This is the third in a series of blog articles that respond to Harrison Perkins’ November 30 article on The Heidelblog that thoroughly caricatures my published essay, “Covenantal Life with God from Eden to Holy City,” published in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies. My previous blog entry features my definition of terms, such as unconditional and conditional, and expressions of assumptions and presuppositions that govern my essay, none of which Harrison Perkins acknowledges anywhere in his misrepresentative criticism of my article. The irony is that Perkins’ excessively critical misrepresentation of my writing is not the result of proper critical reading.
To read critically obligates the reader to engage what one is reading with patience, kindness, generosity, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the writer, assuming that the writer is reasonable, thinking, rational, and logical. Suppose a reader claims that the writer has reached fallacious and unwarranted conclusions. In that case, the reader is obligated to demonstrate the logical fallacies that led the writer to such fallacious conclusions. Unfortunately, Perkins claims—“In the end, Caneday does promote a salvation by works”—but nowhere does he demonstrate any logical missteps that I took as I worked from my definitions of terms and expressions of assumptions and presuppositions that govern my biblical and theological reasoning concerning the conditional nature of divine covenants.
Instead, Perkins unwittingly superimposes his definitions, beliefs, and presuppositions onto my reasoning to arrest me and accuse me of violating his law-gospel hermeneutic, which holds no jurisdiction over my doing of theology. Hence, my initial response, “Doing Theology and the New to Avoid Bearing False Witness,” and my appeal in a second response, “All Christians Believe Better Than They Articulate Their Beliefs (Including Theologians).” I have purposed in my heart not to retaliate against either Harrison Perkins or R. Scott Clark but to be patient, kind, generous, and grant the benefit of the doubt that they have gravely misunderstood virtually everything that I expressed in the essay under discussion but also other pieces of my writings that they now have posted in the comments section of Perkins’ blog article. There, commenters persist in misrepresenting my biblical and theological affirmations. Hence, I write these responses not for either the writer or publisher of The Heidelblog article that assails my theological claims but for readers who may be induced to accept misrepresentations as truth.
Therefore, for this blog entry, it is worth citing two crucial paragraphs from my essay once again that I included in my last blog entry.
If we use unconditional, should it not refer to God’s establishment of all his covenants with humans? Was not God’s choosing of Abraham and of Isaac, not Ishmael, and of Jacob, not Esau, unconditional (cf. Rom 9:6-24)? As for conditional, the term refers to the covenantal stipulations placed upon humans with whom God enters covenant and which do not jeopardize the fulfillment of any of God’s covenants. God obligates humans to obey what he stipulates in his covenants, and all whom he desires to enable do obey. Adam was covenantally required to obey by caring for the garden and by eating fruit from every tree except one (Gen 2:15-16). God’s covenant obligated Abraham and his see to walk blamelessly with God while observing the covenant sign, circumcision (Gen 17:1-2, 14).
Imperatival or conditional stipulations do not imperil fulfillment of God’s covenants concerning either their jurisdiction over covenant members or their eschatological purposes. God’s unfolding purpose administered through covenants that entail conditional stipulation is not jeopardized, thwarted, rendered meritorious, or based on human obedience.”
I will add a third paragraph that follows immediately after the above two. I shall return to comment on the content of this paragraph. For now, I place it here to show the content that Perkins fails to realize that he tramples over and wrongfully renders his unwarranted accusation.
Revelation 22 illustrates this essay’s thesis. “The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” announces, “I am coming soon!” (22:13, 12).7 He forewarns, “My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done” (22:12). His forewarning entails covenant blessing and curse embedded with provision and stipulations: Blessing to “the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll” (22:7) and to “those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city” (22:14). Curse of exclusion from both the tree and the city belongs to the evil, disobedient ones (22:15). Covenant stipulations indicate who receives the blessing of access to the tree and the holy city—only those who abide by the prophecy’s words and also wash their robes. The covenant provision, which grounds the blessing and authorizes the stipulation, is less explicit but foundational, for mention of the washed robes alludes to freedom from sin’s guilt by the sacrificial death of the Lamb (1:5; 7:14). Only those who wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb, which makes them white and free from guilt, have access to the tree of life and the city (22:14; 7:14; and 1:5) (pp. 103-104).
