Categories
Epistles Scripture

Everything We Need (2 Peter 1:1-14)

2 Peter 1:1-14

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.

As we continue in our series through the Books of the Bible we come to the second Epistle of Peter. In the notes, you may have noticed that the passage we’ll be focusing on is 2 Peter 1:3-10. You may also notice that I tend to cover longer sections of Scripture and try to explain what the Apostle is telling us. There is a reason for that. Too often we like to use Scripture to find particular verses and then read those verses as if there is nothing else in that book surrounding those passages. We may even have memorized a short portion of Scripture but really have no idea what people were talking about when they wrote it.

Have you ever been in a conversation where you feel like somebody took a small part of what you said and then twisted it? I’m sure you were quite upset that people put words in your mouth by only choosing a small portion of what you said and then twisted its meaning. In the end, you don’t even recognize your own message in the way someone quoted you. Scripture is no different.

As we read this passage, one of the things that I’m certain that most people’s eyes will immediately focus upon are verses 5-7. I’m certain of it because there we find stuff that we’re told to do. After all, isn’t the Word supposed to be practical? Isn’t it supposed to give me a list of things that I need to do throughout the week?

I remember talking to a Pastor a few years ago because he was preaching on a particular passage and it seemed like no matter what passage he would cover, he had to come up with how that particular behavior was an example to all of us on how we should behave. It didn’t even matter if it was Paul journeying around in a particular country, he was going to find some example like: “”¦this means we should all be on a personal journey.” I remember thinking: Are you kidding me?

Before I joined the Church, I went over to his house to eat and we got along well so I asked him about it carefully. I remarked: “Well, soon we’ll be getting into Romans and the first 11 Chapters don’t really say anything about what we are supposed to do but it talks about what God has done in Christ Jesus.” He responded that he planned on giving a personal application to every portion as he went through it. I asked why and he said that he was taught in Seminary that you have to give an application, something for a person to “take home”, in every sermon. That really saddened me because he might have learned that from a professor but he didn’t learn that from the Scriptures.

I want you to notice something about verse 5. It begins like this: “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence”¦.” Now, we’re going to get back to this part again but did you catch the beginning? It said: “For this very reason”¦.” What reason, Peter? Well many of us would just ignore that part because we’re being told to do something now but Peter says “”¦for this very reason”¦” and so it only makes sense that if we’re supposed to do something for a reason then we ought to know what that reason is. Right?

Here’s the reason he gives earlier: “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”

Wow! What a reason. What a motivation! Let me unpack that a little bit. Notice something first about this motivation: what are we doing in those verses? Absolutely nothing. God is doing everything. We are recipients. Do you know what that’s called? It’s called the Gospel. The Good News is not that we’re getting things done for God but that, first of all, God has done wonderful things for us.

His divine power, the power that created heaven and earth, the power that said “Let there be light” and by the power of His Word it was so. That same divine power has given us everything pertaining to life and godliness. He has given us knowledge of Himself and called us by His glory and excellence. You and I were corpses rotting in the grave and God called us from death to life and made us alive so that we could hear Him. He made us alive so that we could see the beauty of the Cross.

Finally, He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. God has promised us. Now people break their promises all the time but not God. He has promised us to become partakers in the divine nature in Christ Jesus and that we are sure to escape death because we have placed our trust in Him. Do you know what? Your salvation was certain, the fact that you would reign in heaven as God’s adopted child was absolutely sure the moment God decided to save you. This is often spoken of as an inheritance in Scripture.

Do you remember what I told the children about an inheritance last week? An inheritance is not something you earn from your parents but it’s something that you simply receive. You didn’t choose your parents, you didn’t earn the money they made all their lives or the house they bought. They did all the work. They put all the toil into it so they could pass something on. We contribute nothing to the inheritance we receive from our ancestors and so it is with God.

Some of you may remember when I spoke about the Prodigal Son. He had spit on his father by claiming his inheritance early. Generations of work had gone into securing a large property that was passed from father to son over many, many centuries. The son demands his portion from his father wishing him dead and then goes out and spends it on a big party. Centuries of ancestral blessing are spent in a few weeks and the boy is destitute.

