Aside from updating the pop/tv references, I’m thinking I should add something to my Justification & Salvation Quiz (Have you taken it yet?).

Something like this:

K. What OT Covenant deserves to especially singled out to show those being catechized that “God is the Lord,” and is particularly “our God, and redeemer” because “he is a God in covenant” who delivers us from spiritual slavery?

L. What OT Covenant can be passed over in silence when catechizing people about covenant theology and the doctrines of salvation?

No need for me to supply the answer key, is there?

For further reading:

LAW & GOSPEL IN PRESBYTERIANISM
The Reformed Doctrine Stated & Briefly Vindicated from Scripture

MIXING “LAW” & GOSPEL IN THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE
A Response to Michael Horton

I. The Catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also Catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the Law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

What is a Christian?

Almost invariably, the answer to that question is answered in terms of a list of beliefsa system or teachings or doctrines. A Christian is one who subscribes to the world view commonly labeled “Christianity.”

This common view presents me with a problem.

To understand my problem, imagine driving up to Canada and stopping at restaurant to get a bite to eat. And while you’re sitting at the table, an enthusiastic young man comes over to you and says in an excited voice. “Are you an American?” You reply, “Yes, I am.”

“Wonderful! I have so little fellowship up here with fellow Americans.”

“Have you lived in Canada a long time?” you ask.

“Oh yes, all of my life. I was born here.”

“Oh… So your parents were Americans.”

“No, sadly my parents remained Canadian all their lives.”

“Then how did you become an American?”

“Well, one day I found a tract that told me about American ideas. I was transfixed by their power and adopted them as my own. I was born again, you might say. From that day on I have believed in Americanism. I have memorized all of the Declaration of Independence and portions of the Constitution, and I subscribe to the Congressional Register.”

My problem today in explaining the problem of defining Christians in terms of Christianity is similar to the one you would face in trying to explain to that Canadian the reality of his situation. You would have to tell him that there is no such thing as “Americanism.” America is not an “ism” but an institution. To be an American one must be a citizen of the nation. There may be beliefs which one must hold to be a good American, but being an American is not a matter of holding certain beliefs.

And now I am telling you: Just as there is no such thing as Americanism, there is no such thing as Christianity. The Reformed theologian, Peter Leithart put it well:

The Bible never mentions Christianity. It does not preach Christianity, nor does it encourage us to preach Christianity. Paul did not preach Christianity, nor did any of the other apostles. When the Church was strong and vibrant, it did not preach Christianity either. Christianity, like Judaism and “Yahwism,” is an invention of biblical scholars, theologians, and politicians, and one of its effects is to keep Christians in their proper, marginal, place. It is the death knell of the life of faith and of the life of the body of Christ. The Bible speaks of Christians and of the Church, but to preach Christianity is gnostic, and the Church firmly rejected gnosticism from the earliest days.

Gnosticism was a heresy which taught salvation by knowledge. It is an attractive type of heresy for today. We live in an age of ideologies and ideological religions where people define themselves by virtue of certain ideas they believe. It is popular these days to talk about choosing a “world view” or a “belief system” of a “philosophy.” One can consider Marxism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, humanism, nihilism, hinduism, buddhism, spiritism, transcendentalism, existentialism, pragmatism, theism, atheism and so on. The list of “isms” is endless. But there is no “ism” found in God’s Word, the Bible. What is unfolded for us in Scripture is the history of the establishment, growth, and salvation of the Church, which isas is stated in paragraph two of our Confession”the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God.” We should define a Christian not in terms of subscription to “Christianity” but in terms of incorporation in the Church.

You see, if man’s problem was simply a matter of mistaken beliefs, then all that would be needed for salvation is to correct those mistaken beliefs. But that is not man’s problem, at least not the primary part of it. Man’s problem is that he sinned against God and as a result was disinherited from God’s family and banished from His Kingdom. Adam, according to Luke 3.38 was God’s son. He was also a king under God over creation. He fell away from God’s family and Kingdom, becoming an orphan and an exile. It is impossible to speak of salvation without speaking of the restoration of man to his former standing in the God’s family and kingdom. In other words, it is impossible to speak of salvation without speaking about incorporation into God’s new family and kingdom, the Church.

You will realize this must be true if you think about it for a moment. If you send your child away from the table because he has done something wrong, it makes no sense to go back to him in a few minutes and tell your son that he is forgiven for what he did but that he is still not permitted back to the table. It would be like an emperor condemning his prime minister to exile on a far-away island and later pardoning him but leaving him stuck on the island and giving his office to someone else. It would be a false and useless pardon. Because salvation entails reconciliation and restoration, it entails membership in God’s kingdom and family, the Church.

As Ephesians 1.18-23 spells out, Christ has been given to the Church. If you want to have Christ, you need to be incorporated into the Church, which is Christ’s body (cf. 1 Cor 12.12-13).

