Seven revelations of Ferguson

by Dan Phillips

I was just as happy to have my plans to write on this yesterday curtailed by Frank's post, as I usually am. It gave me a day more to ponder. That done — the ponderation having been ponderously pondered — I'll offer some thoughts, which in intent will be very like those I offered about "the Florida revival." That is, they will be Biblical principles whose application is I think fairly obvious.

Frank's focus was on the undeniable human tragedy. I won't reinvent that wheel, but will focus on other aspects. I hope the posts will be complementary. Don't blame his post for not being mine, nor mine for not being his. Fair enough?

To the seven revelations of Ferguson:

First: men outside of Christ are still hateful and still hate each other (Titus 3:3). Anger simmers not far below the surface. Evolution, real or imagined, biological or social, has changed none of that. No Federal program will fix it, no state or local legislation will fix it. It is a problem of the human heart, which lurks beneath every epidermal hue. Someone needs to propose a solution that transforms hearts. Anyone know of one?

Second: it still is better to gather the facts and hear an array of perspectives before coming to a conclusion (Proverbs 18:17). Some spoke awfully quickly when this situation first made the news. There seemed to be some feeling that immediate conclusions and statements should be made and issued.

One of the problems with this is that, once a public statement has been made, one is reluctant to walk it back publicly. Human nature and human pride make it very hard to retract a dogmatic stance, once publicly adopted. Better to wait longer and say less, than to jump the gun (pun unintended) and say too much.

Third: people ought to stick to what they know (cf. Proverbs 25:14). Being an expert in one area has nothing to do with expertise in others. For instance, one Christian brother who is a bookish conference speaker/author offered this:

E.g. 1) empathetic public resolves, 2) redoubled effort to hire and train minority officers, 3) increased R&D in how to disarm w/o killing.
— John Piper (@JohnPiper) November 25, 2014

To that, an equally-Christian brother with twenty years of actual experience in law enforcement responded:

. @JohnPiper Pastor, please. This statement shows a great deal of ignorance to what life is like behind the badge.
— Tony Miano (@TonyMiano) November 25, 2014

Neither brother, probably, could do what the other does. It might have been well for the former to punt on this question, and stick with Scripture. "A man's got to know his limitations" may not be in Scripture verbatim, but it's sage advice.

As I'm trying to do. I'm a Christian, and I'm a minister of the word of God. If I have expertise, it's there. So I'll endeavor to speak as such.

Fourth: the very best thing parents of all ethnicities can do for their children is (1) repent and believe savingly in Christ (1 John 3:16), (2) advance in His Word as genuine disciples (John 8:31-32), (3) involve themselves in a faithful Gospel-proclaiming, Bible-teaching church (Hebrews 10:24-25), (4) marry before having children and honor the marital bond (Matthew 19:3-9) — and, in that overall context, (5) raise children in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4, among many others). In that context, they will teach their children many indispensable life-lessons. For instance, they will teach their children that

• The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10)
• Therefore they should seek and cultivate and embrace the fear of God from their earliest days (Proverbs 2:1ff.)
• Gangs will appeal to their most vulnerable points, but they must consider their violent end and heed the inscripturated voice of God's wisdom instead (Proverbs 1:10-32)
• Immoral people will sweet-talk them, but by Dad's instruction and God's word they should see right through it (Proverbs 2:16ff; 7:1ff.)
• They should pick godly friends who walk in the fear of God, or else they will come to harm (Proverbs 13:20; 22:24-25)
• They should avoid drunkards (and, therefore, druggies; Proverbs 23:20-21)
• They should study hard in school and learn a profitable skill while children (Proverbs 22:29)
• They should know that what will matter and will reveal their character is not how they see or feel about themselves, but what they actually produce (Proverbs 20:11)
• They should take full responsibility for their own choices and actions, and never blame others for what they choose and do (Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Romans 14:10, 12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:5, 7-8, etc.).
• They should never steal, but instead should be productive and generous (cf. Ephesians 4:28)
• They should respect officers of the law as God's servants, knowing that disrespect for the office is disrespect for God which invites His judgment (Romans 13, especially vv. 1-5)
• If they defy the lawful authority, they should expect God's judgment to fall on them (Romans 13:4-5a).
• If in any of these things they choose to defy God and rebel against Him and His word, they must expect both of their parents to stand with God, and not to make excuses for, coddle, enable, or otherwise try to deodorize their sin (cf. Deuteronomy 21:18ff.)

