Active Obedience Revisited

by Phil Johnson



've mentioned before that I am a member of the Fellowship of Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE). That organization has a very simple doctrinal statement that is Baptistic and Calvinistic but broad enough to include Sabbatarians and non-Sabbatarians; pre-, post-, and a-millennialists; congregationalist and elder-rule churches; and people of varying opinions on most secondary and tertiary doctrinal issues.

Four or five years ago a question arose within FIRE about the nature of the righteousness that is imputed to those who believe. Is it specifically Christ's righteousness, or is it the righteousness of God generally considered as an ethereal modality? Was Christ's perfect, lifelong obedience as a man born under the law (sometimes referred to as his "active obedience") any part of the righteousness that is imputed to us, or are we saved by His death on the cross ("passive obedience") alone?

What follows is a document I drafted in response to that controversy. If I recall correctly, this document was never formally adopted or published anywhere, because the conflict within FIRE was resolved by a simple appeal to the existing doctrinal statement. But the draft document enumerated several biblical reasons I am convinced Christ's whole life and death—and not His death only—was an essential aspect of the atonement He provided for us. I decided to post the document here because I think lots of Pyro-readers might benefit from the abbreviated outline of key biblical issues related to the question of Christ's active obedience.

As noted in the closing paragraphs below, I'm not entirely happy with the way classic Reformed theology bifurcates the obedience of Christ into two parts. But I'm convinced it is a far more egregious error to adopt any doctrine that suggests our justification simply overthrows or eliminates the relevance of God's law rather than fulfilling it. I also think it is absolute folly to deny that Christ's lifelong obedience to the law has anything to do with the righteousness imputed to those who are united with Him by faith.

Here's the draft document:

FIRE's doctrinal statement explicitly affirms the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the ground of justification: We believe the elect, who are called by grace, are justified in the sight of God on account of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is received by faith alone. Also expressly affirmed in the FIRE statement of faith (under the heading "Christ Our Representative") is the principle of Christ's active obedience, meaning that Christ's whole lifetime of perfect conformity to God's law was an integral part of the vicarious work He did for His people: We believe that God sent His Son into the world, conceived of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, unchangeably sinless, both God and man, born under the law, to live a perfect life of righteousness on behalf of His elect people. (emphasis added) The doctrine of Christ's active obedience is currently under attack on several fronts: It is a favorite target of those who advocate the so-called "New Perspective on Paul" (an increasingly popular position influenced by the writings of Anglican Archbishop N. T. Wright). In 2001 a controversial article by Robert Gundry appeared in Christianity Today claiming "the doctrine that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believing sinners needs to be abandoned." (That article prompted a fine defense by John Piper in his book Counted Righteous in Christ). The principle of Christ's active obedience has long been rejected by many in the mainstream of traditional Scofield/Dallas dispensationalism. Norman Shepherd (whose controversial teaching seeks to modify the standard Reformed definition of sola fide) argues against the role of Christ's active obedience in our justification. And the principle of Christ's active obedience has also lately been renounced by some of the proponents of "New Covenant Theology." FIRE remains committed to the truth that Christ's lifetime of legal obedience was an essential aspect of his vicarious work on behalf of the elect. We affirm this doctrine not because of any doctrinaire commitment to Reformed tradition, creeds, or theological systems, but because we are convinced it is biblical. Here is a summary of some of the chief biblical reasons for holding fast to this doctrine: In Matthew 3:15, Christ explicitly said His baptism was necessary "to fulfill all righteousness." Those who deny Christ's active obedience are in effect claiming that nothing but the absence of sin and guilt is necessary to fulfill all righteousness. Of course, Christ was completely devoid of any sin or guilt; yet He insisted on undergoing John's baptism (symbolic of repentance) in order to "fulfill . . . righteousness." On whose behalf did He submit to this ordinance? Clearly He did not do it for His own sake. He had no need of repentance. But He was identifying with—and substituting for—His people. That is why He rendered an obedience that was by no means obligatory for His own sake, and yet He regarded it as necessary. Romans 10:4 says "Christ is the end ["telos"—the completion or the goal and fulfillment] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." To deny the role of Christ's active obedience is to teach that the law and Christ's relationship to it are utterly irrelevant to the reckoning of righteousness to believers. In other words, those who deny Christ's active obedience are teaching that redemption is accomplished by the setting aside of the law's absolute demands, not by Christ's perfectly fulfilling the law on our behalf. That overturns the clear teaching of Christ in Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Second Corinthians 5:21 teaches that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers in exactly the same sense that our guilt was imputed to Him. In other words, justification involves a double imputation: Just as our violation of the law was imputed to Christ, His fulfillment of the law is imputed to us. Any other view destroys the parallelism of that verse. Romans 5:19 clearly teaches that Christ's obedience is the ground of our righteous legal standing. Since a single act of disobedience makes a person disobedient by definition and sets the full weight of the law against him (James 2:10), the "obedience" of Christ in this context must include the whole course of His lifetime of obedience to God. A host of other verses also make legal obedience (not merely forgiveness) essential to true righteousness. "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us" (Deuteronomy 6:25; cf. Psalm 15:2; 106:3; 119:172; Proverbs 12:17; Isaiah 58:2; Romans 6:16; 8:4; 10:5). The distinction often made between "active" and "passive" obedience does not nullify this point: righteousness and obedience are inextricably linked in Scripture. A perfect righteousness clearly requires something more than just the forgiveness of sin. To deny the role of Christ's active obedience in justification is to distort what Paul meant when he described believers as "in Christ"—united with Him in such a way that our very life is hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3). We are clothed in His perfect righteousness—not merely stripped of our guilt (Isaiah 61:10). Indeed, Christ is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6; 1 Corinthians 1:30). Furthermore, Christ's "righteousness" consists not merely in His sufferings, but in all his actions (1 John 2:29). Philippians 2:8 suggests that Christ's obedience only culminated in His death. The full scope of the obedience He rendered on our behalf was manifest in His whole life, not merely in His dying. See also Romans 8:3-4. Christ became man for us, not for Himself (2 Corinthians 8:9); and therefore the obedience He owed to the law was for us, not for Himself (Galatians 4:4). Scripture teaches that God's own righteousness involves numerous positive elements—His goodness, His love, His mercy, and so on. So God's righteousness (Romans 10:3) is certainly something more than merely the absence of guilt. The law's promise of life to those who obey would seem to be pointless if Christ somehow obtained life for us without obeying the law on our behalf. Why else would the law promise life for obedience (Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11; Luke 10:28)? Note that the law promises life not to the one who suffers, but to the one who obeys. If Christ's active obedience has no relevance to our justification, those promises would add up to nothing but an empty, pointless bluff. The context of Philippians 3:9 makes clear that the ground of the believer's justification is an alien righteousness, not any degree of righteousness we obtain for ourselves. To deny that this is the righteousness of Christ is to diminish His unique role as our proxy, our mediator, and our substitute. There are also several important theological reasons for affirming the role of Christ's active obedience in our justification: Denying Christ's active obedience sets one on a course that inevitably leads to a minimalist, downgraded view of justification. That is why so many of the leading critics of "active obedience" have concluded (quite logically, given the arguments they employ) that nothing positive is imputed to believers at justification. They teach instead that justification is nothing more than the forgiveness of sins, period. That kind of justification would leave believers with no better standing than Adam had before the fall. To portray justification as forgiveness only without any positive imputation is to undermine the biblical doctrine of the atonement. That view actually contains an echo of the Socinian argument, by claiming that merit is unnecessary where you have satisfaction. Some who deny the vicarious efficacy of Christ's active obedience have embraced a principle that is inherently antinomian. The law of God did not need to be fulfilled on our behalf, they say. It was simply overturned and abolished. Thus they relegate the law of God to complete irrelevancy as far as redemption is concerned. Others who deny the vicarious efficacy of Christ's active obedience teach a kind of neonomianism. They make the believer's own legal obedience a condition of final justification. This is a form of works salvation. Justification is a richer, fuller concept than forgiveness. (Christ Himself was "justified in the Spirit"—1 Timothy 3:16.) Justification is a declaration that God regards the believer as fully righteous, perfectly faithful, wholly acceptable to Him. It is not merely an edict that the believer is free from the penalty of sin. To eliminate the declaration of righteousness from our concept of justification (or to tone it down by redefining it as a pronouncement of forgiveness only) is to miss the profoundest aspect of the biblical doctrine of justification (Romans 3:22; 4:6, 11, 22-25; 1 Corinthians 6:11; see also Isaiah 54:17; Daniel 9:24). In effect, any denial of the efficacy of Christ's active obedience renounces the very heart and soul of Reformation theology. For all those reasons we regard any denial of Christ's active obedience as a serious and significant departure from orthodoxy. It diminishes the biblical meaning of justification, waters down the biblical definition of righteousness, and attenuates the biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement. While we see a legitimate distinction that can be made between Christ's active and passive obedience, we deny that these aspects of Christ's obedience can be bifurcated in any way that makes one or the other unnecessary. The righteousness of Christ is a seamless garment. We refuse to divide what should not be divided. When Scripture speaks of Christ's obedience as the ground of our justification (Romans 5:19), it clearly comprises all the obedience He rendered to God (cf. Hebrews 5:8). Therefore it is our strong conviction that Christ's perfect life of obedience as a man was rendered to God on our behalf, and that any denial or diminishing of this truth that is a disavowal of the plain meaning of the FIRE statement of faith.

