Considering Who You Are

In Cool Runnings, Yul Brenner asks Jr. “Look in the mirror and tell me what you see?” The idea is that you live in accordance with your self-identity.

That is essentially where Kevin DeYoung goes, without the Cool Runnings reference, in the 7th chapter of The Hole in Our Holiness. He hits on our new identity in Christ, or in union with Christ. He gives us a concise version of Walter Marshall’s classic The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. Marshall sees sanctification as the result of our union with Christ.

In a sense, this goes into what the gospel produces. Our union with Christ is why we are justified, sanctified and empowered by the Spirit. But I am getting ahead of myself, and DeYoung.

Our union with Christ is a much neglected doctrine. But recent releases by people like Robert Letham, J. Todd Billings and Maurice Roberts are trying to rectify this. Our union with Christ brings us all the blessings of God found in salvation (Eph. 1:3). If we are not “in Christ” we have none of these many blessings.

It is not a spatial thing. We are not physically joined to Jesus, as if we are chained together, super glued together or some such thing. DeYoung notes three things our union with Christ implies: solidarity, transformation and communion. Covenant Theology understands that all are born “in Adam”, in covenant solidarity under his headship. As a result, we are fallen, guilty and sinning. The new covenant gives us a new head. We are in covenant solidarity in Christ so that His obedience is ours (Romans 5).

Read Full Post »

Considering the Spirit, the Gospel and Faith in Sanctification

In the 6th chapter The Hole in Our Holiness, Kevin DeYoung shifts gears to talk about the process of sanctification. He had been addressing the need for holiness, the motives and the patterns of holiness in Scripture. So, what is supposed to happen so that we become holy? What is God’s part? Do I have a part in all this?

Years ago I read Hannah Whitall Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. DeYoung mentions it at the end of the chapter. It was part of the Higher Life teaching that used to characterize Keswick teaching. It is passive in sanctification. It assumes consecration is the only part we play in growing in holiness (Packer talks about this at length in Keep In Step With the Spirit). Sadly, some people today seem to hold a similar position.

“It’s possible to be completely biblical and still less than helpful- especially when it comes to pursuing holiness.”

Consecration is necessary, but insufficient for our growth in holiness. This chapter is about the effort we exert. But it is not a do-it-yourself project. The chapter is largely about the Spirit, the Gospel and faith.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Possibility of Godliness

Is there a reasonable hope for godliness for the Christian? Can we please God?

In the 5th chapter of The Hole in Our Holiness, Kevin DeYoung addresses this very question. He starts with the qualifications for office. The standards can seem so high that most men feel unqualified. They humble us. Taken absolutely, they disqualify everyone but Jesus. How are we to sort this out?

“It’s one thing to be humble about our piety. It’s another thing to think piety is impossible.”

At times we tend to flatten out holiness. We see it as static, not dynamic. It is part of our dynamic life with God. As we affirm our depravity, and the remnant of indwelling sin, we can start to think that we can obey God. We start to think we cannot please God.

But Scripture doesn’t talk that way.

And if we don’t think carefully and biblically, our lives are stunted.

He wants us to consider Zechariah and Elizabeth. They were righteous, walking blamelessly before God. That is not justification. That is sanctification.

Consider Job. He was called blameless and upright. Again, sanctification.

It isn’t just the Old Testament. Jesus expected people to put his words into practice (Mt. 7:24). James basically said the same thing (James 2:22-25).

Read Full Post »

Considering the Imperatives

If we ignore the imperatives of Scripture, there is a Hole in Our Holiess. This is the premise of the 4th chapter in Kevin DeYoung’s book.

By and large, we hate commands. We don’t like being told what to do. Kids don’t like to listen to the parents or teachers. As adults we don’t like to listen to our bosses. We don’t just “question authority” we undermine and resist it.

“God cares enough to show us his ways and direct our paths. … Divine statues are a gift to us. God gives us law because he loves us.”

While others may try to lord it over us, God’s intention is good. It is evidence of love, but we read it as hate. The problem is not with Him, but us. Even as Christians, there is resistance not only to particular commands at particular moments, but to the Law period.