Fifth: faithful pastors must prescribe and teach these things without prejudice (2 Timothy 2:14; Titus 3:1-2).  What I'm saying won't make the beautiful people love you. They won't. They won't praise you (as a Tweep did John Piper) for being "nuanced." You'll be told you're insensitive, you're ignoring the real problems, you're impractical. But as a minister of the Gospel, you know better. Sin is the problem. Sin is always the problem at some level; and there's only one solution for sin. The Son's blood buys your freedom (Ephesians 1:7), and the Son's word shows you how to live in it (John 8:31-32). 

That's what you have to give. You're not a social engineering genius. You're a servant of God who has His word. Don't set it aside. It applies here.

Sixth: if the issue of racism is ever to be resolved, people will have to stop thinking of bitterness and suspicion and resentment and prejudice as ills that other people really have to get over (cf. Romans 2:21-23; 1 Corinthians 10:12). Now, hear me: If you can read that sentence and think, "Well, he mainly means whites" or "blacks," you know something I don't. I mean people. I mean you, I mean me. I mean every color on the palette.

I've seen this in marriage. Every pastor has. The sure prescription for deadlock, for stalemate, is two people who are willing to change just as soon as the other person changes. You think that doesn't apply here? Mercy.

Seventh: the only real solution for racism is the one God instituted: the cross of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28-29; Ephesians 2:14-22; Colossians 3:11). Astute readers will say, "Some of those verses are about Jews and Gentiles, so they don't apply." To that, first: maybe some of those verses are, but not all; and second, they don't? You think the Cross addresses Jew-Gentile hatred and suspicion and contempt, but not black-white hatred and suspicion and contempt?

There isn't a Federal program that will fix this, or a local one. If one person says, "Let's make it harder for cops to kill people," another will say "Let's make it harder for people to menace cops." And each person will sound like he's enabling some form of sin — either a hypothetical thug's sin against a decent cop, or a hypothetical trigger-happy cop's sin against an innocent teen. You see where this goes? It's all beside the point.

The point is that only God has the answer, and it's the one we find only in His word.

---

Acting unwisely that "grace" may abound?

by Dan Phillips

At CBC the Sunday School class has been a series titled The Bible, Marriage and You. Having Biblically laid the foundation of the meaning of marriage, we turned to focus for several lessons on how singles should approach marriage. As long-time Pyro readers would expect, I made a very impassioned case that Christians should not even toy with becoming romantically involved with non-believers.

Last Sunday we capped that portion of the series, and turned to address marrieds. But before we left our focus on singles, I wanted to deal with one last issue. A great believer in prevention, I wanted to head off a pernicious thought: the person who might say, "But ______ dated an unbeliever, and he got saved!" or even "But ____ married an unbeliever, and she got saved/was a great lady/whatever." In other words, "Sure, maybe it's foolish, maybe it's even sinful, but other people did it and it worked out okay... so what's the big deal, Pastor?"

This is course-charting by anecdote, and it is (to say the very least) a foolish way to live.

As you can imagine, I had some thoughts about this, and I shared them with characteristic daintiness and nuance. Which is to say I fired up the grill and barbecued away, driven by passion and conviction and a lot of care and concern for my dear ones here, as well as intrawebbers. My conclusion was that this whole line of thinking amounted to asking "Why not just continue in sin, that grace might abound?"

And then Monday, I read this, and its (at present) unanimously positive, emotional accolades. Ah, me.

