I know Dr. Clark seems to get a lot of attention here. It isn’t because I have some personal vendetta. Dr. Clark is accessible and easy to reference since he writes and contributes often in the world of modern media.
I am somewhat satisfied with the final report. It should prove and settle the problem that some of our Modern Popular Professors and Authors are teaching contrary to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards when it comes to the Mosaic Covenant.
In the Reformed Church, there has been much debate in the past decade over issues such as Natural Law, The Two Kingdoms, the Law-Gospel distinction, Justification and Sanctification, the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Grace, and even the definition of the Gospel.
In the past few years, it has come to the attention of some ministers of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that doctrinal confusion has arisen over the doctrine of republication. The heart of the issue lies in a particular formulation of the Mosaic covenant, including the notion that Israel as a “corporate Adam” is under a typological arrangement which entails meritorious works on the temporal level. This confusion is coming to the forefront in OPC Presbyteries when licensure and ordination exams are being conducted. As I understand it, these issues are having far reaching consequences as the church pursues its peace, purity, doctrinal integrity, and practice.
In April of 2012, an Overture was proposed to the Presbytery of the Northwest OPC. This overture called for the 79th General Assembly to establish a study committee to examine teachings propagated in a publication, The Law is Not of Faith, edited by Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen. Overtures are proposed requests for consideration of doctrinal matters or how things should function in the church. At the April 2012 meeting of the Presbytery of the Northwest OPC, the motion to approve the overture was replaced with a motion to establish a Special Presbytery Committee to study the issues concerning the doctrine of Republication as presented in the teachings of Meredith Kline and the book The Law is Not of Faith. This teaching has far reaching implications concerning the doctrines mentioned in the first paragraph.
Three Ministers from the Presbytery of the Northwest OPC (Randy Bergquist, Andy Elam, and Rob Van Kooten), have submitted their own study regarding the presbytery committee’s new proposed overture for all to review. The study first sets out to give some historical background for the publication the The Law Is Not Of Faith. It discusses the motives and reasons that are stated in the book itself. Next, it analyzes the covenant theologies of John Murray, Norman Shepherd, and Meredith Kline. The authors of the study booklet believe that these three men are the main reasons that this issue of Republication has come to the forefront in recent theological discussion. Their teachings are examined in light of the Westminster Confession of Faith and historic Reformed thought. Part 2 of the booklet turns to a critical examination of the doctrine of republication. Its basic thesis can be summarized as follows: “….the Republication Paradigm (ie., the views of Kline and The Law is not of Faith) uses traditional language and concepts, but redefines them in the service of its own paradigm. Not only do these new definitions fail to harmonize with those contained in the Westminster Standards, they may lead to other systematic changes in our confessional theology.” I would also note that when there are systematic doctrinal changes, there will also be changes in how we apply the Scriptures and practice our faith.
All three ministers are graduates from Westminster Seminary California from which most of this controversial teaching is emanating. A pre-presbytery discussion will be held on September 26, 2013 at First OPC in Portland, Oregon.
Here is a portion of a book ‘A Puritan Theology Doctrine For Life’ that everyone should read to understand what is being discussed in Modern Circles today. Dr. Joel Beeke’s and Mark Jone’s book “A Puritan Theology Doctrine for Life” should be read if you want to know if Modern Day Reformed Thought is being historically accurate with how they define their positions and understanding on issues concerning Covenant Theology. Read Chapters 16-18 and you will notice a difference between them and the Westminster Divines on some things.
The Modern Reformed Thought does not hold to a position that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are of the same Substance as the Westminster Divines defined things. They also define Republication of the Covenant of Works a bit differently than how the Divines of the Westminster Assembly used this terminology. Modern Day Reformed Thought holds to a position that the Mosaic Covenant administers both a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works. They hold to what is known as a Minority Position and it is defined in the book also. It is not Westminsterian.
