Archive

Archive for November, 2013

Not Everyone Who Says Lord, Lord

November 4, 2013 3 comments

Not Everyone Who Says Lord, Lord is a great sermon from Jim Butler delivered last Sunday at the Southern California Association of Reformed Baptist Church’s Quarterly gathering.

If I look at my books in my library, notice I quoted Gill. Gill and Calvin were the only commentators in my library that referred to John 6:40. A lot of the other commentators, I remember going through this, I emailed Pastor Barcellos and said “Some of these guys would be Vatican approved, I think, because the emphasis is on ‘Do more'”. So let’s just suppose that we didn’t have a John 6:40. Let’s just suppose we didn’t have a John 6. Let’s just suppose when we read ‘But he who does the will of my Father in heaven”. There is a use of this Sermon on the Mount that we need to reckon with. Something that we ought to appreciate as confessional baptists is the threefold use of the law: the civil use, the pedagogical use, and the normative use of the law. I think personally if we understand that it protects us from some extreme positions out there.

The Sermon on the Mount functions pedagogically.

Yes!

If we didn’t have John 6:29, if we didn’t have John 6:40, and we heard Jesus say ‘But he who does the will of my Father in heaven,’ you see by the time we come to the end of the Sermon on the Mount, it ought not to be self congratulation that we undergo. It ought to be “Who then can be saved?” It ought to cast us on the mercy of Christ!

Categories: final judgment

The Calorie Myth

November 1, 2013 6 comments

When it comes to exercise, calories are completely irrelevant. Saying that ‘I ate a 200 calorie bag of potato chips, so now if I go burn off 200 calories I’m good’ is as accurate as saying ‘I just smoked 2 packs of cigarettes’ or ‘I just snorted 2 lines of cocaine, now I’m going to go exercise to cancel that out.’ We know you can’t exercise off what cigarettes do to your lungs, but we’re led to believe you can exercise off what coca cola does to your pancreas. And you can’t.

A study compared an indigenous hunter gatherer community with a similar group (ages, etc) in America to compare caloric expenditure. The hunter gatherer community burned way, way more calories when they were out hunting. However

The total calories burned between the individuals in the more active hunter gatherer group and the less active Westerners group was not statistically different. How can one group be more physically active and not burn more total calories than the group that is less physically active? Here’s why: When the group that was more physically active wasn’t being physically active, their body ran slower. There’s a reason you sleep better after exercising. Your body is trying to conserve and make up for the calories you just burnt off. So not only is it extremely hard to burn calories through exercise, it’s extremely hard to burn calories. Your body will then do everything it can to make you burn less for the other 99% of your life when you’re not exercising. It will also try to make you eat more. Even more reason not to beat yourself up on the treadmill.

The Calorie Myth @ Bulletproof Radio

Categories: health

Greg Nichols and Norman Shepherd

November 1, 2013 23 comments

From Greg Nichols’ “Covenant Theology”

1

In sum, Adam’s original relation to God was familial and filial-parental. Thus it was warm and affectionate, not cold or distant. It was not an impersonal relationship between “contracting parties.” It was not between a disinterested judge and an unrelated defendant, or a ruler to an unknown subject. Thus, a “covenant of works” model simply doesn’t comport with its filial-parental framework. Categories like “contracting parties,” “stipulations,” and “penalties” are foreign to this familial relation. Such categories might suitably define a contract between corporations forging a business venture through their lawyers. They seem woefully inadequate to define a parental prohibition. In Genesis 2:16-17 God addresses Adam, not as a lawyer, but as a Father. This prohibition is an integral part of Adam’s filial relation to God. Thus, the covenant of works model wrenches this prohibition from its filial foundation. This is my primary objection to imposing this motif and its categories on this prohibition. (337)

2

This conditional form [of the Adamic Covenant] is similar to the conditional form of the Mosaic covenant… Observe that if [Adam] had complied with the condition, he would simply have done what was required. He would not have merited or earned anything – because he merely gave what was owed, trust and compliance. (346-7)

