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)

Pay Your Taxes But Trust in Christ

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

I recently posted my book review of Republocrat by Carl Trueman which makes the point that Christianity doesn’t have an exclusive bent to either of the major American political parties. Christianity isn’t American after all.

I thought I’d follow this up with a link to a fantastic post on the theme of Christianity & politics that I just found over at the Gospel Coalition Blog. It actually is about a month old now, but links to a 70 minute sermon on the topic from Mark Dever, who happens to pastor Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. (where both Democrats and Republicans meet to worship, mind you).

Here’s an excerpt from Collin Hansen’s post of the same title as this post. I encourage you to read the whole thing, and download Dever’s sermon to boot.

…God’s ways often surpass our understanding. We cannot manipulate him to baptize our pet causes. Read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, a stunningly moving model of public theology written by a man whose true beliefs elude historians still today. No, actually read the speech and marvel at this man’s magnanimity after four years of shockingly bloody killing. He captured in this speech a mature political philosophy that shamed the many warmongers masquerading as pastors in both the North and South. Even today, the church cries out to God for him to raise up more pastors and theologians who can help the evangelical public understand that for all this nation’s blessings, Jesus Christ didn’t robe himself in an American flag.

My concern stems from experience working on Capitol Hill in partisan roles. When I struggled several years ago to distinguish between my theological beliefs and convictions on such matters as tax policy and federal bureaucracy, I needed an oasis where I could escape the withering heat of political campaigning. I found it in the community of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Only here did I associate with anyone from the other party. Only here did I hear a message that would endure forever, long after everyone had forgotten any press releases or speeches I wrote. And when I returned on September 16 for a 9Marks Weekender hosted by the church, I found here again a refuge from the arguments that the world invests with undue importance. Indeed, I heard from senior pastor Mark Dever the best sermon I know on Christianity and government. Thabiti Anyabwile, who formerly worked with Dever, described the sermon as “a biblical theology of Christians and the state, at once full of unction, intellectually challenging, and affecting the heart. I’ve heard a lot of Mark’s preaching, but I don’t know that I’ve ever heard him better.”

While Dever may serve a church on Capitol Hill, he does not commonly address issues of Christianity and government so directly. But as an expository preacher working his way through the Gospel of Mark, Dever obligated himself to address Jesus’ teaching in Mark 12:13-17. In these days of overheated rhetoric and protest rallies, I pray that evangelicals will set aside 70 minutes to listen to Dever’s sermon. Much of the wisdom expressed here echoes the forthcoming book City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, written by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, with a foreword by Tim Keller. We need to hear from the best evangelical thinkers about a faithful, biblical approach to politics. Perhaps I can help the cause by summarizing four pages of notes I scribbled from Dever’s sermon….

I’ll let you jump over to the TGC blog to read the rest. I might be looking to pick up that new book he recommended from Moody Publishers.

Help for Understanding Issues Relating to Conscience and Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Bill Busshaus at the Christian Communicators Worldwide blog, recently published a helpful “Outline for Understanding Issues of Conscience and Legalism“. I may have a minor quibble on a couple of his points, but I thought most of it to be quite sound. It may prove a help to some of my readers. I’d like to excerpt a few sections of it, and encourage you to go read the whole thing.

Most of us have seen the movie “Chariots of Fire” and have been greatly encouraged by the example of Eric Liddell who refused to compete in races on Sunday. But if a Christian held a different position regarding what is allowed on Sunday, could that believer be just as dedicated to Christ with his differing opinion?

…As much as we would like to consider all of our personal convictions as biblical absolutes, the fact of the matter is, they may not be. Consider just a few historical examples of convictions of personal conscience in order to see how each might demand that his side of the position is an absolute:

* Vegetable vs. Meat diet
* Honoring the Mosaic sabbath day vs. Considering all days alike
* Not eating meat sacrificed to idols vs. All things are clean
* Participating in war vs. Pacifism
* Going to the theater, dancing, or playing cards vs. Abstaining from the world
* Drinking wine vs. Being a teetotaler
* Playing sports on Sunday vs. Abstaining from “your own pleasure”
* Gun ownership vs. Nonviolence
* Political Candidate “A” vs. Political candidate “B”
* Wearing makeup or dying your hair vs. The God-given “natural” look

We must be honest and careful in these matters. Just because an issue is not presented in the Law of Christ does not mean that God has nothing to say about it. There are biblical principles which must guide us in matters of personal conviction.

