Turretin and justification by works (Law/ Gospel)

II. … For as there are two covenants which God willed to make with men—legal and evangelical. Accordingly there is also a double justification or a double method of standing before God in judgment—legal and evangelical. The former consists in one’s own obedience or a perfect conformity with the law, which is in him who is to be justified; the latter in another’s obedience or a perfect observance of the law, which is rendered by a surety in the place of him who is to be justified—the former in us, the latter in Christ. Concerning the first, Paul says, “Not the hearers, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom. 2:13); and “Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law. That the man which doeth those things shall live by them” (Rom. 10:5). Concerning the other, he says, “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:16, 17); and “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). Concerning both, he says, “That I may be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ” (Phil. 3:9; cf. also Rom. 9:30, 31). Hence a twofold justification flows: one in the legal covenant by one’s own righteousness according to the clause, “Do this and live”; the other in the covenant of grace, by another’s righteousness (Christ’s) imputed to us and apprehended by faith according to the clause, “Believe and thou shalt be saved.” Each demands a perfect righteousness. The former requires it in the man to be justified, but the latter admits the vicarious righteousness of a surety. The former could have place in a state of innocence, if Adam had remained in innocence. But because after sin it became impossible to man, we must fly to the other (i.e, the gospel), which is founded upon the righteousness of Christ. [Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2.16.II.2]

We notice here that Turretin holds to the strongest version of the Law-Gospel distinction. Note also the proof texts Turretin utilizes, which are the texts that those of us who hold to the Law-Gospel distinction have likewise used to support our position. Romans 2:13 was appealed to to speak of the principle of the covenant of works, not as how some contemporary theologians have interpreted as speaking of spirit-filled obedience.

It is thus Reformed to speak of justification by works. The question is not whether we are justified by works, but whose works. The Reformed position is that we are justified by Christ's work, not ours. Christ did everything, and then imputed his righteousness to us through faith. Therefore, believers' justification is through faith because of Christ, and thus the Gospel is one where no one can merit salvation even one bit.

The problem of reversed virtue

In my latest sermon, one point that I had made, but did not elaborate too much on, was in my second point concerning the problem of what I would call "reverse virtue." Due to the growing progressive liberal trend in Western society, cultural Marxism has infiltrated mainstream American society, such that Marxist ideas have become the trendy thing. In Latin America, Marxism in its various forms have long been influential, resulting in much devastation to the region (see e.g. today's Venezuela, also Argentina under Peron). Liberation Theology is the Marxist reading of theology, and its religious idea of "God's preferential favor towards the poor" has followed closely upon the heels of cultural Marxism, the latter infecting society while the former infecting religious thinkers and activists. Thus today in Western society, neologisms such as "white privilege," "confess your privilege," "woke" among other redefined terms have redefined social discourse, all for the worse.

The problem with Liberation Theology and contemporary Social Justice Warrior (SJW) religious Marxism (e.g. RAAN) is that it will not ever solve the real problem of human sin and actual inequality. What it does is that is merely flips societal values 180 degrees. What was once lauded as social virtues like wealth, thrift, intact families, law-abiding, truthfulness etc, are now labeled as vices, while what was once scorned as social vices such as poverty, wastefulness, single parenthood, law-breaking, being illegal aliens, lying etc, are now labeled as virtues. I will not be speaking here of the many social problems with such a scheme, but merely would like to point out how this does not conform to the Gospel at all.

The Gospel is all about salvation by grace alone, which excludes works of any kind. That is why God chooses the weak, and the foolish, and the lowly, because there is nothing virtuous about being weak, being foolish and being lowly. But in a Marxist scheme with the inversion of virtue, that would make God chose the newly-minted virtuous people. In a Marxist scheme, God choose the weak, the foolish, and the lowly because they are now virtuous in their weakness, folly and lowly status. But such is a betrayal of the Gospel message of salvation by grace alone! In a Marxist scheme, the poor can now boast that God chose him because poverty is a virtue. The foolish can now boast that God chose him because folly is a virtue, and so on.

Thus, whatever problems the problem of Marxism has socially (e.g. denial of Natural law), when it comes to the Gospel, religious Marxism with its reversed virtue scheme is an assault against the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. It is thus "anti-Gospel." It is a real indication that works-righteousness is not so easily expunged from the consciousness of men that the supposedly Reformed RAAN is promoting a theory that is contrary to the Gospel. We children of Adam are forever trying to make ourselves better and more deserving of salvation, and it is this tendency to think of ourselves better than we are that we all need to repent of, continually.

God glorified through our lack: 1 Corinthians 1:25-31

Here is my latest sermon preached May 28th 2017, on 1 Corinthians 1:25-31, entitled "God glorified through our lack."

The Law-Gospel distinction

The Law-Gospel distinction has sometimes been thought of as "Lutheran" and thus not Reformed. This kind of thinking however obscure the very real similarities between traditional (confessional) Reformed and Lutheran thought. Both Reformed and Lutheranism came out of the same 16th century Reformation, and at the beginning they were not trying to be different for the sake of being different. Rather, whatever Luther and Lutheran theologians said that were biblical, the Reformed appropriated it. The Reformed of that time were about embracing and confessing the truth from Scripture, not about creating boundary markers against foes real and imagined except where necessary (and most definitely not against "Big Eva").

The Reformed view the Law-Gospel distinction typically with a more covenantal slant. Thus, the Law-Gospel distinction is translated into the Covenant of Works- Covenant of Grace distinction. In the Covenant of Works, we are told to "Do this and Live" (Lev. 18:5, Gal. 3:12). Since we cannot do, we stand condemned under the law, under the broken covenant of works. But under the Covenant of Grace, we are told "It is done." The Gospel proclaims to us what we cannot do of our own accord. We failed, we sinned, but where we fail, where Adam fail, Christ succeeded. We are now under grace, not because we do not have to obey the Law, but because we are not under the condemnation of the Law as a covenant of works.

While I will not yet commit to a definitive judgment on the Marrow controversy (in Scotland in the early 18th century), it seems to me that the Marrow men have it right. John Colquhuon (pronounced "ka-hoon") (1748-1827) was a Scottish Presbyterian minister who wrote what is probably one of the best books on the topic of Law and Gospel in the Reformed tradition. His book is entitled A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, and is highly recommended for its balance and pastoral concern. Here are some choice quotes from the book:

In the Sinaitic transaction, the hewing of the latter tables of stone by Moses, before God wrote the Ten Commandments on them, might be intended to teach sinners that they must be convinced of their sin and misery by the law as a covenant of works before it can be written legibly on their hearts as a rule of life (p. 60)

The gospel, in this its strict and proper sense, seeing it is the form of Christ’s testament which consists of absolute and free promises of salvation by Him, contains no precepts. It commands nothing. It does not enjoin us even to believe and repent; but it declares to us what God in Christ as a God of grace has done, and what He promises still to do for us and in us and by us. (p. 105)

In the blessed gospel, Christ, and God in Christ, are freely offered to sinful men, and men are graciously invited as sinners to receive the offer and to entrust the whole affair of their salvation to Christ, and to God in Him (John 6:32; Isaiah 55:1-4) (p. 120).

The law wounds and terrifies the guilty sinner; the gospel heals and comforts the guilty sinner who believes in Jesus. (p. 151)

Whatever is required in the covenant of works as the condition of eternal life is, according to the covenant of grace, provided and given gratuitously to believing sinners. (p. 156)

The law, as a covenant of works and a rule of life, demands nothing of sinners but what is offered and promised in the gospel; and in the gospel everything is freely promised and offered to them which the law, in any of its forms, requires of them. (p. 161).

The law requires true holiness of heart and of life, and the gospel promises and conveys this holiness. (p. 168).

As it was the privilege of the Christians in Rome, so it is the privilege of all true Christians, in every place and in every age, that they are dead to the law as a covenant of works, and that the law in that form is dead to them. (p. 198)

As the relation between the husband and spouse is dissolved by death (Romans 7:2), so the relation between the law as a covenant and believers is, in the moment of their justification, dissolved (Romans 7:4). (p. 203)

When it comes to the Law and the Gospel, the twin dangers are Legalism (Gospel is not good news but more law), and Antinomianism (The Law is to be disregarded). Throughout the history of the Christian church, groups have veered into one or the other. If we embrace a Law-Gospel distinction, how should we understand these twin errors? Here Colquhuon puts it succinctly:

There are two errors respecting the deliverance of believers from the law which are equally contrary to the Oracles of Truth. The one is that of the legalist who maintains that believers are still under the moral law as covenant of works; the other is that of the antinomian who affirms that believers are not under it even as a rule of life. (p. 205)

In other words, the Legalist puts salvation dependent upon our good works. While they may pay lip service to grace, they hang the Law as a threat and motivator to goad believers to be good or to do good works. For legalists, we must preach the Law to make believers do good works, and imply that failure to obey the Law will make them somehow less welcome in God's sight.