Tullian Tchividjian, now a pastor, admits to having been such an incorrigible 16yo that his father actually booted him out of the house. But Tchividjian continued on a rebellious, ruinous path... and his father fully subsidized it. At one point, after Tchividjian had screwed up a job and lied to his father about what had happened, dad gave him a blank check, no questions asked. Though Tchividjian took advantage of that check, it didn't stop there. Tullian snuck into the family home and committed repeated acts of theft and felony, stealing dad's checks and forging his signature. Dad (a clinical psychologist, or so I read) was aware of his son's crimes, and let him go on (you'll pardon me) unchecked and unconfronted.

But see: it had a happy ending. By all accounts, Tchividjian's now converted, is a good guy and a celebrated and well-positioned preacher of wide renown. So we know it was the right thing to do. Right?

In proof and as a capper, Tchividjian quotes a bunch of directly-relevant Scriptures counseling Christian parents to handle rebellious, criminal dependents in just exactly this manner.

No, I'm kidding. Tchividjian doesn't do anything like that. What he does instead is quote Steve Brown, whose rather appalling teachings about "grace" I've examined at great length elsewhere (here, here, and here).

But it's a feel-good story, and anyone who disagrees can only be cast as a legalist and anti-grace and a hater and a good-story-spoiler and all those awful things. Besides, it's at The Gospel Coalition, so it has to be all right, right? They're all sound there. Right?

Tchividjian's book Jesus + Nothing = Everything received a fair bit of friendly critical pushback, most of which centered around accusations that it fell short of Biblically relating the indicative to the imperative.

Unfortunately, none of the critics I read seemed to know of a single book that presents the Gospel Biblically, highlighting God's saving grace in such a way as to frame the place of God's commands within a grace-fueled walk — a book that does some kind of justice both to both indicative and imperative. It sounded as if they really, really wished that some book Biblically preached up God's sovereign, saving grace, and equally clearly set forth the distinctively sanctifying power of grace. Some book that dealt extensively with Scripture, exalted God and His word, and was broadly accessible. But none of the critics I read could really recommend a single book that did all that. Sadder still, none of the commenters on those reviews seemed to know of such a book, either. Alas.

It is tough critiquing an article like this, as the critics of Tchividjian's book clearly struggled in their criticisms. How do you criticize such a piece, without sounding as if you're criticizing grace — even though it may be a "you keep using that word" situation. If writers or speakers can just say words like "grace" and "love," and let our imaginations roam free, this is what we're likely to come up with. Then particularly if we append the uniquely modern modifier unconditional, and the uniquely modern equation of such love with unconditional enabling and approval, we're well on our way. Add a few heart-tugging anecdotes and a lot of sentiment, and the deal's sealed and on its way to the publisher/conference circuit.

So then when someone tries to point out that the book of Proverbs is still in the Bible, is still breathed out by the God who knows everything about grace and love, and is still profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness; and that Proverbs (to say the least) doesn't lend itself to such amorphous sentimentality and funding of folly and crime... well, he's really asking for it.

And yet.

The call to us is, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15) — not "you will figure out what strikes you as the most gracious, loving thing to do, then pray for it all to work out." Love for God is still, in this church age, to keep His commandments (1 Jn 5:3) — not to pursue what we hope will work, especially if it suits our standards of grace and love, and leave it to God to bring on the happy ending.

And it falls to us who are elders to keep speaking things that befit sound doctrine (Titus 2:1), and insistently to urge our hearers to be eager to do them (Titus 2:15).

Not to do what fits the content our imaginations supply to a Bibley theme, bereft of the Bible's own working out of that theme.

---

Book review — 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, by Thomas R. Schreiner

by Dan Phillips

40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, by Thomas R. Schreiner

(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010; 256 pages)

The meaning and role of Biblical law is a topic of great and regular interest in Christian thought, life, and preaching. Though I'd only read snatches and articles from Prof. Schreiner heretofore, I knew that Jim Hamilton (whose work I admire immensely) counts Schreiner as a mentor. Hence, I welcomed Kregel's provision of a review copy.

