Christians; and Hughes says that it is important to see that the purpose of this tribunal is retributive, not penal. The judgment is not a declaration of doom, but an assessment of worth, with an assignment of works to those who, by reason of their faithfulness, deserve them.

This is not an unusual teaching in the history of Reformed teaching, but it has virtually disappeared in the last 25-30 years, to be replaced by an odd sort of egalitarianism.

Three ways of harmonizing have been proposed.
  1. James is hear using dikaioĊ (justify) different than Paul uses it, in the sense of vindication - to be in the right. His works prove his salvation.
  2. Both that and pistis (faith) are being used differently in James and Paul. James has in view professing faith, and the vindication of true faith. John Owen propounds this in volume 5 of his Works.
  3. James has in view a different kind of faith (nominal), and a different kind of works (works of faith, not of flesh or the law). Galatians 5:6 is the key to harmonizing: faith always works by love. So the faith that James condemns is different than the faith Paul commends, and the works Paul condemns are different than the works James commends.
Shockingly, Thomas asked if it is possible for Christians to fall from grace - and insisted that the answer is "Yes." Then he said, "Is it possible for professing Christians to fall from grace?", and when everyone more heartily said "Yes," he asked "How do you tell the difference?"

He told the tale of a girl he knew long ago, who was always witnessing, one of the most vibrant Christians he'd ever known. But then her father said that, if she'd give up on Christianity, he'd buy her a house when she graduated. She did, and he did. Godly, earnest - and she fell, and has remained in that state for 35 years.

So, Faith A and Faith B both think they have genuine faith. See Faith A in v. 14: a faith that does not have works (vv. 14, 20), apart from works (v. 18), unacompanied by action (v. 17), isolated from deeds (v. 24). It is "faith alone" in the sense that it is isolated from works.
Faith B is shown by what it does, or consummated in actions (v. 23).

So James asks whether Faith A can save (v. 14), and he clearly expects the answer, "No." Why? Because Faith A does not work. On what presupposition does he reach that conclusion? On the premise that saving faith always works - which Reformers have always confirmed.

He is using "Faith" in two quite different senses himself, then. So the example of Abraham shows that Abraham's works showed his right relationship with God through genuine faith. The key is in verse 18: what a man does is the touchstone of faith. Faith without works is dead, and thus is no faith at all. Faith is not an abstraction; it is a way of describing a man who is united with Christ.

Then Thomas spoke about Norman Shepherd, who begins his work with James, thus going contrary to the accepted Reformed practice of starting with the clear when approaching the unclear. Shepherd then argued that James used "justify" in the same sense as Paul, and inevitably ended up with justification by works.

In summary: the more important question is reconciling James with James. He is using the words in two different senses. It is a claim to faith that James is testing.

Dan Phillips's signature

Fourth Address: Justification in Union with Christ, Derek Thomas (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

[This one's a little rough and a little late, as I was battling some IT battles, including a nassty Vista reboot and tangling with the network. Thanks to the wonderful, incredibly-supportive folks here at Immanuel, I'm back.]

After a good lunch break (I had the pleasure and privilege of breaking bread with the speakers, minus the departed Pastor Lawlor), we reconvened at 2pm Saturday.

After we sang the wonderful "Rock of Ages," Derek Thomas had us turn to Galatians 2:17. He then referred to the statements of the confessions as to justification and imputation. The doctrine is of the imputation, the crediting, of Christ's righteousness — as contrasted with Roman Catholicism, which insists on impartation and inwrought righteousness. Rome still affirms the Council of Trent. The evangelical understanding sees imputation as the transfer of "alien righteousness," meaning from outside of us.

Also, free grace is a hallmark facet of Reformation teaching. Calvin says that the man, by faith, lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and is accepted as righteous in God's eyes for that reason. Cranmer called imputation the strong rock and foundation of Christian religion; anyone who denies that truth is an adversary of Christ. Luther said that this is how Christ makes His righteousness my righteousness, and my sin His sin.

Thus I am freed from my sin, and clothed with Christ's righteousness.

This is what is insisted on in Romans 3:24 and 4:4-5, and in Philippians 3:8-9 - the free imputation of God's righteousness.

Thomas thinks Paul learned of the truth of the union of Christ with His people in his encounter with Stephen on the Damascus Road, and then Jesus saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" This showed the union of Christ with His people: in Stephen, Christ was persecuted. John Murray called union with Christ as the central truth in the doctrine of redemption.

We should not view it only federally, but experientially as well. There is nothing that we have, that we do have other than by virtue of union with Christ. Calvin stressed this: whatever is ours of spiritual blessing is ours in Christ, and we have nothing apart from Him. "Let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other." If we stray from Him, we stray fatally.

Or see Philippians 3 again, "That I may be found in Him." The faith that justifies does so only through union with Christ. It is union with Christ that saves the doctrine of justification being in reality a "legal fiction." But when men fly from that Reformed, Biblical view, they necessarily head for Rome.

The "alone" is what distinguishes Paul's gospel from the Roman dogma.

Thomas discussed the "new perspective" view that the Judaism of Paul's day as a religion of grace. But studies have confirmed the contrary, that NT era Judaism was indeed a works-righteousness religion.

Then there is the suggestion that Paul really had in mind not how to be saved, how to be right before God forensically, but who belongs to the Kingdom of God? Jews only, or Gentiles as well? This shift is partly motivated by ecumenical impulses, the desire to move the question so as to make rapprochement possible.