The Antinomian does the exact opposite. The Antinomian does not really focus on good works. He is only interested to tell believers about "grace, grace, grace" without calling them to live holy lives for God. At best, an antinomian thinks of sanctification as an automatic process, and all anyone has to do is to think about grace and he will be holy.

Here, again, Colquhuon has excellent counsel for how we are to navigate the Christian Life. How should we live our lives and deal with the vestiges of our our sinful nature while cultivating the proper desire to do good works?

If Christ is the way to God and to glory, and it He is the way of holiness, or the holy way, then you who have believed through grace ought to take heed that you walk consistently in that way. “As you have, therefore, received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him” (Colossians 2:6). In union with Him, go forward daily in the exercise of faith and love, and in the practice of holiness. Depending on his grace and strength, advance with holy diligence and with increasing ardor in the daily practice of these good works which are works of faith and labors of love. Make constant progress in your exercise of faith, and by sanctifying and comforting influences from the fullness of Christ, walk on with cheerfulness and resolution in Him as your way to the perfection of holiness and of happiness. (pp. 317-318)

They not only look, therefore, to the law as a rule for authority to oblige them to the practice of good works, as well as for direction in performing them, but the look also to the gospel, and to the Savior offered in it, for strength to perform them, for merit to render them acceptable to God, and for a reward of grace to crown them. (p. 320)

The Law is the standard, the goal. But to the Christian, it the Gospel who gives them strength for sanctification. While desiring to obey the Law can be a motivator for good works, it must be grounded in one's love for God because of his gratefulness for an-already present salvation. Sanctification is about gratefulness, not about earning brownie points before God, for after all, who can give anything to the God who owns anything anyway?

The Law-Gospel distinction is a distinction that preserves the necessity of the Law and the glory of the Gospel. We must get it right in order that we may not put believers back under bondage, yet to encourage them to be holy and do good works. It is because of this that Colquhuon's book seem to be me very important for the task at hand, so that Christians can be edified and assured of their standing before God.

The essence of the hyper-grace error

After all that has been said, what is the essence of the hyper-grace error? If we wanted to pinpoint the major point of deviancy, what exactly is it? Hyper-Dispensationalism is obviously a problem, yet hyper-grace proponents do not emphasize Dispensationalism, although at least Prince explicitly uses the notion of dispensation as a prop for his theological propositions (Prince, Destined to Reign, 43, 92-3). It seems to me that the main error of the hyper-grace movement is its view of the problem of man, and the solution offered by Christ.

In Joseph Prince's book Destined to Reign, Prince dealt with what he thinks to be the major problem with mankind. According to Prince, the deepest root that causes all the destructive sin patterns is condemnation (Joseph Prince, 131). As Prince wrote,

That is why condemnation is the deepest root. It is a root that man cannot overcome through self-effort. Condemnation demands a payment for all your failures and sins, but without Jesus, there is no payment. For some time now, there has been talk about guilt and how it can cause various adverse symptoms to appear in the human body, but that is just skimming the surface of the matter. While experts may be able to identify guilt and condemnation as the sources, they have no solution to destroy them. ... (Prince, 133)

One can of course point out that Prince uses phychological analysis in part to determine the problem with Man, and that is correct. Prince sees the problem with mankind as one of condemnation. Satan and the Law seek to condemn people for their errors. The Gospel then, for Prince, is the removal of this condemnation; the "gift of no condemnation" (Prince, 164). Misusing Romans 8:1 as his central proof-text, Prince states:

My friend, the main reason our Savior's blood was shed was for the forgiveness of our sins. This means that the blood of Jesus also offers us protection from any form of condemnation. When you have a revelation that Jesus' blood has made you righteous and all your sins are forgiven, you are protected from condemnation from the accuser. It's imperative that you understand this because it will give you the confidence to come before the throne of God boldly and see Him as a loving Father. It will cause you to reign over that sin, addition or depression that is holding you in bondage today. (Prince, 159)

According to Prince therefore, the main problem with mankind is condemnation, and Christ came to remove the condemnation. Sin of course is not unimportant, but sin seems to be treated as external acts that stem from condemnation.

It is here that we see the main problem with the hyper-grace error. For if condemnation leads to sin, then the solution is to remove condemnation by naming and claiming Christ's righteousness as ours (Prince, 17-18). In orthodox Christianity, the problem with mankind is sin, in that Man has original sin, and commits actual sin daily. Man commits sin because he is sinful and thus violate God's Law regularly. The Gospel is the message that Christ has atoned for our sins so that we will be saved when we put our trust in him and rely on his righteousness. The orthodox scheme is this:

Problem: Sin; Solution: Propitiation, expiation and double imputation.

Whereas for Prince, as we have seen, the problem with mankind is condemnation that leads to more and more sin. The solution is the gift of no condemnation. This can be shown as follows:

Problem: Condemnation; Solution: Gift of no condemnation

It is at this point that we can see how the hyper-grace heresy develops. In evangelical theology, condemnation is the judicial consequence (not root) of sin. Romans 8 comes after 7 chapters dealing with the sinfulness of man and the Gospel of free salvation in Christ, and therefore the removal of condemnation is the consequences of actual salvation. In the Scriptures, no condemnation is the judicial verdict stemming from the Gospel, but it is not the Gospel. Prince redefines the problem and the solution in more psychological instead of forensic terms, and thus arose the hyper-grace error.

Due to its misdiagnosis and misprescription, it can be safely said that hyper-grace is a false gospel. By making the consequences of sin and salvation their respective roots, Prince and other hyper-grace preachers have created a false gospel which they are peddling to the masses. While there are some surface similarities between hyper-grace and the true biblical doctrines of grace, at its root the two are radically opposed to each other. Therefore, even as we must be against (true) Legalism, we must also defend and refute the hyper-gracers who might seem to be teaching something similar to us in some aspects, but are actually promoting a false gospel.

Bavinck on Law and Gospel

According to Herman Bavinck, there are three ways to speak about the relation of Law and Gospel. The first way is broadly, as depicting the Old and the New Testaments (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:453). The second way is "concretely," which is to say as presented in the text, such that "the law made promises and the gospel utters admonitions and imposes obligations." (Bavinck, 4:454). The third way is in "content," where the two are contrasted as antithetical to each other (Bavinck, 4:453-4). With regards to the third manner, Bavinck writes,

Although they [Law and Gospel] agree in that both have God as author, both speak of one and the same perfect righteousness, and both are addressed to human beings to bring them to eternal life, they nevertheless differ in that the law proceeds from God's holiness, the gospel from God's grace; the law is known from nature, the gospel only from special revelation; the law demands perfect righteousness, but the gospel grants it; the law leads people to eternal life by works, and the gospel produces good works from he riches of the eternal life granted in faith; the law presently condemns people, and the gospel acquits them; the law addresses itself to all people, and the gospel only to those who live within its hearing; and so forth. (Bavinck, 4:453)

We see here that Bavinck agrees fully with the Law-Gospel distinction as being something that comes from the Reformation, which "restored the peculiar character of the Christian religion as a religion of grace" (Bavinck, 4:453).

Bavinck's second way of speaking of "Law" and "Gospel" is concretely, which is to say that the elements of Law and Gospel are so intervowen in the text of Scripture that "the law made promises and the gospel utters admonitions and imposes obligations" (Bavinck, 4:454). We note here that Bavinck is not by this denying the Law-Gospel distinction he affirmed in the previous page, but rather he is acknowledging (1) that the text of Scripture is not always delineated into neat "Law" and "Gospel" sections, and (2) that issues such as "duty-faith" are tough issues to categorize nearly as either "law" or "gospel." Regarding the issue of "duty-faith," the idea that unbelievers have a duty to believe in Jesus Christ and are thus called to do so, Bavinck states that even among the Reformed there is disagreement about how to categorize it. This "preaching of faith and repentance, which seemed after all to be a condition and a demand" was argued to "really [belong] to the gospel and should not rather (with Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Cocceius, de Moor, and others) be counted as law (Bainck, 4:454). So some categorize it as "Gospel," which would seem to have the Gospel making demands, while others like Witsius, who I think are more consistent, would categorize it as "Law". The difficulty is due to the fact that Law and Gospel are tightly intervowen in the text of Scripture, such that, while in concept and content they can be distinguished, and SHOULD be distinguished, they often are found together in the text of Scripture and applied together in practical life.

So we see three main senses in speaking about Law and Gospel. Broadly, they refer to the Old and New Testaments. Concretely, they refer to the textual and concrete applications of "Law" and "Gospel" activities. In content, they refer to antithetical realities of "Indicatives" and "Imperatives." For a full orbed view of both justification and sanctification, we should understand these three senses, so that we neither confuse the "Law" with the "Gospel," nor do we flatten out the Christian life as if everything is about just focusing on the complete salvation in the Gospel.

