This morning I read with great interest "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation," which is a document compiled by a number of pastors, professors, and other leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention in opposition to the growing number of Calvinists in the Convention. Others have already provided thoughtful and direct responses to the document, here, here, and here. But I would like to deal with the question of how Calvinists should respond to the statement. As I see it, there are at least three options.
1. Ignore it, and just continue to proclaim the gospel in a positive fashion, while keeping Calvinism itself far in the background, mentioning it only occasionally. This is the most politically expedient thing to do, since it keeps us out of the crosshairs of controversy. Calvinism, after all, is a secondary issue on which Southern Baptists may graciously disagree. There is no need, according to this option, to become embroiled in a debate over contentious secondary matters.
I agree that Calvinism is a secondary matter and I am not a lover of controversy. I also think it's important to remember that neither the Calvinists nor the non-Calvinists have an exclusive claim on Southern Baptist soteriology. Neither view is required by the Baptist Faith and Message, and neither side should pretend that it is. Therefore, this first option's purpose to avoid controversy on this topic is understandable.
But in my judgment, mere avoidance of controversy on this issue is not faithful to the Word of God. Scripture requires pastors to "hold firm to the trustworthy Word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). In Titus, "sound doctrine" includes the truth about "God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness" (Titus 1:1). I believe that leaders who fail to correct misunderstandings of biblical truth and fail to articulate and advance the total corpus of biblical doctrine are not leading.
2. Respond to the document by taking offense to mischaracterizations and by trying to force our opponents into submission with our words. Calvinists who respond in this way seem to have their personal righteousness bound up in their doctrinal rightness, rather than in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. The desire to best an opponent for the end of winning the debate is theological pride and idolatry. It idolizes our own knowledge, our own debating ability, and our own status as the "victor." I have been and am guilty of this myself. But every kind of pride is completely inconsistent with Calvinism. We believe that God alone can change a man's mind and heart. Therefore, we should argue like Calvinists. We should argue with humility, love, and grace, knowing that God might never change a man, even if we present perfect arguments. It's not our job to convince people or change them. Our job is to die to ourselves and speak the truth boldly, clearly, and fervently with great love. I highly recommend John Newton's Letter on Controversy.
3. Respond in a gospel way with the moral law of God as our guide. Calvinism is indeed a secondary issue, but it is not a small matter. Time and again, history has shown that it is a vitally important issue. So, when the doctrines of grace are attacked, the Bible's teaching on this subject must be defended. But when we engage in theological polemics, we should respond as men who only have any understanding of the truth because God has given it to us by free grace alone. Our righteousness is in Christ, not in our doctrinal rightness, and our understanding of any truth is owing to the fact that the Holy Spirit has opened our minds to understand the Scriptures. We should, therefore, speak with great humility and grace, with a willingness to be corrected by our brothers, knowing that we have not arrived at the pinnacle of theological understanding and that we may have something important to learn from the opposition. We should be willing to sacrifice our own reputations, livelihoods, political aspirations, and our very lives for the sake of Christ's truth and our brothers's benefit, if necessary. To the degree we really believe the gospel, we will be humbled into the dust, and this self-forgetfulness and love, along with clear and vigorous arguments for biblical doctrine, will characterize our conversations.
I would also commend the use of God's moral law as our guide in theological controversy. We must engage in the debate out of love for our brother and love for Christ, seeking the truth, no matter what our brother may say or do to us. This means that we must tell the truth (do not bear false witness) by laboring carefully to understand the brother who differs from us and by refusing to misrepresent his position. We must refuse to murder our brother in our hearts or with our words, but speak the truth to him in love in order to promote his life for his good and Christ's glory. We must not covet "victory" but covet the glory of our Lord Jesus, the good of our brother, and the advancement of Christ's kingdom, whether our arguments "win" or not. We must not carry God's name as though it is weightless (do not take His name in vain) but remember that we are Christ-bearers and this is not a debate about words, but about the very truth of Scripture, our salvation, Christ's work, and God's glory. It is a weighty matter and not a light matter. May our self-righteousness die (both in the antinomianism of option 1 and the legalism of option 2) and may Christ prevail instead.
I believe this might be a healthy discussion for us to have in the SBC, but it will only be healthy if we conduct ourselves with godliness. "Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching, show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us" (Titus 2:7-8). May the glory of God in the grace of Christ prevail and may the brothers love and edify one another.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Do We Have Free Will?
THE NATURE OF THE WILL
Not Libertarian Freedom. Some theologians argue that we are free to choose A or B for the *same* set of reasons or causes. This is called "contra-causal" freedom. For example, let's say you're standing at an ice cream stand and you're trying to decide between chocolate and vanilla. If we freeze time at the moment right before you make your choice, Libertarian freedom says that in that moment, and for the same set of reasons or causes, you can choose either chocolate or vanilla. But the problem with this view is that there is no determining or moving cause which leads you to choose either chocolate or vanilla. The fact that the will, on this view, is not determined, creates several problems.
First, how could such a will ever choose at all? If there is no moving or determining cause, there is no explanation for why it chooses one thing over the other. It seems like it wouldn't actually choose anything.
