THEOTHURSDAYS: 2 PETER 1:1-2
Theothursdays will officially begin next Thursday. We will, if God wills, devote each Thursday to Bible study and discussion in order that we may grow in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ! I will provide the text, commentary, and occasionally fly in guest commentators. Tonight’s guest is Matthew Henry. Our text is 1 Peter 1:1-2. Please begin with prayer. Ask our Father, in Jesus’ name, to bless our time as we read and study His word. Ask Him to send the Holy Spirit so that you may eat and taste the meat of His word. I would type out a prayer, but I’m on the fence as to whether it is right or wrong. So, pray where you are at!
The Apostle Peter’s second epistle was written “[t]o those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ(1:1).” Before you continue to read it, answer this: was it written to you? If you’re a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, New Perspectivist, or any other apostate cult that denies the imputation of Christ’s Righteousness, then no, it wasn’t written to you. It is written to those who have received a faith of “equal standing” with the Apostles by the righteousness of Christ.
Straight from the lexicons:
received: “lagchano” - of what comes to someone always apart from his own efforts; (1) cast lots (Jn. 19:24; (2) attain by lot, be appointed by lot, be chosen by lot (Lk. 1:9); (3) of what comes by divine will attain, receive, obtain. - Friberg’s analytical Greek Lexicon.
equal standing: “isotimos” - with the same privileges, lit. equal in value or prestige- GingrichGreek NT Lexicon.
The great Matthew Henry’s commentary on this passage is very moving. He reminds me of Peter in v.13-14 when he wrote: “I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.” Old Matt Henry has long gone to be with our Lord. But while they were still in their “tents” they labored for God’s kingdom and left us with what we’re reading today. Here is Henry’s commentary on 2 Peter 1:1.
“We have an account of the people to whom the epistle is written. They are described in the former epistle as elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, and here as having obtained precious faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; for the faith here mentioned is vastly different from the false faith of the heretic, and the feigned faith of the hypocrite, and the fruitless faith of the formal professor, how orthodox soever he is. It is the faith of God’s elect (Titus 1:1) wrought by the Spirit of God in effectual calling.
Observe, 1. True saving faith is a precious grace, and that not only as it is very uncommon, very scarce, even in the visible church, a very small number of true believers among a great multitude of visible professors (Matt. 22:14) but true faith is very excellent and of very great use and advantage to those who have it. The just lives by faith, a truly divine spiritual life; faith procures all the necessary supports and comforts of this excellent life; faith goes to Christ, and buys the wine and milk (Isa. 55:1) which are the proper nourishment of the new creature; faith buys and brings home the tried gold, the heavenly treasure that enriches; faith takes and puts on the white raiment, the royal robes that clothe and adorn, (Rev. 3:18)
Observe, 2. Faith is alike precious in the private Christian and in the apostle; it produces the same precious effects in the one and in the other. Faith unites the weak believer to Christ as really as it does the strong one, and purifies the heart of one as truly as of another; and every sincere believer is by his faith justified in the sight of God, and that from all sins,(Acts 13:39) Faith, in whomsoever it exists, takes hold of the same precious Saviour, and applies the same precious promises.
3. This precious faith is obtained of God. Faith is the gift of God, wrought by the Spirit, who raised up Jesus Christ from the dead.
4. The preciousness of faith, as well as our obtaining it, is through the righteousness of Christ. The satisfactory meritorious righteousness and obedience of Christ gives faith all its value and preciousness: and the righteousness of such a person cannot but be of infinite value to those who by faith receive it. For, (1.) This Jesus Christ is God, yea, our God, as it is in the original. He is truly God, an infinite Being, who has wrought out this righteousness, and therefore it must be of infinite value. (2.) He is the Saviour of those that believe, and as such he yielded this meritorious obedience; and therefore it is of such great benefit and advantage to them, because, as surety and Saviour, he wrought out this righteousness in their stead.”
What a way to stir one up by way of reminder! As was the custom, Peter opened his letter with the Apostolic Benediction.
“May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” (1:2)
Use this thread to discuss the passage/commentary, use it to bless and encourage others that have “isotimos” faith, use it to ask questions, etc. Pretend it is still Thursday for as long as you like, and come here for that cold glass of water when you need to be refreshed!
Optional discussion question: How has grace and peace been multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord?
31 Comments, Comment or Ping
Travis
Since we are on the topic of Theology I had a question. I hear DA Carson and Graham Goldsworthy and GK Beale all teach on Biblical Theology but never hear Dr. Bob teach on it. Is it somthing that he just teaches with out putting a label on it? Or does he/you have a disagreement with the way it is taught?
