Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interesting article. I think he makes some valid criticisms.
That we need to be careful to distinguish Reformed and Lutheran theologies. Have you or any of the others he cited responded to this article or argument anywhere? I'd be interested to see your response. I've read parts of the CJPM book he refers to, which I found helpful. But I share Garcia's concerned that we articulate a distinctively Reformed theology.
That we need to be careful to distinguish Reformed and Lutheran theologies. Have you or any of the others he cited responded to this article or argument anywhere? I'd be interested to see your response. I've read parts of the CJPM book he refers to, which I found helpful. But I share Garcia's concern that we articulate a distinctively Reformed theology.
The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.
Do I disagree with Ursinus? Sure. Is it fundamental? No. It all depends on the question being addressed.
4. I've discussed the significant differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran on this list and in print for any one who cares to read it. See my book on Olevianus for a detailed discussion of the differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran Christologies.
Is nt it responding in faith that is obeying the gospel?
So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?
So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?
I know Mark personally. You can't pin him down on any one man. He likes John Murray. He likes Meredith Kline. He is NOT favorable to the Federal Vision.
So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?
I know Mark personally. You can't pin him down on any one man. He likes John Murray. He likes Meredith Kline. He is NOT favorable to the Federal Vision.
Klinean all the way. He taught one of my classes here (which was great by the way), and he definitely is not a Shepherd/FV fan. He did emphasize Gaffin's view alot regarding union with Christ.
Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith.
So having read the review in the Ordained Servant my guess is that Mark Garcia is a Shepherd supporter who wants to emphasize, along with Shepherd, that there is a distinctly Reformed way of viewing justification through a covenantal lens, one which places a much greater emphasis upon works in salvation (really as a ground of justification, although that will not be made clear) than does the supposed "Lutheran distinction" between Law and Gospel. Does anyone here know more clearly of his sympathies?
I know Mark personally. You can't pin him down on any one man. He likes John Murray. He likes Meredith Kline. He is NOT favorable to the Federal Vision.
Klinean all the way. He taught one of my classes here (which was great by the way), and he definitely is not a Shepherd/FV fan. He did emphasize Gaffin's view alot regarding union with Christ.
Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith.
Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith.
The compound carries the sense of "submission." It is used again in 3:14, where it clearly means to give compliance to demands. To put the matter beyond any doubt, Eph 6:5 states, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ."
Dear Adam,
Thanks for your response.
Although our English translations uniformly translate 'tois mey upakouousin toi euanggelioi' in 2 Thess. 1:8 with the gloss of 'those who do not obey the Gospel' it can just as easily (and maybe more properly) be understood as a failure of those referenced to fully embrace the Gospel in faith.
Yes, of course, which implies that the gospel demands (at least) faith and is not simply an indicative, but includes an imperative. Hypakouo can't be fudged to mean something other than "obey", which must imply injunction in the gospel (see also Rom. 10:16 it makes exactly the same point). This is how I understand Paul's controverted phrase "the obedience of faith", i.e. the obedience which is faith.
I agree that we don't build a theology on just one verse, however, I didn't just enumerate 1 verse but many, and I could mutliply them. Moreover, these verses are the reflection of the theology of the gospel itself: Christ is saviour and Lord. It's difficult to have a doctrine of Christ as the reigning Lord who has all authority in heaven and on earth and not see that this involves repentance. The repentance doesn't save us, and even our tears of repentance are washed in Christ's blood, but repentance nonetheless is commensurate with the gospel (Acts 14:15). That is why we see Jesus accompanying his declaration of in-breaking of the Kingdom--a new creation in which Christ rules--with the commands of repentance and faith. One can preach the gospel without mentioning faith or repentance (1 Cor. 15:3-4). But one can't unpack the gospel without mentioning the obligations of faith and repentance.
God bless brother.
I know Mark personally. You can't pin him down on any one man. He likes John Murray. He likes Meredith Kline. He is NOT favorable to the Federal Vision.
Klinean all the way. He taught one of my classes here (which was great by the way), and he definitely is not a Shepherd/FV fan. He did emphasize Gaffin's view alot regarding union with Christ.
Thanks guys.
We would do well not to cast aspersions on our brothers so recklessly just because they don't fit totally into our camp. What was posted above is no more fair than someone saying "I suspect all Klineans and the WSCAL crowd are antinomians who favor gay marriage and who don't believe scripture is sufficient."
I disagree with your strictures regarding how 'upakouo' may be rendered, brother. It is not "fudging", but a proper understanding of linguistics and the semantic range of a word. See my post above to Matt.
I think that we are in agreement on understanding the implications of the Gospel.
My concern is to clarify the difference between the broader use of the term and its more specific meaning. Specifically, the Gospel refers to the good news of the saving coming and work of Jesus Christ.
Mark did not say that "the Gospel of the kingdom of God is at hand - repent and believe!", but rather "the kingdom of God is at hand - repent and believe in the Gospel!"
The Gospel is good news to be believed, it is no longer good news when the law is mixed with the Gospel.
Sorry Matt, but your linguistic approach is a little too simplistic. Just because a lexeme that occurs later in a writing requires a particular sense does not mean that an earlier occurance must conform to that use. This goes for writings within the scope of a single author just as well as for variance of usage between multiple authors. It could well be that Paul meant "to embrace in faith" in 1:8 while he meant "to obey" in 3:14; context and other factors bear more weight in the discussion than any sort of presuppositions of linguistic uniformity.
As well, the verb under discussion, when combined with certain datives of direct object, has a broader range of meaning than just "submission", as you hold. Both BDAG (3rd ed.) and Liddell-Scott-Jones (9th ed., unabridged) clearly show this, and the range of meaning runs from obeying, to embracing, to surrendering oneself, to accepting an invitation, to answering a question.