---

Christian, Be a Nuisance to the World

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Incomparable Bridegroom and His Bride," a sermon preached on Sunday evening, 10 June 1866, at the Met Tab.

hristians, be troublesome to the world! O house of Israel, be like a burdensome stone to the world! You are not sent here to be recognized as honorable citizens of this world, to be petted and well-treated.

Even Christ himself, the peaceable One, said, "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?"

What I mean is this, we are not to be quiet about our religion. The world says to us, "Hold your tongue about religion, or at least talk about it at fit times; but do not introduce it at all seasons so as to become a pest and a nuisance."

I say again, and you know in what sense I mean it, be a nuisance to the world; be such a man that worldlings will be compelled to feel that there is a Christian in their midst.

An officer was walking out of the royal presence on one occasion, when he tripped over his sword. The king said to him, "Your sword is rather a nuisance." "Yes," was the officer's reply, "your majesty's enemies have often said so."

May you be a nuisance to the world in that sense, troublesome to the enemies of the King of kings! While your conduct should be courteous, and everything that could be desired as between man and man, yet let your testimony for Christ be given without any flinching and without any mincing of the matter.

---

Emergent Village Tries to Reboot

by Phil Johnson



ou probably saw the announcement: Emergent Village 2.0 (code name: Village Green: "a generative environment where missional friendships are nourished") is now open for bidness.

Evidently there are still many in the Emergent[ing] movement who hold out the hope that a phoenix will arise from the pyre of that movement's massive failure. The jargon hasn't changed. The priorities are as convoluted as ever. Notice, for example, how the "special letter" includes big categories for "Arts" and "Justice," with no mention whatsoever of Christ, Scripture, or sound doctrine. (I'm prepared to argue that Emergent types generally have no better grasp of—and no more genuine appreciation for—art and justice than they have of sound doctrine, but that's another post.)

It seems all that has really changed is the cast. Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Brian McLaren apparently became too volatile to be the movement's main spokespeople and mascots. Their names are conspicuously absent from the "Special Letter About the Future." Don't be fooled by this. The new steering committee is no more sound, no less radical, and (judging from these new announcements) no less skilled in the jargon of pomospeak than their colorful and controversial former "National Coordinator" was.

It's hard to see anything in the "new" direction that is really distinct or significantly different from what Emergent has said and done in the past, but they do a good job of making it sound like the movement really has something huge and revolutionary to look forward to, don't they?

So let's not retire the Po-Motivators® prematurely, OK?

---

No offense to Dan, but this is Important

by Frank Turk

Congratulations to the young lad who came through much travail, his parents (especially his Mom -- nice work Anne!), his uncles, and especially his Grandparents, who are (according to Phil) now officially "old".

For the record: Darlene's not old. If Phil wants to be old, I say let 'im. It's not the years: it's the mileage.

---

Choice thoughts on choosing

by Dan Phillips

(My thoughts on this Communicating Better post)

To be Biblical, theology at least has to deal with the raw data of Scripture. Any system will have parts it sings with, and parts it groans and sings with — but where you find yourself groaning too heartily, you should take a second look at your system.

I think it's beyond rational debate that the Bible envisions man as by design a deciding creature. "The plans of the heart belong to man," Solomon writes (Proverbs 16:1a), and the word translated "plans" suggests "arrangements." A lot of decisions go into an arrangement: do this, then this, then either this or this, depending on what happens.... This is the assigned lot of man, and rightly so. All over Scripture.

God faces Cain with a choice between doing well and yielding to sin (Genesis 4:7). Through Moses, God presents Pharaoh with a number of choices (cf. Exodus 8:1-2). To the nation, Moses cries, "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Fast-forwarding to the ministry of our Lord, we see many choices laid out, and the ringing command to choose rightly. "Repent," Jesus calls (Matthew 4:17); choose the narrow gate over the deadly broad way, Jesus warns (Matthew 7:13-14); come (Matthew 11:28), go (Matthew 28:19). Choices, choices.

