H vs. H on the Imitatio Christi

"Michael Horton so wants his readers to focus on Christ instead of imitation that he encourages an emphasis on the wickedness of characters, running them through Romans 3. This is an important aspect of Christian interpretation, but it is not the only way in which the New Testament uses characters (indeed, a majority of references are not concerned to show 'all have sinned'). To fit the biblical data to his interpretation, Horton tries to downplay this emphasis in his interpretation of the more famous passages illustrating the use of characters as examples: 'The so-called ‘Hall of Heroes’ in Hebrews 11 is misnamed. The writer consistently mentions that they overcame by faith in Christ, not by their works.'[34] But faith is never pitted against works. Rather, Abraham and Rahab (to take two) are commendable because they had the sort of faith that worked. Their appearance in Hebrews parallels their appearance in James, where they are commended neither simply for what they believed, nor for what they did apart from faith, but for what was done on the basis of belief (Jas 2:14-16), since faith without works is worthless. Contra Horton, the heroes are held out as examples precisely because they acted in obedience and faithfulness on the basis of God’s character and in response to his promises and commands. These characters overcame and persevered by faith and by works.

We can contrast the biblical emphasis on finding Jesus and examples within Scripture with Horton’s puzzling comments that appear to limit the imitation of Old Testament characters to mere belief in Jesus and God’s promises. '[Abraham’s] willingness to sacrifice Isaac was not an example for us, but was an occasion for God to foreshadow Christ as the ram caught in the thicket so that Isaac—and the rest of us—could go free.'[35] Horton sets up a false dichotomy between two approaches to interpretation: the passage either points to Christ, or the passage shows us a faithful model. But what if the New Testament takes Genesis 22 in both directions? Should we not follow the New Testament’s approach? We certainly do not imitate Abraham by sacrificing our children. But as we have seen, imitation is not rote, indiscriminate mimicry, but 'creative imitation' informed by Scripture.[36] The New Testament authors use Abraham as a model of faith and obedience (not least in Gen 18:17-19; 22:1-24; Heb 11:17; Jas 2:14-26). Abraham does not merely believe. Trusting God to raise the dead, he acts in obedience (Heb 11:19).[37] What’s more, Abraham’s obedience is crucial to the original meaning of the text, given the role that it plays in describing the covenant relationship between himself and God (Gen 22:1, 16-17)." (Jason Hood, Imitating God in Christ: Recapturing a Biblical Pattern)


Footnotes:
[34] Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), pp. 149-50. He adds on pp. 142-43, “The Old Testament saints were not heroes of faith and obedience but sinners who, despite their own wavering, were given the faith to cling to God’s promise.” Faith is a gift, but Horton’s approach veers in the direction of a monergistic approach to interpretation, where God’s work is all that counts and human work is downplayed, irrelevant or entirely negative.
[35] Ibid., p. 149.
[36] Vanhoozer, Drama of Doctrine, and Jimmy Agan, “Toward a Hermeneutic of Imitation: The Imitation of Christ in the Didascalia Apostolorum,” Presbyterion 37 (2011): 42-43.
[37] Michael Allen, “Imitating Jesus,” Modern Reformation 18, no. 2 (2009): 27-30, correctly sees that in Heb 11, saints from Abel to Jesus have their obedience “described in multiple ways. They are to be imitated as those whose belief impelled radical obedience (11:6).” Both Horton and his Westminster Seminary California colleague S. M. Baugh deny that characters in Heb 11 function as exemplars in any respect save for faith in a saving God; see Baugh, “The Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrews 11,” Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 1 (2002): 132. Contrast Calvin on Hebrews 11, Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, trans. William B. Johnston (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), p. 187. I owe the Baugh and Calvin references and analysis to R. Michael Allen, The Christ’s Faith: A Dogmatic Account (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), p. 324 n. 794, who identifies Baugh’s argument as a “reductionistic” account that “creates fissures where none need exist.”

A Brief G. Vos Bio and BT Lesson

Eschatology—The Ultimate Things

I'll be teaching this Saturday on the topic of "Man in the Covenant of Works" as treated in Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. After reading through the chapter, I decided to supplement my knowledge with some free, downloadable lectures from sermonaudio.com.

The first two lectures I got were those delivered by Dr. Carl Trueman. I was only a bit surprised to find that the structure and over-all content of his presentations were almost equivalent to Berkhof's. I then got four more lectures, this time by Dr. Lane Tipton. Both men are from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

I was very much enriched by both men, but I got something more from Tipton on just the first lecture. What I got was the better, more biblical definition of eschatology, and how it relates to the Covenant of Works and actually to the entirety of God's economy in redemptive history as revealed in Scripture.

