by Ben Carlson | Jun 30, 2020 | Historical Theology, Systematic Theology
This is part 1 of a 2 part series on Calvin’s Critique of Natural Theology. You can read part 2 here.
What was Calvin’s view of natural theology? That is an important question to ask today, especially in light of the discussions and debates taking place concerning the legitimacy of natural theology within Reformed epistemology and apologetics.
One of the clearest places in the Institutes where Calvin’s evaluation of natural theology can be found is in Book 1, Chapter 5, Section 12. There he states, “Yet hence it appears that if men were taught only by nature, they would hold to nothing certain or solid or clear-cut, but would be so tied to confused principles as to worship an unknown god [cf. Acts 17:23].”
John T. McNeill, the editor of Ford Lewis Battles’ translation of the Institutes, makes this noteworthy remark in a footnote after Calvin’s words: “Natural theology (human reasoning about God, under the conditions of sin, unaided by special revelation) has been the subject of this chapter through section 12. All scholars agree that the above words present Calvin’s verdict upon it, held consistently in all his writings.”
In this brief essay, I will attempt to lay out Calvin’ critique of natural theology by first summarizing his teaching on the subject from the first six chapters of Book 1, second by analyzing his teaching, and third by offering a concluding thought. As “the theologian” of the Reformation, Calvin gives us a pivotal perspective concerning natural theology that aligns with his teachings on the doctrines of God, man, sin, Scripture, and grace. Therefore, his evaluation needs to be carefully read and understood.
I.) Summary of Calvin’s Teaching on Natural Theology
1.) Calvin states that natural revelation is unmistakably and unfailingly clear to man.
Calvin argues that natural revelation, or the knowledge of God as Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world, is both inscribed on man’s heart and proclaimed throughout the universe.
First, Calvin says that all men have an awareness of divinity, seed of religion, sense of deity, sort of divinity, and signs of immorality implanted and inscribed by God in their souls. This is the innate, inward, undeniable, and indelible knowledge of God as Creator. All men undoubtedly know Him as such and have no excuse to claim ignorance.
There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. (1:3:1)
And they who in other aspects of life seem least to differ from brutes still continue to retain some seed of religion. (1:3:1)
Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all. (1:3:1)
Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men’s minds. (1:3:2)
. . . that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow. (1:3:3)
From this we conclude that it is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one which each of us is master from his mother’s womb and which nature itself permits no one to forget, although many strive with every nerve to this end. (1:3:3)
As experience shows, God has sown a seed of religion in all men. (1:4:1)
Yet that seed remains which can in no wise be uprooted: that there is some sort of divinity. (1:4:4)
From this, my present contention is brought out with greater certainty, that a sense of divinity is by nature engraven on human hearts. (1:4:4)
These are unfailing signs of divinity in man. (1:5:5)
What ought we to say here except that the signs of immortality which have been implanted in man cannot be effaced? (1:5:5)
Second, Calvin states that all men are constantly confronted with the knowledge of God as Creator from the dazzling theater of His glory (1:5:8) that He has placed them in as spectators (1:6:2).
The final goal of the blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God [cf. John 17:3]. Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men’s minds that seed of religion of which we have spoken but revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him. . . . But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance. (1:5:1)
Yet, in the first place, wherever you cast your eyes, there is no spot in the universe wherein you cannot discern at least some sparks of his glory. (1:5:1)
There are innumerable evidences both in heaven and on earth that declare his wonderful wisdom; . . . Even the common folk and the most untutored, who have been taught only by the aid of the eyes, cannot be unaware of the excellence of divine art, for it reveals itself in this innumerable and yet distinct and well-ordered variety of the heavenly host. It is, accordingly, clear that there is no one to whom the Lord does not abundantly show his wisdom. (1:5:2)
Therefore, however fitting it may be for man seriously to turn his eyes to contemplate God’s works, since he has been placed in this most glorious theater to be a spectator of them, . . . (1:6:2)
2.) Calvin states that natural revelation should teach man to fear, love, trust, and hope in God.
Calvin is clear that the knowledge of God in creation has a purpose, and that purpose is to greatly benefit man.
For this sense of the powers of God is for us a fit teacher of piety, from which religion is born. I call “piety” that reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces. (1:2:1)
Rather, our knowledge should serve first to teach us fear and reverence; secondly, with it as our guide and teacher, we should learn to seek every good from him, and, having received it, to credit it to his account. . . . Again, you cannot behold him clearly unless you acknowledge him to be the fountainhead and source of every good. From this too would arise the desire to cleave to him and trust in him . . . (1:2:2)
Knowledge of this sort, then, ought not only to arouse us to the worship of God but also to awaken and encourage us to the hope of the future life. (1:5:10)
3.) Calvin states that natural revelation is unprofitable for sinful man.