Again, there is the move to shift justification to eschatology alone, and consider that our good works will form part of the basis on which justification will be declare - not merely as confirmatory, but as part of the basis. In that case, present justification is only provisional. But the Reformation position is that union with Christ and justification are distinguishable, but inseparable. Calvin said that the mystical union with Christ is of the "highest degree of importance," so that Christ makes us sharers with Him of the grace with which He is endowed. John Owen says "the basis of justification is union."

It is fashionable to deny or pass over imputation. Wright says the concept is incoherent and not found in Paul. Joint statements of Lutherans and Roman Catholics leave "imputation" out altogether. Thomas quoted Wright's famous statement that righteousness is not an object or a substance or a gas that can be passed across a courtroom.

The truth is that justification brings us into existential union with Christ, through which come all the benefits that are ours in Christ as God's adopted sons.

Dan Phillips's signature

Question and Answer session, Saturday (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

The panel included Derek Thomas, Steve Lawson, Jerry Bridges.

The first two talks were back to back, followed by a very brief break. I'll do my best to keep up with the questions; I missed the beginning.

1. Did Jesus die for the elect or for all sinners?

Rick Phillips said that there are aspects of Christ's death that benefit the world, in making the free offer of the Gospel possible, and the fruits in the lives of the redeemed. But the atonement is for the elect only. Otherwise, for what sins does God condemn people? Either Jesus atoned equally for all persons, but not effectually for all (Arminian); or He atoned fully for the sins of the elect (Reformed). It is a broad bridge that goes halfway across the river, or a narrower bridge that goes all the way across.

2. Where would you begin with a non-Reformed person in pointing him to the doctrines of grace?

Jerry Bridges says you can't argue someone in against his will. We're dead in trespasses and sins; it is an absolute term. There are not degrees of deadness. [Update: Bridges did say this, and I was getting this down as quickly as I could. As I recall, he did say that one should be as winsome as one can and explain the best he can. He may have been taking question as relating to the unsaved, not to saved Arminians.]

3. How does the remnant play out in the doctrine of justification?

Derek Thomas answered that it is a precious truth. It means there will always be those who God will justify; there will always be a Church.

4. Are any Roman Catholics going to Heaven?

Lawson replied "Yes, but only if they do not believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches." What Rome teaches is a false Gospel that will damn, not save. (Lawson added that he doesn't think all Baptists are going to heaven, either.) Phillips said that we should not use terms like "evangelical Catholic," which is a contradiction in terms.

5. Did Jesus die on the Cross as Son of God or Son of Man?

Phillips replied that "Son of Man" is a title of deity, not humanity, harkening back to the vision in Daniel 7. Jesus is one person with two natures. His divine nature could not die; He took on human nature so that He could die for sinners.

6. How do we understand the warnings against apostasy?

Bridges replied that the readers of Hebrews were being pressed to turn back to Judaism. The writer is warning them. Phillips added by reminding that the epistles' audiences were spiritually mixed.

7. Why did God choose faith as the instrument of receiving salvation?

Lawson said it reserves all glory to God. The only other alternative would be works, in which case the work of salvation is shared.

8. Has Piper's book on Wright started a dialogue?

Phillips said not to his knowledge. While Piper gave his manuscript to Wright a year in advance to review, Wright did not return the favor to Piper. Phillips says Wright's book is brilliant and helpful, but condescending and "very heretical." Thomas said that Wright's weakness has been in failing to answer the question of why Jesus had to die, and why the death of the Cross. If the essential meaning is to assure that Jews and Gentiles belong to the Kingdom of God, then it is not necessary that Jesus die that death to bring it about. It has been the gaping hole in Wright's theology. This book, sadly, "will answer that question in the wrong direction."

9. How does Christ's intercession mesh with justification?

Lawson: Satan brings charges against us before God day and night; and we have an Advocate before the Father, pleading His own merits on our behalf.

10. Were Ananias and Sapphira saved? Can we ever know whether a professing believer is saved?

Bridges says we don't know if they were saved. It could have been a case of disciplining of God's children. But yes, we can have assurance of salvation through faith in Christ.



Dan Phillips's signature

Third Address: God the Just and the Justifier, Steven Lawson (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

This immediately followed Thomas' talk, at 10am Saturday. He read Romans 3:21ff.

Lawson quoted from Luther, MacArthur, Boice and many voices in chorus that justification as a central and foundational doctrine. He said you cannot be wrong on this, and be right about the rest of truth. It centers on God Himself. It is the Gospel of God (Romans 1:1). God owns this doctrine. It is God's truth - righteousness of God, the glory of God, the grace of God, are its emphatic themes. The character and attributes of God are interwoven throughout this doctrine. Justification puts the glory of God on full display.

This is our question today: What does justification tell us about God? Lawson will draw our attention to six attributes of God (or seven, time permitting) that emerge from his text.

First, the holiness of God. Romans 3:23 says that all sinned, and fall short of God's glory, which is His intrinsic glory as God, the sum and substance of all that God is. He is light, without darkness; He is separate from sinners, unapproachable and inaccessible to sinners in their sin, morally blameless and without defect or flaw. We are sinful and have fallen short.