Apr 3rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis, if you listen for the term “progressive revelation” which is all over Dr. Morey’s theology, when he uses it, he’s basically saying the same as others when they say “biblical theology.” Because Dr. Morey is an exegete, the historical progression is always considered in any text - as well as the genre, language, etc. If you listen to his “Doctrine of the Church” series, you’ll get a good idea of where he stands on “biblical theology.” So, yeah, he teaches it without the label. I’ve heard him use the term before, just can’t remember when/where.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Travis
As I was reading through this I was just encouraged by the reminder of faith, the gift, that was given to us. It made me check my faith to see if it was the faith that was going down the narrow path or the wide path.
Something stood out to me that was just encouraging for my mind and what I am hashing out, that, Peter believed Christ, I know it sounds so simple, but we have an eyewitness to our Lord, the Lord he is refering to and God has granted him faith, and Peter cared for Gods word and for the people. I am very thankful for his reminder.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Travis
progressive revelation, I have heard Dr. Morey talk on this, and this is how I refer to the revelation of Christ from the beggining until now, just a curiocity, thanks Stephen.
I will listen to the series Doctrine of the Church, do you recommend any books on progressive revelation
Apr 3rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
I can’t recommend any books, but it’s a fairly simple concept. As time went by, more was revealed. Dr. Morey uses the analogy of binoculars on the pier. At first, everything is blurry. Then, as you turn the focus dial, with each turn of the knob the view gets clearer and clearer until you see clearly. Well, that’s what the author of Hebrews is saying in Chapter 1. In the past, God revealed Himself in various ways. In these last days He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus.
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. - Heb. 1:1-2
There’s more, but this should give you the basic idea.
Apr 4th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Wow Stephen…two things…
First the shock of the reminder that if one denies the imputation of Christ’s Righteousness than this letter in God’s word is not for that person…sigh…wrenches the heart for the unsaved and for those who imagine they are saved…
Second…what a gift of grace we have been given that though we have watched eyes wide open my family members walk into the counsel of the ungodly…become deniers of the imputation of Christ’s Righteousness…ultimately rejecting us…yet our Messiah has sustained us by His flawless word…sung over us…interceeded for us…tested us with His refiners fire…and blessed us with His peace and with godly friends…Dr. Bob’s example…and this blog!
long live Theothursdays…
Apr 4th, 2008
Glenn Hendrickson
To add to what Stephen wrote about progressive revelation. While revelation becomes clearer over time I would be cautions to compare the clarity of the final product with a former blurriness. Do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of clarity (insert laughter here), that is to say the bible is perspicuous in its entirety, not only when the complete canon is available. So to an Israelite who was led out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses, this individual heard the revelation of the Law of God, the accounts of creation, Adam and Eve, the fall, Noah, Abraham, etc. This Israelite was able to understand what Moses was saying without possessing the rest of the Old Testament or any of the New Testament. This is why we read in Psalm 19:7-8
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
This could not be true if the revelation which David had available to him was blurry. It was clear, but not complete. There was more information to be added and more dots to be connected (I am certain that Stephen is aware of this, I am only attempting to clarify Progressive Revelation in light of the perspicuity of Scripture).
Thoughts anyone?
Apr 5th, 2008
Glenn Hendrickson
Travis, (in response to your first comment)
Without asking Dr. Bob (which I believe I have when I first met him) about this I think I can help. Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Bob would define the phrase “Biblical Theology” differently than Carson, Beale, etc. Dr. Bob emphasizes the notion that Scripture interprets Scripture and therefore takes Scripture as a whole (a notion I happen to agree with).
The discipline of Biblical Theology which takes, say, the writings of Moses and deals with them in their historical context, looking for themes and harmony (for liberals you can add contradictions and dis-harmony to the list) and so on is normally what is meant by folks like Carson. It is an examining of the different stages of redemptive history, each in their own right. I do not believe that Dr. Bob does this. I could be wrong, but from my experience as a member of Faith Community Church I have not heard much about the discipline of Biblical Theology along these lines. Keep in mind that the discipline of Biblical Theology is relatively new also.
Apr 5th, 2008
Tom Q
Going back to Matt Henry above–Observe 1
Hope this doesn’t take things off subject too much. But for those with “assurance of salvation” issues–can someone clarify, perhaps using this example?:
Two men-both with a measure of faith–both with similiar besetting sins–both appear to themselves and others in the church to pass the checklist laid out in 1st John. Both have the gift of service–and both serve some. Both believe what they need to believe. Both lack boldness but find boldness increasing some. Both see their faith increasing. Both study. Both declare, “Jesus is Lord.” Both tithe regularly. Both remain faithful until death. Both worry in various degrees about their salvation.
Can one have saving faith and the other fall short?
Can one be working by his own works and not be able to tell?
Apr 5th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Tom Q…
“Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For, IF you do these things, you will never fall.”-2 Peter1:10
Dr. Bob writes in “How to Keep Your Faith While in College” that Salvation and assurance are not the same thing. Salvation has to do with justification, by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone. Assurance has to do with sanctification, i.e.,the Christian life.