Second, how could such a will ever be held responsible for its choices? Our example of choosing a flavor of ice cream doesn't have ethical ramifications. But, in cases of moral choices, such as whether to lie or not to lie, how could a libertarianly free will be held responsible? The person who has a libertarian will might complain to God on judgment day: "I often wished my libertarian will would choose other than it did, but it often chose against all causes and reason, including my own character and reason. I shouldn't be held responsible for it."
Third, how could such a will be called "free?" A random-choice-generator that is capable of choosing A or B apart from and against all determinative causation and reason doesn't strike me as free at all. It's a jerky mechanism that often erupts in random directions. This is not freedom, but slavery.
Compatibilistic Freedom. Compatibilistic freedom says that determinism is compatible with freedom. This is the biblical view of freedom, and it's much easier to explain. Compatibilistic freedom is the teaching that our wills necessarily choose what we want most at any given moment. Our choices flow from our minds and hearts. Our wills are *determined* by what our minds believe will be best at the time of our choice. We may have competing beliefs and desires within us, but the thing we *believe will most satisfy us* is the thing we will always choose. Thus, our hearts determine our choices and behaviors, and this determinism is compatible with true freedom.
Matthew 12:35-36 says, "The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings both evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak." Notice that the heart produces/determines/causes the choices. This is the basis of responsibility and divine judgment. Determinism doesn't undermine responsibility or freedom; rather, it grounds it.
Similarly, Matthew 15:18-19 says, "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorally, theft, false witness, slander." So, the heart determines our choices. And, freedom and responsibility are consistent with such determination.
THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL
Natural Freedom. In order for the will to be naturally free, it must not be naturally hindered. It has to have the capacity to function as it was designed. Here's what that means. Your will can function freely, if it is not hindered by internal or external natural obstacles.
For example, if I pump you full of drugs, which make you hallucinate and believe things that aren't true, then you are going to choose to do some crazy things. But, you aren't acting freely because a foreign agent, the drug, is messing with your head. You are rightly not held responsible for what you do if I'm the one who put the drugs into you. You are not naturally free.
Here's another example. Let's say I tied up your hands and feet at work and then proceeded to steal from your employer right in front of your face. If you were untied, then you would be responsible to try to stop me. But, since you are tied up, you physically can't stop me from stealing. You are not free, and as a result, you are not responsible for your failure to stop me from stealing.
Natural freedom is the natural capacity to choose what you want most without natural hinderances. Babies, brain damaged people, people with dementia or other crippling illnesses are not naturally free; therefore, their responsibility for their actions is mitigated.
Moral Freedom. Moral freedom is the freedom to choose what is morally right. In the garden of Eden, Adam had moral freedom. He had the ability not to sin and he had the ability to sin. But, when Adam sinned and fell, he and all who descend from him by natural generation, have lost the ability not to sin. Everyone in Adam has lost moral freedom.
This is what Romans 3:11-12 teaches. "No one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." Our minds "understanding," our hearts "seeking" and our wills "doing good" are all fallen. Those in Adam have all lost the moral freedom to do what is good.
But, in Christ, by His Spirit, we regain the ability not to sin. Christians have moral freedom, but not completely. We have freedom not to sin and the freedom to sin, but there is a conflict within us, unlike Adam. Two principles are constantly at war within us and it is impossible on this side of heaven for us to eradicate all sin. That's why Paul says in Galatians 5:17, "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do." As believers, part of us wants to obey Christ, and another part wants to sin. Sometimes we want to sin more than we want to obey. Other times we want to obey more than we want to sin. Whichever desire is greater is the desire we follow at any given moment. The greater desire is always the one we *believe* will satisfy us the most at the time. The Christian is in a war to believe that Christ is better than sin, though sometimes we believe the lie that sin is better than Christ.
Finally, when Christians die and go to heaven, they will regain full moral freedom. They will lose the ability to sin. And, they will only have the ability not to sin. This is total freedom. It is freedom from the lies of the devil. It is freedom from sin.
Some people strangely argue that if an agent is truly free, then he has to have the freedom to sin. But, that's odd, since God doesn't have the freedom to sin. It is impossible for God to sin, yet God is surely free. The saints in heaven don't have the freedom to sin, yet they are free too. Therefore, freedom to sin can't be the essence of moral freedom. Rather, freedom from sin is the essence of moral freedom.
So, there you go. When speaking of the the human will, we need to talk about the nature of the will (whether it is libertarianly free or compatibilistically free) and we need to talk about the freedom of the will (natural freedom vs moral freedom). Hope that helps!
Not Libertarian Freedom. Some theologians argue that we are free to choose A or B for the *same* set of reasons or causes. This is called "contra-causal" freedom. For example, let's say you're standing at an ice cream stand and you're trying to decide between chocolate and vanilla. If we freeze time at the moment right before you make your choice, Libertarian freedom says that in that moment, and for the same set of reasons or causes, you can choose either chocolate or vanilla. But the problem with this view is that there is no determining or moving cause which leads you to choose either chocolate or vanilla. The fact that the will, on this view, is not determined, creates several problems.
First, how could such a will ever choose at all? If there is no moving or determining cause, there is no explanation for why it chooses one thing over the other. It seems like it wouldn't actually choose anything.
