Shepherd the Flock

I am going to spend a few posts in the coming weeks sharing various excerpts from the Michael Horton book, Christless Christianity. This is the first post in what I hope to be a mini-series examining the claims of this book.

As I have said before, I highly recommend Christless Christianity to you, as I consider it to be one of the most important books written in the last few years.

Today’s topic: What is the Gospel?
Recently, on a discussion list I am a member of, a friend of mine asked the following question, requesting a response:

What is the Gospel?

A. A Command
B. An Announcement
C. An Offer
D. All of the above
E. Something else

How would you answer this question? I certainly think there is some legitimacy in “all of the above”, but if we’re completely honest about how scripture presents the gospel, I must say that ‘B’, an announcement, probably begins to answer the question best.

Consider this in light of the following excerpt:

“J. Gresham Machen’s cry, directed at Protestant liberalism, can as easily be addressed to evangelicals today: “What I need first of all is not exhortation, but a gospel, not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me. Have you any good news? That is the question I ask of you. I know your exhortations will not help. But if anything has been done to save me, will you not tell me the facts?”

As I read through this book, I begun to realize how our culture, and certainly myself included at times, have gotten the gospel backwards. Even in solid, bible-believing reformed circles, too often the gospel is a great exhortation to ‘believe’, or ‘repent’, or ‘place faith in Christ’, or ‘deny yourself’, or any number of things which center on us doing something. This, I fear, many otherwise sincere believers sometimes misunderstand.

But the gospel and our response to the gospel are two different things. We cannot preach our response to the gospel and call it ‘the gospel’; to do so would just preach ourselves. Rather, we must understand that we only call for our response to the gospel after the proclamation of good news has first been given, instead of the other way around.

More on this to come.

I absolutely love to read. It’s a hobby that aids relaxation. It’s a duty as a Christian, husband, and father. It’s a necessary discipline for me personally and intellectually (exercising the mind much like exercising the body). But even though I love to read, I don’t always feel like reading. Rather, it is something that I am committed to one way or another; whether I feel like it or not.

For those of you who do not know me personally, I have a full time job, I attend college courses part time (Kennesaw State University), and I also have a wonderful family (pregnant wife and soon to be two-year old!). Needless to say, my responsibilities at work, school, home, not to mention my involvement with my local church, often leave me without much spare time.

And so considering all of this, I’m often asked just how I find time to read so much. Generally, my friends and family assume that I’m just a fast reader, or that I speed-read (only reading the summary of chapters and/or skipping unimportant paragraphs). Not true. I’m actually a slow reader, and one of my pet-peeves is that I cannot put down a book until I have read every last word –including all introductions, appendixs, and references. So I never start another book until I have completely finished the previous one.

Nevertheless, I do get a fair amount of reading accomplished. I probably average 2-3 books per week when school is slow or out, and 1-2 books per week when things are busy.

Tips for reading more in 2009:

Thus, to offer a big secret plan (not really) on how you can read more in 2009, I offer this: read 30min - 1 hour before starting the day, read 30min or so during the day (usually at lunch), and read 30min - 1hour after the day is over. Of course, your Sabbath should encompass a full day of reading and worshiping the Lord, so you should be able to get a few hours in there as well. And this plan doesn’t even count the additional time you should have on Saturdays and holidays.

So it’s really that simple. Nothing special about it; just commit to a little time each day, and the plan above will get you through at least a book a week on average. Just commit to sacrifice a little time: a little sleep to get up slightly earlier; a half-hour lunch break to eat instead of a full hour; and that 30min television show or internet surfing in the evening, and you will find that reading and getting through books is really quite simple. In fact, you’ll find that if you commit even a small time (say 15minutes at the times above), then you will get into the reading itself to the point where you will magically find more time to read (in other words, you will enjoy it enough to place it as a higher priority over things such as TV, surfing, etc.)

Recommended Reading:

The list below is my top-ten book recommendations from what I read in 2008. Only one book in this list was published this year, so understand that this list is my personal recommendations based upon what I’ve read in 2008. It is not a list recommending new or even newer books. But I highly recommend these books, as I have carefully read and benefited from every one:

1) Without question, the best book I have read this year, and probably the best book I have read in quite some time, is Christless Christianity by Michael Horton. Excellent book. I can’t say enough about it. It is absolutely a must have. I would consider paying some people to sit down read this one. Go out and buy this book today. I will be buying boxes for friends and family. Lord-willing (and time-willing), I hope to post a review of it soon.