Yet behind and over it all is the sovereign will of God, which is exhaustive and invincible, and which always has both the first and the last word.

So should we be reluctant to use the language of choosing and deciding? Evidently not. The Bible surely does it freely and frequently.

I think where we get hung up is in failing to deal wisely and believingly with Deuteronomy 29:29 — "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

Part of the problem, then, is that we concern ourselves too much with the wrong side of the equation. We gum up a critical difference that this verse reveals.

On the one hand, it is absolutely true that we can't do anything apart from God's sovereign will. We can't live (James 4:15) nor breathe (Daniel 5:23), let alone plan (Proverbs 21:1) nor do (Proverbs 16:9b). His sovereign will is a sure thing, and it is a secret thing.

But how does that rubber meet the road? Does that mean we shouldn't do anything unless we know whether it's God's sovereign will? If that's our chosen path, then evidently it's God's sovereign will that we be useless, pathetic idiots.

We needn't worry about whether God's sovereign will is done or not. It will be! Hel-lo, it's God's will! And it's sovereign! It simply isn't in our power to stop it from being done (Proverbs 19:21; 21:30)!

So look at it this way. If you're leery about telling someone to choose to trust in Christ, or decide for Christ — what would you tell him? Do nothing? Is that Biblical? Tell him not to repent, not to come to Christ, not to believe in Him? Is that Biblical?

But God urges him to do all these things! Isn't that sufficient authority for you and me telling sinners that they should? Isn't Jesus' invitation sufficient grounds for our invitation? If the King Himself invites them to come, commands them to repent, urges them to believe — what greater warrant would you ask?

In fact, isn't it tempting God and rank unbelief to refuse to issue such exhortations and invitations?

And if they tell us that they did in fact decide and choose to trust Christ as Savior and Lord, is it a godly and helpful thing to jump all over them and mock them?

Judging by that last, really-superb meta, I think you worked that one out for yourselves pretty well.

PREVIOUS META RULES DON'T APPLY
NORMAL BLOG-RULES APPLY

---

"But" - "Not" - and "So That"

by Frank Turk

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

It’s another rich passage we find in Titus from Paul this week, dear Pastor reader, so I want to focus on 3 words here which guide us through this passage – and speak so clearly to the work of a pastor that we must, somehow, get a hold of them.

The main action here, praise God, is “he [God] saved us”. This is of course the foundation of Paul’s message to all the churches and people to whom he writes. But look at what he says here: “he saved us not because of works done by us”. Yes, of course, you think – God did not save us because we deserved to be saved. This is what is meant by the next phrase “but according to his own mercy.”

You know: it’s not “mercy” if you actually deserve to be forgiven – if you have been wrongly accused or have somehow paid your own penalty already.

“Not because of works, but by God’s mercy” is the summary statement of the method of the Gospel. And if you’re reading this blog for the first time or something, and you’ve never heard this before, think about the need for God’s mercy in you. Think of your own shortcomings – even if you’re a pretty good person. God didn’t send Jesus for the purpose of dying on the cross because he wanted to make a grand gesture toward people: he did it because people were baby-down-the-mineshaft lost and someone had to go down there and get them.

But dear Pastor reader, consider it: “Not because of works, but by God’s mercy SO THAT being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

The full measure of what it means to be “justified by his grace” and “heirs according to the hope of eternal life” comes up in the next section of this letter, and I know I sort of get boring talking about this, but what Paul is saying here is that somehow we need to be GRATEFUL PEOPLE. Not only did God save us, and not only did God save us not because of our works (meaning: he didn’t save us since our works were so spiffy), and not only was this saving done because God has mercy toward us, but we are now, in his accounting, justified in receiving eternal life.

We are now actually entitled to eternal life because of what God has done for us.

That’s pretty good news, dear pastor – and you could preach that on Sunday in short order. But that’s not half of it, but we are on the verge of the announce of the next generation of Johnson progeny, and I don;t want to have the real preaching get bumped by the happy announcement. We’ll come back to this one next week -- after I win the office pool and Anne & Jedi name the baby "Cornelius Eliasaph Johnson". I was pulling for "Colonel Sanders Johnson", but that seemed too obvious.

---

Communicating better: you don't choose?

by Dan Phillips

As a third in this series-of-indeterminate-length I raise this question:

Are Calvinists obliged to snort, jeer and mock at every use of the verb "choose" (or "decide") where God is not the subject?

