Preaching: The Threat of Legalism and Antinomianism

Dear Church Family,

Over the last several week, I’ve been reflecting on preaching. You may read the previous installments online:

Preaching: What is the Gospel?
Preaching: The Foundation and the Superstructure
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 1
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 2
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 3
Preaching: The Same Message No Matter the Text?
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 1
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 2
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 3
Preaching: Depravity, a virtue to be embraced? Part 1
Preaching: Depravity, a virtue to be embraced? Part 2

Introduction

Today, at long last, we come to the final topic of this series on preaching: the threat of legalism and antinomianism. I use the word “threat” because preachers must always be on guard against both of these dangers.

The Relationship Between Legalism and Antinomianism

Before we talk about that, however, let’s first try and define these terms. Legalism – which is perhaps our default nature as fallen creatures – is the belief that a person can in any way earn favor with God through obedience to the moral law (that is, the Ten Commandments). Antinomianism is defined by James Thornwell as “a system of doctrine which naturally leads to licentiousness of life. Those who deny that the law of God is the measure of duty, or that personal holiness should be sought by Christians, are those alone who can properly be charged with Antinomian principles.”

At first glance, legalism and antinomianism might seem to be opposite to one another. After all, a legalist clings to the law of God in a misguided effort to merit salvation while an antinomian eschews the law of God as the way of righteousness in a misguided desire to live as he pleases. On the surface, then, legalism and antinomianism seem to be distinct and opposite problems, but they are not.

Usually what happens is something like this: a believer is raised in the context where the moral and ethical demands of Scripture are emphasized and taught apart from the context of God’s redeeming grace. And so this person comes to believe that God requires certain behaviors in order to be made acceptable to Him and receive His blessing. Since the fall, man’s default view is legalistic; so this kind of teaching comports well with our natural inclinations.

The believer who is reared in such a context may remain a legalist; however, when he is exposed to (and embraces) the proper teaching concerning the extravagance of God’s grace to us in Christ, he often becomes an antinomian, believing that God’s grace does away with the law. The turn from a legalist to an antinomian is an easy and natural one to make because in both instances God’s law is viewed as the enemy; and, in both views, God’s law is viewed as separate and distinct from God, Himself.

So, while legalism and antinomianism may seem opposites of one another, “legalism and antinomianism are, in fact, nonidentical twins that emerge from the same womb” (Sinclair Ferguson, The Whole Christ, 84). Here, I’m quoting from – and indebted to Sinclair Ferguson. Years ago, I ran across some audio recordings online in which Dr. Ferguson explained the history and relevance of “the Marrow controversy,” a theological controversy in the Scottish Presbyterian church in the 18th century. The audio recordings of that three-part lecture series are still available online here.

More recently, Ferguson has written a book – based on the content of those lectures – called, The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance – Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters. Concerning this idea that legalism and antinomianism are nonidentical twins that emerge from the same womb, Ferguson shows how both arise from a distorted view of God and His law:

Within the matrix of legalism at root is the manifestation of a restricted heart disposition toward God, viewing him through a lens of negative law that obscures the broader context of the Father’s character of holy love. This is a fatal sickness. Paradoxically, it is this same view of God, and the separation of his person from his law, that also lies at the root of antinomianism. The bottom line in both of these -isms is identical. That is why the gospel remedy of them is one and the same. (The Whole Christ, 85).

 

You see, both legalism and antinomianism fail to see that both law and gospel are expressions of God’s grace:

The Relevance in Preaching

So, how does this relate to preaching? Well, as I said at the beginning, preachers must always be on guard against these twin dangers of legalism and antinomianism. In fact, one of the greatest dangers for preachers is to over-react to one of these dangers and thereby fall into the other. You see, on the one hand, out of a fear of being labeled a legalist, a preacher can be tempted to never preach the imperatives or commands of God’s Word. On the other hand, out of a fear of being labeled an antinomian, a preacher can be tempted to never give assurances in the grace of the gospel.