2) John G Paton Missionary to the New Hebrides, John Paton: This is a classic, best-seller of the great missionary John Paton. A phenomenal and exciting read of John Paton and his faith on an island of cannibals. I am actually re-reading this book, with my wife and daughter for family worship, and am enjoying it even more the second time around.

3) The Puritans on Prayer, Various authors: A great devotional read. This book will be a top 10 in any list I put together. It will change the way you look at prayer, and by God’s grace, it will stoke your fire for prayer.

4) Precious Remedies from Satan’s Devices, Thomas Brooks: another Puritan classic. If you’re not familiar with puritan literature, this is an excellent place to start. This is another one of my very favorites, as is everything I’ve read from Thomas Brooks.

5) Counted Righteous in Christ, John Piper: a short little doctrinal work on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (often called the active obedience of Christ). This book just warmed my heart. A great defense of a doctrine that is at the heart of the gospel (though much attacked in our day).

6) The Fear of God, John Bunyan: a devotional, warming, and classic puritan argumentation on an important subject.

7) War Psalms of the Prince of Peace, James Adams: this will change the way you look at the Psalms. A great Redemptive Historical argument for Christ-centeredness in our Psalm reading.

8 ) Lectures to My Students, Charles Spurgeon: A classic which I had never read before, but one that I really benefited from. A must read for any student of ministry.

9) Christ’s Counsel to His Languishing Church, Obadiah Sedgwick: Excellent book on recovering from spiritual lethargy. We all fall into those periods of struggle; this Puritan work will change the way you look at things next time you fall into a lull.

10) Rediscovering Catechism: The Art of Equipping Covenant Children, Donald Van Dyken: Short little work on catechizing. I thought the author’s argument for how children learn and thus how to catechize children was excellent.

Other honorable mentions of what I’ve read this year:

• The Day God Made, Glen Knect: best book I’ve read on the explanation of the Christian Sabbath.
• Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Graeme Goldsworthy: A must-read of biblical interpretation for the preacher/teacher.
• Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murray: classic work; one I’ve read before, but reading through it again helped stoke my fire for the gospel in all of its beautiful facets.
• A Treatise on Earthly-Mindedness, Jeremiah Burroughs: for the dedicated reader, this thorough work is a great puritan work on a very important subject.
• The Hidden Smile of God, John Piper: great gift book; short, devotional read, and an excellent treatment on suffering by John Piper.

I hope that’s enough to get you started reading in 2009! I’ve got quite a book list in front of me, but the question is, do you?

In Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Graeme Goldworthy sets forth a very clear agenda, an agenda reflected in the title, and one that serves as the main thesis of the book from beginning to end:

“The aim of this book is to provide a handbook for preachers that will help them apply a consistently Christ-centered approach to their sermons.”

Very simply put about what Goldsworthy means when he says ‘Christ-centered approach’, Goldsworthy emphasizes that all of scripture and redemptive history testify and point to Jesus Christ, and therefore, “Jesus is the interpretive key to the Bible”.

In essence, this book is intended to assist the preacher to begin his sermon preparation with the question: “How does this passage of Scripture, and consequently my sermon, testify to Christ?” And I must say, Goldsworthy definitely accomplishes this goal on a very practical level.

A few personal thoughts on the thesis:
Part one of the book deals with various presuppositions that we might bring to the table when sitting down to interpret scripture. Goldsworthy here argues for what is called a “Redemptive-Historical” or “thematic” approach to interpreting scripture. Biblical Theology, as it is termed (Google this term if you are unfamiliar with its definition), and the approach of Goldsworthy in this book, is to help the preacher understand how each part of scripture ultimately points to fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is, how certain themes run throughout the Old Testament into the New, and how these themes point to and culminate in the Person and Work of Christ. We understand the Old Testament through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Biblical Theology traces ‘gospel’ themes throughout all of scripture. Very important to recognizing these themes and properly interpreting scripture is the solid understanding of the point in redemptive history in which the text is given.

With that being said, this book is not a full defense of the Redemptive Historical method. This book is certainly a good explanation and guideline to the RH method, but it is certainly not a defense or full treatment of the subject. In fact, I found the author to be very dogmatic at times, making statements all throughout that he does not fully support. The book is riddled with argumentation that presupposes the tenants of Biblical Theology/the Redemptive Historical method that some readers might disagree with. However, I do not consider this a bad thing, for I agree with most of what Goldsworthy sets forth, how he goes about interpreting the text of scripture, and thus I found his wisdom and logic to be very edifying. But considering this, I would first recommend this book to those who already agree with the basic tenants of Biblical Theology/Redemptive Historical interpretation, or to those who fairly new to this biblical science of interpretation.

The second half of the book covers “The Practical Application of Biblical Theology to Preaching”. Here Goldsworthy examines different ‘epochs’ in scripture, such as the Old Testament Law or the Wisdom Literature, and he demonstrates how we might go about examining themes/pinpointing how they point to Christ and the gospel/put the BT/RH method into practice. I found this section to be a very helpful and practical guide as to how to preach and put into practice the method of examining scripture in light of Jesus Christ and His accomplished work.

This section is very easy to follow, with many helpful charts and diagrams to help explain and understand redemptive history. It is specifically written to the one who will be teaching and preaching on this subject, though I imagine that any layman would have no trouble following what Goldsworthy sets forth.

A few concerns I had:
I approached this book from a layman’s perspective, as I have aimed this review. With this in mind, understanding that critiquing the theology and flow of argument was not my main objective, I must say that I did not find much wrong with this book. However, if I were to go a little deeper, I would like to further examine a few minor concerns:

-In the introduction Goldsworthy shares a little story highlighting how Christological preaching can easily become predictable, and that his goal in the book is to help keep us from being predictable/boring our audience with the exact same ‘Christ-centered’ message week after week. This book certainly helps us in that goal, but I do not believe he goes far enough in this work to fully flesh it out.

-Goldsworthy expresses much concern on the ‘moralistic’ preaching of our day and the emphasis on ethical imperatives divorced from the gospel, rightly so. He warns that exegetical, verse by verse preaching can sometimes separate the first part of an epistle (gospel) from the second part of an epistle (practical application). I highly applaud his concerns here, but without question he does not set forth a clear alternative to this problem to help preachers avoid this dichotomy. Are we to scrap verse by verse preaching and preach entire epistles instead (in one sermon)? Personally, I was left a little disheartened at times in that preparing to preach in Goldswothy’s system is something that will require immense preparation, or life-long practice in order to preach a simple text of scripture in its context.

-As others have pointed out in reviews of this book, Goldsworthy sees Redemptive History as beginning with Abraham rather than in Genesis 3 with the promise of the Seed. His charts and diagrams reflect this error all throughout. Fleshing out the implications and ramifications of this view is beyond the scope of this review, but this is definitely a sticking point with me, and should be noted with caution.

-Furthermore, Goldsworthy’s view on scripture division is Abraham to Solomon, Solomon to Exile, and Christ to Parousia. While I agree largely with his division, specifically in how he uses this to teach proper interpretation (properly considering the point in redemptive history which a text is given, and not jumping from that point directly to the modern reader while skipping how it ultimately points to Christ first), I believe Goldsworthy to be lacking in the area of traditional Reformed/Covenant theology and how the covenants provide the proper structure and support for biblical interpretation. I will have to read more of his works to form a full opinion, but I was uncomfortable at times with his divisions and neglect of traditional ways of understanding the divisions and covenants in scripture.

Conclusion:
Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture is a must have for any student of scripture. Even if you do not agree with everything Goldsworthy says, you will undoubtedly view scripture in a different light, and will have an immediate desire to re-read your bible and trace the Messianic/Gospel themes littered throughout. I would label this a great introduction to the Biblical Theology/Redemptive Historical hermeneutic, not only for this presentation, but for his practical outworking of this method found in the second half of the book.

I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

A few choice quotes:

“Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”

“Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”

“We [often] recognize the existence of elements of discontinuity between us and the Old Testament, but we do not so readily recognize those that exist between us and the New Testament.”

“There is often a failure to think through how the link between the people and events of the Old Testament are to be made with us as, presumably, New Testament people. This failure leads to some major defects in preaching, not the least of which is the tendency to moralize on Old Testament events, or simply to find pious examples to imitate.”

“It is clear from the New Testament that the ethical example of Christ is secondary to and dependent upon the primary and unique work of Christ for us. Yet this does not seem to be clear to many when it comes to the Old Testament. The message of the Old Testament is too easily reduced to the imitation of godly example and the avoidance of the ungodly example.”

“My concern about evangelism is that sometimes there is a greater emphasis on the need for some kind of response than on the clear exposition of the gospel…Telling people the need for the gospel, both their felt need and the real need, is plainly important, but it is not itself the gospel. When we have explained what God has done for us in Christ –the gospel– then we may go on to explain the benefits of receiving the gospel and the perils of ignoring it.”

Other posts on this subject:

• Moralistic Preaching
• What is Your ‘Gospel’?
• Newsweek Magazine, Gay Marriage, and Moral Examples from Scripture

Quoted in Christless Christianity:

“C.S. Lewis once observed, “I haven’t always been a Christian. I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”

This quote struck me, not only because it is true, but because the American church is preaching something entirely different. Sure, sin is, in a sense, empty, destructive, and ultimately unfulfilling, but in the temporal sense, it provides great excitement, comfort, and pleasure.

The popular ‘gospel’ today, however, will not actually come out and say that the Christian life is anything less than fun, exciting, comfortable, therapeutic, and the key to happiness. No longer is it palatable and popular to say that sin is actually fun and Christianity can actually be boring and troublesome in comparison; instead, the message has shifted entirely in arguing that Christianity is actually the key to satisfaction and adventure, and that sin is kind of ‘less dignified’ living, in a way, by comparison.

But Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, provides no such temporal luxuries as is often promised now days. Oftentimes temporal conveniences and blessings do come to Christian, but the real promises and benefits are in the next life. And temporally speaking, scripture repeatedly sets forth suffering in this life, rather than prosperity, as the norm for the Christian life.

Consider another quote from Christless Christianity:

“It’s…what Luther called the “theology of glory”: How can I climb the latter and attain the glory here and now that God has actually promised for us after a life of suffering?”

In light of all the competing gospel messages in our day, have we forgotten that we Christians have been chosen for salvation apart from our own will, justified and sanctified based upon Another’s righteousness (and that alone), and appointed for suffering in this life in hope of attaining the resurrection of the dead?

Last week Newsweek magazine published an article entitled “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage”, authored by Lisa Miller. Al Mohler covers the gist of the article in an excellent blog-post here.

The purpose of my mention of it today is not to discuss Gay marriage, the Bible’s specific teaching on the subject, our even our attitude to the culture’s slow-but-sure acceptance of sodomy. Mohler does a good job hitting a few high points, and over at Phil Johnson’s blog, Frank Turk posts some valuable insight as well.

Rather, I would like to briefly discuss interpretation of scripture. So let’s start by considering a few quotes out of this Newsweek article, which again, is labeled a “Religious” (or ‘biblical’) case for the acceptance of homosexual ‘marriage’:

“Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.”

“…in the Old Testament, “examples of what social conservatives call ‘the traditional family’ are scarcely to be found.”

Miller also goes into the New Testament teaching on marriage, seemingly arguing that it’s a matter of confusion and ambiguity rather than clarity, but again, what struck me about this article is how the author interprets scripture.

At face value, Miller is dead-on with her assertion that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, presents heroes and righteous men who had their serious defects regarding ‘traditional’ marriage. She mentions Abraham, Jacob, Solomon and others above, but there’s also Samson, Hosea, and who can forget ‘Rahab the Harlot’. Not only are these figures spoken very highly of in the Old Testament, but they are in the New Testament as well, as even Rahab and Samson are mentioned in the ‘Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews chapter 11.

So given the serious moral defects of many righteous believers in scripture, we must ask the question: Why has God preserved this record for us? Would it not be better to edit out the fact that Rahab was a prostitute, or that Samson was given over to sexual lust, or that David and his son Solomon, forerunners to Jesus Christ, were adulterers and men of seemingly uncontrollable (at times) sexual passion?

There are, of course, many reasons we could give for why God preserved this record for us –even more so for why He has exalted these men and women as great people of God. For starters, it speaks to the authenticity of scripture, the depravity of our nature –even redeemed nature, as well as the depths of God’s love and forgiveness through the suffering and death of Jesus Christ on behalf of these sins.

But what troubles me about this article is not what Miller is doing, for clearly she has entirely missed what the Bible clearly teaches in these areas. Rather, what troubles me about this article is that Miller is simply doing what conservative evangelicals all across our nation are doing, and indeed, have been doing for many ages: she is looking at scripture, particularly the examples of those who are presented as righteous believers, as if they were given to us chiefly as a moral, pious examples that we should follow.

Who can blame Miller for interpreting scripture like this when this Sunday countless pastors will stand in the pulpit and preach sermons such as ‘Dare to be a Daniel’, or ‘Slaying the Giants in your life’, etc.? For there is no doubt that evangelical culture in which we live has deadly assumption that the people in scripture, particularly the narratives of the Old Testament, are given to us primarily to provide us patterns of faith and behavior that we are to imitate. Friends, this is nothing less than ambiguity and situational ethics on the negative side, and moralism at it’s finest on the positive side.

Consider on the negative side, that the examples in scripture teach us what is wrong: if Abraham lied in certain situations, then maybe it’s OK for us to do likewise, in certain situations. Or if David was culpable to adultery and murder, and he was a great man of God, then although adultery and murder are not preferrable patterns of behavior, at least we know that it cannot be that big of deal in God’s eyes.