He’s working with pigs and then he comes to his senses. He’ll go back to his father and ask for forgiveness. His only desire now is to be a slave in His father’s house. He knows he doesn’t deserve anything more. This is exactly what the Pharisees expected too. Forgiveness could not be granted but the boy had to earn his way back. He would be expected to wait in the town as the people in the town came to heap shame upon the boy.

But then the oddest thing happened. The father saw the boy from far off and he ran to him. He ran to him before that boy could get to the town and receive the shame of the townspeople. He ran to him and fell on his neck weeping and kissing this scoundrel. The boy was coming to the Father expecting to earn his way back into the father’s favor but the father who had long loved the boy had overtaken him before his plan could be completed. He said “Father forgive me”¦” and before he could say “make me your slave”, the father squeezed the breath out of him. You see, beloved, God doesn’t permit slaves into His kingdom, He only permits sons. He only permits in those whom He adopts out of sheer grace. They deserve nothing from His Hand but He gives them a rich inheritance. He gives them a rich inheritance more lavish than the inheritance they squandered while they were living their own life. The only thing the son can do is receive that blessing.

Are your eyes wide open now? Do you understand now what that “reason” is that Peter was talking about in verse 5 when he says: “For this very reason”¦.” Why would the son that was just lavished with love by His father and given an inheritance desire to serve Him? Because he loves Him! He’s grateful for what God has done. There is no more condemnation. He knows he can’t earn what was just given so now He obeys the Father out of the sheer joy for how incredibly blessed he is.

So Peter goes on and tells us: “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.”

Do you see how you have a completely different way of looking at these verses now? You were probably ready to start working at these so you could work for God and receive a blessing you were missing out on. In fact, the most popular “Christian” books out there are constantly telling you that the reason you’re missing out on God’s blessing is because you’re not living up to your purpose. But Peter doesn’t motivate us by giving us a purpose. No! He motivates us by the promise of God and what He has done and so we respond by adding to the faith that we have in Him these virtues. Why? Because what child who loves their Father dearly, doesn’t want to delight in the things that He delights in?

And so as Christians, in the household of God, we take on character traits that reflect our Father and His Son who redeemed us: moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. Now it’s not as if we have to be perfect in one before we start maturing In the other. Rather, it’s that we’re maturing in all of these traits at the same time and should be striving for them. It’s also not that we’re striving by ourselves but it is the plan of God that He will ensure that He completes in you the work that He began in you. There is a sense, though, in how one character trait is necessary for another.

Our moral excellence is the sense in which we love and do the things that God loves. We do so because we don’t want to insult the One we love. My constant prayer is that I will love the things that God loves and to learn to hate my sin more every day. Why? Because the reason I sin is that I love my sin more than I love God and it’s the same reason you do too. So, as we mature, we become more excellent in our thoughts and behaviors.

Of course, we cannot know what God desires or who He is unless we gain knowledge of Him. How do we learn about God? By reading His Scriptures; by devouring it; by hanging by His every Word. Beloved, it is not spiritual or Godly to be ignorant of God’s Word. We have to know something about the people we love or they begin to wonder if we really love them. Imagine if I never spent any time getting to know my wife then she would begin to wonder if I really love her. Ask any woman whether they appreciate if you know her birthday or your anniversary and you’ll begin to realize how critical knowledge is to your relationships and growth.

Now I need to pick on the men here for a minute. It never ceases to amaze me how many men tell me how hard it is to understand the Bible with all the facts and stuff inside of it. It’s just too hard and they don’t have the time. They have a simple faith, they tell me. But then start talking to that same man about Sports. Watch out! I used to be embarrassed that I didn’t know all the endless statistics and details about baseball, football, or basketball from player’s names to who is winning to who is being drafted. These same men who say it’s too hard to study the Bible somehow find time to study and become knowledgeable about Sports. Do you know why? They LOVE Sports. Interesting isn’t it that we KNOW lots of stuff about the things we love. Men! It’s time to add knowledge to your moral excellence. This Saturday, 8 am, see you there!

