The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (1)

The True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton, Banner of Truth Trust (1996), 229pp, ISBN 0851510833

This treatise was written against the backdrop of Antinomianism, by Samuel Bolton (1606-1654), sometime Master of Christ’s College and later Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, as well as a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Antinomianism, we remember, is that doctrine which teaches that the moral law bore no relationship whatsoever to a man’s life and walk as a Christian, i.e., a believer’s liberty in Christ was not bounded by any written code of law. Of course, many Antinomians lived lives of great holiness, but the underlying doctrine led in many cases to libertinism. Although a separation of 361 years exists between the original publication of Bolton’s work and the present day, “there is nothing new under the sun”, and it has much to say to modern Christian believers.

Bolton begins with a treatment of John 8.36 and true Christian freedom, which is freedom from Satan, sin, the (moral) law – as a covenant, as it brings us under its curses and accusations, as rigorous exact obedience is required for salvation – as well as freedom from obedience to men as to our consciences, freedom from death and the grave.

He then considers six queries:

1. Are Christians freed from the moral law as a rule of obedience?
2. Are Christians freed from all punishments and chastisements for sin?
3. If a believer is under the moral law as a rule of duty, is his liberty in Christ infringed?
4. Can Christ’s freemen sin themselves into bondage again?
5. May Christ’s freemen perform duties for the sake of reward?
6. Are Christians freed from obedience to men?

He then concludes with application to believers and unbelievers.

Under the first query, Bolton acknowledges the difficulty of the matter, pointing out Scriptures which declare the law to be abrogated, while others uphold it. He deals with the numerous ways in which the Scriptures use the word “law” – the OT Scriptures, the whole word of God, the Pentateuch, the moral law, the ceremonial law and the judicial law. Bolton makes a convincing explanation for treating the Mosaic law under these latter three categories. The ceremonial law being an appendix to the first table of the moral law, containing precepts of worship for the Jews when they were in infancy, intended to keep them under hope and to be a wall of separation between them and the Gentiles. The judicial law is an appendix to the second table and was an ordinance containing precepts concerning the government of the people in things civil, giving a the people a rule of common and public equity, distinguishing them from other people, and giving them a type of the government of Christ. The moral law Bolton acknowledges to be scattered throughout the whole Bible, but which is summarized in the Decalogue, being the image of the divine will, in substance moral and eternal and cannot be abrogated, abolished or changed any more than the nature of good and evil can be changed.

Bolton then states two propositions under this first query which he then proceeds to discuss:

1. That the law for the substance of it remains as a rule of walking to the people of God.

2. That there was no end or use for which the law was originally given but is consistent with grace, and serviceable to the advancement of the covenant of grace.

He demonstrates the first to be consistent with the Reformed confessions (including the 39 Articles) and then the testimony of the New Testament. Many of the texts he uses have already been addressed elsewhere on this ‘blog. In referring to Matthew 5.17-18, Bolton notes that Christ gives a stricter exposition of the law and points out that Romans 10.4, which speaks of Christ as the “end of the law” is “the perfecting and consummating end”, not “the destroying and abolishing end”. In commenting on James 2.7, he points out here that the “royal law” referred to is shown in the eleventh verse to be the Decalogue, or moral law. Other verses referred to include Romans 3.31, 7.12, 22, 25, 1 John 2.4, 3.4 and 1 Corinthians 9.21.

Furthemore, Bolton argues that if the law was a rule of walking, it still is, unless one can show a time when it was abrogated, and it cannot be shown to have been abrogated in the time of the Gospel by Christ and his apostles because Christ and his apostles commanded the same thing the law required, and forbade and condemned the same thing the law condemned (Matthew 5-7, Romans 12.19, Romans 13.8-10, 1 Thessalonians 4.3, 4, 7, Ephesians 6.1)

Bolton makes other arguments of the binding nature of the law, for example from the effects on the consciences of regenerate man. One particularly sharp observation is that “if the law of God does not bind the conscience of a regenerate man to obedience, then whatever he does which is commanded in the law, he does more than his duty and so either merits or sins, being guilty of will-worship. But in obedience to the law he is not guilty of will-worship, neither does he merit: ‘When ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do’ (Luke 17.10).” (p. 66). Bolton also argues, “Either the law binds the conscience of Christians to obedience, or Christians do not sin in the breach of the law. But they sin in the breach of it, as says 1 John 3.4: “Sin is the transgression of the law”. Therefore, the transgression of the law is sin.” (p. 66).

After making some further arguments, Bolton concludes his treatment of this proposition with application against Papists and the injustice of their charges that Christians are not bound to the obedience of any law in conscience before God, as well as their error in preaching obedience as a means to justification, rather than vice versa. He also makes application against Antinomians and the injustice of the charge of mingling law and gospel. He comments (as he does repeatedly throughout the book), “The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified.” Finally, there is exhortation to all believers to think rightly of the law and then maintain it. Particularly striking in this is, despite clear firmness towards those with whom Bolton is in disagreement, yet the tone is always loving and gentle and never venomous, and in this he is a model for us all.

My favourite Puritan on the Atonement

Satisfaction for sin, it must be in that nature that hath sinned. Now man of himself could not satisfy divine justice, being a finite person; therefore God the second person became man, that in our nature he might satisfy God’s wrath for us, and so free us by giving payment to his divine justice. The death of Christ, God-man, is the price of our liberty and freedom.

Richard Sibbes, Expositions of St. Paul (= Works, vol. 5), p. 237

The Holy Trinity by Robert Letham (2)

The final section is a fitting reward for persevering through the more difficult sections of the book as Letham comes to develop some implications of what he has been relating to us. There is a good consideration of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and Letham seeks to show where a possible reconcilation between East and West may lie, applying equal weight to how God is one and three, rather than focusing excessively on the one being (as the West has done, which has led in the direction of modalism) or on the three persons (as the East has done). He then considers the Incarnation and how the Son’s obedience to the Father in history is a reflection of eternal realities and how this is not inconsistent with the full deity of the Son and how this is not subordinatonism.

Letham then considers the Trinity, Worship and Prayer and laments the weakness of the treatment of the Trinity in modern evangelical theology.He points out that many of our favourites hymns can hardly be described as distinctly Trinitarian. Letham reminds us that salvation is thoroughly Trinitarian (from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit) and that our response is by the Holy Spirit, through the Son, to the Father. Christian worship is Trinitarian in its basis. In a treatment of John 4.23-24, Jesus teaches that worship is in spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) and truth (i.e. Jesus). Letham writes:

“From the side of God, the worship of the church is the communion of the Holy Trinity with us his people. We are inclined to view worship as what we do, but if we follow our argument, it is first and foremost something the triune God does, our actions initiated and encompassed by his. The author of Hebrews refers to Christ offering himself up unblemished to the Father “in or by eternal spirit”, a probable reference to the Holy Spirit. Since our salvation is received in union with Christ, what is his by nature is ours by grace. Thus, in his self-offering to the Father, he offers us his people in him. We are thereby enabled to share in the relation he has with the Father (“Our Father in heaven,” we pray – our Father by grace, because he is first Jesus’ Father by nature). Jesus, we remember ascended to his Father and our Father, to his God and our God. By his cross and resurrection, and the ascension that followed, he brought us into the same relation he was with the Father. Thus Christ is, in reality, the one true worshiper, and our worship is a participation in his. A focus on our worship, on what we do, is inherently Pelagian. Further, our worship is by the Holy Spirit in Christ. As John Thompson puts it, “If one understands the New Testament and the view it gives of how we meet with and know GOd and worship him as triune, then worship is not primarily our act but, like our salvation, is God’s gift before or as itis our task.” This should reassure us, for, as Owen reminds us, while “the love of God is like himself, – equal, constant, not capable of augmentation or diminution; our love is like ourselves, – unequal, increasing, waning, growing, declining.” pp. 416-417

Letham posits in light of this that there is a basis for worshipping in the three in their distinct persons and relations with one another in one act of adoration. Undue emphasis on one person, for example on the Spirit in charismatic worship, or indeed, on Jesus in pietism, is a distortion, since God is three persons mutually indwelling one another. General theistic worship is also therefore defective. He points to the need to refocus Western hymnody (watch this space!) and makes a compelling case against exclusive Psalmody. Letham also states the need to develop the Lord’s Supper in a Trinitarian direction and that the Trinity must shape preaching.

Letham then proceeds to discuss the implications of the Trinity on creation and missions, helpfully repeating some of the material from earlier in the book, noting the reflection of God in creation’s unity in diversity and diversity in unity in the natural world as well as in art and music. Letham stresses the continuity of creation and redemption, referring to Colossians 1.15-20, and which is supremely seen in Christ’s resurrection. This is then applied to evangelism in two particular concepts – Islam, whose framework can account for unity but not diversity and postmodernism, which proclaims diversity but no unity. The answer to both is proclamation of the Trinity. It is only because God exists in a plurality of persons that God is able to love and thus we can make sense of a world populated by personal beings who love, created as we are in God’s image. God the holy and undivided Trinity is a union of unbroken love in which the three persons do not manipulate ech other for their own ends, clearly displayed in the incarnation when even in eternity the Son did not count his own equality with the Father something to be grasped but emptied himself by taking on human nature.

The final chapter is a chapter on the Trinity and persons, considering union with God as the goal of salvation, the Biblical teaching on it and the implications of this for our relations with others. He has two appendices where he deals with two contemporary writers and their errors.

This last section could perhaps have explored these issues in greater depth, although Letham has written two other books with treat this sort of material – The Work of Christ and The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, two books which I shall probably have to read.

I strongly recommend this book. It isn’t an easy read, but it will expand your mind and enlarge your understanding of who God is, and thus enable you to love and serve in a manner pleasing to him.

The Holy Trinity by Robert Letham (1)

P&R (2004); ISBN 0-87552-000-6

This excellent volume is a solid demonstration of the importance of God as Trinity in an Evangelicalism which has largely neglected the historic position of the early church and the Reformers for a practical modalism which relegates the Trinity to a very difficult doctrine to be understood only by the keen few.

Letham starts with a Biblical foundation for Trinitarianism, starting with the Old Testament background which, while rigorously monotheistic, reveals a Creator whose creation reveals unity in diversity and diversity in unity, and which leaves behind clues of plurality in God and distinctions within him, in particular, with regard to appearances of the angel of the Lord and theophanies. This is followed by two chapters on the New Testament evidence. The first is a treatment of Jesus, the fulfilment of OT promise and expectation of the seed of the woman crushing the serpent’s head and Yahweh coming to rescue his people, his relation to the God the Father and his identity and equality with God, considering his identity as creator, judge and sustainer and the worship of Jesus revealed in the NT. The Holy Spirit is considered in the following chapter, as the NT is shown to be implicitly Trinitarian and the Holy Spirit revealed to be personal in a way that was perhaps not obvious in the OT. The Holy Spirit is demonstrated to be identical with God and mentioned in a number of triadic statements and patterns. This chapter is followed by a helpful excursus on Ephesians and Trinitarian patterns.

Letham then embarks on a consideration of the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity, examining the views of the early church fathers including Origen, Irenaeus, Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Augustine, dealing with the Arian controversy, the Council of Constantinople and the division between East and West. He concludes this section with an very clear, concise evaluation of Calvin’s Trinitarianism which in method is radical, expounding what the Bible teaches, yet which turns out to be strongly conservative. As a theologian of the Western church, he is open to more Eastern influences, delighting particularly in Gregory Nazianzen. This section is difficult to read, but the fault lies with the subject matter, not Letham. It is a feature of the development of Trinitarianism and its accompanying heresies that there are many small and subtle variations that means one often needs to refer back just to make sure one is on top of a particular character’s distinctives. Nevertheless, this section is well worth the effort.

That is perhaps less the case for the third section on modern discussion, which considers Barth, Rahner, Moltmann and Pannenberg, before returning east to Bulgakov, Lossky and Staniloae, before concluding with Torrance. This is perhaps more useful to the scholar than the lay reader and could probably be skipped by the first-time reader without detracting from the benefit of the final section; in any case, it is hard-going for the uninitiated and it would certainly help to have a prior acquaintance with these authors and their works.

Thinking about the Trinity and the Cross

The first word in the title must be borne in mind when reading this post: “thinking”. I am not issuing dogma or presenting the fruit of much deep consideration. I am starting a discussion which I pray will benefit all as we seek to understand the cross, adore our God for it, and preach it to others.

Right, here we go then…

When considering Jesus’ cry of dereliction on the cross, as he suffers punishment in the place of his people and faces the wrath his people deserve, it has recently been presented to me as some kind of temporary disruption in the Trinity, a rupture in the perfect community of the Godhead. I can see how that might serve to magnify in our eyes the cost of sin and our God’s love for us, and that this would be desirable.

But is it quite right?

One big implication of this would surely to be to admit change within God, which is inconsistent with Scripture (e.g. Psalm 102.27, Malachi 3.6, Hebrews 13.8, James 1.17) and which would severly affect whether or not God was dependable. Is this something where we need to remember that in Jesus, we encounter one person in whom are united two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, so that the one person of Jesus relates to God the Father through two natures? In that case, may we then say that it is in his human nature that Jesus is our representative and substitute on the cross and becomes sin for us, and is forsaken by God the Father, but in his divine nature, the perfect life of the Trinity continues uninterruptedly? Or would that be to separate the divine and human natures excessively and drift in the direction of Nestorianism? I do want to maintain that Jesus was working in both natures to effect our salvation, otherwise, there would be no point in the Incarnation.

I do not want to bring myself under the anathemas of the Quiqunque vult!

This post is brought to you by the Church Father Gregory Nazianzen

No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendour of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one. When I think of any one of the three I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of the one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light.

Orations 40.41

We ♥ Oak Hill!

Click HERE for a really excellent series of Oak Hill Evening Lectures on the Person and Work of Christ by Dr. Michael Ovey.

First of all, Dr. Ovey gives a robust defence of the practice of systematic theology, before considering how we do Christology (neither ‘from above’ or ‘from below’ but ‘from within’ the context of the expectation of Scripture. Dr. Ovey makes it clear that Old Testament promise envisages one who is both divine and human, and then proceeds to discuss this lucidly in terms of the two natures of Christ, divine and human, united in the one person, particularly with reference to the Chalcedonian Definition of 451AD. He refutes the traditional Christological heresies (e.g. modalism, Nestorianism etc.) and throughout shows how this is consistent with the testimony of Scripture. He then proceeds to discuss the Incarnation and its purpose, and shows why contemporary interpretations (e.g. that Christ is co-sufferer or that Christ is the consummation of creation – so the Incarnation would have happened anyway) which have arisen as a result of the idea that the Reformation placed too much emphasis on the Cross, are not satisfactory when the Biblical testimony is taken into account. Finally, Dr. Ovey starts the first of a number of lectures on the three traditional offices of Christ with a consideration of Christ’s role as prophet, revealing God’s will and God himself to us, and also revealing ourselves to us.

The lectures on Christ as King and Priest are given by Dr. Daniel Strange and Dr. David Field – put them up soon please, Oak Hill!