Enjoy…
Anthony Burgess likewise comments that the law may be understood largely, “as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai,” or strictly, “as it is an abstracted rule of righteousness, holding forth life upon no terms, but perfect obedience.”75 In the former sense, the law belongs to the covenant of grace; in the latter sense, the law was not of grace, but of works, which helps explains Paul’s polemic against the law in his New Testament writings (e.g., Galatians). These distinctions also help to explain the idea found in many Puritan authors who speak of the Mosaic covenant as republishing the moral law first given to Adam, written on his heart, engraved on tablets of stone as the Decalogue. For the most part, theologians who spoke in this way, whether dichotomists or trichotomists, made a number of careful qualifications in order to show that the moral law was republished not as a covenant but as a rule of righteousness for those in covenant with God. In other words, the moral law was not republished at Sinai to serve as a means of justification before God. For example, John Owen made clear in his work on justification by faith that the old covenant was not a revival of the covenant of works strictly (i.e., “formally”). Rather, the moral law was renewed declaratively (i.e.,“materially”) and not covenantally: “God did never formally and absolutely renew or give again this law as a covenant a second time. Nor was there any need that so he should do, unless it were declaratively only, for so it was renewed at Sinai.”76 The concept of republication of the moral law does not make Sinai co-extensive with Eden in terms of strict covenantal principles. If the moral law is abstracted “most strictly,” to use Roberts’s language, then Sinai certainly was a formal republication of the covenant of works. But, as Ball tried to argue, that certainly was not the intention of the old covenant. In the end, Ball’s position, which had been argued during the Reformation by Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and John Calvin, clearly influenced the Westminster divines.
Accordingly, chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession, “Of the Law of God,” begins by asserting that the moral law was first given to Adam, and goes on to say, “This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables” (19.2). The Confession further asserts, “The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof” (19.5), and is of great use to believers “as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty…discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature…together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience” (19.6). Chapter 19 concludes that for a believer to do good because the law commands it or to refrain from evil because the law forbids it, “is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace. Nor are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it” (19.6–7).
Likewise, the Confession declares that the covenant of grace was administered “in the time of the law…by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances…all fore-signifying Christ to come.” Such outward forms were “for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation” (7.5). Hence it follows that “the justification of believers under the Old Testament was…one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament” (11.6).
p. 270-1
75. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 223.
76. Owen, Justification by Faith, in Works, 5:244.
Beeke, Joel R.; Jones, Mark (2012-10-14). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Kindle Locations 10634-10647). . Kindle Edition.
How can this Crisis not define or change all that are impacted by the devastation that happened in Connecticut? This is so incredibly terrible and saddening. As a Dad of three boys whom I deeply love I can’t imagine the pain and sorrow that is being experienced. I am praying for grace and mercy upon those souls. I thought divorce was crippling, I can’t imagine what they are going through.
Since yesterday’s murderous rampage of school children, family members, and total strangers people have been groping for answers. I have one answer to the cause. Here it is.
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; …
I have been seeing posts about teachers who carry guns in their schools in other countries. Supposedly they don’t have student killings. Just saw a picture of World War II German soldiers filling pits with dead citizens that had just been murdered. Evidently the Government had outlawed civilian guns and became tyrannical. I saw a comment later that noted how the USA is a country with guns and how we are the country that is having all of the School shootings unlike other Countries that have gun restrictions. I later noticed that someone made a parody post. The parody was about a young child asking God why the school killings where happening and why He wasn’t protecting the children. In the parody God answers the young child saying that he was kicked out of the Schools and that he no longer had authority in the School system.
Those posts show the frustration and desire to fix things. But their observations and conclusions are missing the mark. As I consider what has happened I am torn because I have seen great changes in our moral fabric as a Society and as a Nation. When I was a child the foundations for our behavior were a bit more solid but they have been removed for the most part. We had a foundation for why we should go to worship. We had a foundation for why we should obey our parents. We had a foundation for why we shouldn’t steal. We had a foundation for why we should honour the marriage bed and forsake adultery in heart, mind, and action. We had a foundation for why we shouldn’t lie. We had a foundation for why we shouldn’t lust after our neighbors wife or his stuff. And if we did violate those things we knew we were expected to confess and repent. There was a foundation for that also. Yes, there was also a foundation for why we were forgiving. I don’t think the foundation is gone but we have lied to ourselves and our children saying it isn’t there. We don’t want to be accountable for things or told how we should act or think. We desire freedom from what is right so that we can do and think as we please without God’s nose (or anyone else’s for that fact) being stuck in our business. We have our rights and we demand them. But that is selfish anarchy and not freedom.
God did write the Ten Commandments and we have outlawed them. As Jesus noted, they are summed up in two Commandments. Love God with all of your heart and your neighbor as yourself. But we have wanted God to go away and now our kids don’t have any foundation. The foundation we have given them to behold is that they come from lower life forms. So why are we surprised when they want to act like them?All I have to say is we are guilty. We all are guilty and we need a Revival of Truth and hearts filled with Repentance.
