WHEREAS, We are, every one of us, sinners against God and, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, deserving of only condemnation (Romans 3:23; 6:23); and
WHEREAS, The gospel is the good news of salvation that reveals who Jesus is, what He has done, and why it matters (Mark 16:15; Romans 1:16; 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4); and
WHEREAS, Repentance and faith in the finished work of Christ brings believers into right standing with God through the blood and righteousness of Jesus (Mark 1:15; Romans 4:5); and
WHEREAS, The power of the gospel transforms believers (Romans 1:16) so that we are able to put sin to death and to pursue holiness (Romans 6:8-22); and
WHEREAS, The hope of the gospel assures us of life beyond death through the promise of resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14); and
WHEREAS, The value of the gospel shows us the relative poverty of the love of money and the pursuit of worldly success (Acts 8:20-22); and
WHEREAS, The stewardship of the gospel has been entrusted to us by our Lord Jesus Christ in His Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 9:16-17); and
WHEREAS, The grace of God in the gospel grants salvation to anyone and everyone who believes, regardless of who the person is or what the person has done (Ephesians 2:8-9); and
WHEREAS, Apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no salvation (Acts 4:12); and
WHEREAS, The Great Commission Resurgence conversation has prompted Southern Baptists to a heightened awareness of the vast scope of lostness in our communities, across our nation, and around the world; and
WHEREAS, Any claim to personal self-righteousness or racial supremacy stands in contradiction to the gospel of free grace in Christ alone (Galatians 2:21; 3:27-28); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, call on Southern Baptists to reaffirm our commitment to the supremacy and centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our churches; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to keep the gospel foremost in every sermon they preach, so that the whole of Scripture and every aspect of life can be seen in the context of how every promise of God finds its “Yes” (2 Corinthians 1:20) in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage churches in preaching, teaching, and discipleship to proclaim the gospel to unbelievers, showing them how to find peace with God, and to proclaim the gospel to believers, that through the renewing of our minds we might continually be transformed by the gospel; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge churches to display the gospel by transcending ethnic, racial, economic, and social barriers due to our unity in Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage our churches to celebrate the gospel through the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, teaching our congregations the joy of the gospel therein; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we recommit ourselves to the glory of the gospel by greater faithfulness to the Great Commission both in personal witness and in sending more gospel workers to the unreached peoples of the world; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge churches and individual believers to study, identify, and act upon the lostness of their communities, the nation, and the world; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage each church to support its pastor as he leads personally in ongoing Great Commission involvement, both locally and globally; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we commit to speak to the outside world as those who are forgiven sinners, who have received mercy as a free gift, and not as those who are morally or ethically superior to anyone (1 Corinthians 1:27-31; 4:2-7); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we seek to live as those who have been rescued by the gospel, evidenced by forgiving our enemies, setting aside personal offenses, crucifying selfish pride, breaking down carnal divisions, and loving one another joyously, counting others as more important than ourselves; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we pray that God would pour out His Spirit to make us truly gospel-centered, gospel-saturated people whose lives and words point the world to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
D.A Carson on the Gospel and Social Action
Carson on the Gospel and Social Action
Posted by Andy Naselli
Last school year a group of students at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School asked D.
A. Carson to speak to them on “The Gospel and Social Action.” Carson obliged on March 25, 2009, and I just uploaded the 60-minute MP3 to the D. A. Carson MP3 archive. (The recording is rather poor; it sounds like someone from the audience recorded it from their seat.)
Here are some notes I took while listening to it (some direct quotations but mostly paraphrase):
Preliminary Observations
1. Historical Perspective
• It is useful to remember those instances in history when the gospel has so been promulgated and lived out that huge transformations in society took place. It is also useful to remember what happened in the wake of those transformations.
• Many today who are becoming interested in the interrelationship of the gospel to broader doing-mercy-type deeds tend to run the stereotypes like this: “The previous generation came down either on the social-transformation side or on the gospel-fidelity side, and we want to put together both.” These stereotypes don’t work. Do not get yourself in the place where you are thinking self-righteously about those who have come before you. It’s so easy for any generation to start saying, “They did it this way wrong and this way wrong, but we’ve got it right.” Avoid casting what you’re trying to do on the background of a stereotype in which everybody else has got it wrong. It’s not good for you spiritually, and it’s not fair historically.
2. There are organizations today that turn on both their statements of faith and vision of ministry.
• For example, there may be an astonishing diversity among churches that share the same tight statement of faith (e.g., churches within the PCA).
One Main Point (Fleshed Out in a Variety of Ways)
The fundamental issue conceptually is not only what we are doing but how we configure the undergirding structure of thought. (The fundamental issue is not necessarily about how we use our time, money, priorities, imaginations, etc.—that’s related but it’s a differentiable feature.)
Explanation:
1. Is social justice “part and parcel of the gospel”?
• When I was first approached to speak to this group, part of the memo said this: “Faith Alive is a group that has a desire to engage in discussion about social-justice issues and discuss how compassion- and justice-ministries are part and parcel of the gospel.”
• If the document had said “how compassion- and justice-ministries are part and parcel of biblical mandates,” I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. But when you say they “are part and parcel of the gospel,” then I want to know what you think the gospel is and how you find out.
• Brian McLaren has argued that an essential part of the gospel is what Jesus makes out to be the first and second commandments (love God and your neighbor).
2. The moniker “transformation of self and society” brings with it a whole nest of related questions that are at the definitional level.
• What is the gospel, and how do we find out about it? Is the gospel simply anything that you think is mandated by Scripture? How do you establish the pattern of biblical thought? If you think that anything is “biblical” provided you can attach a proof-text to it, then, of course, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, those who want to discount any attachment to social-justice issues, and those who want to pour all their eggs into the social-justice basket are “biblical.” The very meaning of “gospel” is news, great news, that must be proclaimed. It is good news about what God has done through Christ.
• Many thoughtful theologians have rightly distinguished between the gospel and the effects of the gospel. Is transforming local public schools “gospel-ministry”? Not if you’re going to use “gospel” in the sense in which the NT does. But that’s different from distinguishing it as part of the effects of the gospel: we do good because we have been transformed and care for other people who are made in the image of God. But if you call this “gospel-ministry,” the long-term effect tends to be that we lose what the NT says is the gospel. The gospel gets so diluted that it becomes a Christianized moralism and nothing more.