Although the knowledge of God as Creator in creation should greatly benefit man, Calvin states that in a fallen world it does no such thing because of man’s sinfulness and blindness to the truth. Instead, with it man falls into superstitions, deserts God, or lives hypocritically. No matter the person, fallen man’s interpretation and response to natural revelation “corrupt by vanity the pure truth of God” (1:5:11) and “seduce[] his mind from rightly seeking him” (1:2:2).
But although the Lord represents both himself and his everlasting Kingdom in the mirror of his works with very great clarity, such is our stupidity that we grow increasingly dull toward so manifest testimonies, and they flow away without profiting us. (1:5:11)
Besides while some may evaporate in their own superstitions and others deliberately and wickedly desert God, yet all degenerate from the true knowledge of him. And so it happens that no real piety remains in the world. (1:4:1)
They see such exquisite workmanship in their individual members, from mouth and eyes even to their very toenails. Here also they substitute nature for God. (1:5:4)
Finally, they entangle themselves in such a huge mass of errors that blind wickedness stifles and finally extinguishes those sparks which once flashed forth to show them God’s glory. Yet that seed remains which can in no wise be uprooted: that there is some sort of divinity; but this seed is so corrupted that by itself it produces only the worst fruits. (1:5:4)
Sometimes we are driven by leading and direction of these things to contemplate God; this of necessity happens to all men. Yet after we rashly grasp a conception of some sort of divinity, straightway we fall back into the ravings or evil imaginings of our flesh, and corrupt by our vanity the pure truth of God. In one respect we are indeed unalike, because each one of us privately forges his own particular error; yet we are very much alike in that, one and all, we forsake the one true God for prodigious trifles. Not only the common folk and dull-witted men, but also the most excellent and those otherwise endowed with keen discernment, are infected with this disease. In this regard how volubly has the whole tribe of philosophers shown their stupidity and silliness! (1:5:11)
It is therefore in vain that so many burning lamps shine for us in the workmanship of the universe to show forth the glory of its Author. Although they bathe us wholly in their radiance, yet they can of themselves in no way lead us into the right path. Surely they strike some speaks, but before their fuller light shines forth these are smothered. (1:5:14)
Therefore, although the Lord does not want for testimony while he sweetly attracts men to the knowledge of himself with many and varied kindnesses, they do not cease on this account to follow their own ways, that is, their fatal errors. (1:5:14)
But, however that may be, yet the fact that men soon corrupt the seed of the knowledge of God, sown in their minds out of the wonderful workmanship of nature (thus preventing it from coming to a good and perfect fruit), must be imputed to their own failing; (1:5:15)
For at the same time as we have enjoyed a slight taste of the divine from contemplation of the universe, having neglected the true God, we raise up in his stead dreams and specters of our own brains, and attribute to anything else than the true source the praise of righteousness, wisdom, goodness, and power. Moreover, we so obscure or overturn his daily acts by wickedly judging them that we snatch away from them their glory and from their Author his due praise. (1:5:15)
4.) Calvin states that natural theology is useless for sinful man.
Calvin argues that sinful man can never attain the true and pure knowledge of God with his depraved understanding. In other words, natural theology, or the ability of man to truly know and positively respond to God’s natural revelation, in a fallen world leads only to confused principles and a diversity of opinions about God, none of which are correct.
But among the philosophers who have tried with reason and learning to penetrate into heaven, how shameful is the diversity! (1:5:12)
. . . but no mortal ever contrived anything that did not basely corrupt religion. (1:5:12)
But since all confess that there is nothing concerning which the learned and the unlearned at the same time disagree so much, hence one may conclude that the minds of men which thus wander in their search after God are more than stupid and blind in the heavenly mysteries. (1:5:12)
Yet hence it appears that if men were taught only by nature, they would hold to nothing certain or solid or clear-cut, but would be so tied to confused principles as to worship an unknown god [cf. Acts 17:23]. (1:5:12)
In short, even if not all suffered under crass vice, or fell into open idolatries, yet there was no pure and approved religion, found upon common understanding alone. For even though few persons did not share in the madness of the common herd, there remains the firm teaching of Paul that the wisdom of God is not understood by the princes of this world [I Cor. 2:8]. But if even the most illustrious wander in darkness, what can we say of the dregs? (1:5:13)
But although we lack the natural ability to mount up unto the pure and clear knowledge of God, all excuse is cut off because the fault of dullness is within us. (1:5:15)
In the next post, I will present some analysis of Calvin’s teaching on Natural Theology.
