“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.”

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.

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.

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.

You can imagine my surprise today as I read my hometown newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and I ran across an advertisement for Michael Horton’s new book, Christless Christianity. (Actually, I knew it was coming because the White Horse Inn sent me a notice a few weeks back, but I was still shocked when I actually saw the ad).

On the front page of AJC.com, the #1 website I visit to stay on-top of news and sports (following my beloved Georgia Bulldogs and Atlanta Braves), there was an ad and link promoting Horton’s new book, Christless Christianity. The link takes you to a special website devoted to the book’s message, where you can view a quick video introduction, read the first chapter for free, and order the book at 50% off list price.

I must say, this is a very aggressive approach by The White Horse Inn and Michael Horton, for I would classify the AJC as a predominantly liberal and humanistic newspaper (in the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion sense, for example). Certainly nothing of any substance, Christianity-wise, ever really appears there in print. So I am definitely excited to see the Christless Christianity campaign, as this type of front-page ad is likely to generate tens-of-thousands of hits from unbelievers.

But I must say, most of all, I am hoping and praying that pastors and professing-Christians come across this ad and pick up this book. Atlanta is certainly a ‘Bible-belt’, but it goes without saying that upwards of 90% of the thousands and thousands of churches in the area preach a gospel message that is foreign to the New Testament. Pulling Christ out of the heart of the gospel is exactly where the majority have gone, and so I hope this ad will serve to open the eyes and hearts of many who think they have it all together.

What about you? Are there any Atlanta-area readers who’d like to share their thoughts about the ad and the message of ‘Christless Christianity’? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, questions, story, or perception of the impact that the advertisement has had.

**UPDATE**

Here are a few choice quotes from the first chapter of Christless Christianity (download the first chapter for free here:

“Somehow we’ve managed to preach Christ crucified in such a way that few are offended, a once unmanageable God suddenly seems nice, and the gospel makes good sense—as we are accustomed to making sense. We just can’t stand to submit to the machinations of a living God who is determined to have us on God’s terms rather than ours, so we devise a god on our own terms. Flaccid, contemporary Christianity is the result.”

“What would things look like if Satan really took control of a city? Over a half century ago, Presbyterian minister Donald Grey Barnhouse offered his own scenario in his weekly sermon that was also broadcast nationwide on CBS radio. Barnhouse speculated that if Satan took over Philadelphia, all of the bars would be closed, pornography banished, and pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say, “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am,” and the churches would be full every Sunday… where Christ is not preached.”

“Where everything is measured by our happiness rather than by God’s holiness, the sense of our being sinners becomes secondary, if not offensive. If we are good people who have lost our way but with the proper instructions and motivation can become a better person, we need only a life coach, not a redeemer. We can still give our assent to a high view of Christ and the centrality of his person and work, but in actual practice we are being distracted from “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). A lot of the things that distract us from Christ these days are even good things. In order to push us offpoint, all that Satan has to do is throw several spiritual fads, moral and political crusades, and other “relevance” operations into our field of vision. Focusing the conversation on us—our desires, needs, feelings, experience, activity, and aspirations— energizes us. At last, now we’re talking about something practical and relevant.”

“I think that the church in America today is so obsessed with being practical, relevant, helpful, successful, and perhaps even well-liked that it nearly mirrors the world itself. Aside from the packaging, there is nothing that cannot be found in most churches today that could not be satisfied by any number of secular programs and self-help groups.”

“Christless Christianity. Sounds a bit harsh, doesn’t it? A little shallow, sometimes distracted, even a little human-centered rather than Christ-centered from time to time, but Christless? Let me be a little more precise about what I am assuming to be the regular diet in many churches across America today: “do more, try harder.””

“Across the board, from conservative to liberal, Roman Catholic to Anabaptist, New Age to Southern Baptist, the “search for the sacred” in America is largely oriented to what happens inside of us, in our own personal experience, rather than in what God has done for us in history. Even baptism and the Supper are described as “means of commitment” rather than “means of grace” in a host of contemporary systematic theologies by conservative as well as progressive evangelicals. Rather than letting “the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16), the purpose of singing (the “worship time”) seems today more focused on our opportunity to express our own individual piety, experience, and commitment. We come to church, it seems, less to be transformed by the Good News than to celebrate our own transformation and to receive fresh marching orders for transforming ourselves and our world. Rather than being swept into God’s new world, we come to church to find out how we can make God relevant to the “real world” that the New Testament identifies as the one that is actually fading away.”