• Illustration: The film Amazing Grace (about William Wilberforce) was brilliant in some respects, but do you know what was wrong about the film from beginning to end? The film casts Wilberforce as deliberating between vocational ministry (e.g., preaching) or freeing the slaves; after he chooses the latter, the film depicts the rest of his life with all the Christian elements moved to the background, and freeing the slaves thus is the gospel (for him). Historically, that is international-class rubbish of the first order. Wilberforce was a gospel-person all his life. That’s what drove him. He certainly did not confuse the gospel with freeing the slaves (one of the inevitable transforming effects of the gospel).
3. There are all kinds of entailments to that.
• For example, when The Gospel Coalition Council Members were finalizing their foundational documents, they opted not to say something like, “We are concerned to save people’s souls and also to reduce suffering in this life.” Instead they affirm something like this: “We are concerned to save people for time and eternity and to reduce suffering in this world and the next.” The reason is that if you make a bifurcation at that point (i.e., so reducing suffering has to do only with this life), then somehow you don’t see the danger of the suffering in the next life.
• That does not mean that you have the right to save souls—get people out of hell—but don’t care if they starve to death or if there is social injustice. But equally, it is not Christian to be very concerned that they get enough food in their tummy without ever talking about the gospel: “get them fat before we send them to hell.”
• Illustrations: The ministries of Sandy Willson and Tim Keller.
4. The issue is not whether we should do good deeds. The issue is how to configure the undergirding structure of thought. It’s not just a theoretical matter.
What This Looks Like in Practice
1. What do you dream about? What is of central importance to you? What are you passionate about?
2. This has a bearing on your use of time.
• If you become so consumed with genuine physical needs that you don’t have time for gospel proclamation, then you’re losing the gospel.
3. This has a bearing on whom you influence.
• Students learn only a small part of what you teach them. They learn what teachers are excited about, what they talk about all the time.
• If you merely assume the gospel while being excited about implications of the gospel, then the next generation may not even assume the gospel. Keep central what is central.
4. It is wise and important to address the relief of suffering, but put it on an entire scale, namely, relief of suffering both in this life and the life to come.
• One way to preserve such a gospel-focus is to “preach hell”; that is a good test of whether you are interested in relieving suffering for time and eternity or whether your focus is on relieving suffering now. And if you preach on hell, those who are interested in only the social gospel won’t want to have anything to do with you.
5. When you speak of “the transformation of self and society,” you have to ask what you mean by that.
• In terms of doing good, there can be some sort of transformation of culture.
• But on the other hand, it is important to remember that that must not be set up as an absolute for Christians.
• For example, try to convince the leaders of the underground church in Saudi Arabia that they must transform the culture in this way!
• Unless you are a strong and dogmatic postmillennialist, the aim of the Christian is not the transformation of society.
Posted by Andy Naselli
Last school year a group of students at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School asked D.
A. Carson to speak to them on “The Gospel and Social Action.” Carson obliged on March 25, 2009, and I just uploaded the 60-minute MP3 to the D. A. Carson MP3 archive. (The recording is rather poor; it sounds like someone from the audience recorded it from their seat.)
Here are some notes I took while listening to it (some direct quotations but mostly paraphrase):
Preliminary Observations
1. Historical Perspective
• It is useful to remember those instances in history when the gospel has so been promulgated and lived out that huge transformations in society took place. It is also useful to remember what happened in the wake of those transformations.
• Many today who are becoming interested in the interrelationship of the gospel to broader doing-mercy-type deeds tend to run the stereotypes like this: “The previous generation came down either on the social-transformation side or on the gospel-fidelity side, and we want to put together both.” These stereotypes don’t work. Do not get yourself in the place where you are thinking self-righteously about those who have come before you. It’s so easy for any generation to start saying, “They did it this way wrong and this way wrong, but we’ve got it right.” Avoid casting what you’re trying to do on the background of a stereotype in which everybody else has got it wrong. It’s not good for you spiritually, and it’s not fair historically.
2. There are organizations today that turn on both their statements of faith and vision of ministry.
• For example, there may be an astonishing diversity among churches that share the same tight statement of faith (e.g., churches within the PCA).
One Main Point (Fleshed Out in a Variety of Ways)
The fundamental issue conceptually is not only what we are doing but how we configure the undergirding structure of thought. (The fundamental issue is not necessarily about how we use our time, money, priorities, imaginations, etc.—that’s related but it’s a differentiable feature.)
Explanation:
1. Is social justice “part and parcel of the gospel”?
• When I was first approached to speak to this group, part of the memo said this: “Faith Alive is a group that has a desire to engage in discussion about social-justice issues and discuss how compassion- and justice-ministries are part and parcel of the gospel.”
• If the document had said “how compassion- and justice-ministries are part and parcel of biblical mandates,” I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. But when you say they “are part and parcel of the gospel,” then I want to know what you think the gospel is and how you find out.
• Brian McLaren has argued that an essential part of the gospel is what Jesus makes out to be the first and second commandments (love God and your neighbor).
2. The moniker “transformation of self and society” brings with it a whole nest of related questions that are at the definitional level.
• What is the gospel, and how do we find out about it? Is the gospel simply anything that you think is mandated by Scripture? How do you establish the pattern of biblical thought? If you think that anything is “biblical” provided you can attach a proof-text to it, then, of course, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, those who want to discount any attachment to social-justice issues, and those who want to pour all their eggs into the social-justice basket are “biblical.” The very meaning of “gospel” is news, great news, that must be proclaimed. It is good news about what God has done through Christ.
• Many thoughtful theologians have rightly distinguished between the gospel and the effects of the gospel. Is transforming local public schools “gospel-ministry”? Not if you’re going to use “gospel” in the sense in which the NT does. But that’s different from distinguishing it as part of the effects of the gospel: we do good because we have been transformed and care for other people who are made in the image of God. But if you call this “gospel-ministry,” the long-term effect tends to be that we lose what the NT says is the gospel. The gospel gets so diluted that it becomes a Christianized moralism and nothing more.
• Illustration: The film Amazing Grace (about William Wilberforce) was brilliant in some respects, but do you know what was wrong about the film from beginning to end? The film casts Wilberforce as deliberating between vocational ministry (e.g., preaching) or freeing the slaves; after he chooses the latter, the film depicts the rest of his life with all the Christian elements moved to the background, and freeing the slaves thus is the gospel (for him). Historically, that is international-class rubbish of the first order. Wilberforce was a gospel-person all his life. That’s what drove him. He certainly did not confuse the gospel with freeing the slaves (one of the inevitable transforming effects of the gospel).