Ben has been one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky, since June 2017. In February 2018, he received his Master of Divinity from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Ben has been married to his lovely wife Ali since September 2011. They have four children together: Liam, Luther, Cosette, and Maezie. In his spare time, Ben enjoys playing with his kids, coaching, doing yard work, and Friday family nights.
by CBTSeminary | Jun 22, 2020 | Preaching
This review was originally posted on HeraldofGrace.org and has been re-posted by the permission of the author.
The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric
John Carrick
Banner of Truth
Presence and Implications of the Exemplary Imperative
Carrick quotes other respected Reformed theologians on the matter who appear to share his concerns about EW-RHP—men like Jay Adams, Hendrik Krabbendam, John R. de Witt, John Frame, and J. Douma. More importantly, Carrick shows that the Apostle Paul used historical examples as the basis for exhorting his hearers (citing 1 Cor 10.1-14), a classic concern of the RH school. Exhorting from example is also found in Hebrews, as P. E. Hughes (Visiting Professor of New Testament at WTS) noted in his excellent commentary:
The simplest sense [of 11.4] remains the best sense, namely, that Abel by his example of faith and righteousness still speaks to us today, even though he has so long been dead. The spectacle of his trustful integrity, even in the face of violence, should inspire us to persevere and to overcome by the same means. His was certainly an example that the faltering readers of this epistle were in need of emulating (123).
Carrick also enlists Dr. Richard Gaffin, who is himself “unashamedly a passionate exponent of biblical theology” (144-145), for the cause of applicatory preaching by citing his observation that James 5.16b-18 uses Elijah’s example of prayer in 1 Kings 18, an “incidental aspect” and “quite subordinate point” in the OT passage, to make a primary point of application for New Testament believers. Then Carrick raises a provocative question. “Does the RH school regard James’ reference to Elijah as atomistic and moralistic, or not? If it does, then clearly it is claiming to be wiser than the inspired authors of the Word of God itself; and if it does not, then it is conceding the very point at issue in the original controversy. One of the major problems [if true, an understatement!—DSM] with the charge made by some within the redemptive-historical school . . . is that this charge actually recoils upon James himself— it recoils upon the Holy Scriptures of God” (127-128). Even though this statement is in the middle of the book, I got the impression that Carrick considered it something of a climax comparable to checkmate, the burr under his saddle from which he sought relief, the book’s raison d’être. Christ Himself (128) exhorts tersely from an OT historical example when He urged us to “remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17.32). Thus, “Holy Scripture leads the way” for our method of preaching (quoting Huyser, a proponent of the exemplary approach in the original controversy in the Netherlands, 123).
The exclamation point for the exemplary imperative comes from the NT’s appeal to Christ as the believer’s great Example to follow. This comes out in His charge to the disciples when He washed their feet (John 13.15), and in Peter’s counsel to suffering Christians (1 Pet 2.21, 23-24). Christ is both our Savior and our Example, and so we must hold to Him in both His roles. The RH school in some instances has been paranoid about the exemplary approach because of its historical association with “liberal theology and its naïve Pelagianism,” but such heresy is not intrinsic to it.
Without embracing the exemplary imperative, we have no satisfactory explanation for passages like Hebrews 11, 1 Corinthians 10, James 5, and Luke 17. Homiletical Christocentricity is a good thing, but EW-RHP has degenerated to Christomonism. [Monism is a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere; here, Christ as gracious Savior and moral Example.]
Scripture joins the concepts of example and imperative. The letter of any particular example is generally in the indicative, but the spirit of it is always in the imperative, with an implied, “Go and do likewise!” for the positive examples, and a tacit warning with the negative ones. Therefore, we should not be surprised that when RHP is uncomfortable with the imperative in preaching, it is also skittish about using examples, as illustrated in the defective preaching of Klaas Schilder, an early RHP advocate.
Exposé and Indictment of EW-RHP
Here Carrick gets most personal in assailing the errors of his contemporaries, particularly the Dennison brothers1 and Lee Irons, all his fellow OPC ministers associated with Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching, available free online. 2
In this journal, Carrick observes a striking emphasis upon the double indicatives of Christianity, and a corresponding dearth of the double imperatives (132). He bolsters this with quotations of both Dennison’s which castigate application per se as “man-centered” rather than “God-centered.” This is another false antithesis (133).