In 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, Professor Schreiner very concisely offers a wealth of useful information. The book is laid out in five sections:

Part 1: The Law in the Old Testament
Part 2: The Law in Paul
Part 3: The Law in the Gospel and Acts
Part 4: The Law in the General Epistles
Part 5: The Law and Contemporary Issues

The first and fourth parts are shortest (three questions each), and the second the longest (twenty-two questions, divided into three parts). Schreiner tackles the big ones, such as:

• What Does the Word Law Mean in the Scriptures?
• Was the Mosaic Covenant Legalistic?
• Does the Old Testament Teach That Salvation Is by Works?
• What Does the Expression “Works of Law” Mean in Paul?
• Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Mandatory for Salvation?
• How Should We Understand the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Scriptures?
• Does Paul Teach That the Old Testament Law Is Now Abolished?
• According to Paul, What Was the Purpose of the Law?
• Does Paul Distinguish Between the Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil Law?
• What Is the “Law of Christ”?
• How Should We Understand the Antitheses in Matthew 5:21–48?
• Why Did Paul Circumcise Timothy When He Refused to Circumcise Titus?
• What Does John Mean by Keeping God’s Commands in 1 and 2 John?
• Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?
• Should Christians Tithe?
• What Is Theonomy, or Christian Reconstructionism, and How Should It Be Evaluated?
• What Role Does the Law Have in Preaching?

My intent is to whet your appetite, and urge you to get and read the book, so I'll not be presenting Schreiner's answers to all of those questions. (It's a Golden Rule thing, speaking as an author who's been asked "Please reproduce X from your book so I don't have to get it.")

Readability. Schreiner is, in the overused phrase, a "world-class scholar," yet I find his tone engaging, candid and conversational. He admits to having changed his view from time to time (e.g 67, footnote 7).  Schreiner works hard to keep the reader on the page, not assuming an understanding that may not exist. For instance, before discussing "legalism,"  Schreiner defines it (25), which can be dicey. The prose of the text is also broken up with a number of contentful, helpful tables and charts.

I think many will find the "summary" at the end of each chapter particularly useful. The discussion can be complex, but Schreiner always returns and nicely boils it down for us. A series of "Reflection Questions" also enhances usefulness in study group contexts.

A number of critical truths are excellently-put. For instance, "Faith looks to God's promises and his supernatural work, but law finds blessing through what human beings accomplish" (49). Also, in the context of Christian living, Schreiner emphasizes the dynamic of love — and adds "love also is defined by the content of the commandments so that love does not devolve into sentimentality" (197). Earlier, Schreiner had well said,

Love is like a river that replenishes the human spirit, but moral norms provide boundaries so that the river is not dispersed abroad but retains its strength and power. Because human beings are sinners, they are prone to deceit and may identify as righteous a course of action that is contrary to love. Moral norms stipulate the nature of love, clarifying what is righteous and what is unrighteous. (106)

Good writing and good teaching at the same time. Not as common as one could wish.

Substance. Schreiner isn't at all averse to running athwart common scholarly opinion. For instance, it has been common for decades to say that the Hebrew word tôrâ (commonly "law") means instruction, rather than commands. Schreiner demurs, noting that the term "usually refers to what human beings are commanded to do," though not denying that it can mean more than "commands and prescriptions" (19). I think that hits it right, as I see it as well. In an appendix to the Proverbs book, I say that tôrâ refers to "authoritative instruction that was meant to bring God’s own perspective to bear on daily living" (349). Schreiner's entire chapter on this question (19-23) provides an excellent survey of the meaning of common terms used, packed with plenty of useful citations and specifics.

Unlike the recent reissue of the ZPEB, Schreiner tackles the "New Perspective" at some length (35-64), concluding that its foundation "is not nearly as secure as some claim," and faulting it for being "overly simplistic" in some of its readings of the original documents (39), and noting that "The problem is with what the New Perspective brackets out of Paul's theology" (42).

An annotated bibliography adds to the value, as do indices and (of course, because after all this is a serious book) footnotes.