Second, how could such a will ever be held responsible for its choices? Our example of choosing a flavor of ice cream doesn't have ethical ramifications. But, in cases of moral choices, such as whether to lie or not to lie, how could a libertarianly free will be held responsible? The person who has a libertarian will might complain to God on judgment day: "I often wished my libertarian will would choose other than it did, but it often chose against all causes and reason, including my own character and reason. I shouldn't be held responsible for it."
Third, how could such a will be called "free?" A random-choice-generator that is capable of choosing A or B apart from and against all determinative causation and reason doesn't strike me as free at all. It's a jerky mechanism that often erupts in random directions. This is not freedom, but slavery.
Compatibilistic Freedom. Compatibilistic freedom says that determinism is compatible with freedom. This is the biblical view of freedom, and it's much easier to explain. Compatibilistic freedom is the teaching that our wills necessarily choose what we want most at any given moment. Our choices flow from our minds and hearts. Our wills are *determined* by what our minds believe will be best at the time of our choice. We may have competing beliefs and desires within us, but the thing we *believe will most satisfy us* is the thing we will always choose. Thus, our hearts determine our choices and behaviors, and this determinism is compatible with true freedom.
Matthew 12:35-36 says, "The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings both evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak." Notice that the heart produces/determines/causes the choices. This is the basis of responsibility and divine judgment. Determinism doesn't undermine responsibility or freedom; rather, it grounds it.
Similarly, Matthew 15:18-19 says, "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorally, theft, false witness, slander." So, the heart determines our choices. And, freedom and responsibility are consistent with such determination.
THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL
Natural Freedom. In order for the will to be naturally free, it must not be naturally hindered. It has to have the capacity to function as it was designed. Here's what that means. Your will can function freely, if it is not hindered by internal or external natural obstacles.
For example, if I pump you full of drugs, which make you hallucinate and believe things that aren't true, then you are going to choose to do some crazy things. But, you aren't acting freely because a foreign agent, the drug, is messing with your head. You are rightly not held responsible for what you do if I'm the one who put the drugs into you. You are not naturally free.
Here's another example. Let's say I tied up your hands and feet at work and then proceeded to steal from your employer right in front of your face. If you were untied, then you would be responsible to try to stop me. But, since you are tied up, you physically can't stop me from stealing. You are not free, and as a result, you are not responsible for your failure to stop me from stealing.
Natural freedom is the natural capacity to choose what you want most without natural hinderances. Babies, brain damaged people, people with dementia or other crippling illnesses are not naturally free; therefore, their responsibility for their actions is mitigated.
Moral Freedom. Moral freedom is the freedom to choose what is morally right. In the garden of Eden, Adam had moral freedom. He had the ability not to sin and he had the ability to sin. But, when Adam sinned and fell, he and all who descend from him by natural generation, have lost the ability not to sin. Everyone in Adam has lost moral freedom.
This is what Romans 3:11-12 teaches. "No one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." Our minds "understanding," our hearts "seeking" and our wills "doing good" are all fallen. Those in Adam have all lost the moral freedom to do what is good.
But, in Christ, by His Spirit, we regain the ability not to sin. Christians have moral freedom, but not completely. We have freedom not to sin and the freedom to sin, but there is a conflict within us, unlike Adam. Two principles are constantly at war within us and it is impossible on this side of heaven for us to eradicate all sin. That's why Paul says in Galatians 5:17, "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do." As believers, part of us wants to obey Christ, and another part wants to sin. Sometimes we want to sin more than we want to obey. Other times we want to obey more than we want to sin. Whichever desire is greater is the desire we follow at any given moment. The greater desire is always the one we *believe* will satisfy us the most at the time. The Christian is in a war to believe that Christ is better than sin, though sometimes we believe the lie that sin is better than Christ.
Finally, when Christians die and go to heaven, they will regain full moral freedom. They will lose the ability to sin. And, they will only have the ability not to sin. This is total freedom. It is freedom from the lies of the devil. It is freedom from sin.
Some people strangely argue that if an agent is truly free, then he has to have the freedom to sin. But, that's odd, since God doesn't have the freedom to sin. It is impossible for God to sin, yet God is surely free. The saints in heaven don't have the freedom to sin, yet they are free too. Therefore, freedom to sin can't be the essence of moral freedom. Rather, freedom from sin is the essence of moral freedom.
So, there you go. When speaking of the the human will, we need to talk about the nature of the will (whether it is libertarianly free or compatibilistically free) and we need to talk about the freedom of the will (natural freedom vs moral freedom). Hope that helps!
Friday, December 16, 2011
Does Jesus + Nothing Really = Everything?
The pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Tullian Tchividjian, has just published a book titled Jesus + Nothing = Everything. I know it's dangerous to write a post in reference to a book I haven't read, but Tchividjian has published enough material on his blog (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/) that I'm comfortable responding to his basic thesis about the nature of the gospel and Christian sanctification.
Tchividjian's thesis is that sanctification is nothing more than getting used to your justification. He teaches that the only way to grow in sanctification is to understand your justification better and that sanctification will automatically occur the more you learn to rest in Christ for justification. In response, I would say that while a growing grasp of justification is indeed foundational to sanctification, it is a mistake to say that justification is the only biblical motive for sanctification. What follows will not be an interactive critique of Tchividjian, but more of a positive statement of some of the issues at stake in this discussion.