Morals, and moralism

On a Singapore blog, an article was written in Chinese by the author with the title 不敬虔的世代, translated roughly as "A time of impiety/ disrespect." The problems that the author addresses are serious. The article begins with a lament about the current spate of corruption cases hitting Singapore, even with an allusion (without naming) to a megachurch pastor (i.e. Kong Hee) being charged with mishandling of church funds ("大型教会的牧师和领袖也因挪用公款而被控上法庭"). The author laments the decline of righteousness and integrity in Singapore society and the church.

In response, the author draws us to Psalms 90, and writes about the power and justice of God, calling people to repent of their sins, and (presumably for Singaporeans) to pray for ourselves, our churches and our country ("为我们的国家祷告，为我们的教会祷告，为我们自己祷告"). Here is where however I do have a bone or two to pick.

Graft in society, and even within the visible church, is certainly sin. However, the author seems to have the idea that righteousness should be the default setting in Singapore. Of course, in Singapore, by God's grace corruption has been rare. But the issue is this: Sin is sin, and sinners sin. While corruption is certainly wrong and sinful, the impression I have is a tone of astonishment that corruption actually has been found in Singapore. Allow me to interject and just say: Excuse me! Sinners sin, so why are you astonished that sinners sin? Of all people, why are Singaporean Christians astonished when corruption has been found out even in high places? Are Singaporeans humans?

This brings to mind the responses of Singaporeans to the 2013 Little India riot. By and large, Singaporeans were shocked to see an actual riot happening IN Singapore, with the blame being put on foreigners who bring their unruly ways to the orderly Garden City. Let me call this attitude what it actually is: Self-righteousness. I, We, Singaporeans are better, more civilized, than the Indian and Bangladeshi construction workers. We are better than other countries, we obey the law and so on. We took the providential care of God for our nation, and think that WE the people did it all. Honestly, the self-righteousness stinks!

What's even worse here is the remedy promoted in this article. Here is what the author wrote:

圣洁的主天天想起我们的罪！这是一件多么可怕的事。圣经说：若主究察罪孽，谁能站得住 呢？(诗130:3)我们每一个人最终都要照我们所行的受审判。行善的复活得生，作恶的复活定罪。圣经非常清楚的教导我们那些不肯悔改的人将被丢入那为魔鬼和他的使者所预备的永火里去（太25:41）。那里虫是不死的，火是不灭的（可9:48）。神是审判我们生命的主，所以我们要敬畏神祂，远离恶事。

当我们认识到自己的罪，最好是马上悔改祷告。这正是诗人的所做的。所以，诗90:12-17就记录了诗人的祷告。诗人求主指教我们怎样数算自己的日子，这不是求主让我们知道我们还可以活多少天， 而是因为知道我们的罪使主的发怒，知道我们的日子短少是因为我们的罪。所以，求主给我们智慧，使我们可以悔改，离开罪恶归向神。箴言1:7说：敬畏耶和华是知识的开端。

Here is my translation:

The holy Lord daily remembers our sin! This is a fearful thing indeed. The Scripture says, "If the Lord investigates sins, who can stand?" (Prov. 130:3). In the end, all of us will be judged by what we do. The one who does good will be raised unto life; the one who does evil will be raised unto condemnation. Scripture very clearly teaches us that those who do not repent will be thrown into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his followers. (Mt. 25:41). In that place the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched (Mk. 9:48). God is the Lord who judges our lives, therefore we should fear Him and flee from doing evil.

When we recognize our sins, it is best that we immediately repent of them in prayer. This is what the psalmist did. Thus, Psalm 90:12-17 records his prayer. The psalmist asks the Lord to teach him how to number his own days. This does not teach us to ask the Lord how many days we have left to live, but rather that it is because we know that our sins provoke the Lord's wrath, therefore we realize the brevity of our days is a result of our sins. Thus, we request for the Lord to give us wisdom, so that we may repent, flee from all evil-doing and turn to God. Proverbs 1:7 says, "The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom."

Repentance is certainly important in dealing with sin. However, if one thinks that repentance saves, then one has substituted the true Gospel for one of works-righteousness. But before we even go there, look at how this section begins. It says that the Lord remembers our sins, daily! Really? Here is what the Scriptures actually say:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (Rom. 4:7-8)

[On the New Covenant]
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Heb. 8:8b-12)

The blessing of the New Covenant is that God will forget the sins of His people. They are gone, not brought to mind. God does not stand over us as judge anymore, keeping a record of all we do wrong. God says, "I will remember their sins no more." How much clearer can it get?

I shudder when I read sentences that basically lifts Romans 2:6-10 out of context as if the text is meant to tell us how we are to be right with God. That sentiment is the sentiment of works-righteousness. It is, to put it nicely, not much different from the teaching of the Judaizers. To say that God is keeping track of our deeds, and then when we do wrong, we have to repent and turn away from sin in order to be right again with God, is well on the path towards salvation by congruent merit, by works (striving and repentance) not perfect but deemed acceptable by God.

This is not the Gospel message. This is moralism. This is legalism. It is fitted for self-righteous Singaporeans, who arrogantly think they have reached the standard of obedience and law-keeping. It is fitted for those who think themselves superior to the unwashed masses who toil in the hot sun all day for a pittance. The Gospel message is for the wretched, not for those who think themselves righteous. Singaporeans are no better than the people of the world, and it's about time we realize that. The Gospel is salvation by faith, not by works, not by faith and repentance, but faith alone. Repentance follows from faith but it itself does not save. There is no inherent virtue in repentance, for there is a worldly repentance that is damning (2 Cor. 7:10). Apart from true faith, you can repent all you want and you will still go to hell! You can repent till the point of self-flagellation and it will do you absolutely no good. Penance, which is merely the exaggeration of acts of repentance, was done away at the Reformation, because the Gospel does not have us to be saved by repentance.

Regrettably, this article is standard fare in Singapore "Evangelicalism." It is the type of drivel that I had to put up with in my growing-up years. It is a "gospel" that will make Pelagius proud. Regardless of what soteriology one holds to, if one's soteriology does not affect how one presents the Gospel, then it is merely abstract and good for nothing.

The issue of hell and eternal punishment

Over at the Cripplegate, Jesse Johnson reviews the impact of Rob Bell's heretical book Love Wins, one year on. Johnson makes some interesting points. What I would like to focus on here, however, is his claims on the issue of hell as follows:

If sound and biblical thinkers could be persuaded out of believing in hell, they would abandon the doctrine. Most people who hold to the doctrine do so not because they want to, but they have simply been overwhelmed by the biblical evidence. For me at least, this is how my thoughts go: “I don’t want to believe in hell, and I can’t imagine the horrors of it, and I can’t imagine how and why it would endure forever and ever, but the Bible is so clear that this is the case, and I am bound to believe what the Scripture teaches.”

Johnson's reasoning is true as far as it goes. However, I would like us to consider one very much omitted aspect to the entire doctrine.

Most of the time, discussion on hell hovers around the aspect of God's love and the necessity of the fulfillment of divine justice. But should we not consider another aspect, the wickedness of Man deserving justice?

God's justice is no mere abstract principle. Damnation is God's rightful and just response to wickedness. God is not merely someone who reluctantly just *has* to send people to hell because they have *unfortunately* broken God's law and thus justice must be served. No, Man fully deserve damnation. Wickedness is absolutely abhorrent to God, and wicked men are an abomination to God.

We shudder at the thought of eternal punishment, and to some extent we should. But do we likewise shudder at the wickedness of sin? Do we recognize how abominable wickedness is to God and thus God relishes to get rid of the sinners who are in their sins? Just as those in pain relish to remove the source of their pain, so likewise God relishes to remove sinners in their sins from His presence. Do we recognize how disgusting all mankind is, apart from Christ, to God?

If we cannot grasp this essential aspect of the faith, we will always struggle to make sense of hell. And without it, we do not understand why God seem to be so "cruel," and our foundation for a belief in hell will always be shaky.

Gospel proclamation and the question of fairness

Here is where the question of fairness appropriately comes to the fore. Is it fair that God punishes the guilty in hell? Yes, of course. Is it fair that millions will never hear the gospel? No, it is not.

— Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, "Answers to Notable Questions," in Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 242

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Rom. 9: 14-16)

And they [Paul and Timothy] went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. (Acts 16:6-7)

In the question over whether those who have not heard the Gospel are condemned to hell, inclusivism states that those who respond positively to whatever light they have will be saved by Christ even though they may not have heard the Gospel. Particularists (or Exclusivists) state the biblical teaching that only by having faith in Christ can a person be saved.