Sidenote: I notice that Schreiner addresses a number of issues by appealing to "a redemptive-historical standpoint" (175) — that  is, to the location of a text within the flow of redemptive history. In other words, without meaning to put words in Prof. Schreiner's mouth, it is essential to relate a text to its administrative context, to where it falls in the unfolding of God's plan for the ages. Is it in the context of the Mosaic Law, for instance, or of the Law of Christ?

Of course I think that Schreiner is right, and to ignore this is to flatten the text of Scripture and, however unintentionally, to do it violence. Far lesser lights have also argued and developed the hermeneutical importance of this point at some length, though they use another term than "redemptive-historical standpoint." One wonders whether it may not be time to give that (here unnamed) school of thought a little deserved credit for enduring many slings and arrows for arguing for what every bacon-loving Christian has tacitly admitted for millennia.

This is a terrific book and and terrific help. I heartily recommend   40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law to all, and expect to return to it repeatedly in years to come.

---

Don't Mix the Law with the Gospel

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 Warrant of Faith," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 20 September 1863 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

, when will all professors, and especially all professed ministers of Christ, learn the difference between the law and the gospel? Most of them make a mingle-mangle, and serve out deadly potions to the people, often containing but one ounce of gospel to a pound of law, whereas, but even a grain of law is enough to spoil the whole thing.

It must be gospel, and gospel only. "If it be of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; and if it be of works, then it is not of grace, otherwise work is no more work."

---

On the Threefold Division of the Law

by Phil Johnson



    rarely post book reviews here. (Challies does them so well, why should I?) But from time to time I get the urge to feature a book I totally love—or more rarely, to critique a book I really hate.

Today, uncharacteristically, I'm going to take a middle position and recommend a book, but add a few caveats.

The book is From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law, by Philip S. Ross, published last year by the Mentor imprint of Christian Publications.

A book on this subject, showing "the biblical and theological basis for the threefold division" is long overdue. Those who deny any and every distinction between the law's moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects make mincemeat of the New Testament's teaching on the law and its proper uses.

This subject comes up in our comment-threads from time to time, and invariably, someone insists that there is absolutely no valid categorical distinction to be made between one kind of law and another—as if the OT restriction against shellfish were morally equivalent to the restrictions against bestiality.

Of course, I've argued otherwise. Invariably—usually early in the debate—someone will demand a proof-text that explicitly differentiates between moral and ceremonial law in precisely those terms. The biblical rationale for different categories of commandments is not quite that simple, but (I'm convinced), it is nevertheless a necessary deduction that the Hebrew dietary laws don't have the same universal and eternally-binding significance as the laws against blasphemy and idolatry.

Anyway, here's why I need to add a caveat to my recommendation of this book: Despite the promise of the subtitle, Ross begins his argument with an appeal to tradition rather than explicit Scripture or the good and necessary consequence of sound theological logic. His first chapter is titled "A Catholic Doctrine," and his opening words are an appeal to the majority opinion of "the church's most prominent theologians" from East and West, Catholic and Protestant, conservative and liberal, patristic and Puritan—who (Ross says) "throughout history," have either explicitly affirmed the threefold division or "work[ed] within its framework."

To be clear, I don't think that argument is entirely without merit, but it's not a very good starting point for a book promising to deliver "the biblical and theological basis" for what has become (in evangelical circles) a hotly debated point.

By page three, Ross is appealing to the presuppositions of covenant theology—quoting the Westminster Confession on how "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works." And by page 6 he has identified Sabbatarianism as the lynchpin of the threefold division: "Strike out the Sabbath and you also shatter the entire category of moral law and all that depends on it."

Many (perhaps most) who deny the threefold division will actually be put off by those lines of argument after the subtitle's promise that the book will set forth a biblical case.