The Nature of the Gospel
Tchividjian advances his thesis partly by identifying justification with the gospel. But, the gospel is not identical to justification. Justification is certainly very near to the heart of the gospel, and it is a sine qua non of the gospel, but the gospel is more than justification. The gospel is not only the message of Christ's work *for* us, but also of Christ's work *in* us (speaking here only of the gospel at the individual level, though there is certainly a corporate and global dimension to the gospel as well). Put differently, the gospel is not only the promise of justification to free us from the guilt of sin, but also the promise of sanctification to free us from the misery of sin. The gospel is not only the message that Christ is our Priest, but also the message that He is our Prophet and King who overrules the reign of sin within us. The good news is not that Christ is a paltry half-Savior who frees us from condemnation, but leaves us in our miserable sinful condition. Rather, the good news is that Christ frees us from our legal problem as well as our ontological problem.
The Law/Gospel Distinction
Part of the confusion about this distinction is that there are several ways to speak about it, all of which are valid.
1. Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant
This is a redemptive-historical way of speaking about the difference between law and gospel. On this way of speaking, the Mosaic Covenant is termed "law" because it made legal demands but did not provide any true or final way of forgiveness or redemption from sin, and because it did not provide any power to keep the demands of its own law. The New Covenant, on the other hand, does provide a way of redemption and forgiveness through Christ the mediator, and it provides power to keep the law because the law is no longer merely written on tablets of stone, but also on tablets of human hearts.
2. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace
On this way of speaking, the distinction between law and gospel is about the relationship of law-keeping to justification. Under the covenant of works, God said "do this and live," meaning, "Perfectly obey My commandments and you will be justified and have a right and title to eternal life." That's "law." But, the covenant of grace says, "live and do this to enjoy and experience life," meaning "Be justified and have a right and title to eternal life by faith alone because of Christ's righteousness alone, and in light of your justification imperfectly obey My commandments more and more to increase in the experience and enjoyment of the eternal life you already possess." That's "gospel." Notice that on this way of speaking, both law and gospel issue commands/instructions and promises. The difference is a matter of order, not the elements involved.
3. Command and Promise
On this way of speaking, every command or imperative is "law," and every promise of blessing or indicative is "gospel." The biblical commands to love, to keep the law, to enjoy God, and even to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are all "law." That is to say, they all require absolute, perfect, and inflexible obedience and therefore the Christian is doomed to failure in his efforts to obey any one of them absolutely. In that sense, none of them is "good news." They are the "law." The "gospel," on the other hand, is the good news that Jesus Christ kept every one of these commands perfectly in our place. He loved in our place, kept God's law in our place, enjoyed God in our place, and even believed God perfectly in our place. All of Christ's commandment-keeping procures for us an external righteousness, which is promised to us in the gospel for our justification. But, Christ's righteousness not only procures the gospel-promise of justification, it is also the legal basis of God's sending the Holy Spirit to sanctify us, which is His gospel-promise to change us to become more like Christ for our joy and His glory. Christ's righteousness justifies us *and* causes us to keep the commandments more and more (though imperfectly): to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, love, keep the law, and enjoy God.
The Law/Gospel Harmony
It should be clear by now that the law and the gospel are not at all enemies, but close friends. The law of God shows us our guilt and drives us to Christ for our justification in the gospel. Justification in the gospel, in turn, points us back to the law as our "rule of walking" as the means by which we may increasingly enjoy God and by which He glorifies His great grace poured out within us. The law exposes our need for the gospel. But, the end or goal of the gospel is that we would be conformed more and more to the law. So, the law and the gospel "do sweetly comply."
God's View of Believers' Sin and Obedience
In light of all this, how does God view believers when they sin and when they obey? We need to distinguish between the "legal" relationship to God as Judge and the "filial" relationship to God as Father.
First, in terms of the legal relationship, because of justification, God legally regards and treats believers like they are righteous, even though they are not ever truly righteous. Therefore, when believers sin, their standing before God is perfectly "righteous" and they are pleasing to God the Judge, no matter what they do.
But second, in terms of the filial relationship, God the Father accepts our imperfect (damnable) obedience in Christ, and our obedience pleases Him, even though it is imperfect and detestable in terms of strict justice. It's like a child bringing his parent a drawing and the parent being pleased with it, even though on terms of strict artistic quality, the drawing is ugly.
Just as the believer's obedience pleases the Father, the believer's sin displeases the Father. But, our sin doesn't displease our Father because it offends His justice (that's taken care of in justification; there is no more legal offense); rather, a believer's sin displeases God because it disrupts the believer's fellowship with his Heavenly Father. The Father is displeased with our sin because it causes us grief and because it inhibits both our enjoyment of Him and His Fatherly enjoyment of us.
Motives to Obedience
One final point that needs to be made has to do with the motives to obedience in the Christian life. The Bible provides many such motives. It teaches that we should obey God to please God, from the fear of God, because God the Creator and Sovereign is absolute authority, for the blessings of joy in God that come from obedience, because our disobedience displeases a holy God, because the angels are watching, etc. And, that is just a sample of some of the motives the Bible mentions.