However, the law is not contrary to the grace of the gospel, but sweetly complies with it (WCF 19:7). Therefore, the preacher must learn to put away the fear of false labels and trust the Holy Spirit to work as he seeks to preach the whole counsel of God. As Herman Bavinck writes, the law must be proclaimed in the context of the gospel:

The law, after all, is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was naturally subject to law for his own sake. Before the fall the law was inscribed on Adam’s heart. In the case of the believer, it is again engraved on the tables of his heart by the Holy Spirit; and in heaven all its inhabitants will conduct themselves in accordance with the law of the Lord. The gospel is temporary; the law is everlasting and precisely that which is restored by the gospel. Freedom from the law, therefore, does not mean that Christians no longer have anything to do with that law, but that the law can no longer demand anything from them as a condition for salvation and can no longer judge and condemn them. For the rest they delight in the law in their inmost being [Rom. 7:22] and meditate on it day and night [Ps. 1:2]. For that reason that law must always be proclaimed in the church in the context of the gospel. Both law and gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, are the content of preaching. Accordingly, among the Reformed the law occupies a much larger place in the doctrine of gratitude than in that of misery. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 454-455)

 

Or, as a former seminary professor of mine, Mike Glodo, once wrote:

While it’s true what Lloyd-Jones said – ‘If your preaching of the gospel...does not provoke the charge...of antinomianism, you're not preaching the gospel…’ – it's also true that if you’re not accused of being a legalist or moralist, you’re probably not preaching the gospel.

 

Conclusion

Here’s the main point – and really the bottom line of this entire series on preaching: those who are called to preach the gospel must have faith in the power and purposes of God’s Word by preaching the main point of the text before them; and those who hear must trust the Holy Spirit to convince and convert sinners, and build them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation through the preaching of the Word (WSC 89).

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. (2 Timothy 4:1-2)

 

The Lord be with you!
- Pastor Peter M. Dietsch

Preaching: Depravity, a virtue to be embraced? Part 2

Dear Church Family,

In recent weeks, I’ve been reflecting on preaching. You may read the previous installments online:

Preaching: What is the Gospel?
Preaching: The Foundation and the Superstructure
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 1
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 2
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 3
Preaching: The Same Message No Matter the Text?
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 1
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 2
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 3
Preaching: Depravity, a virtue to be embraced? Part 1

Introduction

Last week, we sought to define the term “depravity” and we examined how the Bible teaches that believers are no longer totally depraved. This week, we will continue to examine some more examples of how this erroneous view concerning the continuation of depravity in the Christian is alive and well today.

Evidence of the Problem

Many believers fail to see the glorious benefits of the new birth, and how faith in the Lord Jesus Christ does away with both the punishment and the power of sin in our lives. We are not only forgiven; we are also able to now resist sin and live righteously (Titus 2:11-14).

There are other evidences, however, of how the erroneous teaching that depravity is a virtue to be embraced is alive and well. For instance, I have heard believers pray things like, “O Lord, forgive us – for we increase our depravity every day.” Believers sin every day in thought, word, and deed, but if you’re increasing your depravity every day, you might want to examine your heart and life and see if you have true faith!

Or, the most pervasive evidence of this faulty understanding of “depravity as a virtue to be embraced” is in the general call for believers to pursue sanctification by embracing their depravity – sometimes termed “brokenness.” In this line of thinking, Peter’s three-fold denial of the Lord Jesus (Luke 22:54-62) becomes a paradigm not only for every believer’s conversion experience, but also of every believer’s daily sanctificational experience. Understood this way, the only way to grow in Christ is by focusing and dwelling upon what a miserable sinner one is.

Not only is this practically dangerous in that it inevitably stunts the growth of believers, but it is biblically untenable. Instead of embracing – or even focusing on his sin and failures – the Apostle Paul acknowledges his own weakness, but is not satisfied to wallow in the mire of his sinful condition: “Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:13-14). And, his focus is not on who he was in his own sin, but on who he presently is in Christ Jesus: “Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:1-3).

There’s a world of difference between acknowledging one’s sin and weakness and embracing one’s sin and weakness. David J. Bosch writes in his book on a theology of missions A Spirituality of the Road (p 77):

When we realize that Christians are weak, we usually react in one of two ways. I use my weakness as an excuse or I reject it and demand strength. If I use weakness as an excuse I am not to blame for what is happening. God has caused me to be as weak as I am, therefore He is to be blamed if things go wrong. In fact, arguing this way, our weakness does not only become an excuse but a virtue. We are grateful for being weak because this relieves us of our responsibility; we may relax with a clear conscience.