Besides, the real truth is that the Fourth Commandment presents some interesting and troubling difficulties to the neat bifurcation maintained by those who say (as Ross does on page 2) that "the only laws that are, without exception, ever-binding are the laws of the Decalogue." (In other words, he believes the Ten Commandments and "moral law" are precisely identical.) As a matter of fact, many of the detailed Sabbath restrictions in Moses' law have a ceremonial flavor, and Colossians 2:16 classifies "the Sabbath days" with the law's ceremonial features. I realize Sabbatarians typically dismiss that verse as a reference to special feast-days. But given the fact that lots of non-Sabbatarians (including yours truly) do affirm the threefold division of the law, Ross's emphatic denial that such a position is possible rings somewhat hollow.

Get past the opening chapter, however, and you'll find (for the most part) a thorough, thoughtful discussion of the differences between the law's moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects from a biblical perspective. Overall, the book (weighing in at 370 pages plus back matter) is quite helpful, and I'm happy to recommend it.

I just wish Ross had saved his doctrinaire covenantalism to be used as a kind of punctuation at the end rather than making it the book's opening argument. If you're interested in this subject—especially if you doubt the legitimacy of categorizing the law's precepts—please persevere past the opening ten pages or more.

---

True Religion, Undefiled

More on gospel faith and the proper role of good works in Christian living
by Phil Johnson

ood works are a fruit of justification, not the means of it. But good works are inevitable as an expression of authentic faith. They are the vital signs of spiritual life. "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead" (James 2:26).

To put it another way: having been justified by faith, we are saved unto a life of good works that flow naturally from saving faith. According to Ephesians 2:10, "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

That's not talking about ceremonial, legalistic, or "religious" works—smells and bells, robes and rituals, outward symbolism and formal liturgy. But the "good works" that are the ineluctable fruit and vital expressions of true faith are spiritual qualities like holiness, humility, compassion, selfless expressions of love for one's neighbor, love for Christ, and a particular love for His people.

That is exactly what James 1:27 means: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." James is not suggesting that doctrine doesn't matter. He is not depreciating objective truth. He is not downplaying the content of the gospel message. He is not saying the atoning work of Christ is merely an example for us to follow rather than a vicarious atonement offered to propitiate God. He is certainly not suggesting that if you do enough acts of kindness, it doesn't matter whether you believe in Christ or not.

He is saying that true faith in Christ will inevitably produce works of kindness and love—an overflow of Christ's righteousness. This is an essential, inevitable expression of authentic Christian faith.

Don't miss the vital point: The essence of "true religion" as described by the Word of God is not—and never has been—embodied in altars or animal sacrifices. Its most important expressions are not ceremonies and dietary laws or festivals and priestly institutions. But true religion and undefiled is about real life—everyday life—and a quality of life that reflects the mercy, love, and goodness of Christ in the way we serve and minister to one another.

Not that we have already attained a sufficient righteousness of our own—far from it. As a matter of fact, even our best works are imperfect and therefore worthless for any merit in the sight of God. This cannot be overstressed: our own works play no role whatsoever in justifying us. But every authentic believer has a new heart, new desires, a new love for God and spiritual gifts that enable us to be used by the Holy Spirit in spite of the remnants of sin in our flesh. And we press on toward Christlikeness, because Christ Jesus has made us His own (cf. Philippians 3:12).

In other words, if our faith is truly genuine, there should be some evidence of "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6) somewhere in our lives.

Conversely, when someone verbally professes faith in Christ but his or her personal life and private thoughts are utterly devoid of good works, personal holiness, righteous desires, love for God, and love for the brethren—that person needs to hear and heed 2 Corinthians 13:5: "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!"

In the words of YHWH Himself: "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6).

---

How the law kills self-righteousness

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 "Secret Sins," a sermon delivered on Sunday morning, February 8, 1857, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.



ELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS arises partly from pride, but mainly from ignorance of God's law. It is because men know little or nothing concerning the terrible character of the divine law, that they foolishly imagine themselves to be righteous. They are not aware of the deep spirituality, and the stern severity of the law, or they would have other and wiser notions. Once let them know how strictly the law deals with the thoughts, how it brings itself to bear upon every emotion of the inner man, and there is not one creature beneath, God's heaven who would dare to think him, self righteous in God's sight in virtue of his own deeds and thoughts. Only let the law be revealed to a man; let him know how strict the law is, and how infinitely just, and his self-righteousness will shrivel into nothing—it will become a filthy rag in his sight, whereas before he thought it to be a goodly garment.

---

The soporific scourge of Nomicophobia

by Dan Phillips

Nō´-mĭ-kə-fō´-bē-ə

Derivation: In the NT, the term νομικός (nomikos) is commonly translated "lawyer." Actually in form it is an adjective meaning "law-related, legal." It is most commonly used as a noun in the Gospels to describe men who are expert in the Law of Moses (semantically overlaps grammateus. "scribe"). In forming the English word, I convert the kappa (κ) to "c," as is common in Greek-derived English words (logikos becomes "logical"; kritērion becomes "criterion," etc.).

Meaning: I plan to use this of people who have an irrational (or, at any rate, unbiblical) fear of any sort of external authority or law. We saw it some in the recent posts on God's command that we involve ourselves in local assembly, and the Biblical way a Christian sees his relationship to God.

The manifestation of nomicophobia goes something like this:

1. Cite any part of Scripture a professed Christian doesn't want to hear.
2. Tell him/her that you agree with God: Christians really should believingly obey God's Word.
3. The nomicophobe calls you a legalist.
4. That's meant to end the discussion.
   

It can be an effective argument, because of the elasticicity of the term "legalist."

(Some background understanding on what motivates my observation here might be found in items 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 of the 25 things I've learned.)

I'm often minded of an improbably good scene from an improbable source: the TV series MASH. Yes, I know, I know; and I agree.

But there was a sequence that stuck with me from decades ago. Hawkeye had been ordered by Col. Potter to help a rich-looking Korean woman. Resenting the order, Hawkeye mocked her and Potter and the whole situation — until he found that (IIRC) she ran an orphanage. This revelation changed everything for him.

Afterwards, Hawkeye asked Col. Potter why he hadn't told him more about the situation, so he could understand better.

"Son," Potter replied, "when they pinned these 'colonel' stripes on me, I lost that bone in my head that forces me to explain every order."

God, of course and by definition, has no such "bone," and never did. Read the many laws of Leviticus, and all the "explanation" you generally get (nearly fifty times) is "I am Yahweh."

The should-be backbone of evangelical Christianity is jellified by people who — unlike Christ and His apostles — imagine that every order requires hundreds of words of explanation, qualification, reorientation, and decaffeinization. God forbid we think orders (even divine ones) are meant to be obeyed.

By contrast, Christ clearly felt that His question "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things I say?" (Luke 6:46) was self-explanatory. Paul, apostle of grace, clearly had no hesitation about saying things like "Wives, subordinate yourselves to your husbands" (Colossians 3:18), and "Husbands, love your wives"" (v. 19), and "Flee immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18). Nor did Peter hesitate to say "Love one another strenuously from the heart" (1 Peter 1:22), nor the writer of Hebrews to say "Obey those who lead you, and yield to them" (Hebrews 13:17). Then there's James... well, James. The whole book. Period.

But so many who are so sound in so many ways cannot abide anyone simply agreeing with the apostles, simply affirming God's Word as binding on the conscience and will. Their theory of inspiration measures up the finest ever crafted. Yet their practice? Not so much.

So here's my test of apostolic soundness: if I can't preach and write what the apostles preached and wrote, I'm almost surely doing it wrong.

To be specific: if I can't simply assure someone, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31), I'm doing it wrong. If I can't affirm that salvation is all by grace through faith in Christ, alone/alone/alone (Romans 3-5; Ephesians 2:8-9), I'm doing it wrong. If I can't follow up by telling converts that they should "[perform] deeds in keeping with their repentance" (Acts 26:20), I'm doing it wrong. If I can't affirm that conformity to the word of God is a test of Christian reality (1 John 2:1-6; 3:4-10; 5:1-3), I'm doing it wrong.

In fact, if I can't equally affirm and echo apostolic and dominical commands, promises, assurances, and warnings, I'm doing it wrong.

So in sum and carefully-worded: is calling a Christian to obey God's commands to Christians "legalism"?

Only to nomicophobes.

Sum: the pathological need to explain, or demand explanations of, God's right to issue commands (and expect believing, grace-enabled obedience to them), is not a sign of good spiritual health on any level.

---

What is an "antinomian"?

by Dan Phillips

This might be briefer, less commented-on, and less controversial than its predecessor, on legalism. The word "antinomian" isn't thrown around quite as freely. Maybe because (unlike legalism) it's not much of a dodge to hide behind. You can't get much mileage, when a brother is exhorting you to take the Word to heart on some point, by calling him an "antinomian."

It is, however, misused as a dismissive way of refusing to deal seriously with other Biblically-based positions. If you can successfully label a person (or school) "antinomian"... well, he's bad, and that's that. So you don't need to think too hard about it.

It also is of course properly used of schools that are antinomian; and they are bad. Once again, then, what matters is using the word correctly — which, again, depends on defining it correctly.

So here are some proposed definitions. Note: they all have to do with Christian living, not how to become a Christian. None has to do with how to get saved, but with how to live as a Christian.

By popular usage (and with some overlap), an antinomian is...

1. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey any part of the Law of Moses qua Law-of-Moses
   
2. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey the moral division of the Law of Moses qua Law-of-Moses
3. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey the commands of Christ and the apostles
   
4. Anyone who believes that Christians are not obliged to obey any law
   
5. Anyone who sets the leading of the Holy Spirit in opposition to obedience to any rule or law, whatever the source or location
6. Anyone who sets grace in opposition to obedience to any written word of God
   

As before, in the meta, tell us:

• Which of these have you heard most frequently?
• Which do you think is (or are) accurate and legitimate uses — and on what basis?
• Which do you think are inaccurate and illegitimate — and on what basis?

Again, have at it.

The Rules

posted by Phil Johnson

BlogRules for Our Commenters Welcome to our blog, and you are encouraged to comment, but please observe the rules: Don't expect us to reply to your comments. If one of us feels strongly, he might reply in a blog entry. Though we often do participate in the comments, we make no promise (implied or explicit) that we will reply to other people's arguments or questions. Don't look for us to mud-wrestle with critics in our own blog-comments. Please remember that this is our blog and you are a guest here. You're not a bouncer, a babysitter, or a hired clown. So treat your fellow guests with respect. If someone needs to be escorted off the premises for drunk and disorderly or otherwise antisocial behavior, one of us will do it. Say what you like about us; disagree as strongly as you like; beat us up or slap us around verbally with near-total impunity. But keep within the parameters of Christian civility. We'll automatically delete comments with profane or unwholesome words, including abbreviated or otherwise disguised ones. If you want to charge us with breaching the boundaries of Christian civility, please be specific. Point out the infraction and explain why you think it is unbiblical. General complaints or cheap-shot comments about "tone" and undocumented accusations that someone has been uncharitable will be summarily deleted. On-topic comments only. If you have other stuff to say to one of us, send an e-mail. Keep our friends and families out of it. Certain kinds of deliberately-intrusive criticism targeting our loved ones or other cherished aspects of our off-line personal lives will be deemed grounds for an instant, automatic, and permanent ban. (Such remarks are outside the parameters of Christian civility and therefore a violation of Rule 2. They also violate rule 3 and this one, and therefore constitute a threefold offense. That's sufficient grounds for an automatic instant ban.) Say whatever you like about us (as long as you keep your language clean), and we'll let you post it. Take a cheap shot at one of our friends, wives, children, churches, or places of employment, and you risk being permanently banned without further consideration. If in doubt, apply the strictest possible interpretations of rules 2 and 3. Don't feed the trolls. Break these rules three times and the moderators will automatically delete any further comments you post.