We are not saved because we “pray a prayer” but because God gives us a new heart. This will be shown in our lives by such things as thirst for the Living God, hungering after righteousness, a passion for His word, a desire to pray and to praise, a love for defending/contending for the Faith,etc…
“Everyone who (is believing right now) that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” 1John 5:1
One must bow to Scripture and accept by faith that God knows the heart of each of us and will judge rightly. The Holy Spirit will show His elect if they are in sin and disobedience and are attempting to “work” for their Salvation or assurance.
I’m sure Stephen could do a better job explaining this…hope this helps a little!
Apr 5th, 2008
Travis
Glen,
I thought that also, just didnt know what the differences were.
On the subject of rightousness, Im still not quit understanding how Christ rightousness is imputed to us, which part of us? I believe it because scripture says it. There is a battle and sin still exisiting in me. But where. How can I have this rightousness in a coruptable body? does anyone see what im getting at?
Apr 5th, 2008
John
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:
2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
The name is Simon Peter. So many men love titles, apostle or prophet fits nicely or maybe Bishop, but servant =Doulos a slave or bondman is not found among them. Now it is found among their servants, their staff, their lay teachers, and home group leaders. But name one of them who will carry ’servant’ in a humble manner in their titles? It has been my experience that ’servant’ is happily used in connection with God but servant in connection with people? That is another story. How many of our leaders strike a humble pose before the camera, but strike like a serpent in the private office declaring an avowed vengence upon any man that resists their ministry or could expose their carnality? This is something that Peter is about to refute, not as I have done in exposing such hypocrisy by revealing what was meant to be held secret. Peter is going to shore up the foundations of his own ‘receivers of precious faith’ with him by leading them in an exhortation to become more and more holy in contradiction to those who talk the talk but dont walk the walk.
But we know too that Peter is a sent-one to those who have like precious faith, we dont read him being sent to those who lack that faith in Christ for Christ has sent him to them who are and will continue to be partakers of the divine nature.
What do we owe this sending of Gods messenger? The righteousness of God. It was righteous for God to send His Son to redeem men, to suffer and die and be raised up. It was righteous of God to save His elect. Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
ESV
We receive our righteousness because it was righteous of God to forgive sins and justify us through faith. This righteousness we now have is imputed to us ‘through’ Gods righteousness. What a wonder to behold. When we look at the life of God we are given, a life of Christ indwelling our hearts through faith, we tend to think that God probably and most begrudgingly gave us righteousness and forgiveness of sins. But righteousness has no begrudging heart, it has no miserly pockets from which to give. God gives and it was a show of righteousness to put His Son upon that cross so that as we look upon Christ crucified we know God is just when he so justifies the wicked. We know how? Because we are worth such a sacrifice? Never, but because Jesus was worth honoring, Jesus was worthy of obtaining what He came to receive.
It is upon this righteousness that ‘through’ it we have obtained a precious faith, a faith that resided in the apostles. Where do praises for such a gift belong? God and our Savior Jesus Christ. When we see the abuse of humility, when we shamefacedly behold the misuse of monies and Jesus name so that men may build their empires upon exploited people of God we may know that whatever glimpse they have of the crucified Savior they do not see the “show of righteousness” that God made to bring wicked men to himself. They see it as a means to an end, God saw it as His means to glorify Himself with everlasting praises from every one of the redeemed. Truly righteousness not only imputed but righteousness in action forever.
John
Apr 5th, 2008
John
2Pe 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
Peters desire, not as we hear now a days from vain men, but sincere as it is in Christ which has birthed in us such desire that grace and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and Christ. Grace multiplied, peace multiplied, in a certain knowledge. What knowledge? The knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. There is alot of falsehood that passes for spiritual knowledge today. So much empty moralism from mega churches or formulas from faith churches but each one of them are lacking the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord. The gospel from them is no longer the gospel and therefore whatever power there is to save in those words cannot save everlastingly as the true gospel promises.
Do we want multiplication of grace and peace? Yes, we do, but how shall we obtain such increase? In a knowledge of God and Christ that is not in the form of hidden knowledge like gnosticism, or secret societies with sacred chants and dark mysteries. No, we obtain an increased peace and favor revealed by God through knowing Him intimately. Were going to find out that all things which pertain to life and godliness are obtained through that same knowledge. It isnt knowing secret codes, its knowing God himself as revealed by the scriptures and unveiled by the Spirit of God.
Divine power has granted such blessing to be connected with the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord, but why then the prolonged insistence upon obtaining spiritual blessings and temporal blessings with as little knowledge of God and Christ as possible? Largely its due to the crucifying presence of God that confronts us when we open ourselves to make prayers or attempt to live above the mediocre lukewarmness of evangelicalism today. God wants to kill us and we want to stay alive.