The book edited by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson addresses the issue of inclusivism. One of the objections to particularism is the charge of unfairness, for how can God condemn a person to hell if they have not even heard the Gospel? It is correctly pointed out in this book that people are condemned not because they reject the Gospel, but because they are sinners (Morgan & Peterson, 241). Morgan and Peterson correctly state that God is fair in sending the guilty to hell. However, they continue by asking another question: Is it fair that millions will never hear the Gospel? Their answer to this question is no. I will contend here however that the proper biblical answer is yes.

It has been established that salvation is an act of God's grace and God's mercy (e.g. Eph. 2:8-9). It is a pure gift of God, and God does not owe anyone salvation, for if God owes anyone anything, that is credited to him as wages not as a gift (Rom. 4:4). Now if no one deserves salvation, and God is perfectly just if he left the whole world to rot into perdition, then the entire apparatus of salvation is one fully of grace and mercy, and no one deserves any of it.

Since such is the case, the proclamation of the Gospel (as part of the apparatus of salvation) is one given by God freely to sinners who do not deserve it. If such is the case, how can it be said that God is not fair if millions do not hear the Gospel?

All mankind is under the broken Covenant of Works. The condition for the Covenant of Works is absolute perfect obedience. The works principle is reflected in verses such as Rom. 2:6-10 and Gal. 3:11b-12. Having broken this Covenant, God is under no obligation to grant mankind another way to earn eternal life. That God chose to do so through Jesus Christ is His free will in grace and mercy to do so.

The proclamation of the Gospel therefore has nothing to do with God's fairness. In fact, as we see in the account of one of Paul's missionary journey, the Holy Spirit is the One who ultimately decides who gets to hear the preaching of the Gospel. That the Gospel took root in Europe in the first few centuries of the Church is the choice and the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has decided in counsel with the Godhead that Europe would embrace the Gospel in the first few centuries of the Church. There is no unfairness with God, for God has mercy on whomever He will have mercy and He has compassion on whomever He has compassion (Rom. 9: 14-16). God for example has decided that my distant ancestors in China don't get to hear the Gospel and that is perfectly fair to Him. The question is not: Why were my ancestors not giving the privilege of hearing the Gospel? The question is: The Gospel has come to you now, so will you repent and believe the Gospel while it is still today (Heb. 4: 6-7)?

God is sovereign. There is no injustice and no unfairness with God. The Spirit blows wherever He pleases. God is not answerable even to His people and His Church. We have no right to question why God has given certain areas and certain peoples more Gospel light while He shuts some off in darkness for a longer period of time.

It is fair that millions may never hear the Gospel. The impetus of evangelism is not fairness, but gratitude and obedience. We share the Gospel not because it is not fair that others did not hear the Gospel. We share the Gospel because we are grateful to God for saving us who are no different from them. We share the Gospel out of love, not out of perceived injustice and unfairness. We share the Gospel because God calls us to do so as a witness for Him.

On God's side, the removal of Gospel witness may even be an act of judicial punishment upon a wicked society (Hosea 4: 4-6). To one who rejects God, God may even cause a dearth of Gospel witness in the land. When a society rejects God, God may decide to confirm it further in its path to destruction by removing even the means to be saved.

Morgan and Peterson think that there is "a problem of fairness that concerns the extent of God's mercy" (Morgan and Peterson, 242). Scripture however knows of no such problem. As long as Evangelicals think in such anthropocentric terms, the tendency towards inclusivism will sadly remain.

The reality of the offence of the Gospel

In a previous thread, I have been having a interesting exchange with the author of the article I was critiquing, Steve Jones, an exchange which is very much worth reading. I would like to draw attention to (at the writing of this post, recent) comment he made:

OK, you've mitigated the guilt of religious killers. You've deemed all humans, even the most decent and loving, evil as Hitler. You've presented a theology in which people are responsible for doing what they're incapable of doing -- then punished horribly for not doing it. You've set forth an end-time scenario in which God burns people with fire, strips them down to the most depraved level possible, then hurls them into a place of endless toruture [sic].

Tell me, is that faith beautiful and appealing to you?

The question goes right to the crux of the issue. Can one see Christianity beautiful and appealing to us? Are we ashamed of sin, of hell, of the damnation of those who did not receive (not merely reject) Jesus Christ, and final judgment?

The offence of the Gospel shines through here. As it is written:

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? (2 Cor. 2:14-16)

The Gospel message is death to the ears of those who are perishing. It is foolishness to them, morally repugnant and revulsive to their senses. Their very persons feel ill at the understanding of the Gospel message. It is a fragrance of death unto death for them.

Yet the Gospel message is life to those who believe. We see ourselves as creatures under a Creator. We see our wickedness. We see how wretched and blind we are. We know that God does not owe us anything, not even our lives. We grasp unto Christ, the Wisdom of God, for He is our only hope.

All Christians should be able to say yes, such a faith is beautiful and appealing to us. Not because we are sadists who love to see people in hell, but we see here the mercy of God towards us who justly deserve the same punishment. That all men are originally destined for hell due to sin is a reality, and that God is still just and loving if He wants to send everyone there. There is no injustice in God. Yet God has mercy on those whom he saves, freely of grace.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved (Eph. 2:1-5)

Amen.

The problem of contextualization: A Critique of Keller's idea of contextualization

In my reading into the writing of a non-Western theologian, Kazoh Kitamori, the issue of inculturation and localized theologies do come up. The whole idea of an "Asian theology" or "Japanese theology" of course is just plain nonsense and is heresy against the catholic, apostolic faith as it is not catholic (universal) and not apostolic. Regardless, there is a softer version of this in the idea of contextualization. In fact, both of them flow out of the same font.

Tim Keller has produced a paper which from the looks of it was done for Covenant Seminary. The paper is entitled Contextualization: Wisdom or Compromise?. Last I checked, the paper is not available to the public, and I only have my copy because of a course I took in my winter term.

As the paper is probably not available anytime soon, I would summarize Keller's paper and then interact with the main issue at hand.

Keller's case

In this paper, Keller is putting forward a case for contextualization. According to him, contextualization is

... adapting gospel ministry from one culture into another culture by 1) changing those aspects of ministry that are culturally conditioned, and 2) maintaining those aspects of ministry that are unchanging and Biblically required. "Contextualization" 'incarnates' the Christian faith in a particular culture. (p. 1)

Keller argues that cultures may be good and bad, and that there is "no universal, de-contextualized form or expression of Christianity" (p. 1) Using the analogy of a stone and multiple colored globes, Keller opines that the Christian faith is analogous to the stone and the colored globes represent the various cultures of the world. The stone will always be in a globe, just like the Christian faith will always be inculturated. His point therefore is this: Christians (probably with Western Christians in mind) have their faith (stone) as understood within their culture (eg. a blue colored globe). When attempting to communicate the Gospel and the Christian message to those from another culture, one should take out the stone from one's culture and placed it into the new differently colored globe. So for example if a Western white PCA Christian were to attempt to communicate the Christian message to urban cosmopolitan New Yorkers, one has to take out the stone from one's blue globe and put it in let's say a yellow globe. The stone would thus look different when it is in the yellow than when it is in the blue globe.

Keller makes pain to state that he is against over-contextualization (and under contextualization too). He insists that the Gospel message cannot be compromised. What is essential must be kept, but what is not essential if it offends people must be removed.

The rest of the paper revolves around practice and the idea of showing how the Gospel fulfills the narratives of opposing worldviews, which we will not cover here.

Analysis and critique

Keller is right in saying that there is "no universal, de-contextualized form or expression of Christianity." Certainly, we should not make our culture the determining form of how Christianity is to be practiced. But does this mean that Keller's idea of contextualization is therefore proved?

The problem with Keller's view of contextualization is that it is based upon a Platonic, Idealist view of Christianity. Christianity in Keller's view is this abstract faith out there, which is incarnated into the cultures of their time. Thus the abstract Christian message is like the stone which in the beginning is already placed in a colored globe. Since the world has changed, cultures have changed, and therefore we should not continue to keep the Christian message (stone) within the old culture (e.g blue globe). Rather, we are to "contextualize" the Christian message (stone) by transferring it into the appropriate culture of the receptors (the yellow globe) so that the Christian message will continue to be heard as it ought to be.

One can see the similarity between Keller's version of contextualization and the liberals' version of localized theologies. Like Keller, they acknowledge the "cultural captivity" of the Gospel. In order to interact with other cultures, the Gospel (stone) has to be taken out of its western context and situated in its new context, be it Korean, Japanese or African. The only difference between Keller and the liberals is what each would categorize as essential and non-essential. Keller would, I hope, keep the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone to be essential, whereas the liberals have "moved" beyond that.