James Dennison appeals for support to Geerhardus Vos’ inaugural address already cited (footnote 4), but Carrick notes three problems with this. 1) EW-RHP has an overemphasis on eschatology in preaching. Vos’ statement that “eschatology is prior to soteriology” is ambiguous. Vos may only have meant that eschatology is logically prior (God first resolved to glorify Himself in eternity and therefore decreed to saves us), while Dennison presses the slogan to mean eschatology is more important than soteriology (137), another idea altogether. 2) EW-RHP also exhibits an underemphasis on the ethical in preaching which opposes the NT’s strong emphasis, not to mention Vos’ own characterization of Pauline theology in terms of an “already—not yet” structure. Dennison’s revels in the “already” aspects (indicatives) to the neglect of “not yet” aspects (imperatives) in the kingdom of God. 3) EW-RHP idealizes, almost idolizes, Geerhardus Vos, and this is wrong. His preaching was too heavily theological, with sermons resembling essays. Even Dr. J. Gresham Machen had this opinion (source: biography by Stonehouse). Further, Vos’ sermons were also sparse in application, though not as bad as EW-RHP represented in Kerux.
Survey Resumed and Concluded
A few sundry observations round out Carrick’s last chapter. First, biblical salvation is covenantal, and in a bilateral, not unilateral way. Both God and man are parties to the covenant. God reveals, and man responds. EW-RHP fails to appreciate the latter and exposes itself to a fair charge of “objectivism.” It is hard to know exactly what Carrick has in mind by this word since he does not explain it; it is related to the idea of “overlooking man” (139). EW-RHP exaggerates the concept of “progress” while giving short shrift to “concourse,” the relationship between God and man, and insight Carrick gleans from scholar C. Trimp.
Second, Carrick uses considerable space reviewing some of Gaffin’s helpful contributions to the topic, including 1) the relevance of the historia salutis and the ordo salutis and their correspondence to redemption accomplished and redemption applied, with the evident imbalance in EW-RHP, 2) the dual identity of OT characters as both types of Christ and examples for believers, 3) the irreversibility and inseparability of the indicative and imperative moods in Scripture and biblical preaching, and 4) the strong Reformed homiletical tradition of explicatio et applicatio verbi Dei (explication and application of God’s Word). Carrick concludes that a balance of the indicative and the imperative, of proclamation and appeal, is justified from all considerations, and that this is just what EW-RHP, a “homiletical innovation” (144), lacks. This is bound to lead to “distortions of a more or less serious character” (146).
With stunning insight, R. L. Dabney almost seems to have anticipated the controversy and resolved it in 1870 before it erupted in the twentieth century.
[Christianity’s] end and aim is holy living (Eph 1.4; Tit 2.14; et passim). Of this holy life, the law of God is the rule. The believer justified in Christ does not, indeed, look to the law for his redeeming merit; but he receives it as his guide to the obedience of faith and love, as fully as though he were still under a covenant of works. He therefore needs practical instruction, as really as the unbeliever. It must stimulate and direct him in the Christian race, and make him a “peculiar person, zealous of good works.” The exclusive preaching of doctrine [viz., the indicative—DSM] to professed Christians tends to cultivate an Antinomian Spirit. The exclusive inculcation of duties [viz., the imperative, or application—DSM] fosters self-righteousness. The edification of the Church, then, demands the diligent intermixture of both kinds. This precept may be confirmed by the remark, that, as the motives and obligations of all duties are rooted in the doctrines, so the best illustrations of the doctrines are by their application to the duties. The two are inseparably connected as grounds and conclusions, as means and end; and their systematic separation in your instructions would leave your hearers incapable of a correct understanding of either.3
This sounds amazingly like Carrick’s conclusion in the last chapter (146). He may have been influenced by Dabney, without remembering it (since Dabney is not cited), to think along these lines.
The conclusion (ch. 7) is mostly a succinct summary, with the addition of a parting shot: “It is a regrettable fact that much Reformed preaching operates in a virtual mono-mood—that of the indicative— to the virtual exclusion of the imperative” (151). Whether the charge is fair or a straw man, my limited exposure to contemporary Reformed preaching is not qualified to judge. Surely Carrick is right when he opines that the doctrinal must be balanced by the practical, the historical by the ethical, the historia salutis by the ordo salutis, and the work of Christ by the work of the Spirit (151). His final statement is, “It is absolutely essential that the great indicatives of Christ’s accomplishment of redemption be balanced by the great imperatives of the Spirit’s application of redemption” (151). May the Lord deliver His church from pulpits devoid of either.
Three appendixes supply further illustrations of the exclamative, the interrogative, and the imperative from Reformed preaching. They may be the most useful to readers who are relatively unfamiliar with the spiritual eloquence of our forefathers, as a provocation to read more of their sermons. I agree with Earl Blackburn’s two minor criticisms4 that including illustrative examples from Calvin’s sermons alongside the five Carrick chose and an appendix dedicated to the indicative mood would have strengthened the book.
Whatever one’s familiarity with this topic or position taken, this book seems to be an important contribution worthy of consideration by all modern Reformed preachers, and so I recommend it with meek enthusiasm. Its head-on criticisms of some RHP will disturb adherents, but where the tool is sharpened sparks are bound to fly. Let us receive Carrick’s savory meat and leave any bones on the plate. A well-reasoned and specific response to this book by a worthy champion of RHP would also prove an interesting read and may shed more light upon this homiletical controversy.