 

Linked to the call to continually embrace one’s brokenness as a means toward sanctification is the refusal to ever compliment or recognize a person for their goodness or good work. In fact, if weakness and depravity are virtues to be embraced, rather than conditions which God remedies by the power of His Holy Spirit, then people are actually to be praised for their weakness and self-awareness of their own depravity. If depravity is a virtue to be embraced, then one could never say of a man, “He is to be honored for the work that he has done for the furtherance of the gospel” (actually, this is a paraphrase of what Paul said of Epaphroditus, Philippians 2:29-30). Instead, according to this view, one ought to only praise men for their worthlessness! Or, at least praise men for their awareness of their own worthlessness.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then keep your eyes open for this sort of “wormology.” It’s out there, I promise. Listen to how people talk about how to progress and grow in the Christian life. Listen to how people talk about others and what is virtuous. I once attended a gathering of Reformed pastors and elders in which every speaker and preacher was introduced the same way, “The best thing about Joe is that he understands what a great, big, fat sinner he is.” Well, OK. Good for Joe. But is that really the best thing that we can say about him?

In the early 1940s, in The Weight of Glory, C.S. Lewis wrote the following:

If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire.

 

Thinking about how the positive virtue of Love has been replaced by the negative virtue of Unselfishness, causes me to think about how for many Christians the “pursuit of righteousness” has been replaced by the “denial of self-righteousness.” The New Testament has a lot to say about the denial of self-righteousness, but not about the denial of self-righteousness as an end in itself. We are told to deny or turn from our own self-righteousness and trust in Christ (Galatians 2:16); and nearly every description of what we shall find, if we do examine the Scriptures, contains an appeal to the desires of our new natures and the Holy Spirit within us.

For example, in his letter to the church in Galatia, even as the Apostle Paul condemns works-righteousness and the false notion of obtaining salvation by works of the law, his main exhortations at the end of the letter in chapter 6 are an appeal to sow to the Spirit:

For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary (Galatians 6:8-9)

 

But, here’s another thing that strikes me as I think about the above quote from C.S. Lewis: there are Christians today who have so embraced depravity as a virtue that they would deny one of Lewis’ main premises. They would deny that there even exist twenty “good men” whom one could ask such questions about virtue. They would argue that having a category of people whom one labeled “great Christians of old” would be inappropriate, prideful idolatry, or at best, humanism.

I remember having a discussion with a leader from another church about a church discipline issue and whether or not a particular action was right or wrong, his dismissive conclusion to our disagreement was this, “Look, all I know is that I’m 100% wrong all the time, you’re 100% wrong all the time, and God is 100% right all the time.” Need I even probe why this line of thinking is illogical, inappropriate, self-refuting, and can only lead to apathy?

Let me conclude this essay with a quote from outside the Reformed tradition from a man who also recognizes the dangers of embracing depravity as a virtue – though he uses slightly different terms. As he points out, one of the dangers of this line of thinking that we have been discussing is that it actually leads to the place that it so desperately wants to avoid: prideful self-aggrandizement. Commenting on the Beatitudes of Matthew 5, in his book The Divine Conspiracy (p 103), Dallas Willard writes:

If all we need to be blessed in the kingdom of the heavens is to be humble-minded through recognizing our spiritual poverty, then let’s just do that and we’ve got bliss cornered. We escape the humiliation of spiritual incompetence because, strange to say, we have managed to turn it into spiritual attainment just by acknowledging it. And we escape the embarrassment of receiving pure mercy, for our humble recognition makes blessedness somehow appropriate. We have egg on our face perhaps, but at least we know it – and then can wear it defiantly, even proudly, like a badge of virtue.

 

The Lord be with you!
- Pastor Peter M. Dietsch

Preaching: Depravity, a virtue to be embraced? Par 1

Dear Church Family,

In recent weeks, I’ve been reflecting on preaching. You may read the previous installments online:

Preaching: What is the Gospel?
Preaching: The Foundation and the Superstructure
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 1
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 2
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 3
Preaching: The Same Message No Matter the Text?
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 1
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 2
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 3

 

Introduction

Oftentimes, what informs (or misinform) our understanding of the purposes of preaching is our understanding of other doctrines of the Christian faith (e.g., how people come to faith, how believers are sanctified, and the nature of the human condition). One of those doctrines that is often misunderstood and thus leads to a misunderstanding of preaching, and Christian ministry in general, is the doctrine of depravity.

So, in this essay, we take up the question: Is depravity a virtue to be embraced? At first glance, you might consider that to be a silly question. Maybe we ought to embrace the doctrine of depravity, but depravity itself as a virtue? And one that we ought to embrace, no less? That’s just strange! Well, yes, it is strange, but the notion that depravity is a virtue to be embraced is becoming more common.

