Preaching to the Heart, by Jay Adams

For years homileticians have been exhorting preachers to “preach to the heart.” But what are they talking about? Do you know? Do they? Is the concept Biblical, and if so, how does one do it?

The blame for confusion about what it means to “preach to the heart” does not lie solely with homileticians, while preachers go off scot-free. Homileticians should make themselves clear. But if they don’t, it is the responsibility of the preachers to pound on their doors until they do. So neither is guiltless. There has been a conspiracy of ignorance in which words and phrases have been uttered again and again as though the speakers and the listeners knew perfectly well what they were talking about, when all the while they did not. As a homiletician who has been at fault in this matter, I believe something must be done. It is time the whole matter were cleared up. That is the point of this book.

Advertisement

Was There Really a Covenant of Works?

Theologians have different reasons for denying a Covenant of Works made with Adam. Some, like PCA Teaching Elder (and Federal Visionist) Peter Leithart, claim that God’s arrangement with Adam was the same as His arrangement with believers today. The result of this denial of a works-based covenant is that, instead of all of God’s covenants being based on grace, they all become works-based, requiring the righteousness of “covenant faithfulness” instead of the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. (For more on Leithart’s denial of the Covenant of Works, and the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards, see this post.)

Others refuse to accept a Covenant of Works (or any covenant, for that matter) made with Adam, simply because they do not find the word “covenant” anywhere in Genesis 1-3. This objection is illogical, for all the necessary terms of a covenant are clearly present in these opening chapters of Scripture, even if the single word “covenant” is not to be found. To skeptics of both stripes: A.W. Pink (and R.B. Howell, and Herman Witsius) would like a word with you:

“Before entering into detail upon the nature and terms of the compact which God made with Adam, it may be well to obviate an objection which some are likely to make against the whole subject; namely, that since the word covenant is not to be found in the historical account of Genesis, therefore to speak of the Adamic covenant is naught but a theological invention. There is a certain class of people, posing as ultraorthodox, who imagine they have a reverence and respect for Holy Writ as the final court of appeal which surpasses that of their fellows. They say, Show me a passage which expressly states God made a covenant with Adam, and that will settle the matter; but until you can produce a verse with the exact term “Adamic covenant” in it, I shall believe no such thing.

“Our reason for referring to this paltry quibble is because it illus­trates a very superficial approach to God’s Word which is becoming more and more prevalent in certain quarters, and which stands badly in need of being corrected. Words are only counters or signs after all (different writers use them with varying latitude, as is sometimes the case in Scripture itself); and to be unduly occupied with the shell often results in a failure to obtain the kernel within. Some Unitarians refuse to believe in the tri‑unity of God, merely because no verse can be found which categorically affirms there are “three Persons in the Godhead” or where the word Trinity is used. But what matters the absence of the mere word itself, when three distinct divine persons are clearly delineated in the Word of truth! For the same reason others repudiate the fact of the total depravity of fallen man, which is the height of absurdity when Scripture depicts him as corrupt in all the faculties of his being.

Clark & Calvin on Determinism & Responsibility

The following quotes are taken from Gordon H. Clark’s essay, “Determinism and Responsibility.” In the essay, Clark endeavors to, and succeeds in demonstrating that man’s responsibility is not based on his having a so-called free will. The arguments in this essay are further developed in Clark’s book, God and Evil: The Problem Solved. I highly recommend both the essay, in its entirety, as well as God and Evil to anyone who has ever wrestled with how God’s sovereignty fits with man’s responsibility in a sinful world. May these quotes inspire you to read both of these small but significant works! Emphasis in bold is my own.