You may find interesting the attached brief report of Carrick debating a RHP proponent named William Dennison (yes, another brother) at the March 2002 theology conference sponsored by Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, where Carrick teaches.5 It may prove especially useful to us because in it the other side is not mute.
1. James T. Dennison, Jr. (1943-present), Librarian and Lecturer in Church History at WTS in California from 1980- 2000, currently Professor of Church History and Academic Dean at Northwest Theological Seminary in Lynnwood, Washington; Charles G. Dennison (1945-1999), Pastor of Grace OPC of Sewickley, PA; Lee Irons (see footnote 6).
2. www.kerux.com
3. Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric, Lecture III, “Distribution of Subjects,” pp. 57-58.
4. See first review referenced in footnote 1.
5. http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?119
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by CBTSeminary | Jun 18, 2020 | Uncategorized
This review was originally posted on HeraldofGrace.org and has been re-posted by the permission of the author.
The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric1
John Carrick2
Banner of Truth
Book Review by D. Scott Meadows
Introduction
Since “imperative” can mean vital importance and urgency, the title of this book could signal a general defense of preaching—a welcome subject in our prevalent anti-preaching cultural milieu, but already addressed frequently in many other homiletical books.3Carrick’s concern is more narrow, yet also momentous. He devotes attention to the grammatical moods of biblical preaching with their theological significance, emphasizing the necessity of preaching in the imperative voice of command or exhortation. While he may not have intended the title as a double-entendre, in a curious way it is. Applicatory preaching is of vital importance today, not just preaching in general.
This book affected me in a way no other ever has. When I finished it in April 2003, my first thought was, “I wish I had written that!” The terse assessment I penciled at that time on the first page was, “One of the finest books on preaching I have ever read! Very helpful.” It is excellent in so many respects. It is clear and presents strong Scriptural support for its thesis. Carrick often quotes the New King James Version translation and the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary, which would have been my own choices. He has a style of writing that is engaging and confrontational without rancor. Besides giving serious preachers much pleasure, this book provokes thoughtful reflection on one’s own pulpit ministry, with much encouragement of continued reformation toward the biblical standard.
Proverbs 26.17 says, “He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears.” Let go of either ear and you get bitten! If the controversy raised by this book review did not belong to me, wisdom would preclude my involvement—but alas, as a Reformed preacher I have been sucked into it. We have the two ears of redemptive-historical preaching (RHP) and imperative-applicatory preaching, and I find myself holding onto both simultaneously, unwilling to release either. Some may charge me with hermeneutical and homiletical inconsistency. My own opinion is that the best Reformed preachers agree in the most important points, whichever side they take, and that the extreme elements in both may be legitimate causes of concern. Perhaps some ardent advocates of a particular perspective have been unnecessarily divisive from zeal to protect their Shibboleth (Judges 12.6). Did I pronounce that right? Let all things be done with love and unto the edification of the church.
Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical Preaching
A brief description of RHP may prove helpful. It is that preaching which grows out of the emphasis on redemptive history in biblical theology (BT) in its technical sense, although some who espouse BT do not endorse all the distinctives of RHP (e.g., Gaffin, 145). Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), champion and popularizer of BT, offered a terse definition. It is “the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity.”4 It is distinguished from systematic theology in “that it discusses both the form and contents of revelation from the point of view of the revealing activity of God Himself.”5
Systematic theology pulls together within a circle all the biblical data on a given topic, with little regard to chronology, so that the truth is flattened. BT moves along a historical line, noting well the providential context of any salvation-event and anticipating its issue in the completion of God’s redemptive purpose through Christ. RHP, therefore, is typically sweepingly panoramic and conspicuously Christocentric.
Carrick’s book raises his concerns about some advocates and practitioners of RHP. He does not denounce RHP per se, nor does he advocate an approach to preaching in the name of power and relevance with the typical naiveté of evangelicals embracing an “application bridge” mentality, with its clumsy attempt to make Scripture relevant by ill-founded exhortations that miss the point of what the text really urges.6
His “theology of sacred rhetoric” almost rises above the fray (except in chapter 6) to make keen and undeniable observations about the grammatical forms of homiletical statements both in Scripture and in the tradition of some of the greatest preachers since the Reformation. Indeed, he raises some of the very same concerns as RHP advocates like Lee Irons (e.g., the indicative-grounded imperative). The most polemical section of the book is chapter 6, “The Imperative—Part 2,” and even here he praises advocates of the RH approach like Edmund Clowney of Westminster Theological Seminary, who “to many . . . represents the more moderate wing of RHP” (116). Carrick seems most concerned about some RHP advocates who have unduly minimized if not altogether eliminated “the imperative of preaching.”