This is no more theoretical than the previous ones were. I've seen it. Some poor soul mentions his "decision" for Christ, or an evangelist urges his hearers to choose to trust, or decide to put their faith in Christ... and out comes the Genevan Inquisition.

"Yeah, 'choose.' You 'chose.' It doesn't matter what you chose, because you can't choose. You're dead, unable to choose, unless God chooses you first."

Is that a Biblical way to hear and talk to such people? Is the Bible universally "anti-choice"? Does the Bible teach us that we should call sinners to Christ by telling them that they can't choose Christ, can't decide for Christ, mustn't decide for Christ, shouldn't choose Christ? If some bubbly new professor shares the great news with us that he'd decided to trust Christ, is our most brotherly, Biblical, God-honoring response to mock him and dress him right down as a Pelagian heretic?

You are headed South at full speed. Does the Gospel tell you to turn 'round and head North? Do you decide to do that? Do you decide to abandon all trust in your works and merit and goodness, and put all your faith in Jesus Christ alone? Is it right for us to call people to do that? Is it right for one seeking salvation to do that, to make that decision?

Or is all that really and truly and fatally contrary to the Gospel when understood in its Biblical, monergistic, sovereign-grace terms?

Only two special rules for this thread, and you don't have a choice about them:

1. Strict two-hundred-word limit on all comments. I'll delete, and leave the person's name as a warning to all fellow-travelers.
2. In-house discussion; Calvinists only

As usual, I'll probably mostly hold my thoughts for a followup post.

UPDATE: my thoughts can be found here.

---

The Killing Effect of Socinian Doctrine

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Incomparable Bridegroom and His Bride," a sermon preached on Sunday evening, 10 June 1866, at the Met Tab.

his afternoon, I was reading a sermon by a certain divine, whose subject of discourse was, why the working-classes do not go to a place of worship, and the preacher seems to have made up his mind that, whatever is preached in this Tabernacle, is especially obnoxious to laboring men and women. The reason he gives why the working-classes do not attend places of worship is that we preach such dreadful doctrines.

It is very remarkable that places where these truths are preached are crowded, while places where the opposite things are proclaimed are often empty! It is curious, if the doctrine of the gospel is such a very horrible thing that it drives people away, that at the places where it is preached there are more people than can get in, whereas where some of the modern doctrines are declared, you may see more spiders than people! It is a singular circumstance, certainly, yet one for which we can easily account.

A Socinian minister was once asked by one who preached Evangelical truth, "If I, who proclaim doctrines which you say are obnoxious to common reason, have my place full, and you, who preach such pretty, reasonable doctrines, can get nobody to hear you, do you not think it is because the people have an idea that what I teach is true, and that what you preach, though it is very pleasant and palatable, is not true, and therefore they do not care to hear it?"

It is not by altering our testimony that we are to hope to win an audience, and it is not by hiding the light of the gospel under a bushel that you or I shall discharge our obligations to our Lord. We must speak up for Christ, and so speak up for Him that men will be moved to ask us the question, "What is thy Beloved more than another beloved, that thou dost so charge us?"

---

The Demise of Evangelicalism

Why "neo-evangelicalism" was a monumental mistake
by Phil Johnson



eo-evangelicalism was a movement among evangelicals whose aim was to make evangelicalism seem more intellectually sophisticated and less polemically combative. The movement was strongly influenced by the early drift of Fuller seminary, led by men who were affiliated with Christianity Today and the National Association of Evangelicals, and driven mainly (I think) by a desire for academic respectability, even at the expense of a clear and consistent testimony.

Harold John Ockenga was an extremely influential voice in mid-20th-century evangelicalism. He helped found Fuller Seminary, Gordon Conwell, and the National Association of Evangelicals. He was pastor for many years of Park Street Church in Boston. He also introduced the idea of neo-evangelicalism and proposed that name in a 1948 meeting at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium.

The vision as Ockenga outlined it was driven by three priorities: First, it was a repudiation of fundamentalist separatism. Second, it was a summons to social involvement. And third (in Ockenga's words) it represented a "determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day."

All three aspects of the neo-evangelical agenda had unintended and unfortunate consequences. The deliberate renunciation of separatism, for example, turned neo-evangelicals against their own fundamentalist brethren (in effect erecting an impassible barrier between the two groups) while deliberately opening the door to fellowship and cooperation with non-evangelicals. The call to "social involvement" was frankly ill-defined, and evangelical social involvement never really materialized on any grand scale, unless you count the rise of the religious Right after the 1970s. And the promised "theological dialogue" never really took place on any serious, sustained level. Instead, the movement trivialized and marginalized its own theology.