Second, the wrath of God (Romans 3:25). The word "propitiation" points us to the satisfaction of the wrath of God, which is not an emotional, out of control reaction, but a necessary and proper stance of a holy God who distances Himself from all sin and inflicts His vengeance on all transgressors as required by His law. He rightly opposes and judges all sin with infinite fury and vengeance — all sin, with no exceptions whatever. All sins will be punished in Hell, or pardoned in Heaven because of Christ's having borne them. The good news is that Christ went to the cross to bear God's just and infinite fury for those whose sins Christ bore, so that now we can have peace with God.

Third: the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21, 22, 25, 26).
This is the truth that God always acts in accord with Himself, and the perfect standard of righteousness that He is; and that He will reward those in conformity, and punish all who rebel. The word was used in the courtroom, but also in the marketplace, to denote conformity to a weight, a standard. This is not the popular notion of our good deeds outweighing our bad; it is us on one scale, and God's perfect holiness on the other. If we do not measure up, we are condemned. Justification teaches that the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ takes our place on the scales, and we are accepted as righteous.

Fourth: the grace of God (Romans 3:24). Justification comes entirely because of God's grace, and in spite of ourselves. It is not a reward for the righteous; it is a gift for the guilty. Even the faith through which we receive it is a grace-gift (Romans 11;36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 1:29). The only thing we contribute to our salvation is the sin that was transferred to Christ.

Fifth: the immutability of God (Romans 3:24). The verdict of justification will never be rescinded nor revoked; once justified, always justified. We can rest and enjoy this status, without fretting. God's gavel will never come back down again and reverse His sentence. He has sworn by His own name; He will never reverse His justification of us. Romans 8:29-30 allows for no drop-outs, additions nor losses. Those who God started with, He ends with.

Sixth: the sovereignty of God (Romans 3:29-30). In justification, the believing sinner becomes what God says he is, not what man nor devils say. One ounce of what God says is worth ten million tons of what man says, or what Satan says. If God says one is justified, he is justified. Romans 8:31ff. says the justifying God necessarily outweighs all foes or nay-sayers. It is God's court-room, trial, procedure, and verdict. None can gainsay or reverse, ever.

What impact should this have on us? First, we should worship this God who justifies us, with bewildered amazement. Second, we should walk in a manner worthy of such a royal imputation. Sanctification is a necessary result of imputation. Third, we should witness to the lost about God's pardon and justification in Christ.

It is this doctrine that puts the very character of God on display in radiant and bright ways.

Dan Phillips's signature

Second Address: Justification through Faith Alone, Derek Thomas (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

Well, yesterday was fun, but exhausting. Be warned for future conferences here: mind the parking! I got a ticket parked in what I was told was a six-hour zone. (One-hour. Grr.)

This meeting was held at 9am Saturday, 3/14/09.

After the first few words, you realize that Derek Thomas is "not from 'round here." Thomas comes from Wales, Derek Thomas. He's an Alliance Council member and a professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. Thomas ministers with m'man Ligon Duncan at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson. Thomas earned his Ph.D. from the University of Wales, Lampeter in Calvin’s preaching on the book of Job, and has authored many books.

We began by singing the great hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy," followed by the reading of Galatians 2:15-16 by Steven Lawson. Then Richard Phillips introduced Dr. Thomas, and he began.

Thomas began with noting that he would not have believed 20 or even 10 years ago that justification would have been under fire as a fundamental, basic doctrinal truth. Particularly, it is remarkable that this question is resurfacing in the Reformed community, not just the shapeless Evangelical community.

Thomas then read from Romans 3:21-31. He noted that, unlike Galatians, this is not from a polemic epistle nor section. These are the apostle's genuine, deep reflections on justification. While sola Scriptura is the formal principle of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the material principle of the Reformation, as Melancthon said. Luther rightly identified justification as the pivot on which all hangs.

Thomas identifies three pillars.

First: need for justification. We all fail to take Romans 3:23 with sufficient seriousness. It is a climactic statement to which Paul has been building up. It is a summary of Romans 1:19 — 3:22; all has been leading towards this statement. Jew or Gentile, all are beneficiaries of the revelation of God, and thus are without excuse (Romans 1:20). Though a man be beyond the pale of special revelation, he is condemned for his rejection of the display he has of God's magnificent being in creation. They reject God, and thus produce the catalogue of sins listed out in Romans 1:29-31 - which are themselves a manifestation of the wrath of God in delivering them over to their depravity.

Then Paul turns to the man who does possess special revelation as embodied in the Law. They too are sinners and condemned (Romans 2:2, 6, 12-13; 3:9ff.). Thus the effect is that every mouth is stopped (an allusion, he thinks, to Job 40:4), and the whole world is guilty before God (Romans 3:19-20). Lloyd-Jones defined a Christian as a man or woman whose mouth has been stopped.

So in Romans 3:23, Paul not merely says that all are law-breakers, but more that they fall short of that for which God had created them - the reflection of His glory. They have not merely broken God's law, but have failed to be what God intended them to be, and thus reflect the image of Satan. And so, an immeasurable gulf stretches between what we were destined to be, and where Adamic rebellion has put us, having forfeited communion and fellowship with God.

That is the state to which justification restores us, as placarded in Romans 5:1 — we have peace with God, as Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden before the Fall. Anselm answered Cur Deus Homo? by arguing that, in part, people might be restored to a place of being able to glorify God. The goal is eschatological in nature, culminating in the reinstatement of renewed man.