Therefore grace and peace is not multiplied, great advances in spiritual fruitfulness are not had and very little knowledge of making our calling and election sure is recognized among us. I for one despise such a testimony about my own congregation, yet I find its truth grasps what we are and how we live and rebukes me. I dont have to dwell in the failures of my past or flounder amidst sins and carnality. I have obtained a like precious faith and that faith is there even when I am weakest and most undeserving. When my life has been a dark void or godless movement from one perdicament to another I am always welcome before a throne of grace through a mediator and advocate. That precious faith sets me before omnipotent power and grants me access to unlimited wisdom. Not because those things are available like milk on the shelf but because they are inside a person, Jesus Christ who has been made unto me wisdom righteousness sanctification and redemption. He is all I need, but what He has is not seperate from His person. I cannot have peace multiplied when I look to spiritual things disconnected from the person or God and Christ.
John
Apr 5th, 2008
Pamela H. Whitney
Hey, Stephen Macasil! Doubtless, you subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Where in the Bible do you find authorization for you to declare that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox aren’t Christian? You wouldn’t know about, much less believe in the Bible if Catholic monks hadn’t spent their lives copying the Bible over and over by hand, with great care, love, and concentration—try it sometime: it’s very difficult. Besides, Jesus Christ founded His Church almost 200 years ago, so why should any one join yours, which is certainly younger that the English language, and probably younger than I am. Considering that I belong to the Church founded by Christ Himself, it’s amusing to here people who belong to funny little new sects declaring that I’m not a Christian, and that some particular passage of the Holy Blble “wasn’t written to” me. Christ warned of of false shepherds, so I guess people like you, Stephen, are to be expected. But you, Stephen, beware of your ignorance and arrogance. Christ founded on Church; you’re not in it but you’re supposed: better go find it. Not a hard job: the answer is obvious once you take off your blinders.
Apr 7th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Pamela,
“Where in the Bible do you find authorization for you to declare that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox aren’t Christian?”
*In the quoted passage, Peter says who he is writing to (v. 1). Since Papists and EO deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, then Peter’s letter isn’t written to them. Apostolic doctrine teaches that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer’s account, not infused to the believer as Rome asserts. Besides, by asking “where in the Bible,” you are subscribing to the principle of Sola Scriptura, something Romanists inconsistently and unconsciously do all the time. Protestants are just more consistent with it and honestly admit it.
“You wouldn’t know about, much less believe in the Bible if Catholic monks hadn’t spent their lives copying the Bible over and over by hand, with great care, love, and concentration—try it sometime: it’s very difficult.”
*Are you saying that I owe the transmission of God’s inspired and inerrant Word to the people that were used to carry out God’s divine decrees? If that is the case, then I thank Peter (v. 15), “And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.” P.S. I am thankful to God for preserving His Word throughout the ages.
“Besides, Jesus Christ founded His Church almost 200 [sic] years ago, so why should any one join yours, which is certainly younger that the English language, and probably younger than I am.”
*Your question blindly assumes that the Church of Jesus Christ and the one that I am a part of are two different things. First, how do you make such a judgment righteously? Do you accept the testimony of men? On what basis do you judge?
“Considering that I belong to the Church founded by Christ Himself, it’s amusing to here [sic] people who belong to funny little new sects declaring that I’m not a Christian, and that some particular passage of the Holy Blble “wasn’t written to” me.”
*If you deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and accept Rome’s doctrine (or any other) of infused righteousness (etc.), then Scripture says, not me, but Scripture says that the letter wasn’t written to you. If you want to entrust your soul to the demonic teachings of Rome, then that’s your call – only God can change that! Furthermore, internal proof that the letter wasn’t written to Romanists is Peter’s explicit statement that Scripture is superior in authority than even an eyewitness! The letter that was written to me (by Peter) says, “we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Romanists deny this and elevate the RCC to the position of something “more sure.”
“Christ warned of of [sic] false shepherds, so I guess people like you, Stephen, are to be expected.”
*How do you know that He said that? On what basis do you judge false from true?
“But you, Stephen, beware of your ignorance and arrogance. Christ founded on [sic] Church; you’re not in it but you’re supposed: better go find it. Not a hard job: the answer is obvious once you take off your blinders.”
*See Vatican II for a thorough refutation of your statements.
Apr 7th, 2008
Mario
It is grevious when Truth is preached and individuals don’t like it, they immediately attack the person’s character who declares it! As the old quote goes, “when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, you know the one that barks the loudest is the one who got hit.” In this case, the rock of Truth caused Pamela to respond in such a manner. May the Lord’s will be done! Keep it up Stephen because the time has come when people will not endure sound doctrine! Onward Christian Soldier!
Apr 7th, 2008
mr
Steven, I respect your reverence for God’s word and enjoy your Morreyesque humor, but I do not think you are justified with such a shallow ecclesiology. (But I still like you anyhow!)
