Puritan Reformed Journal: Volume 2, Number 1 – January 2010

Puritan Reformed Journal: Volume 2, Number 1 – January 2010 has been released and it has an article entitled “James Durham (1622-1658) and the Free Offer of the Gospel”.  I wonder which individual would write an article like that?  You can see a fuller description of contents as well as how to purchase here and here.  (Bonus marks for spotting the typo in the table of contents).

The NT on the Mosaic Covenant

Here is a short extract from Hodge on the various ways the New Testament speaks of the Mosaic covenant:

(1.) When viewed in relation to the people of God before the advent, it is represented as divine and obligatory.
(2.) When viewed in relation to the state of the Church after the advent, it is declared to be obsolete. It is represented as the lifeless husk from which the living kernel and germ have been extracted …
(3.) When viewed according to its true import and design as a preparatory dispensation of the covenant of grace, it is spoken of as preaching the same gospel, the same method of salvation as that which the apostles preached.
(4.) When viewed, in the light in which it was regarded by those who rejected the gospel, as a mere legal system, it was declared to be a ministration of death and condemnation. (2 Cor. iii. 6-18.)
(5.) And when contrasted with the new or Christian economy, as a different mode of revealing the same covenant, it is spoken of as a state of tutelage and bondage, far different from the freedom and filial spirit of the dispensation under which we now live.”
Systematic Theology, 2:376

I think this is a very helpful summary to keep in mind when trying to understand how the NT speaks of the Mosaic Economy, which, as any observer of the current reformed scene knows, is a matter of some controversy!

Sinclair Ferguson on “Evangelical Scholarship”

“…as evangelical scholarship grew strong, two things were happening.  There was a – perhaps naïve – conviction that if a new race of biblical scholars could be produced then theology – particularly systematic theology - of an evangelical kind would benefit from the knock-on effects.  What was sometimes overlooked was the fact that Scripture is not pre-theological nor is biblical interpretation a-theological.  It contains its own theological controls, its own “form of doctrine” (Rom. 6:17) to which believers are committed by the gospel.  The theology taught in Scripture in turn provides as underlying framework for exegesis and biblical theology.  The unity of Scripture makes that possible and in fact demands it.  Sadly, however, the adage that scholars were “simply following the text” did not always take account of the fact that the text ought never to be isolated from its theological framework.

Without these theological controls it was only too possible for scholars who believed that they were simply following the text of Scripture where it led not to recognize the fact that the lenses they often wore for their work were ground in the historical-critical laboratory.  Furthermore, much academic work involved entering the stream of scholarship at a particular point in the river, learning the rules, and playing according to them.  The river offered few signs warning of the danger of the rocks that lay just under the water’s surface.  The presuppositions expressed in a methodology can too easily be overlooked.

Over the decades, “new” positions have emerged in evangelical biblical scholarship.  Those who developed them continued to affirm that these approaches were consistent with a confession of evangelical faith.  What was too often overlooked was how similar were the methods now used, and the conclusions now drawn by “evangelicals,” to those of nineteenth-century scholars who were the father figures of non-evangelical and eventually anti-evangelical scholarship over a century ago.”

A sad tale to be sure – and one that many refuse to recognise but a very important warning for believers engaged in academic study, especially biblical studies.

Freedom from Justification by the Law!

Here is a gem from one Obadiah Sedgwick, Westminster Assembly member:

They [believers] have immunity or freedom from justification by the Law, from all legal trials for life.   Although you are not freed from the Law as it is a rule for life, yet you are freed from the Law as it is a Covenant of life; although you are not freed from the Law as it is the image of the good and holy will of God, yet because you are under the Covenant of grace, you are freed from the Law as it is a reason of salvation and justification.  The Covenant of grace takes you off from that Court and Bar which pronounceth life upon your own good works, and pronounceth death upon your own evil works; Rom. 3:28, We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.  Gal. 3:11, No man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, for the just shall live by faith.  As the law calls for perfect and personal righteousness of our own; so the Law will not justify you, it will not give life unto you, unless it finds that righteousness in you; you live not, if you be not perfectly righteous; absolution is pronounced upon your own perfect innocence, and condemnation is pronounced upon any defect or breach.  And verily on this account no living man can or shall be justified; therefore here is comfort, that being in Christ, and in this Covenant of grace, ye are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses; see the Apostle, Acts 13:39.  Your life doth not lie now in your own righteousness, but in the righteousness of Christ; nor doth it depend on your own works, but upon the obedience of Christ.  That expression of Luther is an excellent expression … ‘Though my works have been very good, yet not those but Christ doth justify me; and though my works have been very ill, yet the righteousness of Christ can and will justify me; my evil works shall not damn me, and my good works cannot acquit me; it is Christ, it is Christ, and not the Law which justifies me.’

Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (London: Printed by Edward Mottershed, for Adoniram Byfield, 1661), 81.

I’m actually writing up Sedgwick on the free offer (some excellent sermons on Rev 3:20) at the moment and this was in my notes – thought it was worth sharing!

Do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering?

John Murray’s commentary on Romans is a rare treat.  Murray’s commentary was faithful to the Scottish Reformed tradition in which he was raised.  It was also a continuation of the great works in the Old Princeton tradition of theologians who were master exegetes.  There is much in the work that is valuable on the subject of the free offer but Murray’s comments on Romans 2:4 “Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” are particularly pertinent.

Murray observes that this verse teaches that “God suspends the infliction of punishment and restrains the execution of his wrath.  When he exercises forbearance and longsuffering he does not avenge sin in the instant execution of wrath.” 

But what is the point of this suspension of wrath – and is it related to the goodness and love of God?  Yes, “It needs to be noted that the apostle does not think of this restraint as exercised in abstract from the riches of God’s goodness, the riches of his benignity and loving-kindness.  There is a complementation that bespeaks the magnitude of God’s kindness of which the [outward] gifts of covenant privilege are the expression.  It is a metallic conception of God’s forbearance and longsuffering that isolates them from the kindness of disposition and of benefaction which the goodness of God implies.”

Of course included in the outward “gifts of covenant privilege” is the free offer of the gospel and the spirit of Rom 2:4 should animate the free offer.

John Murray on “Justification and Good Works”

Murray was, in my view, the Reformed theologian of the 20th Century.  (Maybe as a fellow Highlander I’m biased!)  If only his voice had been listened to things would be different to what they are now.  On worship, the Lord’s Day and on the free offer of the gospel (to name but three) Murray applied historic reformed theology faithfully to the contemporary Church scene.  Another area on which Murray testifies to the church today is that of justification.  In is Collected Writings 2:219-222 Murray discusses “Justification and Good Works”.  His thoughts on this follow.

Murray begins his discussion be highlighting the potential conflict between justification by faith alone and the necessity of good works: “It has been objected that the doctrine of justification by free grace through faith alone is inimical to the interests of ethical living and of good works, that it tends to the lascivious and licentious principle, ‘let us do evil that good may come’.”  Murray meets this objection to justification by faith alone with five points of response.

First, justification “is only one part or aspect of the redemptive process and must never be viewed in disjunction from its place in the context of all the other steps of the process.”  That is, “redemption is unto holiness and justification as a part of the process cannot be to the opposite end.”

Secondly justification by faith alone “is the only basis upon which good works can be performed.”  Murray argues that without the confidence of an already complete and perfect justification by faith all works done will be tainted by a fear of guilt and alienation from God.  Justification by faith alone frees us from this and enables us to serve God.

Third, Murray argues that justification by faith alone is not inimical to good works in that “since faith is a whole-souled movement of trust in Christ, its very spring and motive is salvation from sin.  How can it be an incentive to sin?”

Fourth, Murray simply states that the faith that does not produce good works is not the faith that justifies.

Finally Murray states that while “it makes void the gospel [note the strength of this statement!] to introduce works in connection with justification, nevertheless works done in faith, from the motive of love to God, in obedience to the revealed will of God and to the end of his glory are intrinsically good and acceptable to God.  As such they will be the criterion of reward in the life to come.”  Murray refers to Mat 10:41; 1 Cor 3:8-9, 11-15, 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10 and 2 Tim 4:7 to make his case.  He argues that “we must maintain therefore, justification complete and irrevocable by grace through faith and apart from works, and at the same time, future reward according to works.”  Murray made four important clarification to his point here.  In the first place “this future reward is not justification and contributes nothing to that which constitutes justification.”  Secondly “this future reward is not salvation.  Salvation is by grace and it is not a reward for works…”  Third “the reward has reference to the station a person is to occupy in glory and does not have reference to the gift of glory itself.”  Fourth “this reward is not administered because good works earn or merit reward, but because God is graciously pleased to reward them.”