Second: provision of justification.
In 2 Corinthians 5:21 we have true "edgy" theology. Without denying Christ's impeccability, Paul says that God made Him to be sin for us. That's the Gospel, the Good News. Not that Jesus Christ is Lord — if you are not a believer, that is not "good news"! On the day when God judges the secrets of men and condemns them, the news that Christ is King will not be good news to the damned. That Christ died for the sins of His people, in their stead — that is good news!

"But now," in this epoch of unfolding revelation (Romans 3:21), as a consequence of the person and work of Jesus, God shows His righteousness at the present time (v. 26). But what does "being justified" mean? In the OT, righteousness is the integrity of God's being, that He will not budge, in being consistent with Himself. See Proverbs 17:15 (on which I posted a two-part study here). Clearly to "justify the wicked" is to rule that a wicked man is in right relation with the law, which is an abomination. The picture is drawn from the law-courts.

And so that root is seen here in Romans 3. How can we sinners be declared to be in a right relationship with God's law? Paul says it is apart from the works of the law (v. 21), it is by His grace as a gift (v. 24). It is by Christ's blood, not the Law's works nor our motives or deeds. Paul is not content merely to say "by His grace," but adds "as a gift," to make it crystal-clear and pre-empt our proclivity to distort and bring our works. It is no Christian work or position or association or suffering that saves us. It is Christ alone, by grace alone.

Here Thomas dwelt on how prone we are to return to works-righteousness. He heard the Tempter's voice when he was introduced once as "pastor of a very successful church." He must have it made with God, in that case! We're tempted to think we're saved by grace... plus a few works of our own. We need to preach the Gospel to ourselves, constantly.

Then he insisted on the rendering "propitiation" in 3:25, quoting Stott that Paul is describing God's solution to the human predicament, which is not only sin, but God's wrath on sin; we must be delivered from both, and propitiation describes how God does that. "God gave Himself to us to save us from Himself."

Then Thomas recited the blessing of Numbers 6:24-26, which ends with "and give you peace." He asked "How?" Because God was willing to say to His Son, "The Lord curse You and drive You out, the Lord make His face darkness towards You and condemn You, the Lord turn His face from You and give you the pains of Hell." This brought me to tears. What a great salvation, what a costly salvation.

Third: implications of justification.
Faith is the suitable instrument for (not cause of) justification. It can boast of nothing. We can't even work it up on our own, God must grant it to us. We are justified by faith alone, apart from works.

Does that make us antinomians? By no means (Romans 3:31). Thomas said the law has a role in the Christian life.

In conclusion: we are not saved because we believe in justification by faith alone. We are saved because we believe in Jesus Christ and His atonement for us.

Dan Phillips's signature

13 March 2009

First Address: The Great Exchange, Jerry Bridges (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

We reconvene at 7:00pm for the "First Address," which is given by Jerry Bridges.

Bridges is well-known to all Pyro readers, I'm sure. He is an Alliance Council member and a staff member of The Navigators Collegiate Ministry. In fact, Bridges has been with The Navigators since 1955. You all know his very helpful books on holiness, godliness, grace, trusting God, and other vital aspects of Christian living.

This was more of the nature of a service, with singing (A Mighty Fortress! and hymns I've never heard of!), call to worship, reading of 2 Corinthians 5:16-21 and all - and then, Jerry Bridges.


Bridges opened by saying that 2 Corinthians 5:21 is his favorite verse. It was the foundation for his message.

First: "He knew no sin." This could be said of none of us, but it can be said of Christ. He perfectly obeyed, and knew no sin in word, thought, or deed. 1 Peter 1:22 says he committed no sin, to which Paul and John agree. The greatest testimony, though, is from Jesus' lips. In John 8, Jesus confronts self-righteous Jews and tells them that they are of their father, the Devil. And in that hostile environment, He dares to ask, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (John 8:46). None could bring a charge that would stick.

Second: "He made to be sin." This truth is under severe attack by so-called evangelicals, which boggles Bridges' mind. See Isaiah 53, another favorite passage — it is the Gospel in the OT. It clearly depicts penal substitution: Christ bore our sin in His own body. 1 Corinthians 15:1ff says Jesus' death for our sins is of the essence of the Gospel.

Why do people evade the plain sense of such passages? Because they bring their presuppositions to the Bible and make it fit, rather than humbling themselves and accepting instruction from God through His word.

In 1962 or 1963, Bridges was serving the Navigators in Holland. Bridges went through some severe personal struggles, and temptations and attacks on top of those ("How can you try to serve, when you're having these temptations?"). Isaiah 53:6 was his lifeline and hope and plea.

Jesus asked if the cup could pass from Him. What was in the cup? Such passages as Psalm 75:8; Isaiah 51:17, 22; and Revelation 14 indicate that it was the cup of the wrath of God. He was going to bear our sins. He'd long known it, and now it loomed. And drink it He did.

The word for that is propitiation, a beautiful and wonderful word. Every first-grader should know it, Bridges insisted. It means to appease. But Jesus did not appease God's anger, He bore it; He exhausted it. It was poured out in full strength on Him.

Third: "so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." As Jesus was not made a sinner in His character and conduct, so neither are we made righteous in character and conduct. That is not Paul's meaning. The exchange is the same. Our sin is transferred and credited to Christ, His righteousness is transferred and credited to us. That is the Great Exchange.