The problem with Keller's view is that the Gospel and the Christian message is not a Platonic ideal. The Gospel and the Christian message is revealed through history and in history. There is certainly an ideal archetypal message, but that is not what is revealed to us. What is revealed to us is the Gospel message as ectypically revealed through the prism of the cultures of that time. The Gospel message is therefore revealed through these cultural lenses, and cannot be separated from them.

Thus, Keller's (and the liberals') idea of the Gospel is not available to anyone. It is part of archetypal theology. There is no such "stone" therefore available to anyone but God. Only God knows the Christian message unmediated, not us. Therefore, it is impossible to abstract the Gospel message absent of its historical circumstances, and then re-contextualize it into a new globe.

When anyone therefore faces the Gospel message, it is an altogether alien thing, unless of course one lives during the time of the writing of the Scriptures. The Christian message uses the cultural forms of an age long ago. Thus, biblical exegesis and meditation on the worldview portrayed by Scripture is necessary to grow in understanding the Christian faith. Ad fontes! All cultures are brought back to understanding biblical truths as revealed in the cultural contexts of their time, and then reapplying them to ours. Such application is necessary regardless of whether one is white or black, German or Japanese.

We do not attempt to somehow decipher the core Platonic essentials of the faith and re-contextualize them. Rather, we bring the whole of Scripture together with its various cultural forms to bear on every culture. Every culture has to come to terms with the foreignness of the Christian faith before seeing the pertinence it has for all peoples in every culture.

Keller's view of contextualization is therefore unbiblical. By trying to bifurcate between essentials and non-essentials in his manner, it has more similarity with Adolf Von Harneck's kerygmatic theory than biblical Christianity.

Pre-prolegomena: The first response of faith

[continued from here and here]

The first response of faith

We are sinners. God in Jesus Christ has given us a solution to our problem to fix it. What, then, should be our response?

This is the situation that all of us had faced or will face. Faced with how bad we actually are, there is no solution that we can see. But God has given us a way out in the Gospel, calling on us to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). This is what we are called to do in light of the Gospel message, in order to be saved.

First, we have to repent. In repentance, we admit that we are wrong and agree that what God says is correct. Therefore, we admit how bad we are. We agree with God that our good deeds are really wicked before God according to God's high standard. We agree with God's judgment that we deserve punishment in death and hell. We agree that we are helpless to save ourselves.

Next, we believe in Jesus, the opposite side of the coin of repentance. We agree with God of the truth of the Gospel message. We accept Jesus' life and death on the Cross as a fact. We accept Jesus as a person and all that He has ever said and did. We accept that He died to save sinners, of whom I am one of them. This act of belief is to put our trust in the person of Jesus, and in what He has done for us.

Secondly, the command is to be baptized. Baptism is the ceremony involving water whereby a person tells everyone by his or her participation that he or she is now a Christian and part of the community of Christians. Before baptism, a person can claim to be a believer but he is not officially considered as one. Baptism brings a person officially into the community of believers and thus the Church.

This then is the first response of faith, Through repentance and baptism, the person has indicated that he or she has believed in the truth of our sinfulness and the Gospel message. He has now started the journey of coming to know the God who has given His Son to save him from his sins (Mt. 1:21b).

[to be continued]

Pre-Prolegomena: The Beginning

Part 1: Foundations

The beginning

We start up at the beginning. How does a person get saved? What do you mean by getting saved? Aren't we all in general doing fine?

The sad fact is that we are not. Most of us know we are not perfect, but certainly, don't we all agree that to err is human? All of us commit various wrongs in life. The key issue is that we learn from our mistakes and resolve to be better people next time. After all, don't the motives count? If we do wrong, we could just make up for it by doing more good works to balance out our evil works.

The truth of the matter is that we are not answerable to ourselves. Wrongdoing is wrong and deserves to be punished, while good works deserve to be rewarded. That is a truth. But why do we think our good works are truly good, and why do we think that our bad deeds are not very bad?

The Bible says that we are much more wicked than we ourselves think. It is not that God does not reward good works. On the contrary, God does give eternal life to those who are truly good (Rom. 2:6-7; Lev. 18:5) But what good works is agreeable to God? Why should God think that our good works are good enough? On the contrary, our righteous acts are as disgusting to God as menstrual rags (Is. 64:6). Whatever is not done according to the perfect standard of God is not acceptable to him (Jas. 2: 10) and this standard can be expressed in many ways, one of them being the 10 commandments (Ex. 20: 3-17)

Many times we think of God as being a nice old man in the sky, just wanting to help us. But reality is not for us to decide. The standard of God is fixed apart from the decisions of Man. Rather, the standard by which works are judged as good or bad are fixed by the God who transcends this entire creation. This same God created us and He sets the standard for His creation. We who are created by God have no right to dispute His authority, because we are created by Him.

Once we see ourselves using the proper objective standard, then we must admit that we are not as good as we make ourselves. In fact, we find that all of our good works are not good according to God's standards. For example, the standard for doing any good work is that it ought to be done not that we feel we have to make up for our bad works or for our good reputation, but for God's glory (Rom. 14: 23). On the one hand, even one of our bad deeds cancel out any good that we have done (Jas. 2:10). On the other hand, not one of our good deeds are truly good according to God's standard.

This is the problem all men naturally face. You can pour contempt on it, deny that such a God exists, or deny that God will ever set such a high standard. Regardless, you are like an ostrich putting its head into the sand. For your (and mine) affirmations and denials mean absolutely nothing. You can deny gravity all you want, but gravity will still work when you jump off a cliff. Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that everyone is held to the perfect standard of justice, and everyone fails.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the center of Christianity. It is the message of the one way whereby any solution is possible. The reason why Christianity is the only truth is that no other way can solve the problem of our condemnation. It is not that Christianity excludes people from heaven. Rather, it is the only way whereby Man can go to heaven. Bring all your other religions and philosophies. If anyone can solve the problem of condemnation, they are surely welcome to be held to and embraced. Can anyone of them solve the problem of condemnation? Present your case. What solution do you as a follower of this religion or this philosophy present for this condemnation? How are you able to help Man to be right before God? Are you able to come up with a solution, any solution, at all?

Christianity presupposed the reality of the condemnation of Man. As it is summarized for us, "there is no one righteous, no not one" (Rom. 3:10b). The issue to be addressed is the reality of condemnation that is already present on all mankind.

The Gospel message is this: Jesus was born into this world 2000 years ago by the virgin Mary and her husband Joseph. He was born into a Jewish family in the town of Bethlehem in modern-day Israel. When he grew up, he was nailed to a cross by his enemies the leaders of the Jews and the Romans, who wanted to make the Jews happy and not revolt. This death on the cross was however the way by which we can be saved from the present condemnation.

How is that possible, you may ask. Jesus' death was actually part of the plan of God to save us sinners under condemnation. In God's plan, Jesus dies on the cross as a substitute. We were supposed to die because of our bad deeds. But instead, Jesus' death as a substitute means that for all who believe the Gospel message, their punishments were given to Christ instead and Christ's death satisfies justice. The eternal punishment that we should have faced is now no more for all who believed in the Gospel. Instead of facing punishment, Jesus has merited true righteousness and gives it to all who believe the Gospel.

The history of the death of Christ and the divine exchange it delivers is the substance of the Gospel message. It is this message that has to be believed in. For those who believe in it, they have received the deliverance from the state of condemnation all men and women are born in. This is how Jesus has came up with the solution, the only solution that works, for the state of condemnation everyone is in because of their bad deeds.

[to be continued]

Contra the Joint FV Profession: Justification by Faith Alone, or Faith plus faithfulness?

Justification by Faith Alone

We affirm we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Faith alone is the hand which is given to us by God so that we may receive the offered grace of God. Justification is God's forensic declaration that we are counted as righteous, with our sins forgiven, for the sake of Jesus Christ alone.

We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.

- The Joint FV Profession

The FVists formally claim to embrace Justification by Faith Alone. As it can be seen in their statement, they profess belief in Justification by Faith Alone. The question however is whether their profession match the reality. The answer is in the negative.

It can be seen that the Joint FV Profession defines faith according to the commonly accepted categories of knowledge (notitia), assent (assentia) and trust (fiducia). When one looks closely however, it can be seen that the category of 'trust' is further expanded as being a "living trust." Presumably, they believe that there is a possibility of a "dead trust." Such a 'trust' which justifies is "living," "active," and "personally loyal." All of these emphasize the fact that this is something that believers do and continue to do.

From this section alone, we can start to see the FV denial of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Traditionally, faith is something in which believers is given, with the category of 'trust' referring to the disposition that validates the assent to be true. It is receptive in receiving the Gospel which comes about through the "hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2,5, cf Rom. 10:17). Knowledge and assent are active actions in believing, while trust is passive. It is done as a reflex of true assent, not as an action in itself.