The point to make is this. Each of the motives previously mentioned would have worked to motivate pre-fall Adam. That is, by themselves, each of those motives could have been fully functional in the covenant of works, apart from the mediation of Christ. Therefore, none of those motives may be preached to the believer without or apart from reference to justification by faith alone because of Christ alone.
On the other hand, in light of and on the basis of Christ's righteousness freely imputed to all who trust Him, all other biblical motives to obedience *become* gospel motives. Therefore, justification is not the only motive to Christian sanctification, contra Tchividjian, but it is the fundamental motive and the motive necessary to make all the other motives truly sanctifying.
Tchividjian's thesis is that sanctification is nothing more than getting used to your justification. He teaches that the only way to grow in sanctification is to understand your justification better and that sanctification will automatically occur the more you learn to rest in Christ for justification. In response, I would say that while a growing grasp of justification is indeed foundational to sanctification, it is a mistake to say that justification is the only biblical motive for sanctification. What follows will not be an interactive critique of Tchividjian, but more of a positive statement of some of the issues at stake in this discussion.
The Nature of the Gospel
Tchividjian advances his thesis partly by identifying justification with the gospel. But, the gospel is not identical to justification. Justification is certainly very near to the heart of the gospel, and it is a sine qua non of the gospel, but the gospel is more than justification. The gospel is not only the message of Christ's work *for* us, but also of Christ's work *in* us (speaking here only of the gospel at the individual level, though there is certainly a corporate and global dimension to the gospel as well). Put differently, the gospel is not only the promise of justification to free us from the guilt of sin, but also the promise of sanctification to free us from the misery of sin. The gospel is not only the message that Christ is our Priest, but also the message that He is our Prophet and King who overrules the reign of sin within us. The good news is not that Christ is a paltry half-Savior who frees us from condemnation, but leaves us in our miserable sinful condition. Rather, the good news is that Christ frees us from our legal problem as well as our ontological problem.
The Law/Gospel Distinction
Part of the confusion about this distinction is that there are several ways to speak about it, all of which are valid.
1. Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant
This is a redemptive-historical way of speaking about the difference between law and gospel. On this way of speaking, the Mosaic Covenant is termed "law" because it made legal demands but did not provide any true or final way of forgiveness or redemption from sin, and because it did not provide any power to keep the demands of its own law. The New Covenant, on the other hand, does provide a way of redemption and forgiveness through Christ the mediator, and it provides power to keep the law because the law is no longer merely written on tablets of stone, but also on tablets of human hearts.
2. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace
On this way of speaking, the distinction between law and gospel is about the relationship of law-keeping to justification. Under the covenant of works, God said "do this and live," meaning, "Perfectly obey My commandments and you will be justified and have a right and title to eternal life." That's "law." But, the covenant of grace says, "live and do this to enjoy and experience life," meaning "Be justified and have a right and title to eternal life by faith alone because of Christ's righteousness alone, and in light of your justification imperfectly obey My commandments more and more to increase in the experience and enjoyment of the eternal life you already possess." That's "gospel." Notice that on this way of speaking, both law and gospel issue commands/instructions and promises. The difference is a matter of order, not the elements involved.
3. Command and Promise
On this way of speaking, every command or imperative is "law," and every promise of blessing or indicative is "gospel." The biblical commands to love, to keep the law, to enjoy God, and even to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are all "law." That is to say, they all require absolute, perfect, and inflexible obedience and therefore the Christian is doomed to failure in his efforts to obey any one of them absolutely. In that sense, none of them is "good news." They are the "law." The "gospel," on the other hand, is the good news that Jesus Christ kept every one of these commands perfectly in our place. He loved in our place, kept God's law in our place, enjoyed God in our place, and even believed God perfectly in our place. All of Christ's commandment-keeping procures for us an external righteousness, which is promised to us in the gospel for our justification. But, Christ's righteousness not only procures the gospel-promise of justification, it is also the legal basis of God's sending the Holy Spirit to sanctify us, which is His gospel-promise to change us to become more like Christ for our joy and His glory. Christ's righteousness justifies us *and* causes us to keep the commandments more and more (though imperfectly): to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, love, keep the law, and enjoy God.
The Law/Gospel Harmony
It should be clear by now that the law and the gospel are not at all enemies, but close friends. The law of God shows us our guilt and drives us to Christ for our justification in the gospel. Justification in the gospel, in turn, points us back to the law as our "rule of walking" as the means by which we may increasingly enjoy God and by which He glorifies His great grace poured out within us. The law exposes our need for the gospel. But, the end or goal of the gospel is that we would be conformed more and more to the law. So, the law and the gospel "do sweetly comply."
God's View of Believers' Sin and Obedience
In light of all this, how does God view believers when they sin and when they obey? We need to distinguish between the "legal" relationship to God as Judge and the "filial" relationship to God as Father.
First, in terms of the legal relationship, because of justification, God legally regards and treats believers like they are righteous, even though they are not ever truly righteous. Therefore, when believers sin, their standing before God is perfectly "righteous" and they are pleasing to God the Judge, no matter what they do.
But second, in terms of the filial relationship, God the Father accepts our imperfect (damnable) obedience in Christ, and our obedience pleases Him, even though it is imperfect and detestable in terms of strict justice. It's like a child bringing his parent a drawing and the parent being pleased with it, even though on terms of strict artistic quality, the drawing is ugly.