Instruction from Romans Chapter Fourteen and Fifteen:

1. We must accept one another when we differ on matters of personal conviction. 14:1, 15:1, 7
2. We must not be on a campaign to convert others to our position. 14:1, 22, 15:1
3. There are stronger and weaker positions. 14:2, 15:1
4. We must not judge others or view with contempt those who differ with us on these matters. 14:3
5. We are individually accountable to God, and will indeed have to give an account of our behavior to Him. 14:4, 10-12.
6. We must be convinced in our own minds; that is, there must be no doubt in our minds as to the acceptableness of our position. 14:5
7. It is possible for Christians with differing conscientious convictions to be pleasing to the Lord. 14:6
8. The goal is to ascribe to Christ His rightful position as Lord. 14:7-10
9. Don’t let your liberty of conscience cause a brother to stumble. 14:13, 21
10. All things are clean that are not forbidden, but I can’t proceed with a doubting conscience. 14:14
11. Do not practice your liberty in such a manner that will cause offense; this would violate the law of love. 14:15, 20
12. Temporal matters are not central to the Kingdom of God, but it is the eternal things wrought by the Spirit that should be our focus. 14:17
13. Remember that your personal convictions are between you and God. 14:22
14. Never violate your conscience. You cannot do so without sinning. 14:23
15. We should strive to be at peace, and to please the other for his edification. 14:19, 15:1-2

…

Legalism is:

1. Distorting the gospel by adding conditions to free grace: Acts 15:1, 7-11; Gal.1:6-7, 2:11-16, 4:8-11, Gal. 5:2-4; Col.2:16-17
2. Substituting man-made regulations for the Word of God: Matthew 15:1-3
3. Majoring on the minors and neglecting the more important issues: Luke 11:42
4. Overconcern with the externals while disregarding matters of the heart: Matthew 23:27
5. Regarding with contempt or judging a brother based on matters of personal conviction: Romans 14:1-5
6. Trusting in ourselves that we are righteous based on religious performance: Luke 18:9-14
7. Hypocrisy, the leaven of the Pharisees: Luke 11:53-12:1

Legalism is not:

1. A zeal for the commandments of Christ: Matthew 5:19; I Corinthians 7:19
2. A ministry that teaches others to follow Christ in obedience: Matthew 28:20; I Thes.4:1-2
3. Strong personal convictions (as long as they are not required of others): Romans 14:2,5
4. Man-made restrictions for personal protection from sinful habits (as long as we do not begin to view them as binding on others): Romans 13:14; I Corinthians 6:12
5. A zeal for good works: Eph.2:10; Titus 1:16, 2:7, 14, 3:8, 14
6. Limiting our liberty for the benefit of others: Romans 14:15, 21, 15:2; Acts 16:1-3
7. Obedience: John 14:15, 23, 15:10; I John 2:3-5, 5:2-4

I’ve only given you some of what Bill collects in his post. He gives a list of biblical principles to guide our conduct as well. I encourage you to give it a read and come back and let me know what you think.

“Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative” by Carl Trueman

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Sacred cows die hard. And tipping them is not just anyone’s game. When it comes to conservative American evangelicalism, there may be no cherished belief that needs to die more than its explicit allegiance to one political party.

An evangelical attachment to the history of America and to patriotism has colored its views on how the church should interact with the political sphere. And in the past few decades, with the meteoric rise of “the religious right”, the result has been an American version of Christianity which mixes zeal for conservative politics and Christian virtues. Along the way, a popular misconception has arisen on the part of secular and non-evangelical alike: the evangelical gospel is confused with a moralistic concern for “family values”.

Carl Trueman, a witty and winsome Brit, tackles this problem in a new book recently released by P & R Publishing. In Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative, Trueman speaks from an outsider’s perspective on the political landscape facing American Christians today. He understands that some of his views will be frowned on from both sides of the American aisle, but he pushes forth in an effort to challenge the tendency toward a one-sided approach and overly simplistic view of politics which he sees as so prevalent in the conservative circles in which he ministers today (as dean of Westminster Theological Seminary).

Written in a witty and personal fashion, with a Brit’s sense and control of the English language, the book draws one into the discussion even as it disarms the would-be critic. I found it a quick and engrossing read, even if the argument seemed to overreach on some points. He offers pertinent and sometimes disturbing examples from recent political history to drive home his points, and in the end is quite convincing.

He starts out with a criticism of today’s “left”. He shows how originally the liberal concern for the marginalized and the poor spurred British Christians to political involvement and an embrace of classic liberalism. Since then, liberalism has grown to treat any perceived marginalization and threat to be equivalent with the real economic and physical problems, for example, that were caused by industrialization in the late 1800s. So the mother of an unwanted child is facing undue pressure to keep her child, and she along with a gay person who wants full acceptance by society both deserve the protection of modern liberals. Meanwhile, the true problems of poverty and economic marginalization which continue to plague our world get left behind in the posturing and the fuss over the more visible, concerns of today’s liberals.