3. There are all kinds of entailments to that.
• For example, when The Gospel Coalition Council Members were finalizing their foundational documents, they opted not to say something like, “We are concerned to save people’s souls and also to reduce suffering in this life.” Instead they affirm something like this: “We are concerned to save people for time and eternity and to reduce suffering in this world and the next.” The reason is that if you make a bifurcation at that point (i.e., so reducing suffering has to do only with this life), then somehow you don’t see the danger of the suffering in the next life.
• That does not mean that you have the right to save souls—get people out of hell—but don’t care if they starve to death or if there is social injustice. But equally, it is not Christian to be very concerned that they get enough food in their tummy without ever talking about the gospel: “get them fat before we send them to hell.”
• Illustrations: The ministries of Sandy Willson and Tim Keller.
4. The issue is not whether we should do good deeds. The issue is how to configure the undergirding structure of thought. It’s not just a theoretical matter.
What This Looks Like in Practice
1. What do you dream about? What is of central importance to you? What are you passionate about?
2. This has a bearing on your use of time.
• If you become so consumed with genuine physical needs that you don’t have time for gospel proclamation, then you’re losing the gospel.
3. This has a bearing on whom you influence.
• Students learn only a small part of what you teach them. They learn what teachers are excited about, what they talk about all the time.
• If you merely assume the gospel while being excited about implications of the gospel, then the next generation may not even assume the gospel. Keep central what is central.
4. It is wise and important to address the relief of suffering, but put it on an entire scale, namely, relief of suffering both in this life and the life to come.
• One way to preserve such a gospel-focus is to “preach hell”; that is a good test of whether you are interested in relieving suffering for time and eternity or whether your focus is on relieving suffering now. And if you preach on hell, those who are interested in only the social gospel won’t want to have anything to do with you.
5. When you speak of “the transformation of self and society,” you have to ask what you mean by that.
• In terms of doing good, there can be some sort of transformation of culture.
• But on the other hand, it is important to remember that that must not be set up as an absolute for Christians.
• For example, try to convince the leaders of the underground church in Saudi Arabia that they must transform the culture in this way!
• Unless you are a strong and dogmatic postmillennialist, the aim of the Christian is not the transformation of society.
The Pastor and the Community by Mark Dever
These are Mark Dever’s notes from last year’s Sovereign Grace Pastor’s Conference. There are many insightful points here. I imagine some will say “Yeah, but…” in places or want to tweak some of these points, but that’s because Mark has taken care to be clear, which is beneficial whether you agree with every point or not. This kind of thinking is necessary as evangelicals continue to wrestle with everything from social justice to the mission of the church. The post is long, but it rewards careful reading. Go here for the audio.
*******
35 somewhat overlapping statements as a pastor to pastors concerning the topic of the congregation’s responsibility for its wider community
1. We should have more passion for and compassion for God than for people.
2. We should have hearts of compassion for all people because they’re made in God’s image (Prov. 14:31), and because we ourselves have known such undeserved generosity from God (Luke 6:32-36; II Cor. 8:8-9; James 2:13). It is a privilege to be of service to any human being. And it is a joy to reflect something of God’s own character in this, including His concern for justice (Isa. 1:17; Dan. 4:27), and especially to reflect the sacrificial love of Christ. In this sense ministries of compassion and justice which provide to people what they cannot provide for themselves are wonderful signs of the Gospel of Christ giving Himself for us.
3. Suffering is an inevitable part of this fallen world. Poverty, war, famine, death, and other tragic effects of the Fall will not be ended except by the bodily, visible return of Christ, (e.g., Mark 14:7; Jn. 12:8; Rev. 6:1-11). The Heavenly City comes down, it’s not built up, that is, it’s not constructed from the ground up (Heb. 11:10; Rev. 21). It is as one-sided as Creation, the Exodus and the Incarnation, the Cross & Resurrection, and Regeneration of the individual heart. It is a great salvation-act of God. If human culture can ever be said to be redeemed, it will be God that does it, not us.
4. The Gospel’s main thrust is not the renewal of the fallen structures of this world, but rather the creation of a new community composed of those purchased by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 5). It is only through the fulfillment the promise of forgiveness of our sins and acceptance with God that all of God’s other promises are fulfilled. We must always be clear in our teaching that the joy of God’s presence is superior to all the goods of this world.
5. No Gospel that tells Scripture’s sweeping narrative that culminates in the coming of the kingdom but neglects to tell individuals how they can be included in that kingdom is any true Gospel.
6. Scripture gives us no hope that society will be broadly and permanently transformed by the preaching of the Gospel. (See Matt. 24:21-22, 29).
7. Individual conversions can have profound effects for good on people, not only in eternity, but in this life, too.
John Wesley observed in 1787 that “I fear, wherever riches have increased . . . the essence of religion, the mind that was in Christ, has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality; and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches. How then is it possible that Methodism, that is, the religion of the heart, though it flourishes now as a green bay tree, should continue in this state? For the Methodists in every place grow diligent and frugal; consequently they increase in goods. Hence, they proportionably increase in pride, in the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life. So, although the form of religion remains, the spirit is swiftly vanishing away. Is there no way to prevent this? this continual declension of pure religion? We ought not to forbid people to be diligent and frugal; we must exhort all Christians, to gain all they can, and to save all they can: this is, in effect, to grow rich! What way then, I ask again, can we take that our money may not sink us to the nethermost hell? There is one way, and there is no other under heaven. If those who gain all they can, and save all they can, will likewise give all they can, then the more they gain, the more they will grow in grace, and the more treasure they will lay up in heaven,” (Tyerman, vol. III, p. 520).
True or False? While conservative Christians are often said to be more concerned about “saving souls,” religious liberals give a significantly larger proportion of their income to alleviating poverty and meeting the needs of the downtrodden and underprivileged. False. Conservative evangelicals tend to give more to the poor than religious liberals. (See Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Sept. 1998; also Robert Wuthnow’s Acts of Compassion [1993].) Many individual conversions have resulted in personal reformations and particular social improvements. And we hope will result in good effects in this world.
8. Since the Fall, the trajectory of unredeemed human history—the City of Man—is always in the Bible to judgment (the Flood, Babel, Canaan, Egypt, Jerusalem, Babylon, Rome & then Rev. 19). (Not quite as universal as gravity, but seemingly as inevitable in its overall tendency.)