In 1 Peter 1:19, Christ was the lamb without blemish. This harkens back to OT sacrifices, where the lambs which foreshadowed Christ had to be without blemish. Thus He has the perfect righteousness which we need. Everywhere where we failed, Jesus obeyed.

Bridges said to picture a moral ledger sheet with every word, thought, deed and motive entered on that sheet. Most people hope the good will outweigh the bad. The problem is that all of our deeds are stained, all are unclean and impure. There is no such thing as a positive ledger sheet.

Except in the case of Christ. His ledger sheet was perfect. So our ledger sheet was charged to Christ, all our sin; and so His ledger sheet is credited to us.

"Justified" is not "Just as if I'd never sinned." That is a great truth. But the reality is better: "Just as if I'd always obeyed." God has credited the very righteousness of Jesus Christ to every believer.
"Isn't that wonderful? That's the Gospel. That's justification, dear friends."
Dan Phillips's signature

Question and Answer, Richard Phillips and Steven Lawson (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

Now for some Q&A at 2:30pm. They had a huge pile of questions to go through. I'll do the best I can with the fast-moving interchange. [I didn't get them all; the numbering isn't absolute.]

1. Since Augustine and Aquinas had so much right, why did it take so long for the Reformation to happen?

Richard Phillips said the Reformation was, in a real sense, Augustine versus Augustine. Strains of his writing very much anticipated Calvin; other strains did not. Much had to be worked out.

2. What are few of Calvin's misinterpretations and mistakes? What about Servetus?

lawson was expecting this question, and was "loaded for bear." He fired this off like a 50cal:

In 1553, the city fathers burned Servetus - Calvin did not. Calvin did not prosecute him, and had no powers of execution. Calvin wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at the time. Calvin was only an expert witness, and argued for a more humane death. The RCC had already condemned Servetus to death, and Servetus begged not to be sent back to their hands. Servetus was given the option to leave Geneva, and refused. Servetus was executed by civil authorities, not elders or pastors or teachers. The civil authorities were Calvin's enemies, not his supporters. They consulted other cities' leaders, and they agreed to put him to death. Servetus would have been executed, regardless. Servetus defiantly ignored a warning not to come to Geneva. He was the only heretic to be executed for blasphemy, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands martyred by Rome during the Inquisition.

(Lawson did not return to the first part of the question.)

3. What kind of husband was Calvin to his wife?

Phillips recommended a book Idelette, by Edna Gerstner, which is a delight. She was not at all interested in Calvin, but she was urged that he really needed a wife. Phillips says Calvin's letters of grief after Idelette dies are tender and human and touching. She married Calvin for the glory of God, was not in love with him at first. She grew to love him.

4. How should we apply all of Steve's messages about Calvin?

Minister the word of God if you're a pastor; do all you do to the glory of God, whoever you are. This universe is a theater to display the glory of God.

5. [Something about Calvin and reading Bible versus sitting under faithful preaching.]

Of course personal reading is crucial, but we've lost sight of the importance of corporate worship. Phillips made a big pitch for Sabbatarianism. Lawson made a big pitch for reading Spurgeon's sermons, said that they have instructed him on preaching.

6. If John Knox was so influential, why is he buried under a parking lot?

Lawson said it is representative of the times and spiritual condition. It is more a commentary on Scotland than on Knox.

Phillips said a great man for Christ will be greatly despised. It should not surprise us.

7. Would John Calvin fence me off from the table because I am a credo-Baptist?

Phillips said no, but the better question would be whether Calvin would be "fenced off" in Lawson's Baptist church? (He laughed.) Lawson said not only would Calvin not be fenced off, he'd be invited to serve the Lord's Supper. Phillips celebrated the reality that we are united in spite of that difference among us who affirm the doctrines of grace.

8. Is belief in the five sola's and the doctrines of grace sufficient condition to call oneself a Calvinist?

Phillips said "Reformed" will mean covenant theology; Calvinist soteriology will get one named a Calvinist. He is happy to accept people who holds sovereign-grace soteriology even if their covenant theology is weak. ACE draws the line at the sola's, he thinks that has primacy.

9. Did Calvin preach first, or serve communion first?

They didn't know. Host pastor Robert Briggs thought he preached first. Another attender referred to a liturgy that placed the Word first.

10. Did Luther criticize Calvin?

Not that Phillips or Lawson knew; quite the contrary. It was Melanchthon who headed more off towards Arminianism. Luther's sacramentalism is what messed up his soteriological presentation.

11. Do you think that Reformed theology leads to a certain style of preaching and church life - like grave versus joyous, etc.?

Lawson said theology shapes everything. Reformed ministry will be Word-centered.

I submitted three questions, but they didn't get to them. But I'm not bitter! Nope, not me.

Here are two of them:
  1. How would Calvin's approach compare to the call today to "find Christ in all of Scripture"? What I've read of his OT expositions is not particularly bee-line-to-Christ exposition. For instance, Calvin does not see Genesis 3:15 as a particular or specific prophecy of Christ. He wrote, "I interpret this simply to mean that there should always be the hostile strife between the human race and serpents, which is now apparent; for, by a secret feeling of nature, man abhors them."
  2. What distinguishes Calvin's approach to prophetic OT Scriptures from Rome's?
Dan Phillips's signature

The enduring legacy of John Calvin, Steven Lawson (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

Following a lunch break, we reconvene at 1:30pm to consider Calvin's legacy. If he will not have already done so, I'm going in wondering whether Lawson will address the calumnies thrown at Calvin by the haters — including the genuine sticking-points in Calvin's career. Let's see.