The default understanding of most on the meaning of "eschatology" is bound up in the phrase, the last things, which traditionally deals with death, the intermediate state, the millennium, judgment, the second coming, the new heavens and the new earth, etc. Tipton argues, taking off from Vos, that the better definition would be the ultimate things. He then offers this very helpful elaboration:

The eschatological is:

1. Eternal reality of the kingdom paradise promised to Adam in the CoW.
2. Immutable state of perfect life in the presence of God.
3. Heavenly goal of the promised kingdom under the CoW.
4. The final stage of the kingdom of God, the telos point, the omega point.

Summary: The eschatological is the eternal, immutable, heavenly, and final state of the kingdom of God.

Reproduced below are two articles that might prove helpful in the better understanding of the concept.

Dennison on Vos' Eschatological Sabbatarianism

To say that eschatology has primacy even over soteriology is to say that God's final goal in creation is ultimate in all our theologizing.

James T. Dennison, Jr. offers some explanation on Geerhardus Vos' view on the Sabbath and the way eschatology bears upon his understanding:

Vos on the Sabbath: A Close Reading

Geerhardus Vos provides an exposition of the Sabbath in biblical theological perspective as he comments on the fourth commandment in Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments.1

I am providing a close reading of Vos's remarks in the interest of a careful "exegesis" of his Sabbath position. The clarion call of all responsible scholarship is ad fontes—"to the sources." Thus, I define Vos's views a fontibus—"from the sources."

Westminster Wednesday: Intrusion Ethics

The Decalogue is Moral Law (henceforth, "Law"). It is the expression of God's moral will and is binding on every human being by virtue of the Covenant of Creation. When the reprobate is judged on the Last Day, he will be judged by virtue of his inability and failure to keep the Law perfectly, whereas the elect will be judged as righteous (keeper of the Covenant) by virtue of his union with Christ (the One who obeyed the Law perfectly for the elect and bore the penalty of their failure to keep it in the same way).

Given the binding nature of the Law (as an agent of damnation for the reprobate and as the means of manifesting existentially one's union with Christ through obedience for the elect), the particular instances in the Old Testament of seeming contraventions to it may cause confusion to some. What of the Canaanite genocide? Rahab's lie? Etc. Aren't these instances of the Law being broken, with God giving approval? This is where Meredith Kline's notion of "intrusion ethics" comes into play.

Developing on Geerhardus Vos' biblical theology (notably its deeply eschatological character) and Cornelius Van Til's ethics (notably "common grace"), Kline proposes that these instances of seeming law-breaking in the O.T. were actually in-breakings of the consummation (future kingdom) in the context of redemptive history that was functioning typologically.

So, in fact, the massacre of the Canaanites was a type of the future judgment and destruction of all the reprobate in hell.

Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon, in his essay entitled Covenant Theology and Old Testament Ethics: Meredith G. Kline's Intrusion Ethics, explains :

The Sum of Salvation is Christ

If the title's proposition is true, then why would there be ringing in the pulpits devoid of the declaration of the person and work of Christ? If the Christian life is held afloat by the gratitude that is formed by the realization in heart and mind of what Christ is for us, then why do bare platitudes and niceties blare from the mouths of those who supposedly are Christ's mouthpieces?

No preaching is true, biblical preaching unless it is redemptive-historical. Christ Himself testifies, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me" (John 5:39). Preachers who have a penchant for serving "10 steps to this" or "being a better that" think they are preaching life, but the Law kills. "Do this and do that" preaching is Law-preaching. Indeed, the Law must be declared from the pulpits, but apart from an ensuing proclamation of Christ in the Gospel, the Law will only be capable of doing one thing: bring despair. Why? Because God demands perfect obedience to the Law.

But how can the Law be made lovely? Only by the knowledge that Christ has perfectly obeyed the Law and paid its penalty in our stead, and that grateful for this, the Law becomes our guide for expressing this gratitude through its obedience.