In an article published before the release of his book, Carrick offered a concise assessment: The redemptive-historical school has much to commend it—namely, its high view of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, its commitment to the concept of the unity of the Scriptures, and its profound Christ-centeredness. It does appear, however, to have generated a style of preaching which is, regrettably, neither directly evangelistic nor directly hortatory and which is, therefore, not calculated to have very much impact upon sinner or saint. And yet this lack of application within the redemptive-historical tradition is surely an unfortunate de facto concomitant; it is as surely not a necessary concomitant. There is no reason in principle why the redemptive-historical preacher should not apply the Word of God; and apply the Word he must, if his preaching is not indeed to degenerate into mere “aesthetic contemplation.”7
So it appears that Carrick himself holds to both ears. As one investigating the controversy, reading Carrick’s book made me more interested, not less, in the RH approach. He sparked my greater interest in the writings of Clowney and Geerhardus Vos.
Please bear with a personal testimony. The first time I spoke of Carrick’s book publicly was before a group of mostly OPC pastors in the RHP mold, men whom I anticipated would be less than sympathetic with Carrick’s thesis, men who actually know some of the men Carrick criticizes. To prepare for meaningful interaction, several of them read Carrick’s book beforehand. They told me they were mostly appreciative, to their surprise. Now I have realized that we need not take an either-or approach in this controversy. Passionate men of both persuasions have made worthwhile contributions to be seriously considered. Whatever our own views, biblical integrity constrains us to honesty in representing others and charity in relating to all. In that environment, “iron sharpens iron” (Prov 27.17), and all stand to benefit from the spirited dialogue. Sadly, one involved in this debate has said a cloud of suspicion hangs over it.
In the remainder of this book review, I would describe its substance and interact modestly with Carrick’s ideas. Your feedback is welcome since you are my esteemed fellow pastors and I am a student still forming opinions about this topic.
Survey
Between an introduction and a conclusion, the author presents four parts related to the grammatical form of homiletical statements: the indicative, the exclamative, the interrogative, and the imperative. The section on the imperative seems to have been the author’s main concern, and here he allows himself two chapters instead of one, the first of which, like the single chapters on the other three grammatical forms, essentially notes the traits of the form, its warrant and theological significance from Scripture, and citations of sermons both canonical and from five exemplary Reformed preachers, viz., Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Samuel Davies, Asahel Nettleton, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
The introduction (ch. 1) begins with a plea for the legitimacy of a concept of “sacred rhetoric,” despite its negative connotations in the minds of some, since it is only religious speech calculated to persuade. This is not incompatible with a conscious dependence upon the Holy Spirit, so necessary in preaching which glorifies God. We must have Spirit-filled rhetoric. Then the author states his central thesis: “The essential pattern or structure which God himself has utilized in the proclamation of New Testament Christianity is that of the indicative-imperative. In other words, God himself has, in the gospel of Christ, harnessed these two fundamental grammatical moods and invested them with theological and homiletical significance” (5). Besides these Carrick notes the existence of the exclamative and the interrogative which he considers aspects of the indicative. He proposes to define, illustrate, and exemplify these four in the remainder of the book, and he succeeds in this.
“Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative” (7). So he begins the chapter (ch. 2) on this grammatical mood with the justly-famous statement of J. Gresham Machen in Christianity and Liberalism. In that titanic struggle, Machen sagely observed that liberalism begins by telling the sinner what he must do; Christianity begins by telling the sinner what God has done. The indicative is a grammatical term “that points out, states, or declares” (8). The biblical gospel is in the indicative form, and this heavenly declaration of God’s redeeming work accomplished in Christ is the foundation of all biblical preaching. One of this book’s strengths is its frequent appeal to the biblical text cited in full for the reader’s convenient examination and reflection. Carrick praises Herman Ridderbos’ insight that apostolic preaching had the nature of witnessing (12). This is also seen in the Apostles’ Creed.
The indicative is well-suited to instruction, a major part of the faithful preacher’s task if not the whole. Nevertheless, we must remember the distinction between redemption accomplished and redemption applied (19-20). This paradigm suggests the indicative-based imperative. The grammatical form of the Scriptural message is rich in theological significance. The New Testament message can be summarized as two pairs of indicative-imperatives, one aimed at sinners and the other at saints:
Christ died for sinners (indicative) ——————- Repent and believe the gospel (imperative)
Saints have died to sin (indicative) —- Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin (imperative)
Hence there is the double indicative of what God has done for sinners and for believers, and the double imperative of what their response must be on the basis of God’s work. The first is redemption accomplished; the second is redemption applied.