Of course, some have tried to get around the Biblical doctrine of the Church by misusing the doctrine of the “invisible Church.” But the invisible Church and the visible Church are not two different churches, but different aspects one and the same Church. What is the relationship between those two aspects of the Church? As the Confession puts it, the invisible Church is what will exist when all of the elect are gathered into One. This includes people who have not even been born yet.

The invisible Church then, is the future Churchthe ideal or eschatological Church. The visible Church is the present Churchthe actual or existing Church. Properly speaking, the invisible Church does not yet exist except as the result in the mind of God which He is planning to bring about as the culmination of history. The invisible Church is the meaning and goal of the visible Church.

It is common to hear, in our circles, that God sees the invisible Church but man sees the visible. This is a very dangerous idea because it causes people to denigrate the institutional Church. When Jesus wept for Jerusalem in Luke 13.34, He was weeping for members of the visible Church of the Old Covenant, who were not members of the invisible Church, because they were going to be excommunicated by GodJerusalem was going to be destroyed. Jesus saw the visible Church and in his tears we see the face of the Father. God cares about the visible Church. So should we.

This means, incidentally, that we should all make sure that we ourselves and our children are members of the visible Church, “out of which,” according to our Confession, “there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” When the Confession states in paragraph 2 that the Church “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children,” we need to not jump to the false conclusion that children are members of the Church by birth. The Confession is presupposing that Christian parents are going to baptize their children. According to Chapter 27 of the Confession, one is admitted into the institutional Church by baptism. Again the Church is not simply a collection of people who all believe the same ideology. The Church is an institution, like a family or nation, which is over and above the individual members of it. Baptism is the rite by which citizenship in the Kingdom is conferred upon both an adult or a child. If you are simply assuming, for yourself or your children, that baptism is simply an optional ritual, then I must warn you that you are on very dangerous ground. God does not impose empty symbols. If you take God’s family and kingdom seriously, you will look to the Church as the place where salvation is to be found for yourself and your children.

[READ MORE]

Almost all these posts have all been written before. I either go and strip out stuff from my former blog or I go cut and paste from Theologia.

This is what I have realized: Having a serious piece of argumentation on the web is simply useless. I have many serious pieces up and no one has offered me any interaction about them. My defense of Norm Shepherd? Vanishing without a trace amid all the alleged “debate.” I could go on and on. The only interaction has been Guy Waters’ hallucinatory “criticism” which he was especially appointed to do so that no one else would have to contaminate their mental hygeine. Static pieces of argumentation are easily suppressible: one merely refuses to read them.

And thus blogging becomes a better means for forcing people to face the truth. Even though an essay can be ignored, there is something irresistable about seeing “What will he say this time?” So I simply find different ways to republish myself as blog entries. Everything I wrote about the righteousness of God came from Theologia. Everything I have recently blogged about imputation or about Rich Lusk is also old news.

Nothing new here. The blog is going to tempt people to adopt the Nietszchean idea of eternal recurrence as I continually recycle remarks ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I just have decided to repeat myself endlessly in the hope that the attraction of controversy will be enough to overcome the aversion to being challenged.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God (Romans 5.6-9; emphasis added).

Doesn’t this mean that we were once sinners but now we’re not? Isn’t that what the text says? In fact, the entire a forteriori argument assumes that it is much more likely to save one who has already been justified and thus no longer counts as a sinner. And that is exactly what Paul has already stated–that one might die for a righteous man but never for a sinner. Since God’s son has died for sinners, much more will he save his saints.

Christians still sin, but the Bible seems to mean something deeper by the term “sinner”–something that it does not use in reference to believers.

Which brings me to another passage:

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7.36-39).

I just heard a preacher use this text to prove to his audience that they must acknowledge that they are sinners in order to be justified. He based this on the negative example of the Pharisee who, he claimed, believed that he wasn’t a sinner. After all, why would he call the woman a sinner unless he believed that he himself was not one?

I find this really frustrating because there is nothing in the text that indicates that the Pharisee believed he was sinless. The term, “sinner,” does not refer to mere sin or depravity. It refers to an unbelieving lifestyle in the worst case, or, in many cases, merely a non-Pharisee. This latter definition is highly problematic and was a source of great contention between Jesus and the Pharisees, but in this story the term is used in an appropriate way. We know this because the first person to use the term to refer to the woman is not the Pharisee but Luke. He is the one who singles out the woman as a sinner in distinction from everyone one else in the story. Probably, she was a prostitute.

Claiming the Pharisee thought he was sinless completely denudes the challenge of this text. It simply leads us all to congratulate ourselves because we were properly catechized. No, Jesus ends up rebuking the Pharisee, not because the Pharisee denied his own sinfulness, but because the Pharisee had an aversion to a prostitute coming into his home uninvited and touching Jesus.

How would you have responded?