Clark writes, concerning “Free Will”:

 …[I]t is well to note and emphasize that the reason – and has anyone found any other really basic reason? – for introducing the concept of freedom, either in its most extreme form of power of contrary choice or in some more modified form, is to hold man morally responsible. Could it be shown that man’s responsibility does not necessarily depend upon freedom, theology would be freed from an annoying problem. Well can we imagine the groanings which cannot be uttered if generations of young theologues were to be summoned before us to describe the tortures they endured in trying to reconcile God’s omniscience with free will. The Presbyterian and Reformed churches do not believe in free will. They substitute the concept of free agency, meaning that a man is a free moral agent when he acts in conformity with his own nature. Even so, some have stated* that the reconciliation of man’s free agency and God’s sovereignty is an inscrutable mystery. Rather the mystery is – recognizing that God is the ultimate cause of man’s nature – how the Calvinistic solution could have been so long overlooked.

*In the Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1902; compare Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 251-252; also the four questions A.H. Strong cannot answer, Systematic Theology, I, p. 366 [Clark 40-41].

Later, Clark quotes, then comments on Calvin’s Institutes:

“… [H]ow exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes of the Divine will; which is in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the cause of every thing that exists. For if it has any cause, then there must be something antecedent, on which it depends; which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what He wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because He wills it. When it is inquired, therefore, why the Lord did so, the answer must be, because He would. But if you go further, and ask why He so determined, you are in search of something greater and higher than the will of God, which can never be found [III, xiii, 2.].”

God is sovereign; whatever he does is just, for this very reason, because he does it. If he punishes a man, the man is punished justly and hence the man is responsible. This answers the form of argument which runs: Whatever God does is just, eternal punishment is not just, therefore God does not so punish. If the objector mean [sic] he has received a special revelation that there is no eternal punishment, we cannot deal with him here. If, however, he is not laying claim to a special revelation of future history, but to some philosophic principle which is intended to show that eternal punishment is unjust, the distinction between our positions becomes immediately obvious. Calvin has rejected that view of the universe which makes a law, whether of justice or of evolution, instead of the law-giver supreme. … God in such a system is finite or limited, bound to follow or obey the pattern. But those who proclaim the sovereignty of God determine what justice is by observing what God actually does. Whatever God does is just. What he commands men to do or not to do is similarly just or unjust [46-47].

An argument similar to the one Clark describes has shown up on this blog. Basically, it runs thus: Whatever God does is just, God holds man responsible for sin, holding man responsible for predetermined sinful actions is unjust, therefore God does not predetermine sinful actions of men. The third premise is not found in Scripture; it is only found in the philosophy of man. As such, it cannot be introduced into a system of deductive truth from God’s Word. If one is to discover truth about God’s dealings with men, one must rely solely on the Word of God.

John W. Robbins on ECT

I love theology. I spend a great deal of my small amounts of free time reading theological books, articles, blogs, listening to sermons and lectures, etc. to supplement my study of Scripture. My recent schedule has not permitted much time for blogging (and it doesn’t look like that’s going to change anytime soon), so I have decided to begin regularly sharing articles and resources which I find particularly valuable in my ongoing Scriptural/Theological/Philosophical research. I hope that my readers will likewise be blessed by this material, and of course I welcome any comments, observations, reservations, etc. on anything posted here. Thanks in advance!

Recently, during my 45 minute drive to church on Sunday morning, I listened to a taped lecture entitled Bleating Wolves: The Meaning of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, presented by John W. Robbins at the Trinity Foundation Conference on Christianity and Roman Catholicism, 10.8.98. Although this lecture is almost 12 years old, its message is timely, given recent discussion of The Manhattan Declaration and other ecumenically-minded movements.

The lecture can be downloaded (.mp3) here, or read (.pdf) here.

A Former Catholic’s Perspective of the Manhattan Declaration

The latest Trinity Review contains a very interesting piece by Richard Bennett. Bennett is a former Roman Catholic priest, and in this article, The Roman Catholic Agenda Embedded in the Manhattan Declaration, he offers great insight into the behind-the-scenes workings of Rome’s social doctrine.

However important social issues may be, the purity of the gospel deserves greater priority than the preservation of the sanctity of marriage, the upholding of religious freedom, and even the prevention of infanticide.