The exclamative (ch. 3) amounts to an emotional indicative (30-31). It possesses an element of excitement and is often signaled by words like how, what, and oh. A section of Scriptural illustration is devoted to each of these, followed by eloquent examples from the great preachers aforementioned. For example, Jonathan Edwards once wrote, “What multiplied and aggravated sins some men are guilty of!” (39).
The imperative (part 1, ch. 5) follows the basic content pattern of the previous chapters. The imperative is defined as a grammatical form expressing command, request, or exhortation (83). Clearly the New Testament is filled with apostolic preaching in the imperative form. At this point Carrick elaborates impressively on the twin indicative-imperatives found especially in Acts and the canonical epistles. Indeed, the entire structure of some epistles is obviously indicative-imperative (e.g., Romans, Ephesians). Hebrews uses a repeating pattern of indicative-imperative sections, and James is dominated by imperatives. Not surprisingly, great Reformed preaching has also been characterized by the indicative- based imperative, with powerful exhortations to sinners and saints alike, as the author demonstrates.
The imperative (part 2, ch. 6) boldly presents Carrick’s concerns about RHP. He traces its history from the Netherlands in the 1930s and 1940s. Klaas Schilder (1890-1952) and B. Holwerda (1909-1952) spearheaded the RH school of thought which gave rise to RHP (108-109). These men were concerned with an “atomistic” approach to interpretation and preaching which took texts out of context, failed to grasp the sweeping meta-narrative of Scripture understood synthetically, and then applied them arbitrarily and manipulatively. The biblical text was becoming putty in such a preacher’s hands, which he could mold at his pleasure, even to the degree it lost its original and legitimate significance. The RH school helped to restore an appreciation for the unity of redemptive history and its Christocentricity (111). It also decried the creeping moralism of preaching in the modern era, in which the grand indicative is conspicuously absent or lacking appropriate emphasis. It is a sad thing when grand gospel indicatives disappear from sermons and the preacher’s constant concern is that his hearers “be good and do good,” without frequent reference to the grace of Christ and our dependence on Him.
However, some RHP advocates have taken this too far, and according to Carrick their suspicion of exhortation and application recoils upon the Scriptures themselves (113). Traces of this Dutch Reformed influence remain at both Westminster Theological Seminaries (in Pennsylvania and California), where BT and RHP with its reticence in application are not absent. Even WTS Professor Clowney himself, an ardent exponent of both, has warned,
We do well to avoid setting up a false antithesis between the RH approach and what might be called the ethical approach to the Scriptures, particularly historical passages. The RH approach necessarily yields ethical application, which is an essential part of preaching the Word. Whenever we are confronted with the saving work of God culminating in Christ, we are faced with ethical demands. A religious response of faith and obedience is required (116).
Carrick presses the point even further in a closely-reasoned, technical argument, composing the remainder of this last chapter, given to essentially two things: 1) the biblical presence and implications of the “exemplary imperative,” and 2) an exposé and indictment of “the more extreme wing” of RHP (130). For convenience of reference, we label this EW-RHP. These twin topics are the debate’s ground zero and deserve more careful consideration.
Notes:
1. Also see reviews by Earl Blackburn published in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, 1.2, pp. 194-196, and Jim Elliff at http://www.ccwonline.org/imperative.html (both attached).
2. Assistant Professor of Applied and Doctrinal Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, South Carolina, and one of the principal homiletics instructors at the seminary. He is a graduate of Oxford University and is currently involved in D. Min. studies at Westminster Theological Seminary, California. He was formerly minister of the Cheltenham Evangelical Church, U.K., and of the Matthews Orthodox Presbyterian Church, North Carolina, U.S.A.
3. E.g., see John Stott, Between Two Worlds, “Contemporary Objections to Preaching,” pp. 50-91; Brian Borgman, My Heart for Thy Cause, pp. 127-141; Gardiner Spring, The Power of the Pulpit (entire volume); Martyn Lloyd- Jones, Preachers and Preaching, “The Primacy of Preaching” and “No Substitute,” pp. 9-44; John MacArthur et al., Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, pp. 250-261, etc.
4. “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” inaugural address in 1894 as Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation edited by Richard Gaffin, p. 15.
5. Ibid, p. 7.
6. Lee Irons, Pastor, Redeemer OPC in Encino, CA, available at www.pcea.asn.au/0008_tpb/Red_Hist_Prchg.htm.
7. “Redemptive-Historical Preaching: An Assessment,” in katek?men: Let Us Hold Fast, 13.1, Summer 2001, published by Greenville Theological Seminary (attached).
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Sam Waldron | Jun 11, 2020 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Preaching
Recently in a discussion about hermeneutics and preaching, the chairman of the Board of CBTS, John Miller, recommended to us John Carrick’s book entitled, The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric.
