Category: Quotes to Note

noteworthy quotes

Quotes to Note 20: Ulrich Zwingli on the Gospel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The following is excerpted from Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. (IVP, 2010). The quotes by Zwingli are from his Commentary on True and False Religion, written in 1525.

Ulrich Zwingli also stressed the mercy of God for the justification of unworthy sinners. He wrote, “This is the gospel, that sins are remitted in the name of Christ; and no heart ever received tidings more glad.” Zwingli proceeded to expand on this teaching, eventually stating:

“For when man through repentance has come to the knowledge of himself, he finds nothing but utter despair. Hence, wholly distrusting himself, he is forced to take refuge in the mercy of God. But when he has begun to do that, justice makes him afraid. Then Christ appears, who has satisfied the divine justice for our trespasses. When once there is faith in Him, then salvation is found; for He is the infallible pledge of God’s mercy.“

He wrapped up his treatment by asserting: “Through Christ alone we are given salvation, blessedness, grace, pardon, and all that makes us in any way worthy in the sight of a righteous God.“ (pg. 120)

Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.

Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)

Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).

*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.

Quotes to Note 18: C.J. Mahaney on Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

The other day, I picked up C.J. Mahaney’s excellent little book Living the Cross Centered Life: Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing. I came across his excellent description of legalism once again and thought I’d share it here for my readers.

When I first read through an earlier version of this book, back in 2005, His thoughts helped me realize the legalistic tendencies I had in my own life. Legalism properly refers to earning God’s grace for justification, but the term can also be used for earning God’s favor in sanctification. And for many in conservative or fundamentalist circles, legalism is a danger to watch out for.

In the book, Mahaney uses an illustration which captures the essence of a performance-based ethic which amounts to Christian legalism. To set the stage for the quote, Mahaney describes a variety show that used to be popular where a man would set various plates spinning on a series of long flexible rods. He’d keep each plate spinning as it would slow down until there were 8 or 10 spinning plates spread precariously all over the stage. Here is the quote now from Mahaney about legalism:

That’s a helpful picture of how legalism can hijack a Christian. The life of a legalist can become just as frenetic as the plate spinner’s performance.

The plates we spin are various spiritual activities–such as bible reading, prayer, or sharing the gospel–that are good and vital in themselves when pursued for the right reasons.

But often without realizing it, we allow a dangerous shift to take place in our mind and heart. We change what God intends as a means of experiencing grace into a means of earning grace. Instead of being a further expression of our confidence in God’s saving work in our life, these spiritual activities become simply more spinning plates to maintain.

When Sunday morning comes, we’ll sing and praise god in church with evident sincerity and zeal when we’ve had a really good week–with not a single plate wobbling.

But on another Sunday, following a week in which several plates crashed, we’re hesitant to approach God and find it difficult to worship freely. We can’t escape the feeling that God disapproves of us. Our confidence is no longer in the gospel; it’s based instead on our own performance, and when that performance slides, so does our peace and joy.

Do you see such signs of legalism in your own life? Do you often find that you’re more aware of your sin than of what Jesus accomplished at the cross? Do you think of God as disappointed with you rather than delighting over you?

Do you lack holy joy? Do you look to your spinning plates for the confidence–indeed, even the right–to approach God?

If you answer yes to any of those questions, you’ve probably begun to live under the tyranny of legalism.

But don’t let this discourage you. God wants to rescue you from the joyless futility of plate spinning through a right understanding of the gospel. (pg. 115-116, bolded emphasis added)

This performance-based, do-it-yourself-Christianity is deadly. It stifles joy, promotes pride, and can cripple spiritually sensitive believers. Be on guard for legalism in your life and in your church.