Lawson began by reading - with great relish and emphasis - the recent Time magazine singling out "New Calvinism" as one of the ten big ideas changing the world right now. Now Lawson turns to lay out the abiding legacy of Calvin under three heads.

First: a theological standard. We see that in Calvin's God-centered Institutes, in his Commentaries, and particularly in the careful handling of the Word of God in both. Also his legacy endures in tracts, and in the Geneva Bible - which provoked the production of the the King James Version. The Geneva Bible was the first study Bible, and King James' advisors didn't like the God-centered notes. The Pilgrims brought over the Geneva Bible. No individual has surpassed Calvin's theological legacy and standard.

The Synod of Dordt and the Westminster Assembly were both dominated by the God-centered, Biblical doctrine of Calvin.

Second: a Christian worldview. Believers were moved to live out their God-centered convictions in every area of life - not just Sunday morning, but every day of the week, and in every arena. The overriding principle was soli Deo gloria, for the glory of God alone. All must be done with the highest view of the pursuit of the glory of God. Romans 11:36 leaves nothing out: all things originate from God and center on God and refer ultimately to God.

Warfield said no man ever had a profounder view of God than did John Calvin. Everything is subservient to God's glory, and finds its place around that center, that fixed point. Calvin said a man can no more obscure the glory of God than a madman can extinguish the Sun by writing "DARKNESS" on the walls of his rubber room.

When Calvin was gone, Rome set its eye on Geneva. Sadoleto wrote to them, urging them to come back to Rome. The city elders asked Calvin to reply, and he did. Calvin said that the entire issue is over the glory of God. Rome attacks the glory of God, and tries to put man in God's place, by its system of works. Only justification by faith alone brings glory to God, because it alone makes salvation from, through and to God. That was the touchstone, and that was what damned Rome's doctrine.

Calvin wrote (fast as I could type): "It is not very sound theology to confine a man's thoughts to himself and not to let him [have] as the prime motive of his existence zeal for the glory of God. For we are born first of all for God and not for ourselves. For all things flow from him, and subsist in him, as Paul says in Romans 11:36. They ought to be related to Him." More briefly, "We are God's," Calvin wrote.

From this comes a Christian, Calvinistic work ethic, urging us to do all to the glory of God and elevating one's work as a means by which we can bring glory to God. From this also comes education spreading beyond monasteries and nobility. With the founding of the Geneva Academy in 1559, Calvin enfleshed his desire that all Christians be educated with a God-centered worldview. Also law and order in society grew from Calvin's theology, seeing the standard of morality binding on all people.

Also, a free-market capitalism flowed from Geneva. At its heart were the values of hard work, the right of personal property, the right of ownership, investment of capital, necessity of Gods blessing on one's labor, high sense of vocational calling, honesty and integrity, risk-taking and trusting God, nobility of profit-making so that one can give to those who are in lack. Wherever the Reformation went, those became the most prosperous nations.

A reformed church also resulted from Calvin's teaching. This even touched the architecture, shifting from putting the communion table at the center to putting the pulpit at the center, lifting up the Word of God preached. The church was made of the regenerate, and discipline was observed according to Scripture. Calvin proposed the novel idea of a Scriptural worship. Also, politics felt the touch of Calvin's teaching, forming a republican sort of democratic rule, patterned after the elders who ruled within the church.

Third: an international legacy. The first two legacies were to be dispersed among the nations. It spread heavily to France. There were between 1200-2100 Reformed churches with nearly 3 million members, out of 21 million national population, by 1569. Then Scotland also was influenced by Calvin's teaching through John Knox and others. To this day, Knox remains the most influential Scotsman who ever lived. He was educated in Geneva. Also, in England, and Holland, Calvin's influence had an impact. Calvin's friendship with Cranmer, and through Oliver Cromwell, and letters to England's rulers, bore fruit in English society.

In America, the Pilgrims bore a Geneva Bible. Its study notes shaped their thinking. Harvard was established to train Calvinistic ministers for the Gospel. When it fell to Arminianism, Yale was raised up in 1703 as a Calvinistic institution, followed by Brown and Rutgers and Princeton, all founded to train Calvinistic ministers. Greatest spiritual revival in America was the Great Awakening, under those two thundering Calvinists Edwards and Whitfield. The Revolutionary War was known as the "Presbyterian War," because Calvin's principles lay at its base. John Adams freely acknowledged John Calvin's influence of the idea of liberty in the West (see the quotation here).

Also, the American missions movement started with Calvinists, looking for God's elect people in every people and tribe. Then there are seminaries such as Covenant and Westminster, and ministries such as Ligonier and Desiring God, and pastors such as Piper and Mohler, who bear witness to the legacy of John Calvin and his God-centered, Biblical doctrine.

Dan Phillips's signature

The Expository Preaching of John Calvin, Steven Lawson (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

This is the 11:00am session. Lawson (who does not even own a computer, btw) is addressing a subject clearly dear to his heart. You can see a video of Dr. Lawson talking about Calvin as the exaltational, expository genius here.