Calvin says it best:

"When we see that the whole sum of our salvation, and every single part of it, are comprehended in Christ, we must beware of deriving even the minutest portion of it from any other quarter. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that he possesses it; if we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, we shall find them in his unction; strength in his government; purity in his conception; indulgence in his nativity, in which he was made like us in all respects, in order that he might learn to sympathise with us: if we seek redemption, we shall find it in his passion; acquittal in his condemnation; remission of the curse in his cross; satisfaction in his sacrifice; purification in his blood; reconciliation in his descent to hell; mortification of the flesh in his sepulchre; newness of life in his resurrection; immortality also in his resurrection; the inheritance of a celestial kingdom in his entrance into heaven; protection, security, and the abundant supply of all blessings, in his kingdom; secure anticipation of judgement in the power of judging committed to him. In fine, since in him all kinds of blessings are treasured up, let us draw a full supply from him, and none from any other quarter. Those who, not satisfied with him alone, entertain various hopes from others, though they may continue to look to him chiefly, deviate from the right path by the simple fact, that some portion of their thought takes a different direction. No distrust of this description can arise when once the abundance of his blessings is properly known." (Institutes 2.16.19)

Redemptive-Historical Preaching Vs. Moralistic Preaching in Sanctification

"I know that there are those who are terribly afraid that such Christ-centered preaching will lead to licentiousness; but I categorically deny it. I've witnessed with my own eyes the difference between believers who suffer through moralistic preaching and those who experience Christological preaching. The former are never as strong or vibrant in their Christian discipleship as the latter. In theory, we all say we believe, for instance, that good works are the 'inevitable' fruit of saving faith. I not only say this; I believe it.

I believe that as people's confidence in Christ goes they do, ordinarily and inevitably, bear fruit that accords with faith.Thus, there is no need for some trade-off here, or some alleged dichotomy suggesting that we need to preach morality if we are to have morality. No, preach Christ and you will have morality. Fill the sails of your hearers' souls with the wind of confidence in the Redeemer, and they will trust him as their Sanctifier, and long to see his fruit in their lives. Fill their minds and imaginations with a vision of the loveliness and perfection of Christ in his person, and the flock will long to be like him. Impress upon their weak and wavering hearts the utter competence of the mediation of the One who ever lives to make intercession for them, and they will long to serve and comfort others, even as Christ has served and comforted them."

— T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach

Source: JollyBlogger: T. David Gordon on Moralistic vs. Christological Preaching

A Zombie Walks Amongst Us (Logical Positivism and Adam)

Philosopher John Arthur Passmore has stated that, "Logical positivism...is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes. But it has left a legacy behind." If the recent trend of formerly orthodox, evangelical scholars embracing theistic evolution is any indication, then it does seem that the zombie of logical positivism still walks amongst us!

Of course, the first thing to walk out the door when evolution is considered as the more tenable explanation for the origin of man is the historicity of the one whom the Bible calls "the first man" (1 Cor. 15:45), Adam: "Was Adam an Historical Person? And What Difference Does It Make?" If Adam is merely a creature of mythology, then the biblical-historical account of the Fall did not actually happen, we were not created by God as good (Gen 1:31), and there never was a need for Christ to take on humanity in His redemptive work. In short, the whole of biblical Christianity disentangles and dissipates.

See also: Theistic Evolution: A Hermeneutical Trojan Horse

Some Theobloggers on Preaching

I came across the following blog posts, written by stellar theologians, on the topic of preaching:

A Teaser on Preaching
The Mystery Source Is....
More on Barthian preaching
Preaching again...
Slouching to Bethlehem
Running to Bethlehem
Don't Disagree but....

You have to read them in the same order as they are posted here for the message's coherence to be maintained.

Initially, we have Carl Trueman quoting Karl Barth's polemic against boring and unbiblical preaching. He rightly asserts the juxtaposition of Osteenian speech-making to biblical preaching. But then he inserts a light jab at supposedly "entertainment-driven" preachers that are "confessional in subscription", the latter ascription I take to mean confessionally Reformed. Not content with rightly pointing out the errors of unbiblical and pragmatic/entertainment-driven preaching, Trueman then proceeds to rail against redemptive-historical preaching. Derek Thomas joins him in bewailing the "Reformed error" of being too hung-up on trying to squeeze Christ out of the biblical text, describing most manifestations of this exercise as "flat." Somehow, all this reminds me of Trueman's prior debate with Graeme Goldsworthy, wherein he tries to pit systematic theology against biblical theology, with his dog being the former, and with Goldsworthy counting him out in the corner with the former's rightful insistence that the relationship between the two theological disciplines is perichoretic.

Sean Lucas then comes into the picture, injecting the anti-venom to what has become a toxic mix of what I would consider as a caricaturing of what Reformed preaching is about. Lucas justifiably brings what it means to be a herald of the Gospel to the forefront by reminding us that the whole of Scripture speaks of Christ and of what God has done, is doing, and will do in redemptive history through Him, and that this is to be the crux of all Gospel preaching—indeed, all preaching! Trueman inquires that must this be the be-all and end-all, a confounding of the indicative with the imperative? To that I would remark that the Gospel is the foundation of all truly God-pleasing responses to the imperatives. Anything less is legalism or moralism.