God freely blessed Adam with the Sabbath and with the hope it symbolized. Adam did not earn the Sabbath by works. Thus, Adam did not merit his hope by works – but he could sin and forfeit his hope. The covenant of works motif seems to say that Adam had to earn the hope of eternal rest that God gave him freely as a privilege… By eternal hope I refer to this expectation of divine blessing once he fulfilled his mammoth vocation. When he had populated and subdued the earth, he would have entered his rest. (341)

3

An Evangelical Explanation of the Mosaic Covenant’s Conditional Form
In this conditional promise God doesn’t say: “if you repent and believe, then you will be my special people,” but, “if you keep my law, then you will be my special people.” God said to Adam, if you eat you will die, implying, if you obey you will retain life and Eden. Similarly, he said to Israel, if you obey, you will retain Canaan, but if you disobey, you will be judged and disinherited. As Adam lost Eden, you will lose Canaan…

This teaches the necessity of gospel obedience unto complete salvation…  (Lev 18:5; Matt. 5:20; Rom 8:12-13)

Jesus warned that evangelical obedience was necessary to enter heaven… This is how the conditional promise of the Mosaic covenant applies to the Christian life. It demonstrates the necessity of perseverance in gospel faith and holiness. …The law is gracious because it teaches us that if we live a holy life, mortify the deeds of the body, and keep evangelically the commandments of God, we will go to heaven, not to hell. (233-4)

Norman Shepherd

Norman Shepherd taught a false gospel of works righteousness at Westminster Theological Seminary by arguing good works are instrumental to justification. He paved the way for the Federal Vision.

1

One of the primary points emphasized in the Sandy Cove lectures (July, 1981) is that the obedience required of Adam in the “Creation Covenant,” had he rendered it, would not have been meritorious. Adam was a son, not a laborer. The concept of wages earned, reward merited, is not appropriate to the father-son relationship. This is not a point made somewhat incidentally by Mr. Shepherd along the way, but a point that is evidently fundamental in his theology of the covenant.

Reason and Specifications Supporting the Action of the Board of Trustees in Removing Professor Shepherd

2

Mr. Shepherd rejects not only the term “covenant of works” but the possibility of any merit or reward attaching to the obedience of Adam in the creation covenant. He holds that faithful obedience is the condition of all covenants in contrast to the distinction made in the Westminster Confession. The Westminster Confession states in Chapter Vll that the first covenant “was a covenant of works wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” In contrast, in the second covenant, the covenant of grace, the Lord “freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved.”

Reason and Specifications Supporting the Action of the Board of Trustees in Removing Professor Shepherd

3

He describes the requirement of our covenant-keeping obedience in terms drawn from his description of Adam’s covenant-keeping. We have resources that Adam did not have, Mr. Shepherd shows. We have forgiveness of sins in the blood of Christ; we have the Spirit to move us to obey; but we also have the same covenant condition to meet, and the same threat for disobedience.

Reason and Specifications Supporting the Action of the Board of Trustees in Removing Professor Shepherd

As the Lord God came to Mount Sinai to deliver his commandments to Moses and all Israel, so also the Lord Jesus came to another mount to deliver the commandments of the new covenant to his disciples and to the church of the new covenant…. Far from abolishing covenant obligation, Jesus says, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). (The Call of Grace)

The obedience required of Israel is not the obedience of merit, but the obedience of faith. It is the fullness of faith. Obedience is simply faithfulness to the Lord; it is the righteousness of faith. (The Call of Grace, 39)

Conclusion

The ‘covenant dynamic’ of Mr. Shepherd makes the function of our obedience in the covenant to be the same as the function of the obedience of Adam in the covenant before the fall. … Adam’s covenantal obedience in the garden did not merit any reward; neither does our covenantal obedience. But both are required by the covenant command. The threat for disobedience is eternal death. This threat is as real for us as it was for Adam in the garden. The warning of the New Covenant must not be blunted or made hypothetical in any way. God’s threat to Adam or to Israel was not idle, and the same sanction of the covenant is directed against us in the New Covenant.
Reason and Specifications Supporting the Action of the Board of Trustees in Removing Professor Shepherd

Further Reading: