An Internal or External Righteousness?

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”  (Luke 18:9–14, ESV)

From this passage, which man trusted God for his salvation?  Which one saw God at work in his life?  Most of the time the answer that is given is the second man because he cried out for God’s mercy while the Pharisee boasted of his own works.  But look at the Pharisee’s prayer, “God, I thank you…”  He indeed saw that it was God who had made him unlike other man.  It was because of God’s good gifts that he was able to do the things that he did.  However, he was trusting in what has become known as infused righteousness or an internal righteousness.

This Pharisee trusted in his own works, though given to him by God, for his salvation.  As Calvin puts it in his commentary on this passage, “Hence we infer that men are not truly and properly humbled, though they are convinced that they can do nothing, unless they likewise distrust the merits of works, and learn to place their salvation in the undeserved goodness of God, so as to rest upon it all their confidence.”  The fault of this man was not distrusting God for his salvation, but rather looking for God to create an internal righteousness that was sufficient to save him.

The tax collector however, does not trust in anything within himself.  Rather, he acknowledges his sin and cries for God to be merciful to him.  He does not point to any works of righteousness, God wrought or not.  He know that he has no hope of salvation from God’s judgment within himself.  Again, in theological terms, it could be said that he trusts in imputed righteousness.  That is a righteousness which comes to us from outside ourselves that is not ours, but is counted (imputed) as ours by God.  This righteousness is Christ’s that is imputed to us through his life, death, and resurrection.  Not only were our sins imputed to him, but his righteousness to us.

This should give us hope when we sin, knowing that as God’s redeemed our standing before God is not based on an internal, God-given righteousness, but on the unchanging and always perfect righteousness of Christ.  Also, it means that we can never “live the Gospel” or “be the Gospel.”  To do so would be to say that the good news is what God has done in us, rather than what God has done in Christ.  Instead of pointing people to an external righteousness in Christ, we would instead point people to our changed lives (see Objective Faith in a Subjective World).

.

On Samson

It has always encouraged me to see Samson listed as one of the heroes of the faith along with Gideon and Barak (Heb. 11:32). Each of these men had severe shortcomings: Gideon led the people into idolatry (Judges 8:22-28); Barak was fearful and was not given the glory for the victory (Judges 4:9); and Samson had a seemingly unquenchable desire for foreign women (Judges 14ff). Yet, these men were used mightily by God to deliver His people. God does not have to wait for us to be right with Him to use us to His glory.

This can best be seen, I think, in the crucifixion of Christ. The people of Israel and the Roman rulers put Christ to death for sinful reasons. However, they did nothing that God had not predestined for them to do, “for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. ” (Acts 4:27–28, ESV, emphasis mine) Through the sinful act of these people, God’s plan to redeem His people was being moved forward.

The question then is not if you will be used by God, but how you will be used by God. Will it be to demonstrate his wrath and justice or will it be to demonstrate His grace and mercy (see Romans 9:22-23)? Will it be from a hardened heart acting in rebellion to Him (as Pharaoh in Exodus) or a willing, joyful, and obedient heart? So let us pray that God will give us a heart of flesh that we may be obedient to Him (Ezekiel 11:19-20). Also, let us not be overly discouraged when we do fail, knowing that God uses sinful people to accomplish his purpose.

Does God still call people?

NOTE: the last two posts and this one are comments I wrote for a blog that we are posting on at work (http://geg100daychallenge.blogspot.com/).  Because these posts start out as comments, they will be much shorter than normal. Future posts from this site will be designated by the category “100 Day Challenge.”

Does God still call people today?

God does still call people today; His calling is primarily to salvation. While this call is mentioned many times, one of the clearest is in Romans 8:29-30, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (ESV)

Notice the flow here: foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. The call is based on the foreknowledge and predestination of God. The call results in justification and glorification. The call is effectual because it gives what it commands. Just as Jesus’ call for Lazarus to “come out” (John 11:43) gave Lazarus the life he needed to obey, so also the effectual call of God gives the right standing (justification) we need to come before God. Just as Jesus gave Lazarus life, but Lazarus did the living, so also those called by God willingly and joyously do the believing and obeying.

The Tower of Babel

The Tower of Babel story shows us the grace of God in disunity. Before the flood God saw that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). The flood did not provide a solution for this condition, but a judgment and a promise. The judgment was the flood itself. The promise is given after the flood, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21). This is a promise that God will restrain his judgment by restraining evil itself.

The Tower of Babel is God acting on this promise. God takes action against the growing pride of man by pitting evil against evil. By causing disunity amongst men, God has graciously prevented evil from reaching the level it did before the flood.

However, this disunity was reversed at Pentecost with the preaching of the Gospel – the good news of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection – in many languages (Acts 2). Here at last was good news that inclined men’s hearts toward God. Here at last was something that man could unite over and not be lead into pride. Here at last was, and is, salvation from God’s judgment.

A better state? Thoughts on Genesis 3

Whenever I read the story of the fall I am reminded of the better state we are in now than Adam and Eve were in before the fall. Before they fell Adam and Eve had a glorious relationship with God; there was no sin to make them flee from his presence. However, their relationship with God was based on their works – their own righteousness and perfect obedience.

Today, however, our relationship with God is not based on any internal righteousness or perfect obedience. Rather, on the righteousness and obedience of Christ. Adam and Eve were guaranteed a relationship with God as long as they were perfect. We are guaranteed a relationship as long as Christ is perfect (forever). Adam and Eve had a Creator/Creature relationship. We, in Christ, have a Father/Child relationship.

I am reminded of Hebrews 4:16 “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace…” (ESV). Adam and Eve, before the fall, could draw near to God in self-confidence. We draw near with confidence, but not in our self. It is a confidence that Christ “has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15 ESV) and that His righteousness has been imputed to us.

All this to say (while not minimizing the horror of sin) for us who are Christ’s, who trust in His righteousness rather than our own, we are indeed in a better state than Adam and Eve were before the fall. And what an even more glorious state we will be in when we are on the new earth, completely free from sin.

Church History PowerPoint presentations

Here are the PowerPoint presentations for the Church History class Emily and I taught at Church.  The classes were meant to be brief overviews of several important periods in church history.

Introduction
Church Fathers
Creeds, Councils, Heresies
Cannon
Eastern Orthodoxy
Roman Catholicism
Crusades
Reformation (part 1)
Reformation (part 2)  and Puritans
Awakenings
American Cults
Liberalism
Retrospect and Prospect

God’s Redemptive Plan as Told by Eating

This semester I have been auditing a class on Old Testament Biblical Theology from New Geneva Seminary. The final paper for the class was to reflect in greater depth on a particular theological theme and to map its development throughout the various epochs of OT revelation in the light of the fullness of NT revelation.  My paper looks at how certain aspects of redemptive history are revealed through eating.  You can download it here: Eating in Redemptive History.

Biblical Theology is the study of the history of revelation.

Kerux – A Primer on Biblical Theology

Biblical Theology approaches the Bible as an organic drama of God’s unfolding revelation through history. In distinction from doctrinal or systematic theology, biblical theology follows the progressively unfolding revelation of God’s words and deeds through history. This linear aspect of revelation unites each revelatory event and proclamation both retrospectively and prospectively. Geerhardus Vos described the organic continuation of revelation in history as a flower expanding from bud to blossom. The blossom is retrospectively united to the bud; the bud is prospectively united to the blossom. One of the tasks/privileges of the interpreter of Scripture is to draw out these organic prospective and retrospective relationships. At the center of this organic unity is the person and work of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Even as our Risen Lord related all of Scripture retrospectively and prospectively to himself (Luke 24:27), so Reformed biblical theology is preeminently Christocentric.

God spoke into history; God acted in history; God was incarnated in history. Vos described this vertical interface with history as the eschatological penetration of the history of redemption. In fact, Vos approached Scripture from the standpoint of the priority of the eschatological. Overarching the entire history of redemption was the eschatological arena. Every revelation of God in history was an invitation for the creature to possess the arena of the Eschatological/heavenly. This would only be accomplished through the saving work of the Son, Jesus Christ. Hence, Christ was eschatologically revealed throughout the history of redemption as the promised seed of the woman, seed of Abraham, seed of Jesse, etc. Even as God and man met in Jesus Christ, so the eschatological and the linear met at every point of God’s special revelation.

Graeme Goldsworthy – Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture

From the evangelical preacher’s point of view, biblical theology involves the quest for the big picture, or the overview of biblical revelation. It is of the nature of biblical theology that it tells a story rather than sets out timeless principles in abstraction. It does contain many timeless principles, but not in abstract. They are given in an historical context of progressive revelation. If we allow the Bible to tell its own story, we find a coherent and meaningful whole.

Many people when reading the above quotes will think that Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology are opposed to each other.  This is not true.  Rather they inform and strengthen each other.

What Did Christ Accomplish?

Below is a table I came up with when reading John Owen’s book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.  His basic argument is if Christ did all things for all people then all would be saved because God is not unjust and wouldn’t punish people for sins that had been paid for by Christ.  Since the Bible is clearly against universalism then that leaves us with two viable options; either Christ’s death didn’t cover all sins or it wasn’t for all people.  In other words the atonement is limited either by quality or quantity.  Owen then goes on to argue that Christ came to “save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15), not merely to make a way for sinners to save themselves by overcoming unbelief on their own.  His argument is that Christ’s atonement purchased that belief as well, leaving nothing for those who are Christ’s to do for their salvation.

I added another group that Owen didn’t talk about.  It is those who say that Christ’s atonement didn’t accomplish anything for believers, but merely set an example.  I think any Bible believing Christian can see that this is obviously in error.

	All Sins	Some Sins	No Sins
All People	Universalists (Christ did all things for all people therefore all are saved)	Semi -Pelagians such as Roman Catholics and Arminians (Christ did most things for all people, but left the sin of unbelief to be overcome by the individual)	N/A
Some People	Reformed (Christ did all things for those that the father gave him)	N/A	N/A
No People	N/A	N/A	Many Emergent church leaders and liberals (Christ died as an example of how we should live, but didn’t actually accomplish anything for us)

Loyalty

One of the books I am currently reading is Harry Blamiers’ The Christian Mind: How should a Christian think? It is an excellent book overall and I would recommend it.  Here is an interesting section on loyalty and Christian thinking.

Having emptied political life of moral content, we have as a nation been unwilling to accept the consequences.  If prophets tell us that our public life has been reduced to bare expediency stripped of altruism and idealism, we call them cynics.  We cannot endure the face cleanly and honestly what we have done in obliterating the moral criterion and the spiritual dimension from our manipulation of people in the spheres of political, public, and institutional life.  We have therefore invented a pseudo-value which will throw over decisions and actions that are purely expedient and pragmatic an air of respectability.  I mean the alleged virtue of loyalty, which is useful to give a bogus moral quality to a slavish acceptance of the party line.

It might be argued the the problem of loyalty is the key problem of our age — in this country at least.  Bertrand Russell is reputed to have said in a broadcast, “Loyalty is always evil”.  It is an exaggeration, of course; but it makes a profound point provocatively and, like so many of Russell’s judgments, does more for the stimulation of healthy thinking than a thousand pulpit platitudes.

Loyalty may be said to be evil in the sense that if any action is defended on the grounds of loyalty alone, it is defended on no rational grounds at all.  ”I do this out of loyalty to my party” is irrational and amoral unless it is consequent upon, “My party is operating wholly and in every particular for the benefit of the human race”.  ”I do this out of loyalty to my leader” is irrational and amoral unless it is consequent upon, “My leader’s character, or purpose, or policy, is such that it ought to be supported”.  Loyalty is in itself not a moral basis for action.  Loyalty to a good man, a good government, a good cause, is of course a different matter.  But in these cases, where one stands by a man, or a government, or a cause, because it is good, one is standing by the good.  The basis of action in these cases is moral in that one is serving the good; and thus the concept of loyalty is redundant.  One can therefore say fairly that whenever the virtue of loyalty is quoted as a prime motive or basis for action, one has the strongest reasons for suspecting that support is being sought for a gad cause.  There is no need to drag the pseudo-virtue of loyalty if genuine values are being served in the course that is recommended.

Objective Faith in a Subjective World

I was recently asked to give my Testimony. If you have ever talked with me about testimonies you know how little I like them, especially as a form of evangelism. Testimonies tend to change the focus of the gospel from what Christ did through his life, death, and resurrection (the objective side of salvation) to our lives and how they have been changed (subjective). The gospel is not about me, what happened to me, or even any change in me – though it certainly should change me. Rather, the gospel is about Christ, what happened to him, and what he did through it. Another reason I dislike testimonies as a form of evangelism is that in changing the focus of the gospel, they also change the authority of the gospel. The authenticity of the gospel is no longer rooted in historical facts, but in how I live my life. If I fail then the gospel fails as well.

That said, through the encouragement of my wife, I took up the challenge of writing an objective testimony that only used my story as support for the need of a savior. Below is the transcript of that. I got a lot of the content in the Isaiah 6 portion from a sermon by my pastor and commentaries from Young and Calvin.

Let me know what you think. I am especially interested if anyone agrees or disagrees with my dislike of testimonies in evangelism.