Now to the focus of this third blog article. After Perkins overlooks the critical content of the above paragraphs and the next one also that I cite below, which constitute the segment on which he comments, he reaches this incorrect conclusion:
This section is fraught with imprecision and confusion. This problem is obvious even on the surface since, although law is clearly understood as the covenant stipulations, Caneday never explains what he understands the gospel to be. The content of his arguments suggest that this is not an incidental problem but one inherent in his theology. After all, what does it mean that the gospel threatens perdition to believers? It is hard to imagine how Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are warnings that all who trust in Jesus may go to hell. I struggle to think of a passage that makes this particular point. Perhaps Caneday uses “gospel” to refer to the whole body of New Testament teaching (unlikely but possible). Still, the specific point that believers are threatened with hell is an overstated interpretation of even the most intense warning passages (emphasis added).
Ponder the artificiality and rigidness of Perkins’ posturing: “After all, what does it mean that the gospel threatens perdition to believers? It is hard to imagine how Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are warnings that all who trust in Jesus may go to hell. I struggle to think of a passage that makes this particular point” (emphasis added).
Is it not evident that by disavowing the Lutheran “law-gospel hermeneutic” I do not agree with Perkins’ reading of Holy Scripture through his constricting lens that strips the gospel’s call, its commands and demands, from the new covenant message known as the gospel? Scripture persuades me that the gospel’s call is wholly integrated into and inseparable from the gospel message. Why is this integration not evident to Perkins, except that his “law-gospel reading glasses” impair his vision? Ponder the Gospel of Mark 1:14-15. When Jesus comes preaching the good news bound up with his advent, what does he proclaim? “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” The gospel message bears within itself obligations—repent and believe the good news as it is in Jesus Christ. The call of the gospel is integral to and indivisible from the gospel message. Refusal to repent and believe the gospel has consequences, eternal perdition.
Nowhere does Perkins acknowledge that my disavowal of the Lutheran “law-gospel hermeneutic” is in good Reformed company, including Louis Berkhof, to whom I appeal. I cite this honored theologian who disagrees with early Reformed theologians who “represented the law and the gospel as absolute opposites” because “[t]hey thought of the law as embodying all the demands and commandments of Scripture, and of the gospel, as containing no demands whatsoever, but only unconditional promises; and thus excluded from it all requirements” (pp. 105-106; Berkhof, 612). Is it not apparent, then, that Harrison Perkins, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, and others have embraced a stark absolute “law-gospel” contrast? Horton, whose words my essay cites, affirms this:
Thus, the Law condemns and drives us to Christ, so that the Gospel can comfort without any threats or exhortations that might lead to doubt. . . . The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. . . . While the Gospel contains no commands or threats, the Law indeed does and the Christian is still obligated to both “words” he hears from the mouth of God (p. 107).
This is the Lutheran “law-gospel hermeneutic” I reject in my essay. Now, Perkins might inquire, “But what does it mean that the gospel threatens perdition to believers?” I’m glad he asks even though the answer to his question is right there in the essay he caricatures and misrepresents. So, I beg your indulgence with pedantic reiterations of what I wrote in my essay.
I return to that third paragraph that I cited above which Perkins ignored. When I wrote my essay six years ago, for several reasons I purposely chose to feature Revelation 22 because the passage effectively illustrates my essay’s thesis. The passage expresses the covenantal aspects integral to the gospel of Jesus Christ including the new covenant provision, stipulations, and blessing and curse. The linkage between Revelation 22 and Genesis 2, including the presence of covenant stipulations, should not be difficult to recognize.
Chief among the various aspects of Revelation 22 that prompted my featuring this passage is how the Apostle John formulates the gospel’s warning, the new covenant’s stipulation, of verses 18 and 19 within the new covenant framework.