Christ has sent good men and His word to tell us to repent. God is long suffering (patient), but his patience does have a limit and he will let us reap what we are sowing.Let us return to the God of our forefathers and seek reconciliation with Him. Maybe he will grant us repentance and change the hearts of our children to become what they should be, lovers of God and mankind.Christ came to the World for a purpose. He came to save His people from their sin. From the manger to the Cross his whole purpose was to redeem and reconcile us to God because He loved His Creation. Christ is our only hope both in the temporal and eternal.
Please, I plead with everyone reading this before all of Heaven, turn to God. Quit divorcing the Law of God from the Church and Society. We are reaping what we are sowing. Call upon God and repent so that we may be saved. For it is destined unto man once to die, then the judgement. And how shall we escape both the temporal and eternal judgments if we neglect so great a salvation that the Lord offers. He paid a high price to reconcile us to Himself. What kind of judgment do we deserve if we turn away from God and count all he did as nothing? The Eternal God of Heaven became a man to fix the problem. What are we doing neglecting such a love and gift? Our children will follow in our footsteps. And that is scary. If we don’t repent then their fall and sin will also be our fault. We will be the ones to blame for leading them astray. But for now at least we have space to try to get it right so they can have a chance also.
This is what we are and where we have come from. May we honour God and turn back to Him. May God increase our faith and knowledge based upon His Law and Historical Good News of His Kingdom. He is the source of all that is good. He proved it from the beginning of creation, to the cradle, to the Cross, and to His Resurrection. Those are historical facts. May we fall upon them and call upon Him to be saved.
Please carefully consider the following link to a pdf download as it presents the person and work of Christ on your behalf.
The rest of the passage in Isaiah 53:6 states this…..
… and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
That was an Old Testament prophesy that God was going to lay on Christ, God the Son, the sins of the World. As John the Baptist stated, “Behold, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the Word.”
Pray for the suffering families. But do more than that.
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Act 2:39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
In light of the modern day controversy concerning justification and sanctification, let me ask others to look at something that hasn’t been considered much. What is its root problem? The root problem can actually solve a lot of issues from the justification / sanctification issue in soteriology to the Natural Law / Kingdom Issues we are experiencing. Why? Because they all have to do with our relationship to the Law of God.
This issue has a root problem that goes back to a hermeneutic of how the Mosaic Covenant is viewed and seen. It is having a rippling effect through much of the theology in our Reformed Camp. It is dichotomizing (divorcing) law and grace (law and gospel) in our doctrines of soteriology. It is also leading others into the various doctrines that are divorcing God from society. A few friends of mine have referred to these doctrines as old distortions of Natural Law / Two Kingdom Theology that were out of accord and rejected by the Reformers.
The hermeneutic I am referring to is propagated by men who are in the United Reformed Church of North America, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, possibly men in the Presbyterian Church of America, and noted men teaching at a Seminary that trains our Reformed and Presbyterian Ministers. Most people who know me know of whom I am referring to. (Westminster Seminary California) Does this Seminary allow this teaching to go on from the top (Dr. Robert Godfrey) down (Drs. Horton and Clark) without a notification that it is against the Standards we as Presbyterians confess? It sure seems hidden to me. I would even venture to say that this teaching is so prevalent in the Church today that it isn’t even recognized as being different from the Westminster Standards. I know Pastors, Ruling Elders, Drs. of Theology, Seminary Professors, Seminary Students, and Laymen who know this is true and have affirmed this truth to me.
Even our Divines at the Westminster Assembly knew this teaching and variants of it were in opposition to sound doctrine. Here is Anthony Burgess on the difference between Lutheran and Reformed views concerning the Mosaic Covenant.
“We have confuted (proven to be incorrect) the false differences, and now come to lay down the truth, between the law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense.
And, first, you must know that the difference is not essential, or substantial, but accidental: so that the division of the Testament, or Covenant into the Old, and New, is not a division of the Genus (classification) into its opposite Species; but of the subject, according to its several accidental administrations, both on Gods part, and on mans. It is true, the Lutheran Divines, they do expressly oppose the Calvinists herein, maintaining the Covenant given by Moses, to be a Covenant of Works, and so directly contrary to the Covenant of Grace. Indeed, they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ, and had the same way of salvation with us; only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise, holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Jews, that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness.” (Vindication of the Morall Law, Lecture 26 p.251)
This view that is being taught was a minority view and evidently refuted without much to do from what I understand. There isn’t much discussion paid to the topic in the minutes nor much argument about it from what I understand. I guess that might be an indication about how much of a factor this minority view was. Yet it seems this minority teaching is being taught as though it is a majority position. This doctrine has to do with the substance of the Old and New Covenants being the same as the Westminster Confession of Faith states in chapter 7, sections 5,6. It also has to do with some forms of Republication of the Covenant of Works and what Republication is.