“Judging by its commercial, political, and media success, the evangelical movement seems to be booming. But is it still Christian? I am not asking that question glibly or simply to provoke a reaction. My concern is that we are getting dangerously close to the place in everyday American church life where the Bible is mined for “relevant” quotes but is largely irrelevant on its own terms; God is used as a personal resource rather than known, worshiped, and trusted; Jesus Christ is a coach with a good game plan for our victory rather than a Savior who has already achieved it for us; salvation is more a matter of having our best life now than being saved from God’s judgment by God himself; and the Holy Spirit is an electrical outlet we can plug into for the power we need to be all that we can be.”

“Far from clashing with the culture of consumerism, American religion appears to be not only at peace with our narcissism but gives it a spiritual legitimacy.”

“…I am not arguing in this book that we have arrived at Christless Christianity but that we are well on our way. There need not be explicit abandonment of any key Christian teaching, just a series of subtle distortions and not-so-subtle distractions. Even good things can cause us to look away from Christ and to take the gospel for granted as something we needed for conversion but which now can be safely assumed and put in the background. Center stage, however, is someone or something else…So much of what I am calling “Christless Christianity” is not profound enough to constitute heresy. Like the easy-listening Muzak that plays ubiquitously in the background in other shopping venues, the message of American Christianity has simply become trivial, sentimental, affirming, and irrelevant.”

“I think our doctrine has been forgotten, assumed, ignored, and even misshaped and distorted by the habits and rituals of daily life in a narcissistic culture. We are assimilating the disrupting and disorienting news from heaven to the banality of our own immediate felt needs, which interpret God as a personal shopper for the props of our life movie: happiness as entertainment, salvation as therapeutic well-being, and mission as pragmatic success measured solely in terms of numbers. So, in my view, we are living out our creed, but that creed is closer to the American Dream than it is to the Christian faith.”

“Where the gospel is not taken for granted, it is often a means to an end, like personal or social transformation, love and service to our neighbors, and other things that in themselves are marvelous effects of the gospel. However, the Good News concerning Christ is not a stepping-stone to something greater and more relevant. Whether we realize it or not, there is nothing in the universe more relevant to us as guilty image-bearers of God than he news that he has found a way to be “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). It is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16), not only for the beginning, but for the middle and end as well—the only thing that creates the kind of new world to which our new obedience corresponds as a reasonable response.”

“While we take Christ’s name in vain for our own causes and positions, trivializing his Word in all sorts of ways, we express outrage when a movie trivializes Christ or depicts Christians in a negative light. Although professing Christians are in the majority, we often like to pretend we are a persecuted flock being prepared for an imminent slaughter through the combined energies of Hollywood and the Democratic Party. But if we ever were really persecuted, would it be because of our offensive posturing and self-righteousness or because we would not weaken the offense of the cross? In my experience, substantiated by countless stories of others, believers who challenge the human-centered process of trivializing the faith are more likely to be persecuted—or at least viewed as troublesome—by their church. My concern is not that God is treated so lightly in American culture but that he is not taken seriously in our own faith and practice.”

“Liberalism started off by downplaying doctrine in favor of moralism and inner experience, losing Christ by degrees. Nevertheless, it is not heresy as much as silliness that is killing us softly. God is not denied but trivialized—used for our life programs rather than received, worshiped, and enjoyed.”

“Jesus has been dressed up as a corporate CEO, life coach, culture-warrior, political revolutionary, philosopher, copilot, cosufferer, moral example, and partner in fulfilling our personal and social dreams. But in all of these ways, are we reducing the central character in the drama of redemption to a prop for our own play?”

“Religion, spirituality, and moral earnestness—what Paul called “the appearance of godliness but denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5)—can continue to thrive in our environment precisely because they avoid the scandal of Christ. Nobody will raise a fuss if you find Jesus helpful for your personal well-being and relationships, or even if you think he was the greatest person in history—a model worthy of devotion and emulation. But start talking about the real crisis—where our best efforts are filthy rags and Jesus came to bear the condemnation of helpless sinners who place their confidence in him rather than in themselves—and people begin shifting in their seats, even in churches.”