This then is how Murray defended justification by faith alone apart from works from the charge of licentiousness.  It is a tragedy that the works of Murray are not read and loved more today.

Rainbow on Calvin, the Will of God and the Gospel Offer

Here is a short section from Jonathan Rainbow’s work The Will of God and The Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption.

The Universal Offer of the Gospel

Calvin clearly articulated a universal saving will of God that was conditional on faith, which consisted of the universal offer of the gospel through preaching … Calvin stressed that the gospel, and in it the benefits of Christ’s passion and death, are offered to all men.  In such contexts Calvin made it clear that “all” means all men individually.  Calvin the Latinist provided Calvin the theologian with a variety of terms to articulate this doctrine:  the gospel is offered (offertur) to all, propounded (proponitur) to all, set forth (expositum esse) to all, and proclaimed (publicando) to all.  These terms all denoted for Calvin the public preaching of the gospel through the agency of men.  By this agency God invites (invitare) and calls (vocare) all men to salvation.  That “all” means all individual men Calvin indicated by the adverbs indifferenter, promiscue, and sine exceptione which almost always occurred in such statements.

Calvin usually coupled his affirmations of this universal gospel offer with the reminder that only the elect actually receive the gospel.  For the public offer of the gospel comes always with the demand for faith, and only the elect have faith.  So Calvin saw God here operating in two circles of human beings, one the larger circle of all to whom the gospel is publically offered through preaching, and the other smaller circle of those who believe, the elect.  This preached word is a kind of net cast into humanity at large which catches the elect and lets the reprobate slip back through.  So there was in this sense in Calvin’s theology a “twofold will” of God.  [C.f. commentaries on Ezek 18:23, 2 Pet 3:9, Matt 23:37.] … The universal offer of the gospel for Calvin was only and simply the public preaching of the gospel to all men; it was the will of God “which is manifested by the nature of the word, and is merely to invite by the outward voice of  man.”  If asked how such an offer can be made to every individual when God’s saving work and will do not extend to every individual, Calvin would not pretend to know.  It is simply how God reveals himself.

******************

Now whilst Rainbow does not say everything that can be said in this short section he draws out a number of vital points:

• It is impossible to say the older reformed theologians ment only present/command by offer – look at the actual terms Calvin uses (including invite).
• For Calvin the gospel is a particular offer to every hearer.
• For Calvin it is possible to speak of the (revealed) will of God for the salvation of all.
• Calvin accepts the testimony of scripture and does not reject it because he cannot rationalise it i.e. he understands the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, that is the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.

“The Nature and Danger of Heresies”

Obadiah Sedgewick (1599/1600-1658) preached a sermon before parliament with the above title.  This is an interesting work from both a historical (he has a couple of lists of errors troubling the church) and theological (defining heresy etc).  I may post his list of errors as it is enlightening and edifying.  Here is his stirring conclusion on how ministers should respond in the face of heresy:

I have also a word to say to you who are Ministers of the Gospel of Christ: Come you forth from your long silences, neglects and reserves: and help the Church of Christ, in swallowing up the flood which the Serpent hath cast out of his mouth: when Jesus Christ is blasphemed, it is not a time to fear, but to cry out … Men will  say that you are moderate and discreet, but what will Christ say to you, if at such a time you be silent in his cause?  Oh my brethren! you are the husbandmen, take heed that none sow tares in the field, whiles you sleep: you are the builders, O be sure to preserve the foundation safe: you are the shepherds of the flock, O beware of the wolves, lest they break in and destroy the sheep!  … You are the watchmen, O look out, lest the enemy slip in and surprise the city!  You are the fathers, be sure that your children have not a stone given to them instead of bread, or a serpent instead of fish.