The Church has wrestled with the Law for quite some time. Scholars have landed in various positions. Among Calvinists, this is one of the many practical differences between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. Historically, Reformed Theology has had a 3rd use for the law. We hold to a 3-fold distinction in the law that NCT rejects. We recognize the moral law, the civil law and the ceremonial law. They cannot ultimately be separated from each other. But they are distinguished and have a different relationship to Christ. The moral law reflects the character of God, and transcends all administrations of the covenant. The civil law is the application of the moral law to the nation of Israel as a theocracy, and includes the punishments for breaking particular laws. The ceremonial law is about the removal of guilt and pollution from breaking the moral law. It is also about maintaining the separation between Israel and the nations.

“Typically, this has meant that the moral law (e.g., the Ten Commandments) is directly normative, but the civil and judicial aspects of the law point to what is true for all people at all times.”

Read Full Post »

Considering the Pattern of Piety

In the third chapter of The Hole in Our Holiness, Kevin DeYoung looks at the pattern of piety found in Scripture. It is not enough to know we are called to holiness, but we also need to know what it looks like, and doesn’t look like.

Holiness means separation. That is the bottom line. God sets us apart from the rest of humanity in two ways. First, we are definitively set apart at justification. We are set apart as Gods’ people. So, every Christian is sanctified. But God continues to set us apart from the world morally. This is progressive sanctification. You don’t have one without the other. Both of these are a result of grace.. The first is an act of grace (one time event) and the second is a work of grace (a process) according to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

What Holiness is Not

It is not rule keeping. Holiness certainly includes obedience. People often get off course by thinking about non-biblical rules. We are set apart for God. We are to obey his law. Jesus was not too keen on the Pharisees for neglecting God’s law from man-made traditions. It is not about dancing, whether or not you drink a beer with dinner, or have the occasional cuss word slip out when you smash your thumb with a hammer. It is about gentleness, not getting drunk, and having lips used to edify and express gratitude.

“Holiness is more than middle class values. … checklist spirituality is highly selective.”

It is not generational imitation. Some people think it is having the standards and practices of an earlier generation. It could be the 1950’s in Amercia, Calvin’s Geneva or the Puritan’s England. This is what got the Amish in trouble. DeYoung notes that the 50’s may have had a better standards of sexual decency. But when it came to race relations, not so good. Just an example. We are trying to apply the timeless law in our time, not recreate another time.

Read Full Post »

Considering Family Shepherds

While considering what to study in our men’s group this Fall, one of the books I read was Family Shepherds by Voddie Baucham. It covers some of the same ground as The Masculine Mandate. But this book has a very different feel to it, handles things in a different order and has a more distinct agenda(s) than Rick Phillips’ book did. Since I pretty much read them simultaneously, I have a hard time not comparing them.

Family Shepherds reflects Voddie’s personality and ministry, just like Rick’s book reflects his. I’ve read another book or two from Voddie, and this is similar in tone and agenda. He has a prophetic bent (Rick’s, perhaps from his time as a tank commander, is more kingly). Voddie is not afraid to get into the reader’s business. Rick also stands firm on his views, but is less “in your face” about it.

Voddie’s ministry is marked by a few drumbeats. One of them is vitally important, particular in the context in which he ministers. The other is one I have some sympathies, but aren’t as passionate and dogmatic about as he is.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Reason for Redemption

In the second chapter of his new book, The Hole in Our Holiness, Kevin DeYoung addresses the reason(s) for our redemption. He does not think there is only one biblical answer. He mentions God’s love and God’s glory. I would say that with respect to God himself, the reason is His love. He redeemed us because He loved us. With respect to creation (including humanity) He redeemed us for His glory, to receive glory for His grace. Both of these are prominent in Ephesians 1. There is something else that is significant in Ephesians 1, as DeYoung notes: holiness. With respect to us, God redeemed us to make us holy.