I know I experienced this (and still tend toward this “practical legalism” even today). What’s your story? Do you think Mahaney says it right here? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

Quotes to Note 17: Jonathan Edwards’ Letter to George Whitfield

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I recently picked up, Stephen Nichols’ excellent book Jonathan Edwards: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought (P & R). He gives an overview of Edwards’ life and a summary of his key writings by way of introduction to the study of Jonathan Edwards. In the biography section I came across a true gem. Nichols shared excerpts from a letter Edwards wrote to Whitefield requesting that he minister in Northampton. The letter shows Edwards’ sincere desire for revival and for God to use Whitefield in his own life, family and church. He further requests that Whitefield pray that God would see fit to use Edwards for the cause of Christ as well. Let me share this wonderful excerpt for the blessing of my readers.

Sir,

My request to you is that in your intended journey through New England the next summer, you would be pleased to visit Northampton. I hope it is not wholly from curiosity that I desire to see and hear you in this place; but I apprehend, from what I have heard, that you are one that has the blessing of heaven attending you wherever you go; and I have a great desire, if it may be the will of God, that such a blessing as attends your person and labors may descend on this town, and may enter mine own house, and that I may receive it in mine own soul.

Indeed I am fearful whether you will not be disappointed in New England, and have less success here than in other places: we who have dwelt in a land that has been distinguished with light, and have long enjoyed the gospel, and have been glutted with it, and have despised it, are I fear more hardened than most of those places where you have preached hitherto. But yet I hope in that power and mercy of God that has appeared so triumphant in the success of your labors in other places, that he will send a blessing with you even to us, though we are unworthy of it….

I fear that it is too much for me to desire a particular remembrance in your prayers, when I consider how many thousands do doubtless desire it, who can’t all be particularly mentioned; and I am far from thinking myself worthy to be distinguished. But pray, Sir, let your heart be lifted to God for me among others, that God would bestow much of that blessed Spirit on me that he has bestowed on you, and make me also an instrument of his glory. I am, reverend Sir,

Unworthy to be called your fellow laborer,

Jonathan Edwards

[Nichols, Jonathan Edwards: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought ( P & R Publishing, 2001), pg. 55)]

Quotes to Note 16: Paul a Minister of the New Covenant

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

A while back I finished Jason Meyer’s excellent new book The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Broadman & Holman). It was there that I first grasped the significance of Paul’s declaration in 2 Cor. 3:6 “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant“. Meyer argues that Paul was a minister of the new covenant in the same way that he ministered the gospel (see 2 Cor. 4). In other words, the new covenant is intimately related to the gospel. Let me allow Jason Meyer to explain.

…The source of Paul’s competence is not himself… it comes from God… God’s sufficiency surges within God’s new covenant, the base of operations for Paul’s ministry. God’s sufficiency is inherent or intrinsic to His new covenant…. Paul says this new covenant consists “not of the letter, but of the Spirit”….the Spirit defines the new covenant and makes it what it is….

These conclusions should not cause one to miss the semantic and grammatical links between “minister” (diakonos) and “covenant” (diatheke) in v. 6 Porter observed that “minister” (diakon-) words appear throughout the covenantal context of 2 Corinthians 3. The fact that Paul connects the service of his ministry to the concept of covenant is important in determining the relationship between the new covenant and the gospel. Paul presents parallel claims as a servant (diakonos) of the new covenant (kaines diathekes) and a servant (diakonos) of the gospel (euaggeliou). Further evidence emerges in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 where the new covenant is parallel to “gospel” (euaggelion), especially in light of the repetition of previous themes like “glory” and “veiled”…. (pg. 75-78)

This understanding, that the very gospel Paul preached is connected to the new covenant, fits in with Jesus’ inaugurating the new covenant at the Last Supper. It fits with Hebrews 8 and 10 which apply the new covenant to the believing church of today, not a reconstituted Israel or house of Judah in years to come. The new covenant’s promise of a radical experience of the Spirit, fits with the New Testament’s emphasis on the Spirit’s present role in believers. We are living in the age of the new covenant. It is already here, but it is not yet here in the fullest sense.