John Carrick is introduced on the Banner of Truth website as follows:
John Carrick is a graduate of Oxford University (BA, 1973; Certificate in Education, 1974; MA, 1978) and studied at London Theological Seminary, 1978-1980. He holds a D.Min. from Westminster Theological Seminary in California (2002). He was formerly Minister of Cheltenham Evangelical Church (1979-1992), briefly Lecturer in the History of Philosophy & Christian Thought at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina (1993), and Minister of Matthews Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Matthews, NC (1992-1994).
He is the author of The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric and The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, published by the Trust.
I was thinking of writing a review of the book myself, but I found the review of my esteemed friend, D. Scott Meadows online and feel no need to duplicate his fine review. I do want, however, to add my commendation of this book and urge you to read it.
I just finished reading Carrick’s short volume myself. The book is not long and is an easy read. (Even with the appendices, it is less than 200 pages.) It has been helpful to me in several respects. I want you men to be aware of this fine book and also receive help in your preaching from it.
Carrick’s interest is to discuss the biblical balance and relationship between the indicative and the imperative, especially as it affects our preaching. There are five main chapters of the book sandwiched between an introduction and conclusion. He spends the first three of these main chapters discussing the indicative and then two discussing the imperative.
Over the course of the three chapters on the indicative, Carrick discusses the indicative, the exclamative, and the interrogative and gives examples of great preaching from each. He argues in them that the exclamative and the interrogative are forms of the indicative. I found his emphasis on the importance the interrogative in preaching particularly helpful.
Carrick then comes to the beating heart of his book in his two chapters on the imperative. In the first chapter on the imperative, Carrick discusses the imperative generally, its relationship to the indicative, and finally its importance in preaching. In the second chapter, he dives into his critique of the redemptive-historical school of preaching and especially its more extreme forms. I found his historical survey of the controversy surrounding this school of preaching enlightening. I also found his critique of its deficiency with regard to the “imperative preaching” most timely and helpful. I urge you to read the book and give special attention to this chapter.
There it is. My recommended book of the day for you! Shortly, we will post D. Scott Meadows’ review of this fine book.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jun 9, 2020 | New Testament, Practical Theology
This is the 9th part of a 9 part series, you can find the other 7 parts here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Chapter 7 of John Mark’s Remarkable Career—His Likely and Momentous Authorship of the Gospel of Mark
The unanimous testimony of the early church is that the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark. The earliest testimony to this comes from two well-known Christians of the second century.
The first is a man named Papias. His testimony likely comes from around the years 110-120. He said:
Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote down carefully what he remembered, both the sayings and the deeds of the Christ, but not in chronological order, for he did not hear the Lord nor did he accompany him. At a later time, however, he did accompany Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs, but not with the object of making a connected series of discourses of our Lord. So, Mark made no mistake in writing the individual discourses in the order in which he recalled them. His one concern was not to omit a single thing he had heard or to leave any untruth in this account.
The second significant testimony comes from the early church father, Irenaeus. Writing around 180, he said:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
The best and the necessary conclusion with regard to the authorship of the Gospel of Mark is summarized in the words of another scholar:
Though the author does not directly identify himself, there is still strong evidence to attribute the Gospel to John Mark. In addition to Markan composition, church fathers also state that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, which would give reason to believe that he wrote his Gospel under the guidance or assistance of the apostle … the title “According to Mark” (KATA MARKON) is found in the earliest manuscripts. [https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm]
John Mark—that John Mark who abandoned Christ and deserted Barnabas and Saul and was the source of the scandal of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas—that John Mark was so restored in Christ’s church that by the grace of Christ he rose to be one of the four evangelists who penned inspired chronicles of the life of Christ!
We learn that because of Christ people of smaller talents and lesser grace can still hold useful places of service in the kingdom of God! John Mark was surrounded throughout his life by giants. Barnabas, Paul, and Peter—such giant Christians no doubt constantly reminded him of how meager and small his own talent was. He no doubt would have called himself a one-talent man as he compared himself to such greats! But he did not make this a reason to bury his talent. He kept on. He kept plodding. He kept serving God. And one day he became the penman of one of the four gospels! What hope and consolation and encouragement this should give to the rest of us. We also see ourselves as people of small gift, but God may also make us eminently useful like John Mark if we will be faithful to use the gift we have been given.
We learn that because of Christ you can still be greatly useful in spite of your messing up in the past! Not only did John Mark see himself as possessing very meager gifts, he surely also saw himself as having royally messed up in his past. And it was true. There was no denying it. Yet, despite this, Mark became greatly useful! You must not allow your view of yourself be ruled by your past messes, but by Christ’s present graces!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