Have you read anything by Michael Bird on the New Perspective/imputed righteousness? I encourage you to give him a go. I know you are well studied, especially in these areas, but I think it an injustice to call those who do not use the language of “imputed” righteousness to speak of our righteousness in Christ. I myself prefer, and think it more biblically sound, to use and understand this phenomenon as “incorporated righteousness”. I know that I am splitting hairs here, but once again, along with the debate over NT Wright, I think that loosely calling people anathema is very dangerous and risky; this is another wager that I would recommend that you walk away from.
I would check out Bird’s article from 2004. It comments on how imputed righteousness was not the litmus test for orthodoxy among reformers. Michael writes: “We should keep in mind that the Reformers and Puritans themselves differed on the finer details concerning righteousness and justification.”
Quoting at length:
“It is little known that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was not advocated universally amongst the Reformers as the central tenet of justification. The Augsburg confession states, “This faith God imputes for righteousness before him.” This stands in stark contrast to the Westminster confession which reads, “Those whom God effectually called he also freely justified . . . not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them.”Likewise, late seventeenth-century Puritans themselves disputed the notion of justification comprising the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, with Richard Baxter, Christopher Cartwright, John Goodwin, and Benjamin Woodbridge instead holding to the imputation of faith as the formal cause of justification. John Owen and Richard Baxter in particular exchanged some vehement criticism over this doctrine. Suffice it to say, belief in the imputation of faith appears entirely consistent within the domain of Reformation thought. One encounters other variations within the Reformed tradition. Although Richard was committed to imputed righteousness, his understanding of justification interfaces with a strong sacramentalism. Martin Bucer held to a double justification, the first stage being the iustificatio impii (“justification of the ungodly”) and the second comprising the iustificatio pii (“justification of the godly”).”
The article has been recently re-published in his book “The Saving Righteousness of God” but you can find the article on JETS online “Incorporated Righteousness: A response to recent evangelical discussion concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification”
Just Google it; it is free!
Take care,
mr
Apr 7th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
mr, thanks for the quote from Bird. Are there any specific points that *you’d* like to make? Bird’s article is old and out-dated; the discussion has since then progressed (much to the advantage of imputation proponents). I appreciate how he deals with Gundry, Piper, and Seifrid, in a somewhat fair manner, but the article is representative of that minority view which was considered prior to a substantially thorough body of literature written since then. Brian Vickers work “Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Imputation, has since been written, Justification and Variegated Nomism edited by Don Carson, Peter O’Brien, and Mark Seifrid [2 massive volumes of scholarly essays on a) the complexities of second-Temple Judaism, and b) the paradoxes of Paul] has been written, Justification: What’s at Stake in Current Debates (Robert Gundry, D.A. Carson, Bruce L. McCormack, Mark Seifrid, Anthony N.S. Lane, paul D. Molinar, Geoffry Wainright, Philip G. Zeigler, Robert Kolb, Kenneth J. Collins, edited by Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier) has been written, and “Not Reformed at All” by John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety is completely overlooked (which addresses Federal Vision/Moscow-Monroe Axis/Auburn Avenue/Hypercovenantalism theology - a similar justification controversy). Robbins is completely avoided, perhaps due to his keen and irrefutable logical arguments. Morey, and his monumental “Studies in the Atonement” is completely avoided - even though Chapter Eight solves the whole problem of the ordo salutis. So I can’t really see what it is that you find persuasive in Bird’s argument, unless you deny sola scriptura, which I do not know if you do. But if you’d like to make a specific argument (other than “shallow ecclesiology”) rather than appealing to old arguments thoroughly refuted by highly competent biblical scholarship, then please, feel free to do so.
P.S. Haven’t I run into you before, here or somewhere else? This feels very familiar…
Apr 8th, 2008
mr
John Robbins! I know you probably like him, along with G. Clark, but I find little respect for him. He lumps NT Wright, Richard Gaffin, and Van Til (Ref. Art. The Changing of the Guard) all in the same boat. I cannot take too much of him (but I’m sure his book is good).
I am well aware of those more recent works you mention, and in light of them all, Bird’s argument for incorporated righteousness still tickles me pink. Although some of the articles were reprinted, his monograph on the NP was released only six or so months back. (and You can’t say 2004 is necessarily dated for that 1 article).
Now, I really do not want to get in a tit for tat with you over this, not only because I am in much agreement with the reformed tradition, and I do understand and think that most of your concerns are valid (and I don’t want to debate with you because you would probably take me to the theological woodshed). However, my suggestion/argument was simple: Since there were among the reformers, and still are among reformers and others today, such divergent views and ways of expressing the business of our Lord’s righteousness for us, why should we draw the line with the word “imputation.” When you question the covenant status of a person based on their understanding of “imputation” or “incorporation,” I cannot help but see a slightly skewed ecclesiology. Because you are stating in the present what ones future vindication will be, a judgment that only God can give in Christ, I exhorted you to walk away from such a risky/bold move. To preempt judgment is consistently warned against by our Lord. That is why I say, in love, that you should not wager on this. Jesus often inferred that the last day would bring great bewilderment as to who’s and who’s out of the kingdom; when Jesus told the story of the sheep and the goats, both the saved and the unsaved are dumbfound at the outcome.