Just as the believer's obedience pleases the Father, the believer's sin displeases the Father. But, our sin doesn't displease our Father because it offends His justice (that's taken care of in justification; there is no more legal offense); rather, a believer's sin displeases God because it disrupts the believer's fellowship with his Heavenly Father. The Father is displeased with our sin because it causes us grief and because it inhibits both our enjoyment of Him and His Fatherly enjoyment of us.
Motives to Obedience
One final point that needs to be made has to do with the motives to obedience in the Christian life. The Bible provides many such motives. It teaches that we should obey God to please God, from the fear of God, because God the Creator and Sovereign is absolute authority, for the blessings of joy in God that come from obedience, because our disobedience displeases a holy God, because the angels are watching, etc. And, that is just a sample of some of the motives the Bible mentions.
The point to make is this. Each of the motives previously mentioned would have worked to motivate pre-fall Adam. That is, by themselves, each of those motives could have been fully functional in the covenant of works, apart from the mediation of Christ. Therefore, none of those motives may be preached to the believer without or apart from reference to justification by faith alone because of Christ alone.
On the other hand, in light of and on the basis of Christ's righteousness freely imputed to all who trust Him, all other biblical motives to obedience *become* gospel motives. Therefore, justification is not the only motive to Christian sanctification, contra Tchividjian, but it is the fundamental motive and the motive necessary to make all the other motives truly sanctifying.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Grace and Merit – Later Reformed Orthodoxy
In the previous post, we saw that John Calvin deplored the term “merit” and generally preferred not to use it because he believed it implied that creatures can do good works independently of their Creator. But, later Reformed theologians were not so reluctant. The concept of merit is expressed in Romans 4:4, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” Scripture also teaches that good works in justification would be meritorious: “If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about” (Rom 4:2). Abraham would be able to “boast,” if justification was his “due,” that is, if he “merited” his justification by "works."
So, what of Calvin's contention that providentially determined good works cannot be “meritorious” because they are gifts of God? Compatibilism is the doctrine that providentially determined works are “compatible” with moral blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. In other words, though God's providence determines the works of human beings (whether good or bad), human beings are responsible for their works and either merit reward or de-merit penalty. So, contrary to Calvin's belief that a creature's dependence on God eliminates the possibility of merit, the opposite is actually true. It is precisely because God the Lawgiver determines the acts of His moral agents that they are held responsible (blameworthy or praiseworthy) for what they do. For an excellent treatment of compatibilism, see Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will.
Let's apply compatibilism to Adam in the garden-covenant of works. All of Adam's works were providentially determined by God, and yet, all of Adam's works in the garden were responsible, such that he would deserve condemnation for sin and reward for obedience. Some don't like the idea that Adam could deserve a reward from God because they think it allows the creature to obligate or coerce the Creator. But, God *wants* to delight in and reward that which is good and penalize that which is bad. It is God's nature to love good and hate evil. To assert that He must do so does not trap God in His own creation or make Him dependent on men. Rather, it is simply to insist that God must be God.
Now, apply compatibilism to Christ in His obedience to the covenant of redemption. Where Adam failed in God's providence, Christ succeeded in God's providence. Though the acts of Christ's human nature were providentially determined, He was responsible for what He did. Christ's good works (in life and unto death) pleased a good God and merited the reward for all who are in Him. God "had to" reward Christ for His goodness, but He "had to" because He "wanted to" because He is good.
So, what of the rest of fallen humankind? The actions of fallen human beings in Adam are providentially determined (Prov 16:9; 21:1; Jer 10:23; Eph 1:11). But, they don't merit anything from God because they don't do anything good: “There is none who does good” (Rom 3:12). Instead, their providentially determined sinful actions can only de-merit the penalty of death: “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).
What, then, of the providentially determined actions of believers in Christ? The providentially determined sins of those in Christ cannot de-merit condemnation because Christ paid the penalty for their de-merit (Rom 8:1). But, Christ's merits also purchased good works to be produced within those who are in Him. So, are the providentially determined good works of those in Christ meritorious? Absolutely not! Christ has already “filled-up” divine justice with His merit; so, there is no room for any more merit. Those in Christ are “under” Christ's perfect merit, and the good works in them simply flow from Christ's already perfect merit. Therefore, the good works of those in Christ are not in themselves meritorious but are gifts of God's grace, which are free to us, but meritoriously costly to Christ.
So, here we see that in later Reformed orthodoxy, grace is built upon merit. Providentially determined merit is the foundation of providentially determined grace. God's providential determination is not only the foundation of grace. It is also the foundation of both merit and de-merit, which are more fundamental than grace.
This means that grace does not flow to us directly from the divine decree and through divine providence. Rather, grace flows to us through the merits of Jesus Christ.
So, what of Calvin's contention that providentially determined good works cannot be “meritorious” because they are gifts of God? Compatibilism is the doctrine that providentially determined works are “compatible” with moral blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. In other words, though God's providence determines the works of human beings (whether good or bad), human beings are responsible for their works and either merit reward or de-merit penalty. So, contrary to Calvin's belief that a creature's dependence on God eliminates the possibility of merit, the opposite is actually true. It is precisely because God the Lawgiver determines the acts of His moral agents that they are held responsible (blameworthy or praiseworthy) for what they do. For an excellent treatment of compatibilism, see Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will.