Revelation 22 illustrates this essay’s thesis. “The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” announces, “I am coming soon! (22:13, 12). He forewarns, “My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done” (22:12). His forewarning entails covenant blessing and curse embedded with provision and stipulations: Blessing to “the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll” (22:7) and to “those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city” (22:14). Curse of exclusion from both the tree and the city belong to the evil, disobedient ones (22:15). Covenant stipulations indicate who receives the blessing of access to the tree and the holy city—only those who abide by the prophecy’s words and also wash their robes. The covenant provision, which grounds the blessing and authorizes the stipulation, is less explicit but foundational, for mention of the washed robes alludes to freedom from sin’s guilt by the sacrificial death of the Lamb (1:5; 7:14). Only those who wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb, which makes them white and free from guilt, have access to the tree of life and the city (22:14; 7:14; and 1:5) (pp. 103-104).
As I point out in the essay, the mention of “washed robes” unquestionably refers to Christ’s atoning sacrificial death as the legal ground of salvation, the covenant provision. Set against this covenantal backdrop, the Apostle John uses a conventional covenantal stipulation formula—“if . . . then”—to warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of his Apocalypse: “If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll” (Rev 22:18-19).
What I state next in the essay is the very heart of the matter, the correction that Harrison Perkins needs to hear with great care. Concerning the covenantal threat of Revelation 22:18-19, I explain:
Though some invert John’s threat into a test of authentic faith, the warning is plainspoken grammatically. It issues a future-oriented covenantal stipulation that warns against incurring eternal loss: John does not present a covenantal threat that states if someone augments or detracts from the prophecy, this one was never truly redeemed (emphasis added). That is not the function of this passage, which entails a warning. John expressly directs his threat to believers who have ‘washed robes,’ lest we perish.
Inheriting God’s promises is always conditional, for he grants his covenant blessings to those who, by his own grace, observe stipulations that require persevering, obedient belief.
To assist readers who have been influenced by some version of the Lutheran “law-gospel hermeneutic” it is crucial to recognize the orientation of the Apostle John’s warning. It is prospective, not retrospective. He purposely uses the future tense—God will add to . . . God will take away—to obligate us to understand that we must persevere in faithfulness to Christ Jesus (cf. Rev 13:10—“the perseverance and faithfulness of the saints [ἡ ὑπομονὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων]).
Attentiveness to the grammatical formulations of the biblical text is critical for developing sound and responsible Christian theological teachings. Gospel warnings are prospective. They are future-oriented. They point believers to the Last Day as consequential. They urge us to persevere in faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ to hear him say, “Well done! Enter into the joy of your Lord.” Hence, my essay includes the following.
Despite classic Reformed theology’s affirmation that the warnings provide believers the means to persevere unto final salvation, some Reformed theologians find this objectionable. For example, concerning the admonition, “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14), R. Scott Clark reasons that “if we express this truth as a condition that the believer who is united to Christ, sola gratia, sola fide must meet then how much holiness is enough?” Because he believes stipulations would jeopardize the covenant and introduce works righteousness, Clark argues that the “resolution for this problem is to recognize the difference between ‘if . . . then’ and ‘do . . . because.’ The medieval and Romanist schemes set up deadly conditionals: obey in order to gain (or keep) favor. The Protestants set up grace-wrought consequences. We Protestants seek to obey, in the grace of Christ, in union with Christ, because we’ve been redeemed and because we’ve been given new life.”
Clark’s solution excludes from consideration the classic Reformed understanding of gospel warnings as vital to God’s appointed means by which he preserves his own. Clark supposes that covenant stipulations—“if . . . then” or “do . . . in order to”—necessarily entail accruements of merits (Romanist) and put believers in jeopardy of perishing (Arminian) (pp. 114-15).