9. The Heavenly City in Scripture, though clearly having some continuity with our own age and existence (Rev. 21:24), is presented as arriving only after a radical disjunction with our current history, including the judgment of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 102:26; Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; 51:6, 16; 65:17; 66:22; Matt. 5:18; 24:29, 35; I Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3:10-13; I John 2:17; Rev. 6:12-14; 21:1). The material world is to be restored only after something like we experience in death, before we are to be bodily resurrected. This is why Jesus told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world. . . . But now my kingdom is from another place,” (John 18:36). Christ’s kingdom will come to this place (Acts 1:6-8), though when He comes, He will renew this place (Rom. 8:21).
10. We should have a desire to see non-Christians know the common blessings of God’s kindness in providence (e.g., food, water, family relations, jobs, good government, justice). Actions to this end are appropriate for Christians and for congregations.
11. Temporary institutions are still worthy of sincere Christian attention, thought, energy and action. (Think about marriage, for instance . . . .) Our teaching must not Platonically devalue this world as if we can discern better than Scripture what is of “eternal value.” We’re to do whatever we do “unto the Lord,” (Col. 3:17).
12. We should have a desire to see all people saved.
13. Our priority to unbelievers is the verbal proclamation of the Gospel, which alone can address the greatest part of human suffering caused by the Fall, and which is the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), which is, in turn the fulfillment of the Greatest Commandments (Mark 12:29-31; cf. Gal. 6:2) which, in turn, interprets the heart of any cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28). As Tim Keller says, “Evangelism is the most basic and radical ministry possible to a human being,” (“The Gospel and The Poor,” Themelios [33.3; Dec 2008], p. 17).
14. After the Fall, note that the cultural mandate is not uniquely given to the people of God, but to humanity in general (e.g., note the cultural advances in the line of Cain—building a city, raising livestock, music, metal-working [Gen. 4:17, 20-22]).
15. We, as a congregation, are not required to take responsibility for the physical needs in the unbelieving community around us. We do have a responsibility to care for the needs of those within our congregation (Matt. 25:34-40; Acts 6:1-6; Gal. 6:2, 10; James 2:15-16; I John 3:17-19) though even within the church, there were further qualifications (e.g., II Thess. 3:10; I Tim. 5:3-16). Paul’s counsel to Timothy (in I Tim. 5:3-16) about which widows to care for seems to indicate that the list was intended for Christian widows. One qualification seemed to be lack of alternative sources of support. Thus the instruction that family members should care for the needy first, if at all possible, shows the kind of prioritization of allowing for families—even of unbelievers—to provide support so that the church wouldn’t have to do it (I Tim. 5:16). We can extrapolate from this to conclude that support that could be provided from outside the church (for instance, from the state) should be preferred over using church funds, thus freeing church funds to be used elsewhere.
16. We should use historical examples and arguments for taking responsibility for our communities with care. Most people in the European past had established churches (also true many places in America before the 1840’s). Therefore the example of Calvin, the puritans, Edwards, etc. is less directly applicable than may first appear. They were not in modern pluralistic societies with large groups of people calling themselves non-Christians.
17. Many texts which seem to promote the idea of taking responsibility for our community’s physical well-being (e.g., Micah 6:8, Matt. 25, Gal. 6 & I John 3) are about our charity to members of the covenant community, believers, not non-Christian members of the community at large.
18. We are not forbidden from choosing to alleviate physical needs outside our congregation as a witness to the Gospel (e.g., providing computers to local schools, disaster relief, etc.). (contra a wrong idea of the spirituality of the church)
19. We have the freedom to choose particular actions for the welfare of our community as a witness to them directly, or more remotely by cooperating with other congregations and Christians in the formation of denominations, educational institutions, and a great variety of boards, charities and other organizations.
20. We should never mistake social action or mercy ministries (e.g., caring for the poor, soup kitchens, etc.) for evangelism (though it may be a means to it).
21. We should expect our members to be involved in a wide variety of good works (Prov. 19:17; 21:3; Luke 10:25-37; Acts 9:36; Heb. 13:1-3; James 1:27), some of which we may choose to hold up as examples to other members. This can be done without leading the congregation as a whole to own or support those particular ministries (whether by congregationally funding or staffing them). We personally can set an example of care for others. So John Wesley “began the year 1785, by spending five days in walking through London, often ankle deep in sludge and melting snow, to beg 200 pounds, which he employed in purchasing clothing for the poor. He visited the destitute in their own houses, ‘to see with his own eyes what their wants were, and how they might be effectually relieved.’” Wesley was 81 years old! (L. Tyerman, Life and Times of Wesley [Harper & Bros; 1872], III.458).
22. We as pastors must make sure that matters of secondary importance should not absorb our attention and energy to the detriment of our primary charge to preach the Gospel.
23. Our exposition of God’s Word should certainly equip our members by applying Biblical teaching to issues which are (or should be) of current concern, e.g., poverty, gender, racism, justice (cf. Isaiah 1:10-17). This teaching, however, should normally be given without seeming to commit the church to particular policy solutions to problems affecting the wider community. For example, Christian preachers could strenuously advocate the abolition of slavery without spending their sermons laying out how specifically it was to be done. We can speak to ought’s without untangling all the how’s.
24. We should warn our congregations about the dangers of accumulating wealth. Many Christians throughout history have read the Bible as being more suspicious of wealth than we modern American Christians seem to be. Everyone from Augustine to Wesley has written eloquently of the dangerous gravity of wealth, and the worldly pull it can have on our hearts. Such teaching need not cause us to reject careful financial planning, but it should cause us to be more vigilant, more wary and even suspicious of wealth than we tend to be. We should give fresh attention to cautionary passages like Matt. 6:21, Luke 12:34, I Tim. 6:17-19 and James 5:1-6. According to the Bible, wealth can be more spiritually dangerous than poverty.
25. We must carefully prioritize the responsibilities unique to the church. Matters like a concern for education, politics, and mercy ministries for those beyond the church’s membership are proper concerns for Christians to have, but the church itself is not the structure for addressing such concerns. They are the proper concern of Christians in schools, governments, and other structures of society. In fact, if such concerns came to be the focus of the church, they could potentially distract the church from its main and unique responsibility, that of incarnating and proclaiming the gospel. “To the church is committed the task of proclaiming the whole counsel of God and, therefore, the counsel of God as it bears upon the responsibility of all persons and institutions. While the church is not to discharge the functions of other institutions such as the state and the family, nevertheless it is charged to define what the functions of these institutions are . . . . To put the matter bluntly, the church is not to engage in politics. Its members must do so, but only in their capacity as citizens of the state, not as members of the church,” (John Murray, “The Relation of Church and State,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 1 [Banner of Truth, 1976], 255). We want to protect the practice of evangelism, and the priority of evangelism in the life of the local church. We never want to allow our congregation’s activity in caring for the needs of the community to diminish, or encroach upon the priority of the Gospel.
26. We must beware of dividing the church unnecessarily over non-essential issues in which we involve the congregation (e.g., nuclear disarmament, constitutional amendments, particular art outreaches or ministries in the community).
27. We must be aware of the deadly distraction such good deeds have been to earlier generations. (e.g., the Social Gospel movement; NB ancient examples like Council of Rome in 826 establishing schools at cathedrals was done in a context where the assumption was they were serving the baptized. NOT an example of reaching out to those we take to be unconverted with physical charity.)
28. We must ask ourselves and others whether or not we are more excited by and about the Gospel, or other, secondary issues, and if others perceive this in our ministry.
29. We must be on guard against the preference many of our own members (perhaps especially younger ones, or ones with more theological doubts) may have for doing ministry which is valued by unbelievers. Matt. 5:13-16 and I Peter 2:11-12 that speak of unbelievers seeing our good deeds and praising God must be understood along with promises of persecution for following Christ, (e.g., Matt. 24:9; II Tim. 3:12) and remembering that Christ Himself was finally rejected by the crowds and executed. Certainly popularity in our community is a poor guide to faithfulness in ministry.
30. We must carefully consider the amount of our members’ time, vision, excitement and prayers we are encouraging to be occupied by actions non-Christians might do, when non-Christians will never be giving themselves to evangelizing our community (or beyond).
31. We must beware the popular “share the Gospel, and if necessary use words” mindset. Similarly, the Gospel is, properly speaking, preached, not done (though our actions can certainly affirm it, e.g., John 13:34-35 [even here it is interesting to note that it is our love for one another that is said to point to the Gospel!]). Social ministry done by the church should be self-consciously engaged in with the hope, prayer and design of sharing the Gospel. J. Gresham Machen wrote that “material benefits were never valued in the apostolic age for their own sake, they were never regarded as substitutes for spiritual things. That lesson needs to be learned. Social betterment, though important, is insufficient; it must always be supplemented by God’s unspeakable gift,” (J. Gresham Machen, New Testament, ed., John Cook, pp. 345-346).
32. We must allow some latitude between pastors on differing judgment calls on the particulars of some of these secondary issues (e.g., how to oppose abortion; how much they would cooperate with non-evangelicals in social ministries, etc.)
33. We must be aware of the attraction to join our church certain non-gospel activities may cause (e.g., music, a school, certain community-help programs) and we must redouble our carefulness in only taking in members who understand the Gospel and give evidence of regeneration.
34. In our duties as under-shepherds, we want to protect our flock from the well-meaning writings and teachings of those who emphasize their role of making a difference in the culture. Those individuals may be uniquely gifted and called, but it is not a Biblical model for the local church.
35. We must not be naïve in this. We should realize that the priority of evangelism is always one of the most difficult things for the pastor to maintain in his own life and in the congregation’s ministry.
*******
35 somewhat overlapping statements as a pastor to pastors concerning the topic of the congregation’s responsibility for its wider community
1. We should have more passion for and compassion for God than for people.
2. We should have hearts of compassion for all people because they’re made in God’s image (Prov. 14:31), and because we ourselves have known such undeserved generosity from God (Luke 6:32-36; II Cor. 8:8-9; James 2:13). It is a privilege to be of service to any human being. And it is a joy to reflect something of God’s own character in this, including His concern for justice (Isa. 1:17; Dan. 4:27), and especially to reflect the sacrificial love of Christ. In this sense ministries of compassion and justice which provide to people what they cannot provide for themselves are wonderful signs of the Gospel of Christ giving Himself for us.
3. Suffering is an inevitable part of this fallen world. Poverty, war, famine, death, and other tragic effects of the Fall will not be ended except by the bodily, visible return of Christ, (e.g., Mark 14:7; Jn. 12:8; Rev. 6:1-11). The Heavenly City comes down, it’s not built up, that is, it’s not constructed from the ground up (Heb. 11:10; Rev. 21). It is as one-sided as Creation, the Exodus and the Incarnation, the Cross & Resurrection, and Regeneration of the individual heart. It is a great salvation-act of God. If human culture can ever be said to be redeemed, it will be God that does it, not us.
4. The Gospel’s main thrust is not the renewal of the fallen structures of this world, but rather the creation of a new community composed of those purchased by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 5). It is only through the fulfillment the promise of forgiveness of our sins and acceptance with God that all of God’s other promises are fulfilled. We must always be clear in our teaching that the joy of God’s presence is superior to all the goods of this world.
5. No Gospel that tells Scripture’s sweeping narrative that culminates in the coming of the kingdom but neglects to tell individuals how they can be included in that kingdom is any true Gospel.
6. Scripture gives us no hope that society will be broadly and permanently transformed by the preaching of the Gospel. (See Matt. 24:21-22, 29).
7. Individual conversions can have profound effects for good on people, not only in eternity, but in this life, too.
John Wesley observed in 1787 that “I fear, wherever riches have increased . . . the essence of religion, the mind that was in Christ, has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality; and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches. How then is it possible that Methodism, that is, the religion of the heart, though it flourishes now as a green bay tree, should continue in this state? For the Methodists in every place grow diligent and frugal; consequently they increase in goods. Hence, they proportionably increase in pride, in the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life. So, although the form of religion remains, the spirit is swiftly vanishing away. Is there no way to prevent this? this continual declension of pure religion? We ought not to forbid people to be diligent and frugal; we must exhort all Christians, to gain all they can, and to save all they can: this is, in effect, to grow rich! What way then, I ask again, can we take that our money may not sink us to the nethermost hell? There is one way, and there is no other under heaven. If those who gain all they can, and save all they can, will likewise give all they can, then the more they gain, the more they will grow in grace, and the more treasure they will lay up in heaven,” (Tyerman, vol. III, p. 520).