As we progress in the knowledge of the Lord and mature in what He delights in we begin to gain self-control. That is, that we are more able to withstand the onslaught of sin and temptation as Christ matures us and as we get to know more and more about how big He is and how small we are. We never have victory over sin but we do learn to gain more control over it.

Self-control is a process of discipline and those who discipline themselves in anything gain perseverance ““ they gain endurance. Again, this is not something we do on our own but it is of the Spirit who supplies it richly to us. It is just a matter of fact that discipline has a quality all its own in terms of giving us the ability to stand firm when things are rough and, as we discussed last week, we need perseverance for the sufferings of this world.

As we persevere in our faith, fixed upon the Cross of Christ, we become more Godly ““ that is, more God focused. We begin to focus more on His glory than our own. We’re willing to take the shame of the Cross because we realize we have no reason for pride.

You may recall that I talked about, two weeks ago, how men who lose the knowledge of God in their minds end up losing what makes men and women around them meaningful: that is, the image of God. As we become more Godly, we start to be more reverent and loving of our brothers and sisters around us who are created in the image of God and we have brotherly kindness for those in the Church. How can you not love a man or a woman whom Christ loved and gave Himself for? What kind of love do you have for what your Savior did for you if that love does not flow out of you towards those He loves?

And so, it is so natural, isn’t it, that love itself is expressed. For Paul says in Romans 13 that love is the end of the Law, that is that it is the goal of the Law. When we mature in love we begin to grow beyond all the “thou shall not’s” in the Law and grow into the mature character that loves God with all our heart, soul, and mind and loves our neighbor as itself.

But just remember this. If you start with trying to love God on your own strength before you’ve believed the Gospel, before you’ve fallen at the foot of the Cross, and before you’ve heard the news of your acceptance by God and His rich blessing then you won’t be able to do any of it. You’ll be trying to show love and brotherly kindness as a way to fix up your life. You’ll be trying to get those merit badges so you can show God how serious you are that He’ll have to take notice of you and bless you. But there is no blessing if we approach these things as if they’re something that slaves do. We can only express them as children of God. We have to be born again.

We have to have believed the Gospel that men couldn’t possibly earn anything from God’s hand because we had only earned wrath for our sin and so God sent His Son to do it for us. He endured the shame and rejection that we deserved, to give us the inheritance that He earned for us. So we come anew every day, as Peter tells us that he reminds us over and over: these are the wondrous things that God has done in the Gospel and so rejoice Christian. Be at peace. Receive the salvation promised by your Father and in your joy and love that answers back the love He has for you, be matured daily to become more excellent, more enraptured by His Word, more controlling of the sin that is being put to death in you, more enduring and able to withstand the onslaught of sin in the world, more Godly in your focus, more loving to those that bear His image, and more loving of the One who has loved you with an Everlasting love.

The Gospel is simply this: God has done what we couldn’t do. Amazing Grace! We receive simply with empty hands offering nothing in return and then the love we have for our Redeemer comes bubbling out of the spring He is filling up within us and the character of a transformed life shines forth to the world!

Let us pray.

Categories
FV and NPP

Barlow Responds to my Post – My Response

Mr. Barlow was kind enough to respond to my article. His response was on his comment section of his blog but I wanted to include it here for full disclosure:

Rich,

Thanks for taking the time to interact with the discussion. Sorry for the rude remarks directed your way by some here. You characterized my critique this way:

“Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.”

That’s close, but not exactly what I hoped to have said in my paper. Something more like this (rephrasing your paragraph):

“Pastor Phillips wants to convict Pastor Wilkins by questioning the sincerity of his subscription. Phillips does this by saying that Wilkins cannot simultaneously confess to believe the confession’s formulation of doctrine X and say what he does about the scriptures.”