Daniel Newman Audio Ministries, Inc. (2)

Here is my attempt at preaching 2 Chronicles 13:

2 Chronicles 13 (26:56, 6.2MB)

A slight modification

I’ve decided in the light of a the closure of the InnerChange course reported in Saturday’s Telegraph which has got a few people talking at church to modify my sermon slightly from the plan outlined below

The introduction will ask if people are worried about church decline nationally and locally (the Sunday pm gathering will undoubtedly be v. small) and then say that it raises the question of whether the church, locally and nationally is going to survive, grow and prosper or, if you are an enquirer, whether it’s worth bothering with at all. I’ll then say that’s the issue the Chronicler was concerned with and then state the message of 2 Chronicles 13 as “God gives victory and prosperity to those who are faithful to him, with my stated aim being to persuade my hearers is true and to encourage them to trust the God of the Bible and rely on him

Under heading 1, I will draw attention to the fact that it is Israel fighting Judah, not some pagan nation, i.e. those to whom they were related and who shared a common heritage. It is my intention to point out parallels to our day, with the Inner Change course opposed by the Chaplain-General to the Prison Service, and mention the example of some chaplains at University opposing the outreach of the Christian Unions and problems in the church at large – liberal bishops locking out conservative congregations from their buildings in Canada, for example. Having done that, I will make the point that we are in a spiritual battle, that there are v. real powers of evil in the world and that the battlefield is so often the individual Christian life, feeling surrounded and overwhelmed by forces of darkness and evil, e.g. hostility, scorn and indifference as a response to evangelism, battling against temptation, tragedy and doubt.

Under heading 2, after discussing Abijah’s speech in regard to the Northern Kingdom, I’m thinking of pointing out that this is striking because this is precisely what the liberals have done, turning aside from the God of the Bible to gods that they shape – that’s what they do when they support multifaith ventures, denying the existence of the true God and not making him known, and instead saying whatever god you follow is right for you.

Is that a little too forthright? Do let me know any thoughts please!

An Exposition of 2 Chronicles 13

This all right?

(NB: More detailed notes will be taken into the pulpit, when I preach (DV) at St. James’s, Poole, on 16th July at Evening Prayer.)

Introduction

Like contests – especially those with underdogs – heroic
2 examples
“What’s the secret of your success?”
2 Chronicles 13 – real life contest
Secret of success v. 18
Claim the story makes, which I want to persuade you:
If we trust in the God of the Bible alone, we will be victorious and prosper. If we don’t, we won’t.

1. God’s people are a minority under attack (vv. 1-3)

vv. 1-2
Brief historical background
God’s people are at war and horribly outnumbered
God’s people are often a minority
My examples – College, course
Case for most of us? Work, streets, families
Minority under attack
e.g. evangelism
Not just people, but also circumstances
e.g. sin, temptation, tragediies, suffering

2. God’s people are defended by their covenant Lord (vv. 4-12)

v. 4
If we grasp argument – will understand why it is true that if we trust in the God of the Bible alone, we will be victorious and prosper
Abijah’s message – You have forsaken the Lord but we are relying on him and in fighting against us you are fighting against him
Faith expressed in the sitation explored in (1)
vv. 5-9 – Northern Kingdom
In opposing Abijah, they fighting against the Lord
Rely on what are no gods at all
vv. 10-12 Southern Kingdom
In contrast, Yahweh is their God
Covenant language
Trusting in the Lord
Shown by retaining the priesthood
Significance – maintenance of relationship between a holy God and sinful people through sacrifical substitution
God with them
Anticipation of Christian people
Under rule of great David’s greater Son, Jesus
Depending on work of Christ as high priest
Aaron’s sons offered repeated sacrifices
Christ offered self once for all
Bound to God by ties of covenant and love
Illustration – African woman with child tied to her back I saw on the train
Not big powerful you against little insignificant me -
Big powerful you with false gods against little insignificant us and all-powerful God
You can’t win

If Christian believer – realize that people opposing God’s king and you are opposing God, cannot succeed
Temptation, forces of darkness and evil, death – comes up against eternal all-powerful God
Have courage, persevere, keep trusting, rely on God, pray
Not ‘let go, let God’ – have to face situations
You may be weak, but he is strong, able to defeat attacks, keep you through, give you victory