True or False? While conservative Christians are often said to be more concerned about “saving souls,” religious liberals give a significantly larger proportion of their income to alleviating poverty and meeting the needs of the downtrodden and underprivileged. False. Conservative evangelicals tend to give more to the poor than religious liberals. (See Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Sept. 1998; also Robert Wuthnow’s Acts of Compassion [1993].) Many individual conversions have resulted in personal reformations and particular social improvements. And we hope will result in good effects in this world.
8. Since the Fall, the trajectory of unredeemed human history—the City of Man—is always in the Bible to judgment (the Flood, Babel, Canaan, Egypt, Jerusalem, Babylon, Rome & then Rev. 19). (Not quite as universal as gravity, but seemingly as inevitable in its overall tendency.)
9. The Heavenly City in Scripture, though clearly having some continuity with our own age and existence (Rev. 21:24), is presented as arriving only after a radical disjunction with our current history, including the judgment of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 102:26; Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; 51:6, 16; 65:17; 66:22; Matt. 5:18; 24:29, 35; I Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3:10-13; I John 2:17; Rev. 6:12-14; 21:1). The material world is to be restored only after something like we experience in death, before we are to be bodily resurrected. This is why Jesus told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world. . . . But now my kingdom is from another place,” (John 18:36). Christ’s kingdom will come to this place (Acts 1:6-8), though when He comes, He will renew this place (Rom. 8:21).
10. We should have a desire to see non-Christians know the common blessings of God’s kindness in providence (e.g., food, water, family relations, jobs, good government, justice). Actions to this end are appropriate for Christians and for congregations.
11. Temporary institutions are still worthy of sincere Christian attention, thought, energy and action. (Think about marriage, for instance . . . .) Our teaching must not Platonically devalue this world as if we can discern better than Scripture what is of “eternal value.” We’re to do whatever we do “unto the Lord,” (Col. 3:17).
12. We should have a desire to see all people saved.
13. Our priority to unbelievers is the verbal proclamation of the Gospel, which alone can address the greatest part of human suffering caused by the Fall, and which is the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), which is, in turn the fulfillment of the Greatest Commandments (Mark 12:29-31; cf. Gal. 6:2) which, in turn, interprets the heart of any cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28). As Tim Keller says, “Evangelism is the most basic and radical ministry possible to a human being,” (“The Gospel and The Poor,” Themelios [33.3; Dec 2008], p. 17).
14. After the Fall, note that the cultural mandate is not uniquely given to the people of God, but to humanity in general (e.g., note the cultural advances in the line of Cain—building a city, raising livestock, music, metal-working [Gen. 4:17, 20-22]).
15. We, as a congregation, are not required to take responsibility for the physical needs in the unbelieving community around us. We do have a responsibility to care for the needs of those within our congregation (Matt. 25:34-40; Acts 6:1-6; Gal. 6:2, 10; James 2:15-16; I John 3:17-19) though even within the church, there were further qualifications (e.g., II Thess. 3:10; I Tim. 5:3-16). Paul’s counsel to Timothy (in I Tim. 5:3-16) about which widows to care for seems to indicate that the list was intended for Christian widows. One qualification seemed to be lack of alternative sources of support. Thus the instruction that family members should care for the needy first, if at all possible, shows the kind of prioritization of allowing for families—even of unbelievers—to provide support so that the church wouldn’t have to do it (I Tim. 5:16). We can extrapolate from this to conclude that support that could be provided from outside the church (for instance, from the state) should be preferred over using church funds, thus freeing church funds to be used elsewhere.
16. We should use historical examples and arguments for taking responsibility for our communities with care. Most people in the European past had established churches (also true many places in America before the 1840’s). Therefore the example of Calvin, the puritans, Edwards, etc. is less directly applicable than may first appear. They were not in modern pluralistic societies with large groups of people calling themselves non-Christians.
17. Many texts which seem to promote the idea of taking responsibility for our community’s physical well-being (e.g., Micah 6:8, Matt. 25, Gal. 6 & I John 3) are about our charity to members of the covenant community, believers, not non-Christian members of the community at large.
18. We are not forbidden from choosing to alleviate physical needs outside our congregation as a witness to the Gospel (e.g., providing computers to local schools, disaster relief, etc.). (contra a wrong idea of the spirituality of the church)
19. We have the freedom to choose particular actions for the welfare of our community as a witness to them directly, or more remotely by cooperating with other congregations and Christians in the formation of denominations, educational institutions, and a great variety of boards, charities and other organizations.
20. We should never mistake social action or mercy ministries (e.g., caring for the poor, soup kitchens, etc.) for evangelism (though it may be a means to it).
21. We should expect our members to be involved in a wide variety of good works (Prov. 19:17; 21:3; Luke 10:25-37; Acts 9:36; Heb. 13:1-3; James 1:27), some of which we may choose to hold up as examples to other members. This can be done without leading the congregation as a whole to own or support those particular ministries (whether by congregationally funding or staffing them). We personally can set an example of care for others. So John Wesley “began the year 1785, by spending five days in walking through London, often ankle deep in sludge and melting snow, to beg 200 pounds, which he employed in purchasing clothing for the poor. He visited the destitute in their own houses, ‘to see with his own eyes what their wants were, and how they might be effectually relieved.’” Wesley was 81 years old! (L. Tyerman, Life and Times of Wesley [Harper & Bros; 1872], III.458).
22. We as pastors must make sure that matters of secondary importance should not absorb our attention and energy to the detriment of our primary charge to preach the Gospel.
23. Our exposition of God’s Word should certainly equip our members by applying Biblical teaching to issues which are (or should be) of current concern, e.g., poverty, gender, racism, justice (cf. Isaiah 1:10-17). This teaching, however, should normally be given without seeming to commit the church to particular policy solutions to problems affecting the wider community. For example, Christian preachers could strenuously advocate the abolition of slavery without spending their sermons laying out how specifically it was to be done. We can speak to ought’s without untangling all the how’s.
24. We should warn our congregations about the dangers of accumulating wealth. Many Christians throughout history have read the Bible as being more suspicious of wealth than we modern American Christians seem to be. Everyone from Augustine to Wesley has written eloquently of the dangerous gravity of wealth, and the worldly pull it can have on our hearts. Such teaching need not cause us to reject careful financial planning, but it should cause us to be more vigilant, more wary and even suspicious of wealth than we tend to be. We should give fresh attention to cautionary passages like Matt. 6:21, Luke 12:34, I Tim. 6:17-19 and James 5:1-6. According to the Bible, wealth can be more spiritually dangerous than poverty.