I can quote one person specifically that does not believe the Mosaic Covenant is of the same substance as the New Covenant. He holds to views that are specifically contrary to our Standards when considering the Mosaic Covenant. Yet he is teaching future Presbyterian Pastors contrary to our Standards. I wonder if he is teaching our future Pastors that he doesn’t hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith on this topic. I think he should since he teaches these future Pastors from a Seminary which distinctively has a namesake taken from our Confessional Standards. He specifically writes (for everyone to read) that he does not believe that the Mosaic Covenant is renewed in the New Covenant. He must believe it is of a different substance having a superadded work or Covenant of Works principle in it. The Mosaic Covenant in his thinking is both an administration (pedagogically) of the Covenant of Works and of Grace. That would make the New Covenant and Mosaic Covenant different and not of the same substance as an administration of the Covenant of Grace. As I understand it, in this scheme there is an opposition of law and grace that is not found in the Presbyterian or later Reformed hermeneutic of the Majority of the Divines. Samuel Rutherford, Anthony Burgess, and many other good men have written on this topic and it just seems that this is neglected by these Modern Reformed Thinkers.
http://clark.wscal.edu/covtheses.php
Biblical / Exegetical section…
13. The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was.
16. With regard to the land promise, the Mosaic covenant was, mutandis, for pedagogical reasons (Galatians 3:23-4:7),a republication of the Adamic covenant of works.
17. With regard to justification and salvation, the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.
18. The Israelites were given the land and kept it by grace (2 Kings 13:23) but were expelled for failure to keep a temporary, typical, pedagogical, covenant of works (Genesis 12:7; Exodus 6:4; Deuteronomy 29:19-29; 2 Kings 17:6-7; Ezekiel 17).
19. The covenant of grace, initiated in history after the fall, was in its antepenultimate state under Adam, Noah, and Abraham, its penultimate state under the New Covenant administration and shall reach its ultimate (eschatological) state in the consummation.
20. The term “Old Covenant” as used in Scripture refers to the Mosaic epoch not every epoch before the incarnation nor to all of the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures indiscriminately.
21. The New Covenant is new relative to Moses, not Abraham.
Concerning the Covenant of Grace, Richard Sibbesl states it thusly in his writing…
There are four periods of time of renewing this covenant: first, from Adam to Abraham;… Secondly, From Abraham to Moses;… The third period of renewing the covenant of grace was from Moses to Christ; and then it was more clear, whenas to the covenant made with Abraham, who was sealed with the sacrament of circumcision, the sacrament of the paschal lamb was added, and all the sacrifices Levitical; and then it was called a testament. That differeth a little from a covenant; for a testament is established by blood, it is established by death. So was that; but it was only with the blood and death of cattle sacrificed as a type.
But now, to Christ’s time to the end of the world, the covenant of grace is most clear of all; and it is now usually called the New Testament, being established by the death of Christ himself; …
This is the hermeneutical root and problem in my estimation. This hermeneutical problem is a dichotomizing of Law and Gospel (Grace). It tells us the Law only commands and that Gospel (Grace) tells us something has been done for us without command. Just for reference this is what I am talking about. Dr. Michael Horton in his three minute video clip says this concerning the Gospel, “It refers to God’s promise of salvation in Christ. The gospel is a victory announcement. It nevertells us something to do. That is the business of the law. Rather, the gospel tells us something that has been done.”
This has spilled over into other areas of our theology also. For instance it has spilled over into Kingdom Theology and how the Law of God applies to all of mankind. We are slowly removing the requirement and responsibilities of our Magistrates to be in subjection to God and His Ten Commandments. This is killing our Society. Anytime you start to partition an Administration of the Covenant of Grace and change its substance like these guys are doing you are treading in strange waters if you are Presbyterian. The Gospel and Law are not opposed to each other as some want to prove in all cases. In fact Ursinus says when they are joined together they become the Spirit.