You must help with your most fervent prayers: as Alexander once did, and prevailed against Arius: You must help with your counsels, with your watchings, with your preachings … You must … stand for truth, and withstand errors:  You are (in a singular manner) intrusted with truth and souls.  O watch, O pray, O preach, O do all that faithful ministers should do, when a flood breaks in: You read of Elijah’s zeal against the false prophets, and of Paul’s zeal against false Apostles: You have read of the zeal of Athanasius against the Arians: and of the zeal of Cyprian against the Novatians: and of the zeal of Austine against the Manichees, and against the Pelagians: You have read of the zeal of Hierome, of Chrysostome, of Nazianzen, and many others in ancient times: You have read of the zeal of Luther, and Calvin, and others in later times.  Ou have shewed your zeal to the Kingdom in our dangerous times; I say no more, remember your first works, remember your engagements and be zealous: If you who are the Angels of Christ, the Ministers of Christ, the stewards of Christ, if you be drowzie, if you be silent, if you stop your own mouths when mouths are opened against your Christ, whose mouth can we expect should open it self to swallow up the flood?

“this Error of seeking Righteousness by our Works”

One doctrine the 17th century Scottish theologians got right (among many!) was justification.  While England was being troubled by both neonomianism on the one hand and antinomianism on the other the Presbyterian leaders of the Scottish church avoided both extremes.  It was the entrance of the dead faith of moderatism that paved the way for the neonomianism of Baxter to enter the Scottish Church.  It was this the Marrowmen did so much to fight against.  But among the mid 17th Century leaders of the Scottish church all was well.  Here is David Dickson opposing the error of those seeking to add “works righteousness” to justification:

Unto this Error of seeking Righteousness by our Works, after entering in the way of Justification by Grace, we are all naturally inclined; for, the Covenant of Works is so engraven in all Adam’s Children, Do this and live, that hardly can we renounce this way of Justification, and howsoever it be impossible to attain Righteousness this way, yet hardly can we submit our selves to the Righteousness by Faith in Christ, which not only the Expereince of Israel after the Flesh maketh manifest, but also the Experience of the Galatians lets us see; for, they having once outwardly renounced Justification by Works, and embraced the Covenant of gracious Reconciliation by Faith in Jesus, did turn about for a time, to seek Justification by the Works of the Law, and were on the way of falling from Grace and Communion…
David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra (Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1664), 298.

Why is justification a perennial issue for the Christians?  Because we are all by nature inclined to want to add something to our justification.  Dickson’s example of the Galatians gives all a stark warning against this tendency:

…the Galatians, who having begun in the spiritual way of Justification by Faith, sought to be perfected by the fleshly way of Justification by works, and did fall in danger of falling from Grace and excluding themselves from the blessing of the promise through Christ.
Dickson, Thereputica Sacra, 746.

But what of the teaching of James.  Dickson accounts for this well:

…the Gospel doth not teach us to seek the Justification of our Persons before God by Works, but by Faith in Christ, and then teacheth us to seek the Justification of our Faith before Men in our own and others Conscience, by the sincere endeavour of new Obedience…
Dickson, Thereputica Sacra, 315-6

May we all be enabled to hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering (WLC Q&A 70):

What is justification?

Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Grace in the Garden?

Following up the discussion at Meet the Puritans Samuel Rutherford explains as follows (note particularly his third point):

In all pactions between the Lord and man, even in a Law-Covenant there is some outbreakings of grace.  It is true, there was no Gospel-Grace, that is a fruit of Christ’s merit in this Covenant.  But yet if grace be taken for undeserved goodness: There are these respects of grace.  1. That God might have given to Adam something inferior to the glorious image of God, that consists in true righteousness, knowledge of God, and holiness, Gen 1:26, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10 … 2. Being and dominion over the creatures is of undeserved goodness … 3. The Covenant of Works itself, that God out of sovereignty does not command, is undeserved condescending; that God bargains for hire, do this and live, whereas he may … [as] Sovereign Lawgiver … charge and command us, is overcoming goodness.  Law is honeyed with love, and hire; it is mercy that for our penny of obedience, so rich a wage as communion with God is given…”
Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened: Or, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh: Robert Broun for Andrew Anderson), 35.

Brings a helpful balance to this debate I think.  Whatever the exact view of the word “grace” in reference to the garden of Eden surely the substance of what Rutherford says is correct.

The blog will hopefully be up and running again now.  It has been a very busy time trying to finish off the thesis, work as hectic as ever and the general rush of life!