How are we to know truth from error in matters of doctrine?

…true doctrine may be discerned from false doctrines:

By the unity of them
…There is but one way (said Aristotle) to hit the mark, but many ways to miss it.
…erroneous doctrines are opposed to truth and themselves.
…truth is single, like Christ’s garment, undivided.

The purity of them
…All false doctrines (like treacherous medicine) gives ease.
…What [error] wants in verity, it makes up in liberty.
…But truth is holy in itself, and to us, teaching it within the heart, and ordering it in the life. It is an adversary to sin because all sin is an adversary unto God.

The efficacy of them
…Usually corrupt doctrines add to our notions, but meddle not with our corruptions. They swell us, but do not edify us; they are pills which only work upon the brain; they neither bring true grace or sound peace with them.
…But the doctrine which is true is strong…it come from God and brings to God; it makes the bad good and the good better.

The antiquity of them
…Truth is first born, for God spoke it, before the devil spoke the other.
…Errors may be old, but truth saw the light before them…

The simplicity of them
…Errors…[are] full of windings and turnings.
…All corrupt doctrines are deceivable an subtle.
…truth is naked and plain…it flatters no man, nor beguiles any.
…[truth] alone can maintain itself against all contrary quarrels.

The duration of them
…Truth, like the sun, has run down through the ages.
…Not that all men have embraced [truth], but that by some it has still been embraced.
…but erroneous doctrines, as they want an inward harmony, so also an outward consent. Like a deceitful brook, they are spent after awhile…though strong or long, yet they come to an end at length.
…[truth] runs from one generation to another.

The conformity of them to rule or word
…erroneous doctrines…cannot abide handling.
…truth will be found truth upon search; bring it to the conscience, it will work as truth. Bring it to the death bed; it will uphold as truth; bring it to the scriptures, it will hold out as truth.

When truths are upon search found to be truths, then embrace them for the truth’s sake, not upon personal and mutable causes or ends…Loyal affection is loyal when it is inclusive to every truth, and exclusive to nothing but truth. This loyal affection will make us to, first, do, second, suffer, and third, cleave. Love truth and truth will be held.

Therefore strive to obey truths: add to your faith virtue; be a doing Christian as well as a knowing Christian.

In this post, so that there is no confusion, let us qualify that statement and present some additional evidence for and explanation of this position.

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. - Rom 8:1-4

This by no means is a full treatment of this passage, but I’d like to point out a few things here that relate to the previous post.

What is Paul saying here?

Verse 1: Those who by faith rest and trust in Christ are under no condemnation whatsoever for their breaking of God’s Law (follow Paul’s logic here from 7:24-25)

Verse 2: In Christ, by His Spirit granted to us at regeneration, we are freed, *not* from the duty of obeying, through love, the OT Law, but we are freed from ‘law of sin and death’, which is the wretchedness of sin dwelling in the unregenerate man (see 7:12;14, 18, 23-25).

Verse 3: The Law of God is powerless to regenerate. The Law has many functions, but because of the weakness of our flesh, it is powerless to justify or sanctify on its own. Instead, God through Jesus Christ condemned our sin in the flesh. Christ did what the Law could not.

Verse 4: What is the end of Christ’s work? What becomes of His condemning our sin in the flesh? So that the righteous requirement of the law… –Which Law? The OT Law? The NT Law? The ‘Law of Christ’? Clearly, without a doubt the context teaches us that is it the Old Testament Law which is fulfilled in us, who no longer walk according to the flesh. What does it mean to not walk according to the flesh? It means the Law no longer serves as a means of sin and death to us, but indeed, the Spirit provides the very power and freedom from condemnation necessary to properly obey the OT Law of God –indeed the only Law of God.

And who is this law fulfilled in? The text does not say ‘fulfilled FOR us’, but it says ‘fulfilled IN us’. In this text, Paul teaches that the fulfillment of the OT Law isn’t just regulated to Christ alone. We are the ones who fulfill this law and its righteous requirements!