Calvin was one of the few in Europe who knew Hebrew. He preached from Hebrew and Greek. Preaching was Calvin's "Job #1." The pulpit was his primary duty, and he was an expositor par excellence. Boice said that "Calvin had no weapon but the Bible," and wielding that weapon produced reformation. His preaching had ten distinguishing marks.

First: Calvin's pulpit was Biblical in content. Calvin was "the poster child for sola Scriptura!" Calvin had nothing to say, apart from the Word of God. D'Aubigne said that, to Calvin, if anything didn't have the Word for its foundation, it was futile, and those who'd advocate such should be thrown out of the pulpit. None should use it for his dreams and fancies. Parker said that the message of Scripture was sovereign to Calvin; humility is shown by submitting to its authority. To Calvin, when the Bible speaks, God speaks. There is no separating God from His Word.

Second: Calvin's preaching was sequential in exposition. He preached from start to finish, verse by verse. Not merely sola, but tota Scriptura. No skipping hard sayings and difficult doctrines. There was no hopping around. For instance, Acts was 189 consecutive sermons; Galatians 43, Ephesians 48, 1-2 Thessalonians 46. Genesis was 123 sermons, Deuteronomy 201 (— Lawlor said Mrs. Lawlor would have intervened at some point in that series!), Job 159, Isaiah 353 sequential sermons, Ezekiel 175, Daniel 47, and so forth. Almost all of his sermons were from series on books. Many of these series were going on at the same time, on different days.

Third: direct in beginning.
There was no fluff, no fancy introduction. Calgin just dug in. Beza said Calvin's "every word weighed a ton." No opening joke or illustration. Lawlor read some random opening sentences; they all hit the ground running and hit hard. It established the context and stated the theme.

Fourth: extemporaneous in delivery.
He brought no notes into the pulpit! Did not even have a translation with him: just the Hebrew OT or Greek NT. For years, scholars tried to figure out what translation he was using. He wasn't. He was translating on the fly. Calvin said "It appears to me that there is very little lively preaching," but instead reading from a manuscript. So Calvin preached extemporaneously, to engage his hearers.

Calvin was not dramatic nor personable nor charismatic, yet God used his preaching to effect reform to an unprecedented degree. He had depth of knowledge of Scripture, and blood-earnestness in preaching and teaching it.

Fifth: Calvin's preaching was exegetical in depth. That is, Calvin excavated the authorial intent from the text itself. John Murray put Calvin in the first rank of exegetes of all time. Philip Schaff says Calvin was the founder of grammatico-historical exegesis. Calvin himself said that the author's meaning was chief, and the expositor who strays from that, strays. "Means to me" would not have worked with Calvin. The natural and obvious meaning was the true meaning - that is, the literal meaning (in contrast to the allegorization that characterized pre-Reformation "interpretation"). Substance over style, steak over sizzle, was Calvin's belief. Said nothing was of more importance than "a literal interpretation of the Biblical text."

Sixth: Calvin's preaching was familiar in language.
Calvin's words were straightforward and his sentences simple. That's why we have so much of his material: he was simple to understand. His goal was to make the Biblical text as clear as possible to his hearers. If you really understand it, you can make the text understood. Calvin said preacher was like a father, dividing up the bread so the little children could eat it. He did not parade his intellect and estrange his hearers. Calvin employed metaphors, images, proverbial and colloquial expressions.

Seventh: Calvin's preaching was pastoral in tone.
Calvin never lost sight of fact that his hearers were, many of them, exiles. It was "we" and "us," not merely "you." Calvin would also confront and rebuke from the pulpit, in a fatherly tone. Once, he rebuked the Huguenots, even, saying it would have been better had they remained in France under popery, than to come under the sound preaching of the Word and live as if Scripture does not speak to them. He knew when to thunder.

Eighth: Calvin's preaching was polemic in confrontation.
He preached in times when the truth had to be fought for and defended in sound words. Calvin said the preacher should have two voices: one for gathering the sheep, and one for fending off the wolves. So Calvin would rain fire on Rome as being little different from heathens, but for the names of the idols.

Ninth: Calvin's preaching was evangelistic in passion.
The stereotype of Calvin and Calvinism as killing missions is false and slanderous. "Would to God [that Calvinism] would 'kill missions' as it did in Calvin's day," Lawson quipped pointedly. He proclaimed his hearers all under condemnation, and bid them have no rest until they found rest in Christ alone.

Tenth: Calvin's preaching was God-centered in conclusion.
Virtually every sermon ends with the exact same last paragraph. "Now let us fall before the majesty of our great God, acknowledging our sins, and asking that He would make us increasingly aware of them," that we should shun them and be overwhelmed with the greatness of Christ, and place our trust in Him, and grow in that trust and grace. He lifted the whole congregation coram Deo, before the face of God, leaving them before God to do business with God.

Then Calvin would pray.


Dan Phillips's signature

The Extraordinary Life of John Calvin, Steven Lawson (PCRT 2009 Sacramento)

by Dan Phillips

This session was presented at 9:45am on Friday the 13th. (I'll let you know if hockey masks show up.)

At last, a Baptist! Lawson pastors in Alabama, and is a graduate of Texas Tech University, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Reformed Theological seminary. Dr. Lawson has authored fifteen books. Phillips introduced him heartily, and Lawson took the podium.


Lawson chuckled that Phillips' message left him really wanting to preach the Word — and now he has to do church history! But it is fitting nonetheless, because Calvin was head and shoulders a man of the Word. (And, I'd say, Lawson preached, regardless!)