My response was to note that the confession is theology, and thus it can say “The Doctrine of Election is _____” while not meaning to imply that every time the word “election” is used in scripture it carries all the freight of that doctrine (a doctrine derived from the full counsel of scripture). It seems to me that Phillips misses what Wilkins says when Wilkins talks about the scripture’s “broader” use of terms. Phillips argument seems much clearer to you, evidently, than it does to me because I find him stretching quite a bit to classify Wilkins’s exegetical observations as confessional deviations.

I’m not saying the substance of Phillips’s critique is over terms. I’m saying that the substance of his error lies in his approach to terms. Your summary of Phillips’s critique is illustrative of this:

First, “Neither the scriptures nor the confession admit to a doctrine of conditional election.”

Wilkins would respond ““ “You’re right, I can’t support a doctrine of conditional election from scripture, and obviously the confession does not contain it.”

Secondly, “Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary perseverance.”

Wilkins would respond “The scriptures and the confession teach that the elect will persevere. The confession, however, does not talk much about the experience of the non-elect in the covenant of grace. There is evidence about the plight of the non-elect in the scriptures and not much is said about them in the confession.”

Thirdly, “Neither the scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary union with Christ”

Wilkins would respond, “It depends upon what you mean by “˜union with Christ’. In general, the confession talks about the elect and the kind of union they have which is permanent. But the scriptures use metaphors of branches being broken off, remaining in the vine, being spit out of the mouth of the Lord, etc. And so I must conclude that there is more to the situation than the confession discusses ““ perhaps the non-elect have a kind of union with Christ for a time from which they will inevitably apostatize.”

Does that help? I wish that Phillips had stated his critique in the way you summarized it. Instead, he clouded the issue by focusing on Wilkins’s approach to the word “˜election’ in individual scripture passages and trying to tie those exegetical insights to a denial of the confession’s “doctrine of election.”

Hope this helps; perhaps we still disagree over what the “substance” of Phillips’s critique was, but hopefully you can trust that my goal is not to misrepresent him; that’s why I tried so hard to be excruciatingly clear in the paper, even risking being pedantic.

My response to Mr. Barlow:

Thanks for the response. I still believe that the substance of Pastor Phillips critique is levelled against the doctrinal conclusions drawn by Pastor Wilkins from passages that teach some *benefit* but not the way that Pastor Wilkins implies. The critique is that his conclusions about an *additional* meaning lead to a contradiction of the *first* meaning.

Rev Winzer cautioned me on the PB in a very edifying way:

Friends, when did the reformed church insist that the exact terms must be found in Scripture? The idea of conditional election to temporary benefits is clearly revealed in holy writ. Our Lord has provided a parable which specifically teaches that the reprobate are partakers in the kingdom of God temporarily — the parable of the wheat and tares. At the judgement, “the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all things that offend, and them which do iniquity,” Matt. 13:41. The visible church enjoys special “privileges” bestowed by God, which the world does not receive, Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 63. To be in the visible church is to enjoy these benefits. If any are made partakers of these benefits it is because God chose them to it (temporary election).

The term “temporary election” is used in reformed theology in the same way as “common grace.” Although Scripture uses “election” and “grace” only in relation to the members of the invisible church, there is a theological analogy which makes it appropriate to apply the terms to the members of the visible church in a common way, in virtue of the fact that the visible church is the temporal manifestation of the invisible church.

Consider the words of John Owen (Works, 4:430):

Thus God chooseth some men unto some office in the church, or unto some work in the world. As this includeth a preferring them before or above others, or the using them when others are not used, we call it election; and in itself it is their fitting for and separation unto their office or work. And this temporary election is the cause and rule of the dispensation of gifts. So he chose Saul to be king over his people, and gave him thereon ‘another heart,’ or gifts fitting him for rule and government. So our Lord Jesus Christ chose and called at the first twelve to be his apostles, and gave unto them all alike miraculous gifts. His temporary choice of them was the ground of his communication of gifts unto them. By virtue hereof no saving graces were communicated unto them, for one of them never arrived unto a participation of them.