So taking the examples in scripture as helping us define right from wrong, we end up with ambiguity, situation ethics, and a flat out denial of scriptural truth, as in the case of Miller above.

But this pattern of interpretation couldn’t be further from the truth –and I hope to briefly illustrate this below. For even on the positive side, that scripture helps define for us what is right, the figures in scripture are not given to us primarily that we may follow their example, for that does nothing but preach to us a gospel of man, not a gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, even the ethical example of Jesus Christ are “secondary to and dependent upon the primary and unique work of Christ for us” (Goldsworthy, P4). Clearly, man is not in any way saved by his effort to imitate Jesus Christ, thus even His perfect ethical example is superseded by the message of the gospel itself.

Therefore, viewing scripture as if the men and women are given to us as examples of how we should or should not live, will always, always lead to some kind of error. Sure, we may not go to Miller’s extreme and use these examples to justify sodomy or adultery, for those sins are obvious in scripture. But take, for example, Gideon’s fleece in Judges 6:36-40: is this practice of testing God an acceptable practice for us to implement in this day? What about the story of Jephthah’s tragic vow in Judges 12:29-40? Or what about David’s dancing before the Ark (2 Sam 6:14); does this justify a similar practice in our day?

You see, in the three examples I give above, scripture is somewhat unclear on whether these actions, blessed actions by Godly men, are acceptable or not for us to imitate. And when we consider the great distance that stands between our situation and those events back then, we should be even more convinced that it is dangerous for us to use these events and others chiefly as examples for us to study and imitate.

In conclusion, the message of scripture is primarily and chiefly about what Jesus Christ has accomplished in His life, death, and resurrection. The stories and examples we have in scripture, though in some manner serving as an example for us, are given first and foremost to testify and exalt the gospel and the Person and work of Christ. All of scripture, from beginning to end, is given primarily to point to, communicate, and exalt the grace of the gospel found in Jesus Christ and His accomplished work.

Looking at scripture as a ‘how to’ guide, and using the men and women in scripture chiefly as moral examples of right and wrong will consistently and undoubtedly undermine the primary message of the accomplishment of Jesus Christ. Moralism is deadly subtle, and it is even deadlier to the soul. Even when we use these examples conservatively and properly, being careful to let the Law and the didactic portions of scripture interpret the moral examples for us, we still do an injustice to the ultimate message if we fail emphasize Christ, His work, and His gospel of grace as being the centrality and primacy of the Bible’s message.

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” - Luke 24:25-27

What is the gospel you proclaim? For most who read this blog (and a small number indeed), we could probably spit out the essence of the gospel in relatively few sentences, without even giving it much thought.

But in the quote below, the author makes a very acute observation regarding our operative gospel, and our basis of acceptance of other Christians. Consider the fact that the gospel we profess when asked, and the gospel we actually live out, might actually be two different things:

“Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.” - Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture

Two quick points on Goldsworthy’s comments:

First, how obvious is it that many sound, evangelical churches, who might profess the gospel on paper, actually preach a different ‘gospel’ week end and week out?

I don’t know about you, but among the non-reformed churches I’ve been in, the gospel has often been more about making a decision for Jesus, tithing ten percent of our gross income,  reaching that emotional-high during ‘worship’, or telling every single person that we run into that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life.

And among the reformed churches I’ve been in, the gospel has often been more about homeschooling, how the women dress, how Calvinistic we are in every statement we make on the gospel, or ‘denying yourself’ to the level that it becomes a law that we cannot possibly obey, etc.

The bottom line: though we certainly have distinctions and firm beliefs in secondary matters, if we’re preaching more about how glorious the 5 points of Calvinism are, rather than how magnificent Christ and Him crucified is, then we’ve abandoned the gospel, no matter what we profess when pressed to define our beliefs. And on the other hand, if we’re teaching people more about what steps to take to better living, or how to really obtain God’s blessings, then we’ve abandoned the gospel just the same.

Secondly, how sad is it that we are so quick to avoid those other Christians who do not hold to our distinctives? For example, another family doesn’t homeschool like we do; are we likely to elevate homeschooling as our ‘gospel’? Too often, I fear, we overlook those who hold to and proclaim the pure gospel, because we’re so focussed on where we disagree with them on secondary issues.

Conclusion:
What message is it that most consistently comes out of your mouth? And what standard is it that most consistently makes or breaks your acceptance of other Christians? This, my friends, will go a long way in revealing just what ‘gospel’ you actually adhere to.

And please, for the sake of the gospel, strive to make Jesus Christ and Him crucified permeate your preaching, teaching, practical living, and basis of fellowship with others.