What the FV is trying to smuggle in is this idea of faith as being necessarily resulting in good works, or "faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6). That faith is never alone is agreed by all. But the FV not only insists that faith is never alone, but that faith itself includes its attendant fruits in its nascent form, through the redefinition of fiducia as being active faithfulness.

Such a redefinition can be seen in the last sentence in this paragraph, where the FVists deny that faith is never alone even at the moment of the effectual call. In other words, when God calls a person effectually and gives him faith (gift), the person logically is already being faithful (work). Consistent with their denial of the Law/Gospel distinction, gift and work are undifferentiated in the FV idea of faith and salvation. The believer according to the FV is faithful co-extensively with his believing, instead of being faithful logically consequent upon his believing. To put it simpler, the believer believes-behaves, not that the believer believes and therefore behaves accordingly.

One implication in pastoral situations is that a believer who is backsliding is logically treated differently in FV circles than in Reformed circles. In Reformed circles, such a believer is treated as a believer who must be warned, rebuked and counseled. In FV circles, such a believer is treated as someone who at that moment has no faith (as he is not faithful) and as a covenant breaker who must be "reminded of their baptism" and warned against continuing being a covenant breaker. The former situation treats the backslider as having faith but having fallen for a moment into sin (until proven otherwise) while the latter treats the backslider as not having faith and thus not as a believer then but as a "covenant breaker."

As we can see, "believers" in FV circles can have their salvation, lose it if they backslide, and regain it if they repent. Such is practically speaking a doctrine of salvation by faith plus works, or Semi-Pelagianism. Sure, such "believers" remain in the church until and if they are excommunicated, but what use is there in being church members, or covenant members, if they have lose their salvation? After all, according to FV ecclesiology, what matters for eternity is not being a church member now in the so-called "historical" or "visible" church, but rather their continuance as a church member into the "eschatological" or "invisible" church. In other words, church membership is useless unto salvation unless they are not excommunicated and cut off from the church, and such continuance is dependent on being faithful in this life, which is another way of saying salvation by faith plus works.

The FV therefore while formally professing Justification by Faith Alone denies it materially by their redefinition of Fiducia and the implications of their doctrine of the Church. The FV thus denies the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Contra the Joint FV Profession: Law/Gospel distinction

Law and Gospel

We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which they also disobey. When they have been brought to the point of repentance by the Holy Spirit, we affirm that the gracious nature of all God's words becomes evident to them. At the same time, we affirm that it is appropriate to speak of law and gospel as having a redemptive and historical thrust, with the time of the law being the old covenant era and the time of the gospel being the time when we enter our maturity as God's people. We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate.

We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.

-The Joint FV Profession

The denial of the Gospel by the Federal Vision comes in the form of a totally alien system. A denial of the archetypal/ectypal distinction results in an arrogant presumption to build doctrines upon a certain view of the Trinity, which even if correct is a violation of the regula fide. From this denial of the archetypal/ectypal distinction is added an extremely externalist view of the church with the flattening of the concept of the church, and a divorce of the covenants of God from the decrees of God.

In the light of this essentially Medieval system, the Gospel is redefined, beginning with the denial of the Law/Gospel distinction.

It must be stated that the Joint FV Profession in speaking of the Law and the Gospel does include this statement: "We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate." It denies however that Law and Gospel are antithetical to each other, but that what is Gospel to a believer can be Law to an unbeliever and vice versa. Therefore, any Law/Gospel antithesis is merely experiential not ontologically true.

The problem with such a denial of the Law/Gospel distinction is two-fold: Logical and Biblical.

Logically, the denial of the Law/Gospel distinction necessitate that any passage in the Bible can be used as Gospel and any passage in the Bible can be used as Law. The Good News therefore can refer to the proclamation of passages such as Lev. 18:5 which states "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord." Does the Gospel therefore include the view that law-keeping causes a person to merit life before God? Lev. 18:5 is furthermore quoted in Gal. 3:12 as follows:

But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." (Gal 3:12 ESV)

ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. (Gal 3:12 BGT)

καὶ φυλάξεσθε πάντα τὰ προστάγματά μου καὶ πάντα τὰ κρίματά μου καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτά ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν (Lev 18:5 LXX)

The quotation of Lev. 18:5 in Gal. 3:12 shows that the principle of Lev. 18:5 applies equally in the New Covenant. Those who want to have eternal life must obey the commands of God. Is this really part of the Gospel? Do the FVists really think that the Gospel is a message of keeping the Law or rather "Glawspel" to earn eternal life? Such is Pelagianism and is the logical consequence of denying the Law/Gospel distinction.

It can be argued that perfect obedience is not what Gal. 3:12 has in mind. Here we will turn to the biblical evidence. Gal. 3:12 uses the plural form "them" (in both the Hebrew and the Greek) to denote all the commands and law of God. In the context of Lev. 18, Lev. 18:5 can be said to be a summary of the Law and its requirement. To say that Israel did not die even though she was not perfectly obedient is to interpret the verse backwards. The reason why Israel did not die was because forgiveness of sin is offered (typologically) through the various sin and guilt sacrifices instituted for Israel (Lev. 3-4:7). Even then, no sacrifice for sin is possible for sins like murder (Num. 35:30-34), or deviant sexual immorality (Lev. 18:24-30). Lev. 18:5 and therefore Gal. 3:12 have in mind perfect obedience in order to gain eternal life, as such a person must keep all God's commandments and judgments to live, with sacrifices available to expiate some sins only not all.

The first part of Gal. 3:12 is also very explicit in contrasting the Law and the Gospel. As it is written, the Law is not of Faith. The Law is not partly of faith and partly of works, and it is not of faithfulness. However one wants to translate πίστις, the Law is not "of πίστις." Thus, even if one were to eisegete πίστις as "faithfulness," the Law has nothing to do with "faithfulness." Rather, the context is very clear that the contrast here is between the Gospel which is by faith in verse 11 and the Law which is not of faith in verse 12. The contrast is a strict negation one over the other. Whatever is of faith is not of Law and vice versa.

Much has been said over the so-called New Perspective understanding of "works of the law" and understanding of πίστις as faithfulness. The main issue here however should be on the text of Scripture itself. It is an entirely fruitless endeavor to attempt to say that Judaism is a religion of grace and that Paul was only concerned about "boundary markers" etc. if the entire reconstruction has no connection with the text of Scripture. Paul has made it abundantly clear that the Judaizers' view was "beginning with the Spirit and completing by the flesh" (Gal. 3:3), which sounds very much like the E.P. Sanders' idea of 'covenantal nomism'. Whether one thinks Paul is mistaken in his analysis of the Judaizers' beliefs is one thing (which of course is always interesting when one sees a scholar 2000 years removed claiming to know more about the Judaizers than their contemporary Paul knows about them), what Paul is arguing against is another ball game altogether.

The fact of the matter is that whatever the merits of Paul's concerns over the Judaizers, the epistle to the Galatians is clear that Paul is arguing that the Judaizers' error can be anachronistically labeled 'Semi-Pelagianism' — teaching that one begins the Christian life by faith and completing by works. Paul also teaches that Law and Gospel in antithetical to each other. To say that other passages have a more positive view of the Law does not mean that we tone down the Bible's express teaching here. It is not our job, much less the FVists', to alter the teachings of the Word of God just because it does not fit into their nice monocovenantal scheme. Our theology must change according to the teachings of God's Word, not the other way around. The job of systematicians is to reconcile all of the teachings of God's Word after collecting all of the biblical data relevant to the topic, not to create a Procrustean bed in which biblical data have to fit or be fitted to match.

The denial of the Law/Gospel distinction by blending them into a monstrosity called "Glawspel" begins the FV error on the Gospel. And as we will continue to see, this extreme "continuity" hermeneutic destroys the Gospel message in the hands of the FVists.

Grace, the URCNA and Joseph Prince

What do these three have in common? Answer: Nothing. Yet if one were to read former reformed charismatic Jonathan Koh's blog post, one would have thought that they all promote Gospel grace.

The recent furore over charges of Antinomianism has caused Dr. Micheal S. Horton to respond over at the White Horse Inn blog. In this post, Horton defended the Reformed orthodox teaching of the Law-Gospel Distinction. Horton maintained that antinominanism is a perverse distortion of true biblical teaching and he denied that he or the White Horse Inn ever taught it. He maintained that the way to address Antinomianism is not more law but more Gospel. As Horton wrote,

What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel! In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little! They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification. ... The ultimate antidote to antinomianism is not more imperatives, but the realization that the gospel swallows the tyranny as well as the guilt of sin. It is enough to save Christians even in their failure and not only brings them peace with God in justification, but the only liberation from the cruel oppression of sin. To be united to Christ through faith is to receive everything that we need not only to challenge legalism but antinomianism as well.