He then moves on into the conservative kitchen, and tackles American exceptionalism, and the patriotic flavor of American Christianity responsible for such absurdities as The Patriot’s Bible. Where he really scored points with me was in his treatment of the Fox News channel. He drives home his point that no news media outlet can be completely unbiased. He also shows how the founders of Fox were moved by the almighty dollar, like anyone else in the secular world. His cautions on this point deserve notice:

When it comes to listening to the news, Christians should be eclectic in their approach and not depend merely on those pundits who simply confirm their view of the world while self-evidently using terminology, logic, and standard rules of evidence and argumentation in sloppy, tendentious, and sometimes frankly dishonest ways…. (pg. 56)

That the free market, capitalist system was a Christian concept derived from studying Scripture was one of the high points of my own Christian education. And Trueman takes aim at that whole idea. The system runs on good old fashioned, greed (which is actually sinful, mind you). And not just greed — discontent and dissatisfaction are built into the structure of our American economic system. The solution to economic hard times is for us consumers to show more confidence and fork out more money. And exactly how is this is a Christian concept, again? Let me allow Trueman himself to speak to this point more directly:

…we have no basis for absolutizing the social organization and the attendant institutions, practices, and values of our passing present than anybody in ages past. Feudalism seemed like the wave of the future when it was at its zenith, yet it has passed away, at least in the West. European imperialism seemed set to dominate the world forever and a day at the end of the nineteenth century, but along came two world wars that put an end to that notion…. (pg. 67)

Viewing our system as the best there ever was, is also a bit evolutionary in nature, Trueman contends. Somehow man has figured everything out now and our system is the best hope for the world. We need to liberate the world from their a-capitalism, and bring salvation by means of the free market.

He rounds out the book by discussing how democratic politics in our modern age are positioned such that every difference between the parties has to be emphasized and enlarged so that they can gain power. Careful, nuanced political debate is not served by today’s sound bites and smiling photo ops, either. Trueman’s postscript argues that the abortion issue doesn’t have to be the be-all, end-all political issue for Christians in a fallen society like ours. He says, “It seems clear that the democratic legislative path to reducing or even outlawing abortions is proving remarkably unfruitful…. following from this… is there any point in allowing the matter to be the make-or-break issue on which individuals make their voting decisions at election time?” (pg. 106). He argues that incremental change can be pursued within either party, and before abortion will be outlawed a majority of Americans need to view it with distaste.

You won’t appreciate, or agree with, all Trueman’s concerns, but you will be challenged to think about what role the church should have in the political sphere. Should a church side with the conservative agenda so explicitly that non-conservatives are unwelcome, even if they also believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I think not. And if you pick up Trueman’s short book (only 110 pages), I suspect you’ll at least admit this much by the time you’ve read it. The Church of Jesus Christ should be wide enough to accept Christians of various political persuasions. The gospel, not politics or national pride, should unite us.

I want to close with an extended excerpt from Trueman’s conclusion. I don’t want to steal his thunder, but I feel this is the best way to give Trueman the hearing he may need for you to actually pick up his work and give it a listen.

Christians are to be good citizens, to take their civic responsibilities seriously, and to respect the civil magistrates appointed over us. We also need to acknowledge that the world is a lot more complicated than the pundits of Fox News (or MSNBC) tell us…. Christian politics, so often associated now with loudmouthed aggression, needs rather to be an example of thoughtful, informed engagement with the issues and appropriate involvement with the democratic process. And that requires a culture change. We need to read and watch more widely, be as critical of our own favored pundits and narratives as we are of those cherished by our opponents, and seek to be good stewards of the world and of the opportunities therein that God has given us.

It is my belief that the identification of Christianity, in its practical essence, with very conservative politics will, if left unchallenged and unchecked, drive away a generation of people who are concerned for the poor, for the environment, for foreign-policy issues…. We need to… [realize] the limits of politics and the legitimacy of Christians, disagreeing on a host of actual policies, and [earn] a reputation for thoughtful, informed, and measured political involvement. A good reputation with outsiders is, after all, a basic New Testament requirement of church leadership, and that general principle should surely shape the attitude of all Christians in whatever sphere they find themselves. Indeed, I look forward to the day when intelligence and civility, not tiresome cliches, character assassinations, and Manichean noise, are the hallmarks of Christians as they engage the political process. (pg. 108-110)

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com or through P & R direct.

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.