As Owen goes on to note, the term election finds specific support in connection with the choice of Judas to the apostleship, John 6:70. That this was temporary is indicated by the fact that our Lord specifically says in chap. 13:18, I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.” Now if this is true of Judas, who was given an extraordinary office in the church, and equipped with miraculous gifts, it must also be true of ordinary officers and members of the church, who are given the ordinary gifts to administer and receive the Word and sacraments.

The problem with the FV formulation of the teaching is that it supposes “saving graces” are communicated by virtue of this temporal election, contrary to what John Owen teaches above. It is at this point that justified criticism can be levelled at the FV. By denying the traditional reformed teaching of temporal election in order to oppose the FV, you make yourself equally chargeable with a departure from the reformed faith.

I believe that the substance of the critique of Wilkins is in the final paragraph.

Reformed writers have, for centuries, been able to speak of the temporary benefits of Covenant participation without making the error of confusing the idea that some saving grace is imparted.

I’m left wondering, sometimes, who this really benefits if we have to talk in such fine points all the time to explain ourselves properly. I fancy myself somewhat articulate and intelligent and men like Phillips and Winzer much more than I. If, in the final analysis, a small cliche can only understand the language your using and it’s causing the Church to reject you then maybe you can just use the same language we always have if you subscribe to the same idea.

Categories
FV and NPP

Critics of the Critics of the Federal Vision are So Unfair!

I recently read a blog entry at Barlow Farms: A Response to Richard Phillips’s Comments, Part One.

In the words of Mubatu from Zoolander: “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

If we ever hope to understand each other then I want to make sure I break down what I believe Pastor Phillips clearly articulated because it is my estimation that this “response” doesn’t even enter into the same neighborhood as the criticism. I ask those who have read both to make sure I’m not stating this improperly.

Here is the substance of the response from Barlow (I’m summarizing):

Pastor Phillips wants to try and convict Pastor Wilkins for not being a strict subscriptionist to only ONE confessional use of the terms election and perseverance. Pastor Wilkins does not deny election or perseverance in the way that the WCF use them and wholeheartedly agrees with them BUT merely denotes that the terms are used in a broader sense.

He goes on to use an analogy of using the word trinity in another way (i.e. “Shadrach, Meschach, and Abegnego made up a trinity of dissent in the empire.”) and then being accused of denying the Trinity.

Thus, according to Barlow, the substance of Pastor Phillips critique is over the use of terms: you cannot use the word election or predestination in any other way than the Confession uses or we’re going to put you up on a pole.

Now, I ask the critics of the critics of the FV: Does this accurately represent Pastor Phillips critique? I thought Pastor Phillips was very cogent in his analysis. I’m constantly told that men are not dealing honestly with each other’s views. If there is going to be a response to Pastor Phillips’ critique then let it be on the substance of the critique.

The substance of Pastor Phillips’ critique is this:

*BEGIN*

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a doctrine of conditional election.

Neither the Scriptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary perseverance.

Neither the Scirptures, nor the confession, admit to a temporary union with Christ.

*BREAK*

You see, it one thing to admit that the Scriptures use a term to address a larger body that includes both elect and non-elect. It is quite another to form a doctrine based on this syllogism:

1. Paul calls a Church body “elect” in some passages
2. Paul knew it consisted of both the regenerate and unregenerate
3. Therefore, Paul must mean that everyone there is elect in some way…

Barlow seems to completely miss the fact that Pastor Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the Reformed completely reject this in their confession. They do NOT conclude 3 in the way that Wilkins and others do and, on the contrary, reject the idea.

Would they admit to points 1 and 2 above? Certainly, they would believe it is Pastoral language. This is why there is the idea of presumptive regeneration where you treat and talk of people as if they are regnerate not knowing either way. Jesus still treated Judas as if he were a disciple when He knew from the beginning who truly believed even before He called Judas.

Thus, I find Barlow’s response to utterly obfuscate the critique. I thought Pastor Phillips critique was a scholarly and clear examination of the issue and am shocked that Barlow so utterly misrepresents the substance of the critique.

Are there any responses out there that do a better job of answering the actual charges?