I started discovering this dichotomizing of law and grace a few years ago as I started noting how these men were defining the Gospel. This dichotomizing of law and Grace seemed unnatural even to this one time Reformed Baptist. I use to be a Reformed Baptist until I came to understand that the Old Covenant and New Covenant were of the same substance as they were from the Administration of the Covenant of Grace. Even then this long time Reformed Baptist didn’t dichotomize Law and Grace in the Gospel and Sanctification to the extreme I saw it being done. As a Reformed Baptist I did dichotomize the Substance of the Covenants based upon my understanding of Hebrews chapter 8. I did hold to a similar view of John Owen’s interpretation of the Mosaic and New Covenant when it came to membership of the Covenant but I didn’t dichotomize grace and law in the life of the believer of either Covenant. I believe that is what is being done by those who hold to this Lutheranized (Not necessarily Luther’s view) / Klinean view of the Mosaic Covenant.
I believe a proper view of the Covenant of Grace as it administers the Covenants historically will give us a proper balance of Law and Grace. I have already written about the substance of the Covenant before and I think if you read it you will see why I am saying what I am saying. It views the Law of God and Grace in their proper relationship as they should be viewed in my estimation. It also views the Gospel correctly as it isn’t just a proclamation outside of us with no commands.
I also want to encourage Westminster California to be forthcoming about their Professors doctrinal stances in relationship to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I have run into far too many people that look to Westminster West for guidance that don’t know that they are teaching contrary to the Westminster Standards concerning the Mosaic Covenant. It is eye opening when others discover this. After they put aside their party spirit and their theological celebrity status blinders things start falling into place and a whole new world of understanding comes to their aid in Christ. Pieces of the theological puzzle start to fit together as it was meant to be. People start to have a different appreciation for grace and law as they see it more clearly.
Just my Nickles worth.
The following link is a short paper presented to Dr. Joseph Pipa on this topic. It also helped me clarify some things when I first started looking at this issue.
My buddy Pastor Michael Lefebvre did great little piece on holidays and Holy Days. Christmas can be a situation where we all cry foul based upon our historical heritage and doctrinal differences. But I thought this was good.
I am one of those pastors who still believes the church should not include these holidays in the worship calendar. But I also don’t want to maintain that distinction in stubbornness or merely out of fondness for “old style presbyterianism.” So, I thought I’d take a couple of paragraphs–speaking for myself at least–to explain why I still believe this is a matter of biblical conviction.
First of all, there is one religious calendar that goes all the way back to the creation: the weekly religious calendar. God appointed the sabbath day as a religious day to be observed weekly. The Ten Commandments reaffirm that this weekly day of worship sets the cadence of life for God’s people. The New Testament also continues to call us to weekly sabbath (or, Lord’s Day) worship (more on this, later). The weekly religious calendar is biblical, and continues in force.
The annual religious calendar is also biblical in its origin. The annual calendar was not instituted at creation, but it was added with the Levitical Laws at Sinai. There were seven holy days originally instituted in Israel’s yearly calendar (Lev. 23). Three of those festivals involved mandatory pilgrimages to the Temple: Passover, Pentecost, and Booths (Deut. 16).
All of these holy days–the weekly sabbath and the annual festivals–were anticipatory celebrations. Even though they each looked back to a day that demonstrated something about the saving work of God, they also looked forward to the fulfillment of that great work. The sabbath looked back to God’s rest after creation; it also looks forward to creation’s rest after consummation. The Passover looked back to the lambs slaughtered so that Israel could escape Egypt; it also looked forward to the Lamb of God who would, once and for all, truly deliver God’s people from the bondage of sin. The nature of holy days in Scripture is consistently to look back upon an event that demonstrated something about God’s saving work, in order to look forward to the fulfillment of the promise demonstrated.
What do we do with the festivals, then, when their fulfillment has come in Christ? The way I have laid out my case in the above paragraphs should make it obvious what I believe the answer should be. But let me try to be fair in how I explain both the answer I represent (i.e., the festivals are over) and that of another perspective (i.e., that the Levitical festivals continue, and what this has to do with Christmas).
Check out the whole thing as I post a small portion here…
I have recently been helped in understanding the Mosaic Covenant by Scripture clarification along with the help of a Pastor Patrick Ramsey. Thank You Pastor Ramsey.I have found that I disagree with Meredith Kline and others that hold to similar positions of a works paradigm in the Mosaic Covenant. While Owen’s view and Kline’s differ a bit by terminology I believe they are closer than people want to credit. I believe Kline holds to something more similar called a superadded subservient view of the Mosaic Covenant which was rejected by the Majority of Divines who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith. You can learn about this by reading this article that was published in the Westminster Journal. http://tinyurl.com/9xbtega
In working out this works paradigm I think Patrick Ramsey does a good job in revealing what Romans 10:5 and Leviticus 18:5 say when considering the whole Counsel of God. In fact when we look at Paul’s references we would think that Paul is pitting Moses against Moses and the Old Testament against the Old Testament in his New Testament writings. Especially if we just lift passages out of texts without considering other passages Paul also referenced. Paul isn’t pitting the OT against the OT or Moses against Moses when we look at the fuller context for understanding….
Dr. Robert Strimple whose Chair at Westminster Seminary California David Van Drunen occupies sets the Record straight concerning the book The Law Is Not of Faith and the Mosaic Covenant.
You may also want to check out my comments on Galatians 3 and 4. Some people use this passage to show that the Law and Gospel are opposed to each other but that is a terrible misreading of the text. The Law and Gospel are not opposed.
Rev. Phillips stated this in his first paragraph of his blog critiquing Rev. Tullian Tchividjian….
One of the most pressing concerns in Reformed churches today is the importance of getting the gospel right. Recently, Reformed churches have had to oppose the Federal Vision theology, which compromises justification by inserting good works into the definition of faith. Unfortunately, Christians tend to defend doctrines by erring in the opposite direction. So it is that Reformed churches are presently facing a corruption of the gospel by the virtual denial of sanctification and good works….
Pastor Tullian’s quote from his book ‘Jesus Nothing Everything’…
I used to think that growing as a Christian meant I had to somehow go out and obtain the qualities and attitudes I was lacking. To really mature, I needed to find a way to get more joy, more patience, more faithfulness, and so on. Then I came to the shattering realization that this isn’t what the Bible teaches, and it isn’t the gospel. What the Bible teaches is that we mature as we come to a greater realization of what we already have in Christ. The gospel, in fact, transforms us precisely because it’s not itself a message about our internal transformation but about Christ’s external substitution. We desperately need an advocate, mediator, and friend. But what we need most is a substitute—someone who has done for us and secured for us what we could never do and secure for ourselves. (94, Kindle Edition)
Tullian Tchividjian sounds like Horton, doesn’t he? Remember the three minute video?
Horton notes…
The term “gospel” is a very precise term, a particular kind of word, or kind of speech in the Bible. It refers to God’s promise of salvation in Christ. The gospel is a victory announcement. It never tells us something to do. That is the business of the law. Rather, the gospel tells us something that has been done.
Consequently, those who speak of living the gospel or doing the gospel commit a category mistake. More importantly, they make the most basic theological mistake a person could make, namely, confuse the law and the gospel. And if we confuse the law and the gospel, then we will make ourselves partly your own saviors, adding to the work of Christ.
Is Horton Correct? …. As a Pastor aquaintance has noted….
The most serious problem is that Horton’s indictment is based upon a shaky foundation. Horton’s critique is predicated upon his narrow and strict definition of the term “gospel.” But is that the only way the Bible uses or defines the term “gospel”? The answer is no! Romans 2:16 connects the future judgment with the gospel and 2 Thess. 1:8 and 1 Pet. 4:17 both speak of obeying the gospel. The gospel is to be obeyed. But how do you obey a victory announcement? How do you obey what God has done? So either the Bible itself confuses law and gospel or it uses the word “gospel” differently (at times) than Horton. Since the latter must be true, then Horton shouldn’t make the strict definition of the gospel, the one and only definition of the gospel. And he most certainly shouldn’t make any charges of legalism towards those who use a broader yet biblical definition of the gospel.
Fyi, the note on 2 Thess. 1:8 in the Reformation Study Bible is as follows:
§ 1:8 obey the gospel. The gospel must be accepted, believed, and obeyed (1 Pet. 4:17). Its divine command is for absolute surrender to God through the peace made by Jesus Christ.
Dr. David Murray writes…
I agree that the Gospel is certainly a message about Christ’s external substitution. But it does not stop there. The Gospel is also a message about internal transformation (a major part of sanctification). Christ saves us from our sins objectively and subjectively, from the penalty of sin and the presence of sin.