Defining Depravity

Let’s first define our terms. The doctrine of depravity is the teaching that men and women are born with original sin, the sin of Adam. This original sin, along with the actual sins that we commit, is what comprises our depravity. Depravity is simply the sinful condition of every human being who is descended from Adam by ordinary generation (that means Jesus is exempt). The fact that we are depraved means that this sin permeates and touches all parts of our being and all parts of our actions. Nothing that we are, and nothing that we do, is free from the effects of our sin and depravity. Of course, God created man and woman in His image, in knowledge and righteousness – that was the original plan (Genesis 1:26-28, 31). But, all of us – in Adam and then personally – sinned and rebelled and turned against our Creator (Isaiah 53:6).

It is this depravity (or pervasive sin) that cuts us off from God our Creator who is holy and just. We are natural-born children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). It is the doctrine of depravity (the “T” in TULIP – Total Depravity) which makes the love and grace of God all the more glorious and amazing: “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). And, so it follows that understanding our own sin and depravity – our utter hopelessness and helplessness – is essential to understanding the abounding grace of God in rescuing sinners by sending His Son, Jesus Christ.

Most non-Christians, and unfortunately even many professing Christians, no longer understand or believe in depravity. Human beings are generally thought of as good, sweet, and innocent; sin and evil are typically blamed on external forces or uncontrollable circumstances and experiences, rather than flowing from the human heart (Genesis 6:5; Matthew 15:19). In the realm of apologetics and evangelism, one must first establish an understanding of a Holy God who demands perfection from His sinful, depraved creatures. Otherwise, when we say, “Jesus saves!” most people will not understand or care, but simply ask, “Jesus saves from what?” And so, we must make a Biblical case for the doctrine of depravity in our efforts to communicate the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Problematic Errors

And now, here’s where things get interesting, and problems ensue. Those who have formerly not believed in the depravity of man but now do (or those who have come to see that it is a much-denied doctrine in our culture), will often argue and continue arguing for the depravity of man such that it carries over into one’s Christian life and becomes an essential ingredient for pursuing sanctification. In the words of Benjamin Brook, writing in The Lives of the Puritans, “Persons who have embraced sentiments which afterwards appear to them erroneous, often think that they can never remove too far from them and the more remote they go from their former opinions the nearer they come to the truth.”

And so, little by little, in ever so subtle ways, Christians actually come to believe (implicitly, if not explicitly) that depravity is not only a doctrine that must be understood, but that it is actually a virtue that must be embraced! Perhaps you’ve never heard this, or perhaps you’ve heard it so much that you don’t even notice how this strange way of thinking is so pervasive.

Some of this inappropriate emphasis on depravity in the post-conversion life of believers comes from a misunderstanding of certain Scriptures, and the avoidance of others. For instance, I have had people assume that even believers cannot do any good works that are acceptable to God based on Isaiah 64:6 – “all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment.” Yet, Jesus assumes that God’s people will do good works in order to glorify their heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16). When we are reborn, we are recreated in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (Ephesians 2:10).

Are these good works acceptable to God? Well, we know that without faith it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6), but what about believers? Are our good works and sacrifices ever made acceptable and pleasing to God? Of course they are! It is precisely because we are part of the spiritual household of faith and holy priesthood of God, that our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to Him through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:4-5). Depending upon the power of the Holy Spirit in us, we seek to imitate God by walking in love, always trying to mimic the love of our Savior; when we do this our offerings and sacrifices to God are a fragrant aroma to Him – well-pleasing to our God (Ephesians 5:1-2; Philippians 4:18).

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way (WCF 16.6):

…the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

 

Notice how the Confession emphasizes that it is because believers are accepted through Christ, that their good works are also accepted in Him. For example, commenting on Genesis 4:4 – where God accepts Abel and his sacrifice, but does not accept Cain or his sacrifice – John Calvin writes:

God is said to have respect unto the man to whom he vouchsafes his favor. We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to God, but he begins with the person of the offerer; by which he signifies, that God will regard no works with favor except those the doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him.

 

Conclusion

You see, believers are not only different from unbelievers in their justification; those who have been born again are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17). By faith, not only has our legal status before God been changed, but we have been changed. In our justification, we have been made fit for heaven; in our regeneration, we have been made fit to serve heaven.

Therefore, if you are a Christian – united to Christ, justified, and born again – then you are no longer depraved. Still fighting against the indwelling sin? Yes. Still seeking to live for Christ with many weaknesses and imperfections? Yes. However, you are no longer depraved. You are being sanctified; you are being transformed into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18).

For further reading, and a helpful explanation of this particular misunderstanding of the doctrine of depravity, see this excellent article by Rick Phillips entitled, “Thank God that Christians Are Not Totally Depraved.”