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

I am not sure why so many think holiness is optional. Wanting to be a Christian with wanting to be holy is like wanting a hamburger without wanting the hamburger patty. Biblically it just does not make any sense. In Ephesians, it sets up the call to sanctification that flows out of justification. Sometimes in response to a works-centered religion, people can so press justification by faith alone, that they forget or ignore that such a faith is never alone. Sometimes in our pushback against the legalists in various holiness movements we forget that obedience is not the problem. As Paul stresses in Titus 2, grace teaches us to obey God. It is not an excuse to disobey God, or be careless about how we live.

God is passionately committed to your holiness, even if you don’t seem to be so at the moment. The Scriptures tell us this. Christ died with this goal in mind. DeYoung notes this as an emphasis in both covenants: Exodus 19:4-6; 1 Peter 2:9;  Eph. 2:8-10; 5:25-27; 2 Tim. 1:8-9; 1 Thess. 4:7.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Gap in Our Holiness

It has been awhile since I have blogged through a book. But, based on the amount of red ink I used underlining things in the first chapter of Kevin DeYoung’s new book, The Hole in Our Holiness, I thought it might be a great time to do that.

“Any gospel which says only what you must do and never announces what Christ has done is no gospel at all.”

The first chapter is about the gap in our holiness. He builds an analogy in the beginning. He doesn’t like camping. Just didn’t grow up in a camping family, doesn’t talk about camping and has no interest in camping. What would happen if we thought that way about holiness? Some people do think this way, as though holiness is an optional recreational activity.

“My fear is that as we rightly celebrate, and in some quarters rediscover, all that Christ has save us from, we are giving little thought and making little effort concerning all that Christ has saved us to.”

What is particularly disturbing to DeYoung (and should be for us) is that this holiness gaps in a time of gospel-centeredness. We are rightly enthused about forgiveness and justification. We are not as enthused about sanctification.

He brings up 3 questions from Packer’s Rediscovering Holiness (a great book!). These questions should alert us to a problem.

Read Full Post »

Considering Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand has become popular in some circles recently. I can understand that. She pushed back against socialism as an expression of “altruism”. We see similar “altruism” expressed by one political party, and members of the other pushing back with Rand’s ideas- rational individualism, or objectivism. Her philosophy is foundational to the Libertarian Party. Some in the Tea Party have been influenced by it as well.

I did a class on worldviews while pastor of Cornerstone Community Church. I’m plundering it for this post. The books I used included The Universe Next Door by James Sire, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics by Steve Wilkens and Worldviews in Conflict by Ron Nash (as well as ideas taught in his class on apologetics). While some of what she taught can be attractive to Christians, I believe it is a faulty worldview. In other words, there may be overlap with a Christian worldview but it should not be confused with one. This is an offer to Christians enamored with Rand’s thought to consider how this opposed to Christianity, even though we agree about personal responsibility. The same goes for altruism, which encourages charity but undermines personal responsibility.

Elements in Modernism: Individualism

“Look Out For #1”                      “Every Man for Himself”

Individualism as a system of thought is based upon the thought of Ayn Rand.  It is an extension of some of Epicurus’ ideas.  She rejects altruism, which seeks the good of others.  It sounds much like justified selfishness.  She does take the long-range approach so we must be concerned primarily with our broad-based and life-long interests.  I might forsake something I want now in order to achieve a better long term goal.  She focused on rational individualism- seeing this as what made America great.  She left Russia in the 1920’s distraught over what ‘altruism’ had done to that nation.

Read Full Post »

Considering Dort and the Atonement

Lately I’ve been interacting with a number of people who call themselves “moderate Calvinists”. I’ll be honest, it has been frustrating (for both sides, I’m sure). One reason is a body of literature they have read, that I haven’t, and they point to as authoritative. They usually despise John Owen, and (from my perspective) take comments by scholars (Owen and otherwise) out of context for their arguments.

Moses Amyraut- the original 4-Pointer

They hold to a “hypothetical atonement” instead of a particular atonement. They are similar to the Amyraldian position (they resist this label) in that the atonement is universal in extent, even if only efficient for the elect. They recognize the reality of the elect. So they’ve got that going for them.