That is it. I will say no more.
By the way, you are right. I am an echo from the Future of Justification discussion (see “another” and “once again”)
Apr 8th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
I know recently I have said my disagreements with Dr. Morey. But around 95% of our theology is in agreement.
This is where I would disagree as well. I do not believe that the general epistles or even Revelation are TO us. I do not believe the gospels or even Acts are TO us. I do not believe that any book in the Old Testament is TO us. I believe they are FOR us. (us being the Body of Christ).
The epistles that are TO us would be the Pauline epistles. We would not suppose that the Torah was TOO us, it was TOO the Jews. Leviticus was written specifically for Jewish people.
Would anybody argue that 1st and 2nd Chronicles was intended TO the Jews? Were they written TO the Body of Christ? They were not written TO the Body of Christ but FOR the Body of Christ.
The implications of the law in leading us to grace is FOR us to understand. Morey doesn’t go this far but he does believe that Paul’s epistles (or at least he did) are only for explanatory. He does not believe we should get our doctrine in any other set of epistles except Paul’s (or that Paul would confirm a doctrine in another book). He is right.But why is he right?
The reason he is right is because of the intended audience. I would say that his reasoning is wrong but his conclusion is right. You can have an invalid argument and a true conclusion in logic. Baxter was also dispensational in his thinking. Morey’s position is dispensational (and heretical to most reformed churches) but mine is dispensational taken to its logical conclusion.
When you approach a book in the Bible, you need to ask the following grammer school questions:
1) Who is the book written too? (e.g. James 1:1 = TO the 12 tribes)
2) Why was it written to whomever?
3) What is the book about?
So in conclusion, only Paul’s epistles our TO us, the rest of Scripture is FOR us. I will now await the accusation of heresy. : )
Jean Chauvin
Apr 24th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean, I think you may be glossing over some important distinctions; perhaps too broad of a brushstroke. You have Morey way wrong here.
As for 2 Peter, if you are referring to the (immediate) intended direct receiving audience of the autographs, then no one would argue with you. at least not here. But if Peter has written his second epistle TO “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” how is this not TO the elect, rather FOR them? If the intended audience is identified as A, in other words: “TO A,” and you are A, how do you make a TO into a FOR? I can see how you can write a letter TO me about a hundred dollar bill you want to gift me, and I can see how that hundred dollar bill can be FOR me, but how does the letter TO me become only FOR me?
Apr 24th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Stephen,
John, Peter, and James were amongst the disciples when all of the aspects of the commission were given. They are sent to Jerusalem, and that is where they begin as Acts makes it clear. In fact, they generally remain there even when others flee-Acts 8:1. Note who Peter is addreses in his speech during a special pentecost, which filled Jerusalem with Jews and proselytes, and perhaps the curious:
Men of Judea and all those dwelling in Jerusalem (Acts 2:14)
Men of Israel (Acts 2:22)
let all the house of Israel know (Acts 2:36).
Now to answer your question:
The point is, nowhere does God change His commission to the 12 apostles (which includes Matthias as number 12). Their commission still stands. Israel is still in unbelief. Israel is not now the light of the world, there is no temple of Jehovah in Israel, and the name of Christ is generally detested-tolerated only as it profits various businessmen.
Israel has been temporarily rejected, Romans 11:25. After the rapture (arpazo) God will again begin to work with His earthly nation of Israel. He is not now (though He is graciously watching them). The elect coming out of Judaism cease to remain Jews, they become members of the heavenly portion of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 2). James, John, and Peter still are apostles (which means ones sent out with authority) to Israel! Earthly Israel.
Jean Chauvin
Apr 24th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean, that is not an answer to my question. That is a rough sketch of the dispensational scheme. Perhaps, for me to understand your arguments better, tell me which dispensational hermeneutic you follow. Are you classical, progressive, etc.? Or, name some dispensationalists (Bock, Bateman, Toussant, Ice, Burns, etc.), I may have them in my library.
Otherwise, statements such as “after the rapture” will be pressed on you to exegetically defend. If your cards are on the table, then we can all sit around and chat about theology, possibly even getting somewhere! BTW, I’m not dispensational. I hold a position close to what is popularly called New Covenant theology.
Apr 24th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
1st Peter 1:1
Look at the catholic epistles as a whole, you will note many indications as to who, and when their primary audience consist of.