25. We must carefully prioritize the responsibilities unique to the church. Matters like a concern for education, politics, and mercy ministries for those beyond the church’s membership are proper concerns for Christians to have, but the church itself is not the structure for addressing such concerns. They are the proper concern of Christians in schools, governments, and other structures of society. In fact, if such concerns came to be the focus of the church, they could potentially distract the church from its main and unique responsibility, that of incarnating and proclaiming the gospel. “To the church is committed the task of proclaiming the whole counsel of God and, therefore, the counsel of God as it bears upon the responsibility of all persons and institutions. While the church is not to discharge the functions of other institutions such as the state and the family, nevertheless it is charged to define what the functions of these institutions are . . . . To put the matter bluntly, the church is not to engage in politics. Its members must do so, but only in their capacity as citizens of the state, not as members of the church,” (John Murray, “The Relation of Church and State,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 1 [Banner of Truth, 1976], 255). We want to protect the practice of evangelism, and the priority of evangelism in the life of the local church. We never want to allow our congregation’s activity in caring for the needs of the community to diminish, or encroach upon the priority of the Gospel.
26. We must beware of dividing the church unnecessarily over non-essential issues in which we involve the congregation (e.g., nuclear disarmament, constitutional amendments, particular art outreaches or ministries in the community).
27. We must be aware of the deadly distraction such good deeds have been to earlier generations. (e.g., the Social Gospel movement; NB ancient examples like Council of Rome in 826 establishing schools at cathedrals was done in a context where the assumption was they were serving the baptized. NOT an example of reaching out to those we take to be unconverted with physical charity.)
28. We must ask ourselves and others whether or not we are more excited by and about the Gospel, or other, secondary issues, and if others perceive this in our ministry.
29. We must be on guard against the preference many of our own members (perhaps especially younger ones, or ones with more theological doubts) may have for doing ministry which is valued by unbelievers. Matt. 5:13-16 and I Peter 2:11-12 that speak of unbelievers seeing our good deeds and praising God must be understood along with promises of persecution for following Christ, (e.g., Matt. 24:9; II Tim. 3:12) and remembering that Christ Himself was finally rejected by the crowds and executed. Certainly popularity in our community is a poor guide to faithfulness in ministry.
30. We must carefully consider the amount of our members’ time, vision, excitement and prayers we are encouraging to be occupied by actions non-Christians might do, when non-Christians will never be giving themselves to evangelizing our community (or beyond).
31. We must beware the popular “share the Gospel, and if necessary use words” mindset. Similarly, the Gospel is, properly speaking, preached, not done (though our actions can certainly affirm it, e.g., John 13:34-35 [even here it is interesting to note that it is our love for one another that is said to point to the Gospel!]). Social ministry done by the church should be self-consciously engaged in with the hope, prayer and design of sharing the Gospel. J. Gresham Machen wrote that “material benefits were never valued in the apostolic age for their own sake, they were never regarded as substitutes for spiritual things. That lesson needs to be learned. Social betterment, though important, is insufficient; it must always be supplemented by God’s unspeakable gift,” (J. Gresham Machen, New Testament, ed., John Cook, pp. 345-346).
32. We must allow some latitude between pastors on differing judgment calls on the particulars of some of these secondary issues (e.g., how to oppose abortion; how much they would cooperate with non-evangelicals in social ministries, etc.)
33. We must be aware of the attraction to join our church certain non-gospel activities may cause (e.g., music, a school, certain community-help programs) and we must redouble our carefulness in only taking in members who understand the Gospel and give evidence of regeneration.
34. In our duties as under-shepherds, we want to protect our flock from the well-meaning writings and teachings of those who emphasize their role of making a difference in the culture. Those individuals may be uniquely gifted and called, but it is not a Biblical model for the local church.
35. We must not be naïve in this. We should realize that the priority of evangelism is always one of the most difficult things for the pastor to maintain in his own life and in the congregation’s ministry.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Difference Between Legal and Gospel Mortification of Sin by Ralph Erskine
1. Gospel and legal mortification differ in their principles from which they proceed. Gospel mortification is from gospel principles, viz. the Spirit of God [Rom. 8. 13], 'If ye through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live'; Faith in Christ [Acts 15. 9], 'Purifying their hearts by faith'; The love of Christ constraining [2 Cor. 5. 14], 'The love of Christ constraineth us.' But legal mortification is from legal principles such as, from the applause and praise of men, as in the Pharisees; from pride of self-righteousness, as in Paul before his conversion; from the fear of hell; from a natural conscience; from the example of others; from some common motions of the Spirit; and many times from the power of sin itself, while one sin is set up to wrestle with another, as when sensuality and self-righteousness wrestle with one another. The man, perhaps, will not drink and swear. Why? Because he is setting up and establishing a righteousness of his own, whereby to obtain the favour of God here is but one sin wrestling with another.
2. They differ in their weapons with which they fight against sin. The gospel believer fights with grace's weapons, namely, the blood of Christ, the word of God, the promises of the covenant, and the virtue of Christ's death and cross [Gal. 6. 14] 'God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [or, as it may be read, 'whereby,' viz. by the cross of Christ,] the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.' But now the man under the law fights against sin by the promises and threatenings of the law; by its promises, saying, I will obtain life; and win to heaven, I hope, if I do so and so; by its threatenings, saying, I will go to hell and be damned, if I do not so and so. Sometimes he fights with the weapons of his own vows and resolutions, which are his strong tower, to which he runs and thinks himself safe.
3. They differ in the object of their mortification. They both, indeed, seek to mortify sin, but the legalist's quarrel is more especially with the sins of his conversation, whereas the true believer should desire to fight as the Syrians got orders, that is, neither against great nor small, so much as against the King himself, even against original corruption. A body of sin and death troubles him more than any other sin in the world; 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?' [Rom. 7. 24]. His great exercise is to have the seed of the woman to bruise this head of the serpent.
4. They differ in the reasons of the contest. The believer, whom grace teaches to deny all ungodliness, he fights against sin because it dishonours God, opposes Christ, grieves the Spirit, and separates between his Lord and him; but the legalist fights against sin, because it breaks his peace, and troubles his conscience, and hurts him, by bringing wrath and judgment on him. As children will not play in the dust, not because it sullies their clothes, but flies into their eyes, and hurts them, so the legalist will not meddle with sin, not because it sullies the perfections of God, and defiles their souls, but only because it hurts them. I deny not, but there is too much of this legal temper even amongst the godly.