It is hard to put one's arms around Calvin; it is like putting one's arms around the Pacific Ocean. So Lawson proposed to focus, in his lectures, on three categories, beginning with Calvin's extraordinary life, identifying key components and vital issues. Then we'll treat of Calvin's expository genius, and then Calvin's enduring legacy.

To overlook Calvin's influence is like hiding one's head in the sand. Calvin's influence towers over all. Schaff identifies's the Reformation as the second most important event to Christ's life itself, and at the center of the Reformation stands John Calvin, the greatest theologian since the apostles, and the greatest influence on the church since Peter and Paul. Spurgeon said that, among all those born of women, there has not arisen one greater than Calvin. Lawson defined Calvin's life under eight headings of thought.

First, Calvin was a genuine believer who'd been converted by the true Gospel. He may have encountered the Gospel as he studied Greek. Calvin very seldom talked about himself; most prominently in the preface to his commentary on the Psalms. Lawson dates his conversion at age 24, in 1533. Calvin calls it a "sudden" conversion, in which his previously Popery-enslaved and hardened mind was brought to a teachable frame, vulnerable to God's Word. So Calvin's personal seal, his logo, was a hand holding a heart, reaching up to Heaven. That was Calvin's heart towards God.

Second, a brilliant teacher. People gathered around him immediately. He studied deeply, furthering his previous preparation. Calvin was more of an introvert than Luther, calling himself "bashful" and "loving the shade and retirement," a man who wanted to seek "some secluded corner." Went to settle at Basel after being one year, and at age 25 began writing the Institutes. Spurgeon said that Calvin propounded the truth more clearly than any man who ever breathed, Schaff called him the king of commentators, and John Murray said Calvin was the exegete of the Reformation.

Third, a faithful pastor. Pastored half of his life: 27 years, serving three pastorates, of which two were in Geneva, where he arrived in 1536. Calvin hadn't even sought that position, but was spotted as the author of the Institutes. Farel pled with him to teach, which Farel knew wasn't his own strength. Farel actually brought a curse from God on Calvin, if Calvin did not agree to minister there! So first Calvin lectured, then he pastored, then he began reforming the church — and that's where he got in trouble.

Calvin"fenced the Table," and refused in 1538 to serve the Supper to certain people living in public sin and disgrace. He and Farel were banned from Geneva, and Calvin was okay with that. Now he could just study and write! Ah, but Bucer pressed him to pastor once again, threatening him with Jonah's fate if Calvin refused. He did not. His ministry there was the happiest period of his write. Wrote his first commentary, on Romans; enlarged the Institutes; married a widow.

But then Geneva wrote and begged him to return. Calvin said he'd rather die a thousand deaths than return — but they prevailed, and committed himself to the Lord, though confessing he feared Geneva more than any other place on earth. So, in 1541, he resumed his exposition in the next verse from where he'd left off previously. Calvin's first fourteen years were years of opposition! The Old Guard, the Libertines, Servetus, all opposed him. Then, in 1555, fruit began to show, and he had nine brighter years.

Fourth, a prolific author. The Institutes were published when he was 27, and they grew with revisions from 85,000 to 450.000 words. The commentaries were his largest undertaking; 45 large volumes of over 400 pages each. Got 75% of the Bible done. Sermons and letters were printed; catechisms; confession of faith; devotionals, church order - in all, his collected writings fill 59 large volumes.

Fifth, a zealous reformer. Truth had to have an impact, not remain a theory. When he returned to pastor Geneva, Calvin demanded that they correct the disorder of their lives, banish the prevalent crimes and debaucheries, and IDed the principle enemies of the Gospel to be not popes or tyrants but bad Christians! Wicked lives undo pure doctrine. That is when he listed the marks of a church as pure preaching, ordinances, and church discipline.

Sixth, a visionary educator, establishing the Geneva Academy in 1559. It had a private school and a seminary. Knew the importance of loving God with a renewed mind educated in the Word of God. Had 1200 junior students, and 300 seminarians when he died. John Knox had attended there.

Seventh, a vibrant church planter, very missions-minded. He sent out 88 missionaries from Geneva that were known, but many more not known, for their own safety. His lecture-hall became known as "Calvin's School of Death," because his students were filled with Gospel truth and felt convicted to go back to their Gospel-hating countries to preach and teach it. Back to France his students went, knowing they were going to certain death. Calvinistic teaching took root in France, and the Gospel was published increasingly, with growing fruit.

Eighth, an indomitable worker. Calvin was tireless and unwavering in his focus. Lectured three times a week in the auditorium, consulted with kings and princes by correspondence, received exiles personally and worked with them, met 1x/week with elders and another time with pastors, performed weddings and funerals; and dealt with enemies of Gospel.

He was much-abused in Geneva. Calvin was shot at, threatened, mocked, insulted publicly; once Libertines stormed into church and threatened him with drawn swords, demanding that he serve them Communion - and he refused! Had many health problems including kidney stones, gout, migraines, and many other ailments. He became such an invalid that he had to be carried to the pulpit - but nothing stopped him until death stopped him at age 54, dying in the arms of Theodore Beza. Calvin died with the Psalms on his lips: "How long, oh Lord?"

Beza knew him, and said Calvin gave an example of Christian character that was "as easy to slander as it is difficult to emulate."

Dan Phillips's signature