In the earliest days of neo-evangelical enthusiasm, the movement included prominent leaders like Harold Lindsell, Carl Henry, and Donald Grey Barnhouse, who were qualified and willing to engage in theological dialogue. But by the end of the century, the mainstream of the evangelical movement could hardly care less about theological dialogue. Evangelical megachurches were best known for their pursuit of shallow entertainments and superficial fads. And somewhere along the line, Christianity Today's editorial board apparently came to the conclusion that engagement in theological dialogue meant giving a platform to practically every theological anomaly that came along except the old evangelical orthodoxies.

You hardly ever hear anyone (except fundamentalists) talk about neo-evangelicalism these days, but the fact is that neo-evangelicalism completely overwhelmed and commandeered the entire evangelical movement, and that is the primary reason the movement itself is no longer truly evangelical.

Face it: the evangelical movement that our grandparents and great-grandparents knew is dead. Evangelical principles live on here and there, but the label has been appropriated by people who have no right to it. It has been bartered away by those who promised to be the movement's guardians and mouthpieces—Christianity Today and the National Association of evangelicals being among the chief culprits. But rank-and-file evangelicals are to blame as well, because they were content to abandon their own heritage and run after cheap amusements.

The average American today thinks evangelicalism is a political position or a religious ghetto rather than a set of biblical beliefs.
The task for the remnant who still believe and teach classic evangelical doctrine is to remain faithful and remember that the gospel—not the combined clout of a large politically-driven movement—is the power of God unto salvation.

---

Being careful with this one

by Frank Turk

A couple of weeks ago I singled out the guys at White Horse Inn for their Truly Reformed® chastisement of the necessary consequences of the Gospel. I am sure many of you remember and will never really be the same again, one way or the other.

Now, it turns out I'm a fair guy -- when they do something which is also admirable and mitigates some of the flaws of their excesses, I'm willing to fess up in the same venue which I made the criticisms as well.

I was listening to an older podcast from Horton & Co. from 28 Oct 2008 called "What is a true church?", and at about 30:30 in that podcast, we get the following exchange:

Ken Jones (KJ): Can we go back to “the word rightly preached”? A little more detail in terms of what’s meant …

Mike Horton (MH): Yeah, now we’re getting into too much detail, let’s back up and go to the big picture.

(cross-talk)

Rod Rosenblatt (RR): Basically, what we would all say, I’m sure: the plot line of the Bible is about Rescue by the Messiah.

MH: Genesis to Revelation.

RR: Genesis to Revelation, this is the plotline of the Book.

MH: If you pastor thinks it’s about something else routinely, then the question is, “is the word of God rightly preached?”

KJ: Yeah, ah, like you said, the plot line, Christ as not only the fulfillment of the Scriptures but the center of Scripture. Is all of Scripture about him?

RR: which he said.

KJ: Exactly, and we’ve mentioned it before, but I think Dennis Johnson’s book Him We Proclaim is very helpful in this regard as one of the newer works that talks about preaching Christ from all of Scripture.

RR: Another thing that we’d all insist on: if Christ, if the Gospel is being rightly preached, the Law and the Gospel are not going to be the same.

KJ: Exactly.

RR: We’re going to distinguish them as much, as completely as we possibly can.

MH: They’re both going to be preached.

RR: They’re both going to be preached, and they’re God’s word.

MH: Now, something that I found very helpful on this point, and I think it will be helpful to a lot of our listeners, is – All of the reformers said, now be careful with this one. We’re not saying that is a pastor’s preaching is off, he’s had a really bad month of Sundays, we’re not saying that he’s got a hobby horse that’s goofy, we’re not saying that sometimes he tells too many stories, or we’re not even really saying, “we don’t get enough of the Gospel.” Really what it meant was, the Gospel is denied or not being preached.

KJ: Something instead of the Gospel.

RR: yes, that was the primary thing.

MH: This was really a denial or substitution. This wasn’t someone who is …

RR: … Not quite proficient.

MH: Not proficient in his preaching. Or not faithful even in his preaching.

Kim Riddlebarger (KR): It’s not about bad preaching. It’s about a denial of something, either through a direct statement or through [intentional] omission.