Don’t be mistaken: no one would dare argue that the Law is not fulfilled in Christ, for it is in its entirety. But are we severed from our Living Head? Are we not His mystical Body? Would we not take part in His fulfillment? We most certainly do. One important aspect of Christ’s fulfilling of the Law is that His members follow down this same path of obedience to it.

Conclusion:
Those in Christ do not face condemnation by the Law. The Law is no longer a curse to us. The Law is no longer a binding covenant upon us. The Law is no longer rigorous to us. The Law no longer holds any eternal accusations over us. Indeed, we are freed from the Law in every way, and the bondage of every single command within, given that we are in Christ.

But freedom from the Law and its condemnation does not mean that we are not still called to obey it. As the Apostles says above, Christ has freed us from the condemnation of the Law so that we would fulfill the essence of the Law in our walking by the Spirit.

You see? Christ’s words in Matthew 5 fit perfectly with Paul’s words here. Not one word, not one letter of the Law has been set aside, but believers being freed from its bondage, now have been given the power to fulfill it entirely.

“…’with the mind I myself serve the Law of God’…with this agrees James 2:8 ‘if ye fulfill the royal law according to scripture…ye do well’. What Law this was, he (James) shows in the eleven verse to be the Decalogue…Therefore since Christ, who is the best expounder of the Law, so largely strengthens and confirms the Law (witness the Sermon on the Mount, and also Mark 10:19); since faith does no supplant, but strengthens the Law; since the Apostle so often presses and urges the duties commanded in the Law…I must conclude that the Law, for the substance of it, still remains a rule of life to the people of God.” Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom

We do not overthrow the law by our freedom from it in faith. By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. We establish the Law. And we dare not relax even the smallest of its commandments…

But as I have contemplated his preaching through this text, I’ve formulated a few thoughts on this passage that I’d like to share here. Some of these are my pastor’s statements, either directly or indirectly, and some of these are mine. Also be warned: some of these things may come at you at somewhat of a shock, but I trust and pray that they will lead you back to the scriptures and to a further examination of truth.

First the text:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” - Matt 5:17-20

Secondly, a few observations:

• Jesus here is warning people not to ‘think’ or ‘get the impression’ that He is doing away with the Law and the Prophets –despite what His teaching might sound like. He was correcting the Jewish interpretation of the Law in His day, not the actual Law itself.

• This text *specifically* references how a person is *saved* in the New Testament/New Covenant era. For verse 20 clearly references ‘entering heaven’, and the righteousness needed to do so. So what Jesus in this passage is teaching *US*, as well as His original audience, not to ‘think’ wrongly that He was doing away with the OT Law.

• Jesus is here teaching *us* to obey the OT Law in it’s entirety. For He condemns the breaking of even the least of the commandments.

• Jesus affirms that the binding nature of all OT Law did not end with His ‘fulfilling’ of the Law, but until the end of time, until heaven and earth pass away. So we as Christians (and non-Christians) are under full obligation to obey all of the OT Law, until heaven and earth pass away and all is finally accomplished.

• In other words, Jesus is crystal-clear in that His words were relevant for the OT age, the NT age, and the time in-between. Those hearing His voice that day on the mount need not worry that this teaching would change after His death and resurrection.

• Those who obey the Law, the OT and prophetic Law, will be called great in that Last Day, while those who advocate the breaking of even the smallest of OT Laws will be called least (or in other words, will be cast out of the kingdom).

Next, a few qualifiers:

• Obviously, we are under the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant. Thus, the administration of the Law has changed (but the substance of it has not). So our obligation and obedience to the Law will certainly be somewhat different in this day. (Please do not think I am advocating that we can no longer eat ham, for example).

• By contrasting the righteousness of the Pharisees, Jesus is specifically exposing the outward,  self-righteousness adherence to the Law, to the *real* requirement of justification before God, namely perfect, heart righteousness.

• The true intention of the Law was never to be in outward performance or formality, and using the Law in that way leads to ‘never seeing’ the kingdom of heaven.

Lastly, a few necessary inferences:

• We must be extremely careful when we come to our conclusions on the Law of God, for we are walking on the holy ground of the very Righteousness of Christ that justifies us before God. In verse 20, Jesus makes it clear that righteousness (perfect obedience to the OT Law in this context) is indeed necessary to see the kingdom of heaven, but that not even the most religious of men is able to attain it. We know from redemptive history, of course, that Christ Himself is our righteousness by faith alone. HE fulfilled the Law perfectly for those who have faith.

• Thus, to misunderstand the purpose and binding nature of the OT Law is to misunderstand the very righteousness that justifies us before God. And to throw out the OT Law as no longer binding and/or necessary for the Christian to obey is to essentially deny (with our lips) that the OT Law justifies us before God. For scripture know nothing of a law that justifies as being different than a law that sanctifies.

• To decry the OT Law as inadequate, insufficient, only useful for death, no longer necessary for the righteous man, etc., is to essentially argue that Jesus Christ was not the final end and purpose to which the OT Law was given, and that the OT Law was insufficient for proper worship (through Jesus Christ) in the Old Covenant. If we separate the Law of God from redemptive history (for example, as Dispensationalism does, in all its forms, such as New Covenant Theology), we rip Jesus Christ completely out of the Old Testament.

Further reading:

• Chapter 19 and Chapter 20 of the London Baptist Confession of 1689

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.” - Rev 3:1-3

Why does our love for Christ sometimes lose its strength and vigor? Why do Christians sometimes decay in spiritual growth and languish in sin?

A few causes of this dying condition:

Some deadly corruption which has seized upon their spirits:
If poison gets into the body, it works upon the spirits and so weakens and endangers life. The people of God sometimes taste poison: they are tampering with unsound doctrines…when judgment is corrupted with any error…and where truth loses its authority, grace will lose its strength and efficacy.

Some deadly wound is given unto them:
Sinning not only proves a troublesome wound to the conscience, but likewise a killing and dying wound to our graces. If anything in the world extinguishes or abates our graces, it is out sinning…it is like a disease which will not go away without a manifest breach of health and strength.

Some deadly neglect:
If the soul grows negligent, it will quickly grow dying. Inordinate abstinence and neglect of food brings a man quickly into a consumption; so when the people of God, through spiritual pride, grow careless of vital assistance so that they do not keep close to the Word of life, nor to the Sacraments of life, nor to the great principle of life by earnest and constant communion in prayer, no marvel if they become dying persons.

Inconsiderate toleration of particular evils, and not a timely expurgation of them:
…Not only [an] inconsiderate admission of sins, but also from an untimely correction of sins. The soul should presently have ‘medicined’ itself with, first, a right apprehension of the greatness of the evil in the beginning; second, speedy humiliation before the Lord; third, fervent supplication for mercy and more strength; and, fourth, resolute reformation and abandoning of it.

Defect of frequent examinations:
…after a while, after Christians have got over the pangs of the first birth and have procured more peace and comfort…they are generally apt to keep on the course of obedience, but think it superfluous –at least not so necessary often to search and view and examine themselves. And what now befalls them?…first, that the state and operation and acts of sin are not as strictly eyed; second, that the state of their graces is not as well-known and guarded against special motions and temptations…He allowed and suffered his spiritual state to run on at hazards, and the less searching of heart, the less strength of grace always.

Defect of solemn humiliations in extraordinary fasting and prayer:
Those means which beget our graces are likewise ordained to preserve them…Oh, how cheerfully, how tenderly, how much more fully and fruitfully is your soul enabled after those duties rightly performed!

Inactivity in our places and relations is another cause of spiritual languishing and decaying:
A lazy Christian will quickly prove a dying Christian…too much rest may cause extreme sickness because therein the superfluous humors are not carried or breathed away. …In respect of their graces: if they let them lie still and dead, they will quickly grow weak and dying. Though their life is implanted by an operation of God’s Spirit, yet it is preserved by an operation of our spirit’s…he who will not use grace will quickly lose it or decay in it.

Last, all perturbations or excess in passions cause a languishing:
…immoderate fear, grief, anger, joy, or agony…all these, or any of these by their immoderation, mix the spirit and natural heat. Consequently, they diminish health and strength. And surely it is so in the spiritual condition: all inordinate affections are the impairers of grace, whether it is desires of the world, or delights in it, or fears of men, or grief for losses…

Continuing my study of the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is of course at the very heart of the biblical gospel, I picked up what was said to be a little classic in Trail’s Justification Vindicated.
What I found here was a pleasantly short but thoroughly precise treatise on the doctrine of Justification.

The book is actually a letter written by Trail to a friend in response to the “neonomian controversy” of his day. Because of this format, the book takes on the feel of an epistle of sorts, and would thus fall more on the ‘devotional’ side of literature instead of the strictly academic. This is a great benefit in my opinion, for it puts this great Puritan into a format that even children and young Christians should be able to follow and understand.

But the “neonomian controversy” isn’t really detailed in the book, and this is somewhat unfortunate because it at times leaves the reader wondering what exactly Trail is arguing against. From what I gathered, and from what Trail does cite, the controversy surrounded how we are justified before God (obviously), and the righteousness by which we are justified (in other words, how are we saved? What is the gospel?). In this controversy Trail stands firmly with the reformers and traditional protestant Christianity in declaring that man is ‘not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ‘, which is rooted in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, as opposed to his opponents, who declared that our good works must cooperate in our justification.

In other words, is salvation up to man’s free will, based at least partly upon man’s good works, and fully consummated upon man’s ability to obey these good works until death? Or is salvation based upon God’s grace and favor alone, by faith alone, and defendant upon the righteousness of Another alone, namely the righteousness of Jesus Christ credited to a believer completely apart from works of obedience? Trail of course affirms the later and refutes the former.

If I could sum up the book in one word, it would be ‘refreshing’. It was simply refreshing to read a man defend the imputation of Christ with such fervor. Trail goes back to the imputed righteousness of Christ again, and again, and again. He rightly shows that this doctrine is at the heart of the Biblical gospel, and that almost every doctrinal error and perversion can be traced back to some deviation from the precious truth of imputation.

Lastly, here are a few choice quotes:

(Quoting Foxes Book of Martyrs): “Expound the law truly, and open the veil of Moses to condemn all flesh, and prove all men sinners…and then as a faithful minister, set abroach the mercy of our Lord Jesus, and let the wounded consciences drink of the water of Him. And then shall your preaching be with power, and not as the hypocrites…and all doctrine that casteth a mist on these two, to shadow and hide them, I mean the law of God and the mercy of Christ; that resist with all your power.”

“The plain old Protestant doctrine is that the place of faith in justification is only that of a hand or instrument, receiving the righteousness of Christ, for the sake of which alone we are justified.”

“All proud secure sinners are against us, that go about, with the Jews, to establish their own righteousness…the proud have medicine at home and despise that which came down from heaven.”

“…if men’s hearts were seen by themselves, if sin were felt, if men’s consciences were enlivened, if God’s holy law were known in its exactness and severity, and the glory and majesty of the Lawgiver shining before men’s eyes…the gospel salvation by Jesus Christ would be more regarded.”

“…faith in Jesus Christ justifies only as a mere instrument, receiving that imputed righteousness of Christ, for which we are justified.”

“We are not ashamed of teaching: The ineffectualness of the law, and all the works of it, to give life; either that of justification, or of regeneration and sanctification, or of eternal life…”

“…The law of God can only damn sinners; that it only rebukes, and thereby irritates and increases sin; and that it can never subdue sin, till gospel grace comes with power upon the heart; and then when the law is written in the heart it is copied out in the life…”

“…the principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind which is emnity both to the law of God and to the gospel of Christ; and, next to the dead sea of Popery –into which this stream also runs — they have, from Pelagius on to this day, been the greatest plague of the church of Christ and, it is likely, will be till His second coming.” (Please note this post when understanding how Trail uses the term ‘Arminianism’.

“There is not a minister that deals seriously with the souls of men but he finds an Arminian scheme of justification in every unrenewed heart. And is it not sadly to be bewailed, that divines [ministers] should plead that same cause that we daily find the devil pleading in the hearts of all natural men?”

And to conclude, a beautiful summation of the gospel:

“There can be no justification without a righteousness; no righteousness can suffice but that which answers fully and perfectly the holy law of God; no such righteousness can be performed but by a divine person; no benefit can accrue to a sinner by it unless it is in some way his and applied to him; no application can be made of this but by faith in Jesus Christ…If a man trusts his own righteousness, he rejects Christ’s; if he trusts to Christ’s righteousness, he rejects his own.”

Other posts on this book:

The “Greatest Plague of the Church”