One claim I’ve heard from them is that the Canons of Dort do not support the doctrine of limited or particular atonement as espoused by 5-Point Calvinists. (If I’ve misunderstood in the flood of verbiage, I’ll recant.) They see the 5-Points as a modern formulation (yeah, so?), that has no basis in the work of Calvin and the Canons.  I thought I’d look at the Canons (it has been awhile) and see what I find. It is kind of hard to re-read all of Calvin on this topic.

Read Full Post »

Considering Gateways

Tim Challies linked to a blog post from The Urban Gospel Mission called The Porn Gateways. It was an interesting post, and the comments were even more interesting.

The author talks about social media as functioning as a gateway to pornography. He noted what it was like to watch some young men on FB as they intensely looked at the pictures of female friends. I’m not so sure it is a gateway as an acceptable (we mistakenly think) substitute. There is nothing wrong with looking at pictures of a classmate or peer from youth group. It is how you look at them. He was hitting on the lust that is stirred up. There are plenty of substitutes people can use to avoid the stigma of porn. But they are used the same way someone uses porn.

Part of what he encouraged young men to do was to flee those evil desires of youth. If they were using social media or ads in that way, they should avoid the social media or places where tempting ads were found.

The comments were interesting. Among them were things like this:

• Social media isn’t the problem. That’s like blaming a woman because a man leers at here.
• That solution is just try harder, it isn’t the gospel.
• Preaching the gospel to yourself is insufficient and misleading.

He didn’t say that social media was the problem. He said that some people misuse it. There is a difference. He notes that at first he thought “It’s only Facebook”. But soon he realized the intensity found in the stares and scans. More was going on than “wow, looks like she had a great time”. If the girl was in the room, his buddies would have hit him for being a jerk. But since it is a picture, …

“What is the difference between looking at a Sports Illustrated swimsuit magazine or going through Suzie’s spring break Panama City Beach photo album? There is none. The problem of the sin is the heart, not the action. And if we are honest, our struggle with lust has nothing to do with the action or dress of the girl, but with the posture of our hearts.”

The take away I had was “don’t deceive yourself just because it isn’t pornographic.” Men need to remember (and some women too) that lust is lust whether you stir it up by porn, the SI Swimsuit issue, or staring at pics on Facebook. The blame does not fall to the person who put up the pictures or Facebook. The blame falls on the person who uses it illegitimately.

Fleeing the evil desires of youth is not “try harder” but biblical wisdom. It is not intended to be all you do, but how to respond to temptation. Yes, address the idolatry of your heart with gospel promises and warnings. But if you are tempting circumstances, leave them! Don’t feed them by waiting until you have the best motives. Run for your spiritual life, so to speak.

I’m a “preach the gospel to yourself” guy. I’ve read plenty of them like Jack Miller, Jerry Bridges, John Owen and William Gurnall. In his Christian in Complete Armor, a book on about spiritual warfare which is really the fight to obey, Gurnall talks about needing “a fresh draft of God’s love each day.” Where does that come from? The gospel! It is not opposed to mortifying sin. It is actually essential to mortifying sin. I’ll get there.

Jerry Bridges can in no way be accused of being an antinomian. If you think preaching the gospel to yourself leads to moral laxity, then read The Discipline of Grace, The Transforming Power of the Gospel (this book has some great quotes from Owen on the necessity of preaching the gospel to yourself as a part of sanctification) and some of his other books.

In The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, Walter Marshall explains the connection. It is only when we are assured of our justification that we pursue sanctification rightly and make any real progress in sanctification. We proceed from faith in Christ. We live out our new identity in Christ. Our union with Christ begins to transform our lives. But if you aren’t living as a justified person, you are trying to earn your justification and merely sinning more. For whatever is not from faith is sin.

Fighting lust requires a full-orbed approach. Flee the occasion of lust. Preach the gospel to yourself. Identify the heart idols and apply the greater sufficiency of Christ to them. Put that sin to death in the power of the Spirit. Recognize it is in keeping with the old man in Adam, not the new man in Christ. Tell yourself it robs you of real life.

Read Full Post »