Guys, this is a problem. Others are seeing it. This is a truncated Gospel that is being proclaimed and one without the full truth and power of a message that has to do with the whole of Reconciliation. Reconciliation is about more than just justification before God. The Gospel is about man’s reconciliation with God, totally. The Gospel is about a restored relationship with God. And this is Life Eternal that they know… (John 17:3)
Justification removes fear from Eternal Condemnation but it shouldn’t remove fear from chastisement or judgement from God when we are living in sin. That is what First Corinthians Chapter 10 is all about. And it is precisely the Mosaic Covenant that St. Paul is referencing when appealing to how we should live as Christians in the Spirit of Christ.
In this Modern Reformed Thought some are weakening the sensitivity of the Conscience which needs to be awakened unto holy living. Sure we aren’t condemned before God in Eternity because Christ has removed the curse of the Covenant of Works, but we should fear our heavenly Father when we sin. That is something the World lacks. It lacks a Heavenly Father who cares about how we live in His Kingdom. Remember God chastises his children because He loves them. If we had good fathers growing up they disciplined us because they loved us and wanted us to live peaceably with them.
This reconciliation thing is also about 1 John 1:9 and our daily life. It is about sanctification and our daily walk with our King in His Kingdom. This truncated gospel these guys are proclaiming is growing void of the part that runs next to our justification in the Gospel. It takes Sanctification and removes it from the Gospel because it is supposedly of the law, which is not a part of the Gospel. They say so themselves. That is antinomian because according to them we should look only to justification for all things according them. Our Union with Christ is where we should look for all things. Justification and Sanctification both proceed from that. Their scheme divorces our daily walk with God from the sanctifying grace of reconciliation. The law is opposed to us soteriologically because the law opposes the Gospel. The Law only Condemns in the scheme of soteriology according to them. It is not a part of the Gospel or salvation. The Gospel is only about justification and not about sanctification in their understanding. The Gospel and Reconciliation have a a two fold benefit though, Justification and Sanctification. Both are made realities by the Spirit of God in our Union with Christ.
The Gospel is about our Adoption and our living with God daily. We should look to our Union with Christ which brings a two-fold Grace as Calvin put it. This Modern Reformed Thought Gospel that is only declarative is a subtle moving away from the Gospel of the Kingdom.
I will say this. At least these Modern Day Reformed Thought guys get justification correct.
Edited to accommodate those whom want to defend Horton.
To avoid blog wars with the discussion Forum I moderate I need to separate myself from it and express that these are my musings separate of that Confessional Discussion Forum.
“Jason did understand the gospel and decided it was not the answer for him. I repeat, it was not that he misunderstood it, and has departed in ignorance. Jason grasped it, confessed it, was ordained to it, promised to defend it, and then defected consciously from the system of doctrine he promised to uphold. “
Note to a Pastor,
In all due respect I have a few problems with your blog concerning Jason Stellman and his turning to the Roman Papist Church. Yes, you may know Jason. I have been acquainted with him for years also. If you mean he knew the Gospel the way that Horton and his Clan know the Gospel then I would have to say that Jason knew a Truncated Gospel. Especially in light of how Dr. Michael Horton defines it in his three minute clip on YouTube and the Westminster California site. I have listened to him and the White Horse Inn Panel for hours discussing the Great Commission and the Gospel. I believe that poor Jason had a Truncated view of the Gospel and Covenant Theology.
Your attention drawing to Jason’s Narcissism is quite commendable if you are spot on. If it is a man trying to strive to know what he believes then you might be incorrect. I have seen this departure happen with other Presbyterians also. I actually address some of this situation and issues on a theological discussion forum that brought your blog to my attention. Gotta love Dr. Clark..
Dr. Scott Clark states…
The ISSUES should be engaged. I’ve been doing that on the HB. Responsible representatives of the Roman church should be engaged but not everyone speaking up just now meets that test.
I responded with this…
Jason might not be considered one who meets that test. But he is one who is being noted. He is worthy to be dealt with just as the Papists that Calvin dealt with in his time.
Having watched Jason do what he did I have to say that I can understand why some people get mixed up sometimes. At least Jason has the integrity to voice his understanding. Is he cocky? Maybe. I know many of our kind who have been accused of being ungracious and know-it-alls also. Okay, my hand can be raised on that also.