The Lord be with you!
- Pastor Peter M. Dietsch

Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 3

Dear Church Family,

In recent weeks, I’ve been reflecting on preaching. You may read the previous installments online:

Preaching: What is the Gospel?
Preaching: The Foundation and the Superstructure
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 1
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 2
Preaching: The Abuse of Redemptive Historical Preaching, Part 3
Preaching: The Same Message No Matter the Text?
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 1
Preaching: Commands, Threats, and Promises, Part 2

Introduction

Two weeks ago, we introduced and examined the concept from the Westminster Confession of Faith (14.2) of how, by faith, a Christian responds differently to the Word of God depending on the particular passage and its contents: (1) obeying the commands; (2) trembling at the threatenings; and (3) embracing the promises. Then, last week, we considered where we find this teaching in the Scriptures.

Now, that we have a good confessional and biblical basis for this concept, this brings us to the practical implications of what this all means for preaching.

Practical Implications for Preaching

Understanding the theoretical aspect of preaching – that is, preaching the whole Word of God (commands, threatenings, and promises) as defined by the text before us – leads us to consider the practical implications. That is, is it true that believers grow in their faith solely by hearing and meditating upon their justification? Again, this is based on a misunderstanding and a too-narrow a view of the definition of the Gospel.

Here it is helpful to gain some insight from a particular teaching in the Canons of Dort. In response to the teachings of Arminianism, the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) set forth five main points in refutation of the claims of the Remonstrants (the followers of Arminius). These five points have come to be referred to as the TULIP, or the five points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the saints. In the fifth point, article 14 reads as follows:

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.

 

What’s interesting here is that the Synod of Dort states that perseverance in the faith is furthered by hearing and reading the gospel, and also by the use of the sacraments (what we often refer to as the ordinary means of grace). But what’s even more interesting is how the Synod of Dort refers to the hearing and reading of the gospel as being comprised of “its exhortations, threats, and promises” (notice the parallel in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 14.2).

The point is this: not only is the preaching of the emphasis of a particular passage of Scripture (it’s commands, threats, and promises) proper because believers respond by faith to each one differently (obedience, trembling, and embracing), but these aspects of the gospel (!) are that which God uses for the preserving, continuing, and completing of His work in His people.

Early on in my preaching ministry, when I was just starting out, I greeted a family at the door of the church after the service. The young husband and father stopped in front of me, shook my hand, and said, “I just want you to know that you stepped on my toes in the sermon this morning!” A bit unsure as to how to respond, I said, “Oh, sorry about that.” He said, “Please. Don’t be sorry. I needed my toes to be stepped on!”

That episode – and others over the years – has reminded me that God uses the preaching of His word in ways that I, as the preacher, don’t always expect. In fact, I am surprised by those things that God uses to convict or encourage people from a sermon. But I am also encouraged. I am encouraged because it means that despite my own weaknesses and failings as a preacher, I can have confidence to know that God will speak to His people. And, I can have confidence that, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, God’s people will, by faith, hear Him.

Conclusion

There is seemingly no end to the debates over what are the proper ways to preach the gospel – how pastors ought to be faithful to the Scriptures in proclaiming His word. The debates can be frustrating, but they are also helpful in that they make ministers and laity alike consider afresh the importance of the preached word. The Westminster Shorter Catechism reminds us of its importance:

How is the word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation. (WSC 89).

 

In the end, hopefully, the debates and discussion, books and articles, will be used of God to make all of Christ’s under-shepherds better and more faithful in their important work.

One such book, that explains and emphasizes the teachings of the Westminster divines on the subject of preaching is The Westminster Directory of Public Worship: Discussed by Mark Dever and Sinclair Ferguson. I’ll conclude with a with a quote from that book, and the insightful words of pastor, preacher, and author, Mark Dever:

Today, preachers face the twin dangers of Hypocritical Christianity and Hypothetical Theology, which both result in lives unaffected by truths unapplied. Preachers sometimes think it more spiritual only to declare objective realities of the historical work of God through Christ, and not to address the Spirit’s work of application in the hearts of hearers. Some decry such applicatory work as subjectivism, pietism, or the seed bed of legalism and works-righteousness. While such perversion may, in fact, arise, they are nevertheless perversions, and not the simple application itself, the application we see in Scripture. When we oppose application as such, we are certainly separating ourselves from the understanding of the Bible and its truths that the Westminster divines had.

 

The Lord be with you!
- Pastor Peter M. Dietsch