3. God’s people are victorious under God’s king (vv. 13-22)

Retell story
Highlight God’s defeat of Jeroboam and Israel before believing king, Abijah and Judah
V. matter of fact – as if inevitable
Abijah and people strike Israel down
Abijah’s capture of cities and villages
Jeroboam never recovers, is struck down
Abijah by contrast prospers
Morality of 14 wives not the point – might, wealth, prosperity is

Victory given to Abijah, believing king in David’s line
Pattern fulfilled in victory of Lord Jesus Christ
Time of darkness, faithful to death, at the cross defeated death, powers of darkness when suffered penalty for sins of his people
Proclaimed by resurrection
Present reign
Battle continues – victory as defends and keeps and delivers people
Kingdom advances as people come to faith
Will return – overthrow rebellion, final victory, death pain and suffering no more, whole renewed world his kingdom, glory, honour and wealth of nations brought in
Illustration of D-day
If you trust in the God of the Bible alone, you will be victorious and prosper because you belong to Christ’s kingdom and enter into his victory as prosperity, just as Judah was victorious under Abijah

No to the prosperity gospel, sinless perfection
Most victory and prosperity in world to come
All enemies defeated
Perfect, resurrection body
No suffering, sickness, death
Inheritance in New Creation
Victory and blessing now, though
New spiritual life – free from captivity to sin and death
Defended against sin and temptation – defended against them, God will grant victory, not perfectly
Preserved in and through death
Everlasting life at Christ’s return
Rich – down-payment of Holy Spirit

Only through relying on God of the Bible
Those who fight against God’s king and rely on ’small g’ gods will not gain victory and prosper – are struck down and defeated
Anyone here in that situation?
Examples – ruling own life, relying on projects you shape – money, career, family, marriage
No victory and prosperity
Christ returns – overthrown, lose everything, misery
Defect – leave Israel, come into Judah
Come under rule of God’s king – Jesus
Depend on work of God’s priest – Christ’s death on Cross
Enter into victory and blessings God’s people enjoy under God’s king

Conclusion

Restatement of claim
Rehearsal of headings, with one sentence elaboration

The Wright Stuff?

An extract from Tony Payne’s entry in the “Couldn’t Help Noticing” section of The Briefing (No. 334, July 2006):

Bishop Wright’s response [when he and Bishop Paul Barnett were asked about their views of the place of Christian behaviour or good works in justification at the last judgement in a seminar/debate on 'Fresh Perspectives on Paul'] was as follows:

My view of the place of good works in justification at the last judgement is, I hope, exactly that of Paul in Romans 2:1-16 and in Romans 14 and in 2 Corinthians 5 where it is quite clear that the things that Christians do in the power of the Spirit in obedience to Christ in the present will be part of the evidence submitted on the last day. That has nothing to do with works-righteousness in the usually fashionable sense – nothing to contribute to justification by faith in the present, as the thing which constitutes the Christian in the present as dikaios (righteous)…

Because there is a fear among many in the evangelical tradition that to say there is anything to do with works in relation to anything to do with justification is to creep back into synergism.

By the way the first word of 2 Corinthians 6 is sunergountes - being synergistic with God – in exactly this context, working together with God.

The position being taken here is disturbingly close to Roman Catholicism, in which our justification on the last day is based not only on Christ’s death but also on the good works which we have done in cooperation with God’s spirit in our lives (sometimes referred to as ’synergism’). The good works are part of the evidence that results in justification.

It is reassuring to know that there are others out there who have spotted this (see my earlier post) and who realise that Wright may not be entirely A Good Thing.

Observations in "The Briefing", July 2006

Evangelicals who move in a liberal direction would much rather be known by such labels as ‘open evangelicals’ or ‘broad evangelicals’. (p. 15)

***

We “could easily get the impression [from evangelical Christians] that the chief end of man is ‘to read the Bible and study it forever’”! (p. 22)