Quotes taken from Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture:

“In my experience the preaching of a series of sermons, say, from an epistle, easily leads the preacher to fragmentation because, while the epistle was written as a single letter to be read at one time, it is often divided up so that it is dealt with in Sunday sermons over a period of several weeks. This is nothing wrong with that as such, provided we recognize the changed dynamics. Thus, Paul may expound the gospel in the first part of the letter, and then go on to spell out some ethical and pastoral implications. When the preacher finally gets to deal with the latter, it is possibly a couple of weeks or more since the gospel exposition has happened, and the connection between the gospel and behavior, very closely related in the epistle, can be lost. The result is that the exhortations and commands are no longer seen to arise out of the good news of God’s grace in the gospel, but as simple imperatives of Christian behavior; as naked law.”

“We [often] recognize the existence of elements of discontinuity between us and the Old Testament, but we do not so readily recognize those that exist between us and the New Testament.”

“There is often a failure to think through how the link between the people and events of the Old Testament are to be made with us as, presumably, New Testament people. This failure leads to some major defects in preaching, not the least of which is the tendency to moralize on Old Testament events, or simply to find pious examples to imitate.”

“It is clear from the New Testament that the ethical example of Christ is secondary to and dependent upon the primary and unique work of Christ for us. Yet this does not seem to be clear to many when it comes to the Old Testament. The message of the Old Testament is too easily reduced to the imitation of godly example and the avoidance of the ungodly example.”

“The God who acts in the Old Testament is the God who becomes flesh in the New Testament in order to achieve the definitive saving work in the world. At the heart of this saving work is not the ethical teaching of Jesus, but His obedient life and death, His glorious resurrection and His ascension to the right hand of God on high. In a remarkable way the resurrection is portrayed as the event that encapsulates and fulfills all the theological themes of the Old Testament. This is not in any sense to denigrate the ethical dimension. The Bible shows us that God is lawful and that the freedom we have in Christ is not lawlessness. It is a matter of perspective…The ethics of the Bible are put out of perspective when they are given exclusive or prior claim over the grace of God. To put it another way, the gift of God is always prior to and the basis of the task we are given, to live godly lives.”

You may have noticed a news story this week about the advertisement campaign seen below. Posters just like this one are going up in buses around Washington, DC in a $40,000 holiday ad campaign promoted by The American Humanist Association:

So as Christians, how should we respond to should the opportunity presents itself?

First, we shouldn’t consider it an insult or a direct attack on the freedom and rights we have in the area of religion. This is simply a group expressing their own opinion –they have every right to do so. Now, as we’ll see below, we by all means *should* consider this an insult and/or attack on our intelligence and ability to think rationally, but we shouldn’t be overly surprised or offended that someone wants to express their foolish opinion.

Secondly, we shouldn’t be surprised at such an ad slogan given that most of this country already lives as if there is no God, no matter what is confessed from the mouth. The unrestrained sin and decadence of our culture bears perfect witness that the majority of Americans live as though God doesn’t exist. For if people really believed God existed, we certainly wouldn’t see the rampant sexual immorality, abortion, theft, murder, deception, etc., that permeates our culture (and even our entertainment). Thus, in a way, consider this ad as an attempt to get people to profess what the majority have already chosen to live like: that there are no such standards of right and wrong, good and evil.

Next, forgive me for stating the obvious, but we should have some pity on the poor soul who attempts to define what is ‘good’ after denying the only source and fountain of any logical rationality? Also, “Be good for goodness’ sake”? –that’s a very true statement in that they are being honest in saying that there is no real reason why anyone should be good. Therefore, go out and do good (whatever that is) for the sake of goodness (whatever that is)!

In other words: if you think adultery is good, then go for it! If you’d be happier and your family better off by being $10,000 richer, then for goodness’ sake, go steal it from someone who doesn’t need it as bad as you do, or do whatever else is necessary for the survival and goodness of your family!

‘But you’re misrepresenting us’, the humanist will argue. ‘We do not advocate doing those things harmful to society.’ Well then, let’s go to the website of this ad campaign and see what they have to say:

“We can have ethics and values that aren’t set in stone. Our ideals and principles can evolve over time to reflect our ever-changing and increasingly complex world. Yet, we can be confident of the decisions that we make, not because someone told us what to do but because we relied on our own careful reasoning and emotional reflection. We can live a life that accepts and appreciates the world as it is, without needing to see supernatural explanations behind every event. This is a positive and uplifting way to live.”

So in other words, however it is that you define ‘good’, just be sure that the rest of the crowd agrees with you. If that’s the case, then you’re in the clear.