For instance, in the Greek a word is found to occur only three times in the entire New Testament, it is diaspora (dispersion), the location of its three occurances are:
John 7:35b
James 1:1
I Peter 1:1
The technical term for the scattered Jews and proselytes is found in the tests of the Jewish apostles. Paul was not sent to Israel, hence he has no use for this term. John, Peter, and James are warning the future readers of coming events, events of the tribulation. During the Tribulation the Jews will be scatters. But the evidence is only beginning to mount. Consider the following:
1) If any man comes into your synogogue (a term never used by Paul) James 2:2
2) heirs of the kingdom (James 2:5-a typical Jewish hope)
3) whoever keeps the whole law (a reference to a known code) James 2:10
4) was not Abraham our father (James 2:21)
5) The coming of the Lord is at hand (James 5:8). (He does return at the end of the 7 year tribulation, verse 7 requests patience.)
6) DURING the revelation of Jesus Christ (an event the readers seem to anticipate and experience) I Peter 1:7
7) Conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay as aliens (meaning scattered Israelites) I Peter 1:17
9) I Peter 2:9 can only be applied to earthly Israelites!!!
10) keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles (nations)…I Peter 2:12a. NASB (note the preceding verse too!!!)
11) LIve not like the nations (gentiles) I Peter 4:3
12) When the Chief Shepard appears —I Peter 5:4 (this is terminology is never used by Paul. These people are being prepared to meet Him.
13) Audience is encouraged to know the Lord is near, and that they seem to participate in the “day of the Lord.” A common Jewish prophetic phrase II Peter 3: 9-18
14) Children it is the last hour ( I John 2:18, cf Matthew 24:24).
15. present tense, many false prophets in the world I Jn 4:1, cf Rev 6:13)
16. the “chosen lady” of II John, is known by all who love the truth. This would appear to be a reference not to any one person but to a group, an elected group of believers. Here a “bride” may be inferred - Rev 18:23, 22:17.
17. Gaius is an extremely common name, like our “John Doe.” III John 1. Note “Gentiles” of III John 7, hence an obvious contrast.
18. Notice the danger which was mentioned from “long ago” in Jude 4, the connection to verse 14 and 18 is clear, the “last times” are happening!!!
The above examples present a weighty suggestion that the intended audience of the catholic epistles is an elect group of non-Gentilic peoples who are upon the earth during the coming tribulation.
Remove the glasses of tradition and review the texts for themselves. tradition sometimes hinder reality.
Stephen - the TO is related to the audience of intent (direct), the FOR is NOT related to the audience of intent, but can be applied to it via examples (1st Corinthians 10:6).
Study my reasoning. I think I know how Dr. Morey will reply but it will be interesting to hear his reasoning behind this.
Jean Chauvin
During
Apr 24th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Stephen,
I was continuing my thought as you posted.
New Covenant theology does not say that Paul’s epistles are the only books that explain doctrine. This is Baxter and Baxter was dispensational, thus, this is a dispensational concept. Dr. Morey calls himself (or he use to) a reformed charismatic.
Though I agree with the covenants, I also blend the dispensations with them. Morey in his book on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments suggests that dispensationalism focus’ on the particulars, while covenant theologicans focus on the universals. He suggests a blending of them both (not in the way I’ve argued of course).
Hermenueutically speaking, Covenant theologicans adhere to a literary means of interpretation, while dispensationalists adhere to a literal view. I I strongly believe this to be a language barrier or ad hominem analysis. They are the same thing once defined. I believe in both methods which means one and the same thing in its application. The false dichotomy is absurd.
So Dr. Morey is not a true blue new covenant theologian. Nor am I. Though I adhere to the covenants and soteriological analysis. I disagree with its eschatology.
If by the word “new” covenant theologian I’m assuming one adhering to the 2nd London Confession of Faith (1689). I too adhere to most of what is in that confession, though of course not all of it.
Jean Chauvin
Apr 25th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
No - we’re not 1689′ers. Think D.A. Carson, Morey, Zaspel, Reisinger, Wells, et al.
Think Covenant Theology without the covenant of grace, or dispensationalism without all the epoch divisions. We would reject the covenant of grace as one covenant having two admins - old and new. We place the emphasis on the New Covenant being NEW as in better in type and kind, not just a new administration of the covenant of grace. Ecclesiological implications that are unique to this theology is it’s Church of Eden with pastor Jesus, and the various forms and developments of the ekklesia throughout history, and the final form of the ekklesia - the New Covenant. There is a fluid and unbroken continuity between us here today and the Garden of Eden - the ekklesia. Not all NCT proponents have developed this far, but soon by God’s grace…
Apr 25th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Stephen,
I made a mistake. I met the first London Confession of Faith (1646),
New Covenant Theology (NCT) is a middle-ground between Reformed and Dispensationalism. That is what the term signifies.
Though of course, it is not as “hard-core” as I present it. NCT leans towards the Reformed side adhering to some dispensational elements, while I lean towards the dispensational side, adhering to some Reformed elements.