Instead of embracing the grammatically formulated future-orientation of the New Testament’s numerous warning passages, R. Scott Clark, with whom Harrison Perkins agrees, forces his systematic theological grid upon the biblical text when he states, “The key to unlocking the warning passages is the distinction between the covenants of works and grace. This is not a formula for making the passages go away. It is the biblical way of reading these passages in context and applying them fruitfully toward conformity to Christ” (cited, p. 115).
The next blog entry will counter directly the unwarranted accusation Harrison Perkins states: “In the end, Caneday does promote a salvation by works.”
* * * * * * * *
Understanding the prospective nature and function of gospel warnings is the core burden of The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance. Harrison Perkins and R. Scott Smith would do well to read with understanding this book. Following are a few notations selected from the book that underscore the future orientation of warnings that are integral to the gospel message.
* * * * * * * *
These admonitions and warnings are the theological watershed in the biblical teaching concerning perseverance. We make our case that they function as a necessary means for believers to persevere unto final salvation. We show how they underscore the dynamic and prospective nature of our salvation. They draw our focus to the not-yet aspect of salvation without doing damage to the fact that believers already have salvation. Biblical admonitions and warnings link the already and the not yet. We propose a view that takes them seriously while at the same time retaining present and full assurance of receiving salvation in the day of Christ Jesus. We show how God uses warnings and admonitions to secure the salvation of his children (TRSBU, 16).
We believe that holding a proper tension between the already and not-yet aspects of God’s gracious gift of salvation leads us to recognize that biblical warnings are prospective, designed to elicit faith that perseveres to the end in order to lay hold of the eternal prize of life. We believe that not only must we accept the intended functions of both promise (assurance) and warning (admonition), but we must also accurately represent their functions in our writing, our teaching and our preaching if we want to do justice to the biblical evidence. This is especially true because how we explain the relationship of promise and warning has profound implications for us personally, interrelationally in the home and in the church, and pastorally (TRSBU, 44-45).
[A]nother essential ingredient for properly holding a biblical relationship between God’s promises and warnings without qualifying either . . . is to embrace the biblical tension between the already and not-yet aspects of God’s gracious gift of salvation. This is necessary, for biblical warnings are prospective and evoke faith that perseveres to the end in order to lay hold of the eternal prize of life at the end of the race that is set before us. If we will accept the biblically designed functions of both God’s promises and warnings, it is imperative that we correctly embrace the biblically conceived relationship between the already and not-yet aspects of God’s gift of salvation. Salvation is already ours as heirs, issuing in confidence and assurance, for we already have God’s gift of the Spirit, who is his “pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people” (Eph 1:14 NRSV). God has pledged our redemption, but we yet await it. This already-but-not-yet orientation is indispensable for a right understanding of how God’s warnings correlate with his promises, for both his promises and his warnings are fundamentally oriented to the eschatological or last day, the day of salvation and judgment (TRSBU, 143-44).
As with the conditional promise, the temptation for Christians is to interpret the warning from a framework of an over-realized view of salvation that severs the biblical connection between the already and the not yet—the linkage between persevering and being saved in the end. The result is that warnings lose their prospective orientation and function, taking on both a retrospective focus and introspective function as tests that expose impostors, people who are not true believers. Thus, to explain what Jesus means by his reference to those who disown him, one writer says, “Here our Lord is talking specifically about false disciples, people who claim to be Christians but are not.” Without realizing it, this author [John MacArthur] transposes Jesus’ warning from a prospective incentive for perseverance to the end into a retrospective test that exposes pseudo-disciples by their past behavior. How does this transposition occur? It begins with conceptual discomfort because conditional warnings and admonitions suspend God’s judgment in the last day on perseverance in this age. Then one logically slides the conditionally expressed verdict of the final day (to be disowned by Christ) forward, into the present. This conceptually nullifies Jesus’ suppositional warning, for now one thinks of the verdict as if it were already disclosed. Thus, the not-yet verdict in Jesus’ warning has become a verdict already determined in one’s mind (TRSBU, 154).