Thus, if you live in a society where pedophila is deemed ‘OK’ by the careful reasoning and emotional reflecting of those around you, then you are doing ‘good’ in practicing your positive and uplifting way of living.

Thus, if you lived in Nazi Germany, where the entire culture and nation around you was united in creating the perfect human race, and exterminating those who they considered as ‘base’ or ‘inferior’ humans was an end to what was deemed ‘good’ by time-tested society, then your agreement to this and participation in the murder of millions would be considered ‘good’ in practicing your positive and uplifting way of living.

Let’s take a look at some more stuff from this website:

Without a god, why be good at all?

• Because you know you want to, anyway. Unless you were born a sociopath or had your natural sensibilities destroyed in childhood, you have the same general sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust, kind and mean that people have all over the world.

There you have it, folks: Be good because you want to anyway. We can give you no definition of good, no rational behind the concept, no argumentation to convince you that it exists, and absolutely no rewards/consequences for acting one way or another, but be ‘good’ because we say so!

But have you considered, if the paragraph quoted above is true, that all people just ‘want’ to be good anyway, why run such a campaign that encourages people to be ‘good’? Doesn’t that defeat the argument? Are people, maybe by the corruption of religious beliefs such as ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’, rebelling against this good that they want to do anyway? This paragraph kind of undermines the campaign, does it not?

[And isn’t it funny how children don’t just pursue good on their own? Those of you with small children, like myself, will understand that kindness, sharing, patience, manners, unselfishness, etc., must be relentlessly taught to children by discipline, punishment, reward, etc. Only a fool would argue that children do good naturally.]

My friends, the Bible says that “the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.‘” And one piece of evidence that proves such a statement is true can be so clearly seen in the beliefs expressed above.

This ad and the message of this group make absolutely no sense to those who have a brain. Without the Christian God, and I do emphasis the Trinitarian God revealed in scripture and in the Person of Jesus Christ, we have no ability to define right from wrong, good from evil, order from disorder, etc. Furthermore, without the Christian God, we don’t even have the ability to define logical from illogical, rational from irrational, or sense from nonsense, given that nothing is absolute, nothing is fixed, and there is no standard whatsoever to determine anything from

So do me a favor, all you humanists and atheists: why not run an ad campaign that says: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die.”? At least then you could keep your main objective, which is to promote the breaking of God’s law written on your heart –thus silencing your conscience that terrifies you about the coming judgment, and then, with this slogan, you wouldn’t be contradicting yourself and insulting the intelligence of those who actually believe that rationality exists.

Lord, sanctify them with you truth. Your Word is truth.

**UPDATE 11/7/08 - 8pm**

A few months back I mentioned that my former church, First Baptist Woodstock here in the metro Atlanta area, is hosting a ‘John 3:16′ conference where the specific doctrines of Calvinism are going to be examined by a number of speakers. Jerry Vines and Johnny Hunt are obviously the big names on the ticket, and both of these men have a history with their strong disagreements with Calvinism.

But in my last post I offered a few thoughts and concerns regarding this conference, and I (and others) await to see whether there will be any serious interaction with scripture by those who oppose the doctrines of grace. Let’s hope and pray that the rhetoric is low and the digging into scripture is preeminent!

I will not be attending the conference, but my good friend Andrew Lindsey is there, and will be ‘live-blogging’ the conference via Tim Challies blog. You can follow his progress over at Challies.com, and Andrew’s first post can be found here.

Also, another good friend of mine, ‘johnmark‘, will be live-blogging the conference as well.His first post on the subject can be found here.

Lastly, I would like to open up this comment thread for any and all thoughts on the conference, no matter what your position. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

“So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” - Hebrews 4:9-10

How do you understand the Bible’s teaching on the Sabbath? Of course, this Sabbath issue appears throughout scripture, first in the Garden of Eden before sin entered the world, then in the Law and Prophets of the Old Testament, but then again here in the fourth chapter of Hebrews. So whether or not you agree that the Sabbath is still a command for New Testament Christians to regularly obey, we cannot get around the fact that the Sabbath is permeated in scripture from beginning to end (literally).

Has the Sabbath been abolished as a Old Testament, ceremonial command? Or do Christians in this age still have a binding obligation to observe a Sabbath? Was the Sabbath simply the sign of the Old Covenant with Israel and nothing more? Has Christ fulfilled this issue of the Sabbath, just as He fulfilled other ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament Law, and thus resting our faith in Christ is essentially perpetual Sabbath-keeping? These questions and more, I believe, can at least be partly answered by a careful study of Hebrews chapter four.