But if Morey is now a New Covenant Theologian, I should feel right at home (though I know most if not all on here will disagree with my arguments)
Jean Chauvin
Apr 25th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ah, the 1st LBC. Changes everything. Big difference. As for NCT, there isn’t really any one monolithic hermeneutic as of yet. As for Morey being NCT now, according to Dr. Sam Waldron, Morey basically invented NCT along with Fred Zaspel. I’m sure in time we’ll get into the particulars!
Apr 25th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Morey invented NCT? Are you trying to be funny?
The problem with NCT in my view is it takes the promises that were directed to Israel in the old covenant and then applies it to the BOdy of Christ. This a hermenutical nightmare in my view.
The promises for Israel are still to Israel (the remnant). Not right now, but in the future after the arpazo (rapture) of the Body of Christ. The so called Great Commission of Matthew 28 is not to the Body of Christ. An example of a great commision to the Body of Christ would be Ephesians 4:12.
This is too complicating on a blog since there is a lot here. It would be more profitable face-to-face.
Israel and the remnant of Israel need to be distinguished. The Body of Christ is Israel in terms of the etymological meaning of the word Israel (preserved by God), but they are NOT Israel in the since of Genesis 12:3 either physically or spiritually. I find their synthesis border-line Hegelian.
If I were to ask Morey some questions, I’m sure we would soon find out that he is not 100% NCT (i doubt he would even claim this). I think he would (as I would) approach theology eclectically via what the Scriptures say alone. I don’t think Morey’s theology fits in a cuby-hole for it bends somewhere (as with me). For example, he use to adhere to the speaking of tongues and interpreted 1st Cor 13 (tongues of angels) literally, though within the last decade has changed his view to adhere to it poetically (as i do). Though he still believes (i think) that unknown tongues are valid. This is not NCT. He also believes that God can speak to him in an audible voice (at least he use to). This is absolutely not NCT.
I appreciate Morey’s attempts in theology. He has always tried to stick with the Word and has gone against groves of circles. This has not made him very popular. If he were to suck up and remain in a group (e.g. PCA like Sproul) he would probably have been more successful in the world, but definitely not in the after life. I respect his attempts at truth, and not fraternal membership.
Jean Chauvin.
Apr 25th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean, I was pointing out that according to Dr. Samuel Waldron, Morey is blamed (along with Zens and Reisinger - I mistakenly said Fred Zaspel earlier who co-authored a book on NCT with Wells) for starting the movement within the Calvinistic Baptist Churches that became New Covenant Theology. Here’s Sam’s take:
This growing reaction against the Reformed and Puritan view of the law shook the peace of the emerging Reformed Baptist movement in the years around 1980. It was at this time that Jon Zens and Robert Morey in a series or articles in Baptist Reformation Review4 and John Reisinger in a series of pamphlets and booklets began to attack the Reformed and Puritan understanding of the law and the Christian Sabbath.5 Such attacks led to the division of several Reformed Baptist churches. They also led to the sundering of the emerging movement into Reformed Baptist churches holding to the 1689 Baptist Confession and its Reformed and Puritan view of the law and to “Sovereign Grace” Baptist churches who rejected the view of the law
taught in the 1689 Confession. The “Sovereign Grace” men have worked to organize and defend their rejection of the law. This movement has in the last decade gradually become known as…”
You guessed it, click here for the rest:
http://www.samwaldron.us/pdfs/NCTIntro1.pdf
This also (if Waldron is right) can be the point in history that God used to start such movements as Desiring God (Piper), Sovereign Grace (Mahaney), and the “New Breed” movement out there.
Apr 25th, 2008
Jean Chauvin
Well, you could be right. I have never heard Morey in the distant past refer to himself as a NCT. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t.
He generally would called himself a Reformed Charismatic. Perhaps that was his way of relaying NCT in lay-mens terms in public gatherings.
It’s just hard to believe that he was NCT back in the 1980s. But perhaps there are clues. In his book, “Studies in the Atonement,” (I think publiished early 90s?) he says (I can’t recall the pg. #) that Christians no longer posses the “old man.” That it was crucified with Christ at the Cross (permanently, now!). He says that we only possess the new man and that the old man is no more. Though we still sin due to that condition/position principle (the second part is disputed by no one). And in relation to the ordo salutis, he does not view it linear, but rather spherical. Though he has never developed his arguments/theology on this point, (and is somewhat ambiguous), this would not be in line with NCT.
The old man/new man is extremely non-Reformed, and has a dispensational “twang” to it (a specific branch of dispensationalim).
Who knows. But I still think that if were to talk to him, that he would not admit pure allegiance to the tenets of NCT. I can think of several examples in my head that would differ with the movement, but if you rub shoulders with him, you should know this already.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 26th, 2008
Reply to “THEOTHURSDAYS: 2 PETER 1:1-2”