Let's apply compatibilism to Adam in the garden-covenant of works. All of Adam's works were providentially determined by God, and yet, all of Adam's works in the garden were responsible, such that he would deserve condemnation for sin and reward for obedience. Some don't like the idea that Adam could deserve a reward from God because they think it allows the creature to obligate or coerce the Creator. But, God *wants* to delight in and reward that which is good and penalize that which is bad. It is God's nature to love good and hate evil. To assert that He must do so does not trap God in His own creation or make Him dependent on men. Rather, it is simply to insist that God must be God.
Now, apply compatibilism to Christ in His obedience to the covenant of redemption. Where Adam failed in God's providence, Christ succeeded in God's providence. Though the acts of Christ's human nature were providentially determined, He was responsible for what He did. Christ's good works (in life and unto death) pleased a good God and merited the reward for all who are in Him. God "had to" reward Christ for His goodness, but He "had to" because He "wanted to" because He is good.
So, what of the rest of fallen humankind? The actions of fallen human beings in Adam are providentially determined (Prov 16:9; 21:1; Jer 10:23; Eph 1:11). But, they don't merit anything from God because they don't do anything good: “There is none who does good” (Rom 3:12). Instead, their providentially determined sinful actions can only de-merit the penalty of death: “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).
What, then, of the providentially determined actions of believers in Christ? The providentially determined sins of those in Christ cannot de-merit condemnation because Christ paid the penalty for their de-merit (Rom 8:1). But, Christ's merits also purchased good works to be produced within those who are in Him. So, are the providentially determined good works of those in Christ meritorious? Absolutely not! Christ has already “filled-up” divine justice with His merit; so, there is no room for any more merit. Those in Christ are “under” Christ's perfect merit, and the good works in them simply flow from Christ's already perfect merit. Therefore, the good works of those in Christ are not in themselves meritorious but are gifts of God's grace, which are free to us, but meritoriously costly to Christ.
So, here we see that in later Reformed orthodoxy, grace is built upon merit. Providentially determined merit is the foundation of providentially determined grace. God's providential determination is not only the foundation of grace. It is also the foundation of both merit and de-merit, which are more fundamental than grace.
This means that grace does not flow to us directly from the divine decree and through divine providence. Rather, grace flows to us through the merits of Jesus Christ.
Monday, July 04, 2011
Grace and Merit – John Calvin
The Reformed tradition does not agree on how to understand the relationship between “grace” and “merit.” Merit is about the value of actions. A meritorious action is an act to which God owes a reward. More precisely, a meritorious human action is a good work that justly requires a holy God to reward it. Conversely, “grace” is a reward God gives to someone who has not merited it. It is a gift God freely gives to someone who not deserve it.
Calvin deplored the term “merit” because he believed it an unnecessary philosophical addition to the teaching of Scripture. He abhorred the idea that a creature could merit anything from God because that would imply that the creature is independent of the Creator. The good works of human beings do not originate from themselves. Rather, the good works human beings do are themselves grace gifts of God. Therefore, human beings can never be said to merit anything by their good works. The rewards God gives to good works are, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, “grace upon grace.”
One interesting implication of Calvin's denial of merit is that there is no reason to exclude human works from justification. Now, Calvin did clearly exclude human works from justification and affirmed imputed righteousness along with its corollary: faith alone. But, if good works are gifts of God's grace and have no merit in themselves, then it is not necessary to exclude them from justification in order to retain the gracious character of justification. Perhaps this is why Calvin didn't fault Augustine too much for holding exactly that viewpoint. What Calvin opposed was the Roman Catholic notion of meritorious human works in justification, which human beings independently added to God's grace.
But, there are a few questions that emerge from Calvin's view. First, if human beings cannot merit anything before God, then should we also deny that the human nature of Christ merited eternal life by His righteousness? Second, if human beings cannot merit anything before God by their good works, then why is it important to deny a place to good works in justification? Third, if the good works of human beings cannot merit reward from God, then why should we affirm that the sins of human beings de-merit a penalty from God? This third question leads to some controversial matters, but Calvin taught that the creature is never independent of the Creator, even when the creature sins. And, if the creature is dependent upon the Creator, even when he sins, then how can the creature de-merit a penalty from God as if his sins originated independently of God?
In another post, we'll examine some developments in later Reformed Orthodoxy that sought to answer the questions above.
Calvin deplored the term “merit” because he believed it an unnecessary philosophical addition to the teaching of Scripture. He abhorred the idea that a creature could merit anything from God because that would imply that the creature is independent of the Creator. The good works of human beings do not originate from themselves. Rather, the good works human beings do are themselves grace gifts of God. Therefore, human beings can never be said to merit anything by their good works. The rewards God gives to good works are, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, “grace upon grace.”