Please, all you Sabbath-skeptics, many faithful brothers in sisters in Christ no doubt, hear me out, and hear this text out, as I attempt to make a few brief points from it:

First, we must understand here that the Sabbath day points to the eternal Sabbath rest, in heaven, for those who have faith in Christ, and that it always has pointed to this.

“For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.” - Heb 4:8

Here the writer says that this Sabbath rest, which is the reality and fulfillment of the Seventh day command (per 4:4), was not fulfilled with the rest that Joshua brought in the promised land, but that this ‘day’ is the end and fulfillment of our faith, the eternal age where we rest in the works of Jesus Christ, as He has rested from His. It is a heavenly, eternal rest.

So just as those in the Old Testament were under obligation to obey the Sabbath, looking forward to its fulfillment, we too are likewise awaiting its fulfillment, and are told here in this chapter to “strive to enter that rest” (v11), “while the promise of entering his rest still stands” (v1), for “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God” (v9). Nothing has changed from Old Testament to New Testament in regards to consummation of the Sabbath, other than the fact that Christ is our Sabbath and has fully accomplished that rest for those who have faith in Him. But we await full consummation just as they awaited full consummation, so abolishing/fulfilling the Sabbath as if it has now come makes no sense.

Secondly, do we not see from this text that that the Sabbath rest remains ‘for the people of God‘? Why is it, then, that those who hold to the fulfillment/abolishment of the Sabbath precisely argue that resting in Christ, by faith, in this life, is our obedience to the Sabbath? How then does this verse make sense? What sense would it make to say ‘faith in Christ is obeying the Sabbath, but there still remains a Sabbath for those who have faith in Christ’?? –For the author here is not telling unbelievers that they have a future Sabbath rest if they have faith, but he is telling ‘the people of God’, those who’ve already professed faith in Christ, that their Sabbath is still future.

So then, our final Sabbath rest hasn’t come just yet, for it is still yet future. This Sabbath rest is ‘for the people of God’. That is, those who have faith in this life will experience the Sabbath rest in the age to come. The Sabbath rest does not find its fulfillment in this life, per the teaching of this text, though we are assured that Christ is our Sabbath and will lead us to the eternal Sabbath at the consummation of His kingdom. This is important as we consider the last point.

Lastly, when we read verse 4 and the subsequent argument to follow, how can we not help but think of other places where this same line of argumentation is used? Consider verse 4:

“For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” - Heb 4:4

The writer of Hebrews is jumping back to Genesis chapter 2 and the original teaching on the Sabbath as a basis for his argumentation to follow.

Parallel this with Ephesians 5, where Paul does the same regarding marriage:

“‘therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” - Eph 5:31-32

Here in verse 31, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 and essentially sums up his practical instruction on marriage by saying that the marriage relationship ultimately pictures Christ’s relationship with the church. So then,  since Jesus Christ and His relationship to us is the final and full reality of this Gen 2 principles of marriage, are we then free to throw out this instruction based upon our faith in Him? Is just having faith in Christ a fulfillment/obedience to the instruction on marriage? Certainly not. Just because fulfillment of typology is affirmed does not mean that the practical instruction of the principle is laid aside. Likewise we see the same with the Sabbath.

So why do some men say we have no obligation to keep the Sabbath since Christ is the ultimate fulfillment, and yet they do not argue the same concerning the commandments surrounding marriage?

The writer of Hebrews, far from annulling, abolishing, or setting aside the Sabbath commandment as duty to be obeyed, instead points the Hebrew church to its full, final, and ultimate reality: faith in Jesus Christ and the future Sabbath rest we will enjoy in Him. The fact that Christ is the final fulfillment of the Sabbath in no way relieves us from the obligation, and yes the weekly duty, to faithfully observe it in obedience.

You see, we have a gracious God who has revealed His will to us. Part of the order of creation involved the institution of the Sabbath, and part of God’s moral law concerned being obedient in Sabbath-keeping. But far from giving us abstract rules or regulations to burden us, He has instead revealed His plan and purpose behind it all. The Sabbath Day is one such gracious revelation of God. He has pointed us to its reality, and in our faithful obedience to the Sabbath, He offers us a weekly taste of what the eternal reality will be like.

We do not have an intellectual, abstract faith that is somehow strengthened by giving intellectual assent to the fact that Christ is our Sabbath –that is a perversion of what this text is teaching us. No, we were given the revelation of the future Sabbath rest and the exhortations to strive to enter it so that our Sabbath-keeping would be a means of grace, and a hopeful expectation for the final fulfillment of the typological sign.