All of these are truly biblical, in context of the overall Gospel message. This is important when we look at Jonathan Koh's horrendous distortion of Horton's post.

On his blog, Jonathan Koh wrote:

They say history repeats itself. And it’s true in this matter of grace, antinomianism and legalism. When people accuse New Creation Church and Joseph Prince and other grace-based preachers of “antinomianism”, guess what – it’s happened before. Down the centuries, people have come up on different sides in the Reformed tradition on these matters. And even as I speak, things are hotting up in the blogsphere [sic] and in the Reformed world. People (many Reformed Christians themselves) are challenging some Reformed Christians (like Michael Horton) on the way they preach the gospel and grace. Too much grace, they say. Gotta beware of antinomianism. Same charges that have been thrown at Pastor Joseph Prince and many others.

The problem here boils down to context, context and context. Koh is wrong in his assertion, which we shall see in a moment.

Micheal Horton is a pastor in the URCNA (United Reformed Churches of North America) down at Santee (Christ URC). One thing about the URC churches is that they have some sort of fixed liturgy, and they do not use the liturgy they use merely because they like it. Rather, they have a fixed liturgy because they think that their liturgy reflects their doctrines. Therefore, their liturgy by and large reflects their functional theology.

It is with this in mind that I would like to look at the liturgy of a URC church which I have visited. While Oceanside URC is not Christ URC, I do not think there is much of a difference between the two confessional churches.

Oceanside URC's liturgy for Oct 24, 2010 A.M. service

Call to Worship
Invocation - Ps. 124:8
God's Greeting - Rev. 1:4-5
Song of the Month (from proposed Psalter Hymnal)
Reading of the Law (responsive reading)
Summary of the Law
Confession of Sin (Individual and Corporate Confession)
Ps. 51:10-12 (a cappella)
Declaration of Forgiveness (by the minister)
- Short responsive lines -
Song (Ps. 63)
Morning Prayer
Offering
Scripture Reading
Sermon
Lord's Supper
Song (Ps. 96)
Song
Benediction

As we can see, the first use of the Law (for conviction of sin) features prominently in the liturgy. This is in fact the common tradition of all Reformed and [Confessional] Presbyterian churches that I have attended so far. The Law is read, there is a period of examination and individual repentance, followed by corporate repentance of sins for the whole congregation. Oceanside URC follows up with a declaration of forgiveness based upon the Gospel, while in the OPC there is the declaration of forgiveness followed by the reading of the Gospel.

The Law-Gospel distinction in the Reformed and Presbyterian circles therefore has both elements of the Law and the Gospel, not the Gospel alone. Horton being a URC minister has this idea of the Law Gospel Distinction in mind, whereby the first use of the Law is applied every Lord's Day followed by the salve of the Gospel.

Prince's idea of grace - Antinomianism

In his blog post, Koh attempt to link Horton and Prince together. Having read Prince's first book, Destined to Reign, I am astounded that such a comparison can even be attempted.

Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of the book with me; it is with my friend Joel Tay who is rather busy at the moment. So no page numbers will be given.

According to Prince, we should not think about sin. In fact, the Holy Spirit is stated not to convict us of sin but of righteousness. The way to be sanctified is to NOT think about sin but about righteousness. In point of fact, Prince even gave us a formula for not sinning. This is done by repeating the phrase "I am the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ" like a mantra over and over again.

One does not have to read far to see that what Prince is advocating is the Word of Faith teaching of Positive Confession, this time applied to salvation. Prince does not tell people to confess their sins. In fact, he counsels just the contrary and says that only Satan convicts people of sin and believers should not think of sin. Salvation therefore is all about not thinking of sin but speaking to oneself positive confessions of one's own righteousness.

We can see therefore the big gulf between Prince's teaching and what Horton advocates. The difference between true antinomianism (in Prince) and false charges of antinomianism is the presence of the proclamation of the Law in its first use. The URC, as with all Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, proclaim the Law. We believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts men of sin, and that the Law is necessary (in its first use) for believers. The Gospel is given only after the Law has done its work, never apart from it.

Also, we believe in the continuing validity of the Law in its third use (for telling us how to live according to God's will). While we glory in the Gospel and God's grace, we do not therefore nullify the Law in our lives. The Gospel in this sense of sanctification is the impetus and motivation for our loving a godly life, yet without being the judge of our salvation. After we have strived to live according to the Law (in its third use), we continue to return to the Gospel as our only hope and the only way we can be saved.

All this of course is alien to the teaching of Joseph Prince, who is a true Antinomian. Contrary to the assertions of Jonathan Koh therefore, there is nothing Prince has in common with Horton and Reformed orthodoxy. We believe in the ministry both of the Law and of the Gospel in the lives of Christians. The Confessional Reformed recognize our continual sinfulness and wickedness before God, continually confess our sins, and turn to the Gospel always for the joyous message of God's forgiveness offered to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Truly, how different is our sorrow and our joy from the false peace offered by Prince.

A Response to Frank Turk's Open Letter (ADD)

Assignments have been done on my side, and immediately after I am done we have Frank Turk writing an open letter to Mike Horton regarding the latter's tendency towards promoting Antinomianism. If not for the fact that Turk has been wearing the Anti-discernment hat again, this time blaming the White Horse Inn (WHI) of creating this "monster", I guess I might have let it pass as I have many other things to do.

Turk's letter is an interesting piece to note, for it clarifies the difference between a Reformed and an Evangelical view of Law and Gospel. Perhaps in no other piece so far is the difference between the two views set out this clearly.

In this post, I will respond to Turk's open letter according to various topics, and show where Turk is in error.

Frank Turk and the "Discernment mafia"

The first thing we would want to look at the issue of the "discernment mafia". Since the publishing of Tim Challies' article attacking discernment ministries as doing evil as entertainment, Frank Turk has been on a crusade to attack "watchbloggers". Instead of discerning, Turk suggests that we should be involved in a local church and submit to the elders who are the ones who are to teach sound doctrine.

Now, of course there is nothing wrong with being involved in a local church. In fact, all believers should be in a local church. That is not the issue. The issue is whether discernment and blogging are to be done by non elders/pastors. Oh wait, the issue isn't even about that. After all, Pastor Ken Silva is a pastor.

The fact of the matter is that Frank Turk is a hypocrite. In that previous post, he says that "the focal point and center of discernment ought to be in the local church" (Emphasis his). Well, THAT particular post of his is NOT situated in the context of the local church. So much for consistency. So what exactly is wrong with "watchbloggers"? Well, I guess it is because the "watchbloggers" are not doing their discernment ministry Turk's way.

Fast forward to yesterday and Turk's open letter to Horton. What do we find in his open letter? In his open letter, Turk wrote:

What I am not talking about is people who are doing the legitimate work of elders who are accountable in their local churches, who are usually elders, and who display openness and transparency about their character and ministry by not hiding behind an alias or an internet nickname. What I am talking about is the avalanche of people who populate the internet via discussion boards, blogs, and social media who frequently demonstrate all the love and real compassion of a rock through one's window. They are people who, on paper, make a sound confession of faith, down to the mint and the cumin, and wouldn't know what to do if their Hindu neighbor invited them to a birthday party on Sunday morning — or how to turn the other cheek in order to make a foothold for the opportunity to share the Gospel. They usually don't attend church because they can't find one which is up to their doctrine snuff, and the reason is that they have made themselves into a private magisterium. They have never said or written anything for which they would apologize or reconsider because they have never been wrong.

So it seems that Turk's beef with the "discernment crowd" is that 1) they are not elders in their local church, 2) they do not display openness and transparency online, 3) they demonstrate all the love and real compassion of a rock through one's window.

In response to Turk's complaints, I agree with reason 2. Reason 3 is a blanket condemnation which is furthermore subjective. Furthermore, I don't think we need to look far to see Frank's own snarkiness, so that becomes a moot point. As for reason 1, is Turk an elder or pastor in any church, and if so, which church? That would be truly an interesting fact to know. After all, if Turk is not an elder or pastor, he frankly is a hypocrite in this regard. (No pun intended)

Almost comically, Turk then practically demanded that Horton rebuke the "discernment crowd" because they use the Reformed lingo of the Law Gospel distinction and are passionate about a new reformation. If that isn't Guilt by Association, nothing is. Presumably, Horton is held responsible for the conduct of people he hardly knows.

The worst part about this section of Turk's Open Letter is the insinuation that the Law Gospel Distinction is a distinctive WHI and Hortonite teaching. Nevermind that this is classic Reformed orthodoxy going back to the 16th century at least. Nevermind that there are other Reformed Christians who have no relation to Horton or WHI or even WSC who hold to these classical Reformed distinctives. Horton is the bogeyman for all the problems Evangelicalism has with the rise of the "discernment mafia". Before we go deeper into fantasy world, perhaps we should remind ourselves that Horton is a mere professor not a ruler who controls the actions of anyone who uses the language of classic Reformed orthodoxy.