MH: this is important, because I think a lot of people pull the plug on their church attendance or membership or are excessively hard on their pastor or their church because he preached something that they believed to be in error. Or he has repeatedly mentioned something that they think is wrong, or he has this quirky idea about the end time, you know: whatever. Is the Gospel present? The Gospel creates life. If the life-creating Gospel is present, it’s a church.

RR: and we don’t have time to explicate that, but in prior shows we have spent a lot of time on what is the Gospel?

MH: Folks, it’s wonderful to know that the word rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered are, despite all of our differences, the sine qua non of a true church because it is not our action but God’s action that determines the nature of a church.

Now, some of you tuned out of this when Prof. Horton said, "Is the Gospel rightly preached?" about 1/3rd of the way in. But the last 2/3rds is the part you need to confider more fully -- especially the parts about the flaws in your local pastor.

Of particular note should the the one word in this passage in green which I insterted. That's a tickler, and if Kim Riddlebarger didn't mean that, I'd be glad to receive his correction there.

"Is the Gospel rightly preached?" is not half as glib a consideration as many of us make it, people. An big kudos to the WHI team (even if it was a year ago) for making this point in a very specific way.

---

Good-riddance, TNIV; hello, Son of NIV

by Dan Phillips

In my own reading of the NT, I generally read the Greek text; if I'm preaching from the OT, I consult the Hebrew.

If I want an English translation, I generally use the ESV. If I want a commentary, I use a commentary.

Or the NIV.

A few years back, They unrolled a misbegotten version called Today's New International Version (TNIV). WORLD called it the "stealth Bible," for good reason. It was marketed in sneaky ways.

Though a laundry list of Big Names said glowing things about it, it apparently hasn't caught on, which is a very good thing.

I went through the Proverbs TNIV, and the notes I enter in my beloved BibleWorks contain many tut-tuttings over their renderings. The most frequent is to this effect: "Again, TNIV pluralizes the singulars to fit its agenda." That refers to the translators' fad-driven, politically-correct decision to turn singular verses (i.e. 26:16a — "The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes") into plurals ("Sluggards are wiser in their own eyes"). Without textual warrant, the excuse offered is that a sluggardly woman who is reading will be too stupid to see herself in the verse because the standard English device of "he" is used. We're to picture her snorting "Whew! That ain't me!" and popping another Bon-Bon into her mouth.

This results in many atrocious changes of meaning, such as Psalm 1:1-2, which is transformed into —

Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but who delight in the law of the LORD
and meditate on his law day and night

There is no lack of clarity in the original text. The TNIV paraphrasts simply take it to themselves to "improve" it, by changing it.

Gallons of ink (literal and virtual) were spilled trying to rationalize such changes. Thankfully, it never did catch on with most Bible-believers, and now it has been announced that the TNIV is being round-filed. Notable luminaries such as Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler have responded positively, and more will come. This subluminary also is happy to hear it.

So now the NIV will be updated, and Douglas Moo confirms that the translators are welcoming input and suggestions.

Do I have any suggestions? Oh, I have a few, off the top of my head. They're all serious, in case anyone wonders.

1. God is not "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named." Call God by His name when the Holy Spirit does. God moved the writers of the Hebrew Old Testament to call Him "Yahweh" over 6800 times. Anyone believing in the plenary, verbal (hel-lo?) inspiration of the Bible should do the same, eschewing the superstitious practice of unbelievers who try to be holier than God by refusing to do what He commanded to be done. (I may have shared this thought previously once or twice... or three or four times, or more.) It's disgraceful that only one-man versions, a Roman Catholic version, or cultic versions honor the text-as-given in that regard, while supposedly VPI-accepting translators persistently don't.
   
2. Never, ever pluralize a singular. The men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit (as you and I are not) knew how to use plurals as well as singulars. When they don't, you don't.
3. Be much more cautious and conservative in dropping conjunctions for the sake of "smoothness." It is true that Hebrew uses the waw conjunction much more frequently than English can easily bear. However, conjunctions reveal the writer's logical progressions. Sometimes they are interpretively significant (as with the kai ["and"] which begins Matthew 17:1, dropped by the TNIV and other versions.) They should only be dropped when absolutely necessary... and even then, I'd wish some note of their presence could be made.
   
4. Resist the temptation to substitute commentary for translation. It tempts the pride to "correct" ambiguities in the text, but it is more respectful to the text to leave them there for believer-priests to wrestle with. To select one should-be-beyond-argument example, take Paul's use of "flesh." Every English reader knows that word. What does it mean? The answer to that is interpretive. To render it "sinful nature" as NIV does removes the text's own ambiguity and makes a decision for the reader. Don't.

There. I said "a few." I welcome you to share your own, particularly if you have some training in Hebrew or Greek.

NOTE: KJV-only folks (as opposed to those who simply prefer the KJV) are not invited to this discussion. We know what you think, and frankly, it is one alternative for which I (to speak as kindly as I can) have no respect.

---

In which I put my hand over my own mouth

by Frank Turk

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

Since I am not hardly an example of this, Dear Pastor Reader, I leave this to your own reflection and consideration.

---

All religions really do lead to God

by Dan Phillips

Do all religions lead to God?

Up to a few weeks ago, I would have emphatically answered "No." But now I've changed my mind.

The light flicked on as I listened to a really fine sermon preached by theologian Robert Reymond, titled "God's Immeasurable Love." Reymond made the shocking statement that all religions really do lead to God.

In this sermon, Reymond revisited the verse that featured very conspicuously in how the Lord saved me: John 14:6.

Reymond stressed Jesus' exact words: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Other religions will bring you to God. Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam — they'll all eventually bring you to God. Mormonism, Christian Science, paganism, animism, and Roman Catholicism will bring you to God. Every practitioner of every religion created by man and/or demon will, by that religion, be brought to God.

But none of those religions will bring us to God as "Father"!

They will bring us to God as Judge. They would bring you and me, clothed in the unspeakably filthy rags of our human works (Isaiah 64:6), without excuse, hopeless, guilty and doomed (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Matthew 12:36; Acts 17:31; Romans 1:20, 32; 2:16; Revelation 20:11-15), falling continually and infinitely short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

The only way to God as Father is through the Lord Jesus Christ. Born again by the sovereign grace of God (John 1:12-13), adopted as sons of God through Christ (Ephesians 1:7), blessed with the spirit of adoption whereby we can cry out "Abba! Father" (Romans 8:15), which is the Spirit of God's own Son sent into our hearts (Galatians 4:6).

All religions lead to God — for damning judgment.

Only through Jesus Christ can we approach God as Father.

---

The Devil's Shifting Tactics

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Snare of the Fowler," a sermon on Psalm 91:3, delivered Sunday morning, March 29, 1857, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.

t was once said by a talented writer, that the old devil was dead, and that there was a new devil now; by which he meant to say, that the devil of old times was a rather different devil from the deceiver of these times. We believe that it is the same evil spirit; but there is a difference in his mode of attack.

The devil of five hundred years ago was a black and grimy thing well portrayed in our old pictures of that evil spirit. He was a persecutor, who cast men into the furnace, and put them to death for serving Christ.

The devil of this day is a well-spoken gentleman: he does not persecute—he rather attempts to persuade and to beguile. He is not now so much the furious Romanist, so much as the insinuating unbeliever, attempting to overturn our religion, while at the same time he pretends he would make it more rational, and so more triumphant. He would only link worldliness with religion; and so he would really make religion void, under the cover of developing the great power of the gospel, and bringing out secrets which our forefathers had never discovered.

Satan is always a fowler. Whatever his tactics may be, his object is still the same—to catch men in his net. Men are here compared to silly, weak birds, that have not skill enough to avoid the snare, and have not strength enough to escape from it. Satan is the fowler; he has been so and is so still; and if he does not now attack us as the roaring lion, roaring against us in persecution, he attacks us as the adder, creeping silently along the path, endeavoring to bite our heel with his poisoned fangs, and weaken the power of grace and ruin the life of godliness within us.

---

Shall We Show Deference to False Pastors?

by Phil Johnson



I know I'm about 18 hours overdue with this blogpost, but I'm jet-lagged, busy, and preoccupied with a stack of more urgent things. Thanks for your patience.


Just now I was doing some reading in preparation for a message on Sunday, and I picked up one of my favorite sources of pithy comments on the gospels—J. C. Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (vol 2). In his comments on John 10, Ryle makes a Pyro-worthy observation regarding "our Lord's strong language about the false teachers of the Jews. . . ." Ryle writes:

Those who think that unsound ministers ought never to be exposed and held up to notice, and men ought never to be warned against them, would do well to study this passage. No class of character throughout our Lord's ministry seems to call forth such severe denunciation as that of false pastors. The reason is obvious. Other men ruin themselves alone: false pastors ruin their flocks as well as themselves. To flatter all ordained men, and say they never should be called unsound and dangerous guides, is the surest way to injure the Church and offend Christ.

Talk amongst yourselves.

---