One interesting implication of Calvin's denial of merit is that there is no reason to exclude human works from justification. Now, Calvin did clearly exclude human works from justification and affirmed imputed righteousness along with its corollary: faith alone. But, if good works are gifts of God's grace and have no merit in themselves, then it is not necessary to exclude them from justification in order to retain the gracious character of justification. Perhaps this is why Calvin didn't fault Augustine too much for holding exactly that viewpoint. What Calvin opposed was the Roman Catholic notion of meritorious human works in justification, which human beings independently added to God's grace.
But, there are a few questions that emerge from Calvin's view. First, if human beings cannot merit anything before God, then should we also deny that the human nature of Christ merited eternal life by His righteousness? Second, if human beings cannot merit anything before God by their good works, then why is it important to deny a place to good works in justification? Third, if the good works of human beings cannot merit reward from God, then why should we affirm that the sins of human beings de-merit a penalty from God? This third question leads to some controversial matters, but Calvin taught that the creature is never independent of the Creator, even when the creature sins. And, if the creature is dependent upon the Creator, even when he sins, then how can the creature de-merit a penalty from God as if his sins originated independently of God?
In another post, we'll examine some developments in later Reformed Orthodoxy that sought to answer the questions above.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
What Does it Mean to Love Christ?
Adapted from Holiness by J.C. Ryle.
The answer to this question is no different from what it means to love anyone. What does it mean to love your husband or wife, or to love a parent or a child, or to love a good friend? Love to Christ is not substantially different from love for any person.
If we love Christ, we like to think about Him. He is often present in our thoughts. It is that way between a true Christian and Christ. Eph 3:17 says that Christ “dwells in his heart.” True Christians think thoughts of Christ.
If we love Christ, we like to hear about Him. We find pleasure in listening to those who speak about Christ. True Christians most enjoy sermons that are full of Christ, and they enjoy the company of those who speak of Christ. “Did not our hearts burn within us, while He talked with us on the road, while He opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32)?
If we love Christ, we like to read about Him. The true Christian delights in the Scriptures because they speak of Christ. It is not wearisome to read a letter from a loved one. “You search the Scriptures . . . it is they that bear witness about Me” (Jn 5:39).
If we love Christ, we like to please Him. We are happy to find out what He likes and what He dislikes. We are willing to deny ourselves to please Him. To someone who loves Christ, the Ten Commandments are not burdensome, if they are what pleases Him. “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15); “And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:3).
If we love Christ, we like His friends. Even before we meet a friend of a friend, we are inclined to like him. True Christians regard all other Christians as friends because they are friends of the Lord Jesus Christ. “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15).
If we love Christ, we are jealous about His name and honor. We do not like to hear anyone speak against Him. We feel jealous to maintain His interests and reputation. “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
If we love Christ, we talk to Him. The true Christian has no difficulty in speaking to his Savior. We tell Him all our thoughts. We have no hesitation about telling Him anything that is on our mind. We are not happy until we have spoken our minds and hearts to our friend. We ask for comfort in difficulty. “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:6-7).
Finally, if we love Christ, we like to be with Him. Thinking, hearing, and talking are all important, but if we really love a person, we want to be near him. The true Christian wants to hold communion with Christ without interruption. The true Christian longs for that day when he will see Christ face to face. “Surely I am coming soon. Amen! Come Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20)!
These are the marks of true love. It is no hidden or secret thing that is hard to understand.
The answer to this question is no different from what it means to love anyone. What does it mean to love your husband or wife, or to love a parent or a child, or to love a good friend? Love to Christ is not substantially different from love for any person.
If we love Christ, we like to think about Him. He is often present in our thoughts. It is that way between a true Christian and Christ. Eph 3:17 says that Christ “dwells in his heart.” True Christians think thoughts of Christ.
If we love Christ, we like to hear about Him. We find pleasure in listening to those who speak about Christ. True Christians most enjoy sermons that are full of Christ, and they enjoy the company of those who speak of Christ. “Did not our hearts burn within us, while He talked with us on the road, while He opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32)?
If we love Christ, we like to read about Him. The true Christian delights in the Scriptures because they speak of Christ. It is not wearisome to read a letter from a loved one. “You search the Scriptures . . . it is they that bear witness about Me” (Jn 5:39).
If we love Christ, we like to please Him. We are happy to find out what He likes and what He dislikes. We are willing to deny ourselves to please Him. To someone who loves Christ, the Ten Commandments are not burdensome, if they are what pleases Him. “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15); “And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:3).
If we love Christ, we like His friends. Even before we meet a friend of a friend, we are inclined to like him. True Christians regard all other Christians as friends because they are friends of the Lord Jesus Christ. “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15).
If we love Christ, we are jealous about His name and honor. We do not like to hear anyone speak against Him. We feel jealous to maintain His interests and reputation. “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
If we love Christ, we talk to Him. The true Christian has no difficulty in speaking to his Savior. We tell Him all our thoughts. We have no hesitation about telling Him anything that is on our mind. We are not happy until we have spoken our minds and hearts to our friend. We ask for comfort in difficulty. “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:6-7).
Finally, if we love Christ, we like to be with Him. Thinking, hearing, and talking are all important, but if we really love a person, we want to be near him. The true Christian wants to hold communion with Christ without interruption. The true Christian longs for that day when he will see Christ face to face. “Surely I am coming soon. Amen! Come Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20)!
These are the marks of true love. It is no hidden or secret thing that is hard to understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