5. They differ in their motives and ends. The believer will not serve sin, because he is alive to God, and dead to sin [Rom. 6. 6]. The legalist forsakes sin, not because he is alive, but that he may live. The believer mortifies sin, because God loves him; but the legalist, that God may love him. The believer mortifies, because God is pacified towards him; the legalist mortifies, that he may pacify God by his mortification. He may go a great length, but it is still that he may have whereof to glory, making his own doing all the foundation of his hope and comfort.
6. They differ in the nature of their mortification. The legalist does not oppose sin violently, seeking the utter destruction of it. If he can get sin put down, he does not seek it to be thrust out; but the believer, having a nature and principle contrary to sin, he seeks not only to have it weakened, but extirpated. The quarrel is irreconcileable; no terms of accommodation or agreement; no league with sin is allowed, as it is with hypocrites.
7. They differ in the extent of the warfare, not only objectively, the believer hating every false way; but also subjectively, all the faculties of the believer's soul, the whole regenerate part being against sin. It is not so with the hypocrite or legalist; for as he spares some sin or other, so his opposition to sin is only seated in his conscience; his light and conscience oppose such a thing, while his heart approves of it. There is an extent also as to time; the legalist's opposition to sin is of a short duration, but in the believer it is to the end; grace and corruption still opposing one another.
8. They differ in the success. There is no believer, but as he fights against sin, so first or last he prevails, though not always to his discerning; and though he lose many battles, yet he gains the war. But the legalist, for all the work he makes, yet he never truly comes speed; though he cut off some actual sin, yet the corrupt nature is never changed; he never gets a new heart; the iron sinew in his neck, which opposes God, is never broken; and when he gets one sin mortified, sometimes another and more dangerous sin lifts up the head. Hence all the sins and pollutions that ever the Pharisees forsook, and all the good duties that ever they performed, made them but more proud, and strengthened their unbelieving prejudices against Christ, which was the greater and more dangerous sin.
Thus you may see the difference between legal and gospel mortification, and try yourselves thereby.
2. They differ in their weapons with which they fight against sin. The gospel believer fights with grace's weapons, namely, the blood of Christ, the word of God, the promises of the covenant, and the virtue of Christ's death and cross [Gal. 6. 14] 'God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [or, as it may be read, 'whereby,' viz. by the cross of Christ,] the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.' But now the man under the law fights against sin by the promises and threatenings of the law; by its promises, saying, I will obtain life; and win to heaven, I hope, if I do so and so; by its threatenings, saying, I will go to hell and be damned, if I do not so and so. Sometimes he fights with the weapons of his own vows and resolutions, which are his strong tower, to which he runs and thinks himself safe.
3. They differ in the object of their mortification. They both, indeed, seek to mortify sin, but the legalist's quarrel is more especially with the sins of his conversation, whereas the true believer should desire to fight as the Syrians got orders, that is, neither against great nor small, so much as against the King himself, even against original corruption. A body of sin and death troubles him more than any other sin in the world; 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?' [Rom. 7. 24]. His great exercise is to have the seed of the woman to bruise this head of the serpent.
4. They differ in the reasons of the contest. The believer, whom grace teaches to deny all ungodliness, he fights against sin because it dishonours God, opposes Christ, grieves the Spirit, and separates between his Lord and him; but the legalist fights against sin, because it breaks his peace, and troubles his conscience, and hurts him, by bringing wrath and judgment on him. As children will not play in the dust, not because it sullies their clothes, but flies into their eyes, and hurts them, so the legalist will not meddle with sin, not because it sullies the perfections of God, and defiles their souls, but only because it hurts them. I deny not, but there is too much of this legal temper even amongst the godly.
5. They differ in their motives and ends. The believer will not serve sin, because he is alive to God, and dead to sin [Rom. 6. 6]. The legalist forsakes sin, not because he is alive, but that he may live. The believer mortifies sin, because God loves him; but the legalist, that God may love him. The believer mortifies, because God is pacified towards him; the legalist mortifies, that he may pacify God by his mortification. He may go a great length, but it is still that he may have whereof to glory, making his own doing all the foundation of his hope and comfort.
6. They differ in the nature of their mortification. The legalist does not oppose sin violently, seeking the utter destruction of it. If he can get sin put down, he does not seek it to be thrust out; but the believer, having a nature and principle contrary to sin, he seeks not only to have it weakened, but extirpated. The quarrel is irreconcileable; no terms of accommodation or agreement; no league with sin is allowed, as it is with hypocrites.
7. They differ in the extent of the warfare, not only objectively, the believer hating every false way; but also subjectively, all the faculties of the believer's soul, the whole regenerate part being against sin. It is not so with the hypocrite or legalist; for as he spares some sin or other, so his opposition to sin is only seated in his conscience; his light and conscience oppose such a thing, while his heart approves of it. There is an extent also as to time; the legalist's opposition to sin is of a short duration, but in the believer it is to the end; grace and corruption still opposing one another.
8. They differ in the success. There is no believer, but as he fights against sin, so first or last he prevails, though not always to his discerning; and though he lose many battles, yet he gains the war. But the legalist, for all the work he makes, yet he never truly comes speed; though he cut off some actual sin, yet the corrupt nature is never changed; he never gets a new heart; the iron sinew in his neck, which opposes God, is never broken; and when he gets one sin mortified, sometimes another and more dangerous sin lifts up the head. Hence all the sins and pollutions that ever the Pharisees forsook, and all the good duties that ever they performed, made them but more proud, and strengthened their unbelieving prejudices against Christ, which was the greater and more dangerous sin.
Thus you may see the difference between legal and gospel mortification, and try yourselves thereby.
Monday, June 7, 2010
The Gospel is the Food of Faith
“The new life in Christ, just like all natural life, must be nourished and strengthened. This is possible only in communion with Christ in the Holy Spirit and through the word of Scripture. Enlightened by the Spirit, believers gain a new knowledge of faith. The gospel is the food of faith and must be known to be nourishment. Salvation that is not known and enjoyed is no salvation. God saves by causing himself to be known and enjoyed in Christ.”
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Grand Rapids, Mi.; Baker Academic, 2008), 96.
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Grand Rapids, Mi.; Baker Academic, 2008), 96.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)