The subjunctive mood?

Having had Greek classes, Turk's pontification on the subjunctive mood being a third mood distinct between the indicative (Gospel) and imperative (Law) left me speechless. Since he mentions the New Testament, it is a legitimate assumption that he is referring to the subjunctive mood in koine Greek as found in the Greek New Testament. Well, technically speaking of course he is right. There is also the mood called the optative as well, and who can forget the infinitive? And of course, we can count the participle as a separate "mood" as well I guess?

The problem here is that when the Law-Gospel distinction is expressed in term of the indicative versus the imperative, we are not talking about verbal moods (or tenses). We are rather grouping everything into "do" and "done". Subjunctive as such can function both ways, depending on the context. A hina plus a subjunctive for example can be a mere factual statement (purpose/result clause or content), but a hortatory subjunctive ("Let us __") has a volitional force of "Do".

Turk is therefore in error at this point.

Gospel as transformative or declarative?

The core problem with Turk is his view of the Gospel. Classical Reformed orthodoxy teaches that the Gospel is good news period. The Gospel is proclaimed to sinners of what Christ has done for them. Over and over, the Scriptures starts with proclaiming the Gospel, and then proclaim the law (in its third use) as how we ought to live in light of the Gospel. In epistles like Romans, the model is Law (first use), then Gospel, then Law (third use).

According to Turk, the Gospel must be seen as something that God has done for us which results in "the advantages of declared righteousness". Therefore, the Gospel itself is transformative. Whereas the Reformed position is that the Gospel is declarative, Turk and I suspect many Evangelicals think of the Gospel as transformative. Therefore, it is the Gospel that must transform lives, which brings us to the next point.

Confusion of Justification and Regeneration

Turk's view of the Gospel confuses justification and regeneration. Justification is a forensic declaration by God that a sinner is considered right before God. In justification, there is no actual change in the sinner, which is after all why it is called forensic! To say that the Gospel is transformative is to say that justification as a process creates sanctification. But that is the error of Rome and all Semi-Pelagianism. Justification does not create sanctification. Justification is a separate process altogether apart from works, so how can we smuggle works into the backdoor?

The problems lies in the confusion of justification and regeneration. In regeneration, the Spirit of God starts the process of sanctification in the believer's life. In Reformed orthodoxy, regeneration is the basis for both sanctification and faith. Faith logically results in Justification. Yet regeneration is neither justification or sanctification. Sanctification follows justification temporally not because the "Gospel transforms sinners", but because the same Spirit that gives faith unto justification also is in the process of sanctifying sinners. The Gospel is God's instrument to evoke justifying faith, but justifying faith and sanctification are two different things, much less the Gospel and sanctification.

Turk's failure to understand this probably comes because of the problems inherent in both sides of the Lordship Controversy. As Dr. R. Scott Clark remarks:

It is not surprising that there is a backlash from some non-confessional evangelical quarters regarding the use of the law. It’s been this way since at least the start of the so-called “Lordship Controversy” in the late 1980s. One of the features of that controversy was its disconnection from the Reformation. Both sides appealed to the Protestants but both sides ignored the Protestant confessions where all of this is worked out exquisitely and briefly.

Turk is thus in error as he reveals that he does not understand the relation between the Gospel, faith, justification, regeneration and sanctification.

Means of Grace versus Spiritual Disciplines

The last point is a relatively minor point in the dispute, but we can see in here a problem with modern Evangelicalism with its failure to understand the means of grace. Turk shows this in his denigration of the sacraments as "the Gospel is made the centerpiece alone on the table". Besides the failure to understand the Gospel as declarative not transformative, it is illuminating that Turk and fellow Evangelicals do not think highly of the sacraments. Yet, we know that the whole spiritual discipline movement a la Richard Foster and Dallas Willard have been gaining steam. So to come and receive from the Lord what He has ordained to be tokens of His love for our comfort (the means of grace) is not looked on as being important. Yet, to do unbiblical "disciplines" such as lectio divina, contemplative prayer etc. somehow is very "spiritual". I think the Bible does talk about such an attitude:

Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving. And the people of Israel also wept again and said, “Oh that we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.” (Num. 11:4-6)

Just as God gave the Israelite manna from heaven, yet the Israelites were not content with what God had provided and lusted after the food of Egypt, so too modern Evangelicals are not content with the provision of God's grace through His appointed means, but crave after "spiritual experiences" and follow their spiritual lusts to indulge in "spiritual disciplines", of which God has not thought fit to inform us of.

Is it no wonder that God is not in any of these "disciplines"?

Conclusion

In conclusion, Frank Turk is in error in his view of the Law and the Gospel. We should reject his advice as being not in line with Scripture, and his attack on "watchbloggers" as being extremely hypocritical. While I am sure he has good motives, he is blind to his own faults and we will see if he takes correction. Since he claims that the "watchbloggers" have "never said or written anything for which they would apologize or reconsider because they have never been wrong," we will see if he lives consistent with his position, or live otherwise. Amen.

Addenum:

It seems that Frank Turk's bone of contention is with Horton's "pastoral theology", not his "confessed theology". Go figure!

John V. Fesko: Machen and the Gospel

Audio—here

Dr. John V. Fesko is currently the academic dean at Westminster Seminary California. His talk is entitled Machen and the Gospel. He structured his talk under three sections: 1) the nature of the battle, 2) What Machen believed about the Gospel, and 3) Its abiding relevance for us.

In the beginning of the 20th century, a 7-volume study on missions was commissioned by John Rockefeller. The results of that study was the promotion of the Liberal missiology that 1) All religions lead to God, 2) Christianity has the fullest truth; other religions have a part of the full truth, 3) Missions therefore is about loving people and showing them that Christianity gives them the fuller truth compared to the truths they already have. The one volume summary of the series remained relatively obscure until it was promoted by a prominent media person (the Oprah of that time) upon which it was widely disseminated.

It is against the Liberal gospel as seen in that book that Machen responded to. While Liberalism is all about life (practical living), Machen claimed that Christianity first and foremost is build upon a message and upon doctrine. This doctrine then produced life, and without this doctrine so-called Christian living is impossible.

Machen belonged to the Reformed tradition which traces itself back formally to the Reformation [and materially to the Apostles, but that is for another time]. The Reformers re-discovered the Gospel in a time of darkness, and this Gospel impacted many for Christ.

So what is this Gospel? The Gospel which Machen believed is the full Gospel consisting of the imputation of our sin to Christ and Christ's righteousness to us. Adam as our representative head failed the probation in Eden and fell from his state of original righteousness. In him we too fell and are borned into this world sinful and under the wrath of God. We are helpless to save ourselves and were destined for hellfire. But God from eternity has chosen a people for Himself, and has sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins, so that through Christ we are able to be saved. In Christ's suffering and death He paid the punishment that should be justly meted out to us. Through His life, He merited the righteousness that He can give to His people by imputing it to them. In other words, Christ died the death we should have died and lived the life we should have lived so that we can be saved from the wretched state we have inherited from Adam.

Machen therefore rejected the false gospels of his time. He rejected mysticism and pantheism as gospels. He similarly rejected general morality as there is no such thing as general morality, unless one wishes to agree that killing Jews in Nazi Germany during Hitler's reign was morally correct. Biblical morality he rejects as the Gospel because the Law only terrifies and cannot save. Synergism is the Galatian heresy and therefore wrong, as is salvation by character. The only Gospel that saves is salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Fesko goes back to the idea of Christ's righteousness. Quoting Rom. 5:18-19, he says that it is no use for Christ to suffer in order that we are placed back in the same state as Adam in the garden of Eden to be tested a second time. We not only need Christ to pay for our sin but we need Him to bring us to heaven with His robes of righteousness. Turning to Gal. 3:12, we are reminded again that the Law is not of Faith. Salvation is therefore about faith, not works. Whereas Liberalism is about the imperative and is thus law, Christianity is about the indicative of the Gospel.

Fesko continues with one pertinent case whereby Machen and the Gospel is important today. Mark Noll's book Is the Reformation Over? has been answered in the affirmative. However, is that really the case? Fesko asked us to consider the following statements from the 2nd Vatican Council:

... But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans [i.e. Muslims], who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. ...

(Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, section 16)

Again the most relevant portion:

... But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims ...

Is the Reformation really over? From the teachings of the 2nd Vatican Council, it is clear that the Reformation is far from over. In fact, as 2nd Vatican promoted the heresy of inclusivism, it can be seen that the Council of Trent was even more orthodox than 2nd Vatican.

In this light, the Gospel and its defence is still and is even more relevant today. We must therefore remain vigilant and valiant for the truth.