I have had a few friends cross from the Presbyterian side to Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and the New Paul Perspective due to a struggle with trying to understand Covenant Theology in relation to law and gospel (or grace). Some of you might not remember or know but I use to moderate another theological forum that was a split off from the PB. I use to Moderate the Reformation Super Highway and the PB at the same time. The RSH was a home of things departing from what it means to be Reformed. I didn’t understand why they were doing it. It was hard for me since I was a Reformed Baptist. Law and Gospel were opposed but then I wasn’t as sure how it all worked out. I understand it a bit more now I think……. Well, maybe….. I can honestly say they all abandoned a form of Lutheranism or various dichotomous views of Law and Gospel which have been formulated based upon an interpretation (hermeneutic) concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I believe it is a view that the Westminster Divines rejected as it was a Minority view when they were constructing the Biblical Confession. I also believe that some of this wayward confusion could have been prevented if these persons learned the Westminster Confession’s position on Chapter 7.5,6 a bit more. I could be wrong. (BTW, I don’t sense that all Papists or deceived people are going to Hell. That is just my estimation) I also don’t feel it is right to give a free pass to those who deny the Westminster on this point. Especially when they are by name attached to Westminsterian theology and Institution. Some people are doing that in my estimation. It is confusing a lot of people. I also believe it is part of the problem. I am patiently waiting to see how this issue is going to turn out as it is being brought to the forefront more and more daily. I do know men who have Doctorates, are Professors, Teachers of History and Systematic Theology, whom I have conferred with and with whom I agree that this issue has a root problem. I believe it stems from a poor understanding of the Mosaic Covenant and dichotomizing Law and Gospel too much.
I was recently reminded that the Law / Gospel dichotomy issue was what helped me see this issue initially. So maybe…. Just maybe… It will do the same for others. This issue is like watching a pendulum of a Grandfather clock to me. The pendulum has swung one way (Federal Vision, NPP, etc.). It swung hard away from it (Klineanism). Now it is going back the other way again. It saddens me. The Divines at the Westminster Assembly got it right and rejected the minority view, Roman Catholicism, and Antinomiansm. This swinging of the pendulum just needs to stop and we need to listen to the Westminster Divines in my estimation. They had to deal with it also. Oh yeah, and Bavinck also does a good job when he discusses the Reformed doctrine in comparison to the Lutheran doctrine (not necessarily Luther’s doctrine) of soteriology.
I am positive that I don’t meet the test to discuss issues in some people’s eyes. I fully understand why. I do know good men who are, have, and will meet the test. Orthodoxy leads to Orthopraxy There are many good laymen and Trained men who are capable.
As a side note. I am not fearful of Jason’s departure. I am saddened for him, His physical family, and His Church family members. As for addressing those who are competent on Roman Dogma….. Didn’t Calvin take on Roman Dogma by using the Church Fathers that the Papists claimed? The Papists back then were refuted by Calvin. Why not use Jason the same way? His distortions can be reproved and shown for what they are. Just like the Papists were refuted when Calvin confronted them by quoting their Church Fathers back to them in context.
A turning to Idolatry is never a good thing. Anyone who wants to be deceived by love for icons, Popish Ceremonies, or carnality are going to be. We have idolatry growing all around us. My advice is read Gillespies’ book Popish Ceremonies, try to discuss it calmly with them, then hand them a copy hoping that they will read it. Love them as your friends. That will go farther than getting upset with them and claiming they are brain dead and unfit for discussing it.
Randy
My opinion of your blog post is that you might have some things put down correctly but I believe you are missing the mark on a few major issues. It is my opinion. And I have been saying for the past 25 years that opinions are like armpits. We all have a few and they usually end up stinking. LOL.
JMHO….
Be Encouraged Pastor and everyone who suffered through this.,
P.S. I want one of those Icons (bobble heads) of Jason! That is Rockin Cool!
I am posting a link to the Puritanboard here so that instructions are included for listening to the Video Webinar. It might have an echo and I already posted on that. This is a very important subject now days in my estimation. Please enjoy this discussion by Dr. Richard Gamble from Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Also remember that this is a general synopsis. It will not hit everyone who holds to Two Kingdoms. The terminology of Two Kingdom is also used in different ways by others. Calvin mentioned a Two fold Government. Calvin used those terms interchangeably if I am not mistaken. Anyways, enjoy this.
If you get an echo just click on the pause button in the middle of the video panel. Go to the bottom right of the page and mute the sound on the bottom sound icon. Then click play again. It will eliminate the double voicing. I was getting an Echo with my Google browser.
Puritan Covenanter 
You must be logged in to post a comment.