Transforming Sermons has posted a couple of valuable links to posts on preaching. Avoiding the Homiletical Hermeneutic is a piece that needs to be widely read by pastors. And this from Theocentric Preaching reminds me forcefully of someone who preached (not lectured, preached) that the fundamental question should not be “What must I do to be saved?” but “What does the Lord require?” Where do people think “me centered” preaching and worship came from anyway?

(By the way, I do realize that a stark opposition between those two questions actually requires a boatload of qualifications. So I’m not endorsing it as the answer to any problem. Nevertheless, I was reminded of it by reading the post. Perhaps the post itself is a better way of addressing the issue. Decide for yourself.)

Here, in his first point, the writer holds N. T. Wright up to a standard that seems quite patently contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But even if the writer’s standard of what counts as an orthodox and Biblical definition of faith were correct, does he show any evidence that Wright has violated it? Here is his evidence:

A noteworthy example is N.T. Wright’s comment on Romans 1:17, where he explains Paul’s statement that “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.” Wright says, “When God’s action in fulfillment of the covenant is unveiled, it is because God is faithful to what has been promised; when it is received, it is received by that human faith that answers to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, that human faith is also faithfulness to the call of God in Jesus the Messiah” (Romans, 425). Here, faith is defined as faithfulness. One of Paul’s burdens in Romans is to distinguish between faith as trusting belief on the one hand and meritorious works on the other. Paul writes, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:4-5). Justifying faith is, for Paul, trust apart from works. Works follow, but faith is distinct from works. The distinction Paul carefully makes, Wright carefully blurs by redefining faith as faithfulness.

This seems to me to be, to say the least, a strained interpretation. Wright has not, in the quotations given above, said that faith is actually some number of works of faithfulness. All he has said is that when one is confronted with the Gospel, one is supposed to believe it. When one hears how God has been faithful in Christ, one ought to trust him. Wright isn’t redefining faith as faithfulness, but the exact opposite. He is saying the only thing God can or will recognize as a faithful response to his message is to believe it and trust oneself to Him. Wright is defining faithfulness as faith. Any response other than faith, other than believing the Gospel, would be unfaithful.

I don’t see the problem.

Typically, I sort of yawn at refutations of prosperity doctrine because I consider it understood as horrendous error. But Carl Truman took the opportunity to dress real pastoral issues. read his post for yourself.

In fact, as once your read it, as yourself, Isn’t Truman simply spelling out the real ramifications of justification by faith alone in Christ alone? In fact, I would suggest that is why we find passages in Romans that say:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation (5.1-11).

and

et you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Note I added emphasis to show a common theme in the two passages, though there are obviously other commonalities. In Romans 8 Paul is finally getting back to what he began to write in 5.1-11.

Notice that the point that “all things work together for good” is not simply a statement on God’s faithfulness and providence; it is a statement on cruciformity. Paul is thinking of the cross. Jesus after all is to be the firstborn of many brethren, firstborn of the dead, as he says to the Colossians. Being justified in Christ means that everything we suffer is not a sign of God’s curse and disfavor but our own adoption and reconciliation to God. We are being treated like sons (Hebrews 12.4ff).

In fact, when Paul recites the litany–tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, sword; death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, height, depth, anything else in all creation–we need to be careful to not assume that Paul means we are saved despite such things. Jesus did not inherit glory despite the cross, but through it. These things occur, all things occurr, for our good and ultimate glory. That is the gospel of the cross. The curse on creation is no really a curse in Christ but a sign of new life: birthpangs.

Jim Jordan:

You are quite right to point to Kline. It is the Klineans who have come up with a novel theology, highly dispensational and only tangentially Reformed. It is they who have troubled Israel with their new and unsupportable notions of merit. The so-called FV is simply an affirmation of historical Reformational and Westminsterian doctrine, and it only appears new to people steeped in either Klinean dispensationalism or Baptistic revivalism.

See also What is going on?

Do this and you will live

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people. (Luke 3.7-18)

Do this and you will live

Luke 10.25 & Luke 18.18

Do this and you will live

Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (John 6.27-29)

Do this and you will live

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2.37, 38)

Do this and you will live

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16.30, 31)

Do this and you will live

As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And I answered, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said to me, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.” Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, “Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.” And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, “Brother Saul, receive your sight.” And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, “The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22.6-16)

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

Q. 101. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?
A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

FOR FURTHER READING

• Paul’s Use of the Decalogue in Ephesians 6.1-3
• The Moral Law Commands Faith in Christ Alone

Someone bought the ESV Psalter through my blog. If you don’t have one you should get one. It is a handy pocket size yet easily legible. It is an incredible prayer help.

Also, The ESV website now has flash audio with a reader for the OT. So you can both listen and read at the same time (this is about the only way I can consistently focus my attention on the Psalms. The reading isn’t as bad as it could be (though the background muzak is the sound of the wicked you are praying against). I have found it really useful.

Except godly examples compel me to admit it is all a “fat blistery lie.” I should have used the Psalter several times today. It was a day that cried out for the Psalms. But instead I kept trying to gut it out or find some way to fix it.

Physician, take your own prescription!