The guys discuss a theology of the cross versus a theology of glory. And, we consider the point of our sanctification.

Resources:
Episode: Take Up Your Cross

Giveaway: “Recovering Eden” by Zack Eswine

FREE EBOOK: Theocast.org/primer

https://youtu.be/THpB7373Yp8

Semper Reformanda Transcripts

Justin Perdue: Welcome to the Semper Reformanda podcast.

When we were having the conversation back on the regular portion of the podcast, we alluded to several things: one of them being these principles of a theology of the cross versus a theology of glory; it’s very applicable to the conversation about dying with dignity and hope. The reason that people react quite strongly to a statement like that, that what we’re doing in the care of souls is to help people die with dignity and hope in Jesus, people buck that and say, “No. There is a lot more that we need to be doing. We need to be churning out strong, valiant, fearless, uber mature disciples who look and talk a certain way, and don’t struggle in certain ways. And if we’re not doing that, then we’re failing. That’s what we need to be doing as pastors.” Our response to that is some of what we said in the regular show, but I think we want to unpack this more here.

We actually have been told in Scripture that yes, we will grow and yes, we will be conformed into Christ’s image, and in this life we will still be weak. We, in this life, will not have a strength of our own that we can trust him. We will know that God’s strength is sufficient, His grace is sufficient, His power is made perfect in our weakness, His grace and Christ’s work has paid for every failing, and that Christ has us. And we’re going to learn that more and more and more, and be driven more deeply into the gospel, and be driven more deeply into Christ, and we’ll know ourselves to be more dependent as we grow in the faith. You and I don’t grow in our sufficiency as we mature; we actually realize how insufficient we are as we mature, and so we cling to Christ all the more.

If that’s what you mean by being stronger in the faith then I’m all for it, but I don’t think that’s what most people mean. It’s because we have confused these categories of the theology of the cross and the theology of glory. A theology of glory is very much earthbound. It’s focused on this life and strength and power and improvement now—getting glory now. Whereas a theology of the cross actually says something different: that we are weak, needy, frail, and feeble now. Christ has accomplished our salvation and glory is coming, but it’s a pattern now of weakness and suffering and then glory in the next life, not this one. I think the church, having confused this, is pretty obvious in a number of ways. I know you’re going to make an observation that’s more about teaching and stuff.

One observation I would just throw out there: how many really good songs have you heard written about heaven in the last 50 years? Good theological stuff written in the last 50 years. Not much. The fact that so much of our thinking is centered on improvement now… And I’m not talking about prosperity gospel theology here; we’re talking about improvement in our maturity and strength and stamina and discipline and all these things, but it’s so earthbound nonetheless. It just sounds more holy.

Jon Moffitt: Monday, I turned 40. As I get older, I think that I should be getting better, I should be progressing, I should be overcoming my weaknesses and failures. I am often reminded that everything I struggle with, everything that’s wrong, is all going to be made right. My wife and I were driving on our way to dinner last night through the backfields of Tennessee, because that’s where we live. It is beautiful. Just beautiful.

Justin Perdue: It’s the stuff country songs are made of.

Jon Moffitt: I’m just thinking, as we’re driving, that one day, my wife and I

The guys discuss how biblicism is related to theonomy and unhelpful views on the nation of Israel. And, as a bonus, we get into a little bit of eschatology.Resources:Episode: Is the whole Bible about Jesus? Episode: Is your theological system any good?Series: Covenant Theology seriesBook: “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” by David VanDrunnenSUPPORT Theocast: https://theocast.org/give/https://youtu.be/Iipysp_LfogSemper Reformanda TranscriptsJon Moffitt: Hi, this is Jon. Today on Theocast, we are going to be explaining what biblicism is. There’s a lot of theological confusion and categories and systems and theologies that have been birthed out of biblicism. We’re going to explain to you what it is, how to refrain from it, and how to spot it when you see it. Stay tuned.Today is a podcast we probably have been needing to do for a long time and we reference it often.Justin Perdue: We even promised to do a podcast on it multiple times.Jon Moffitt: I know. The real estate on the podcast is very small so we have to be choosy on what we pick.Biblicism is a word. I saw someone use it the other day, saying, “I’m a biblicist.” Someone should tell him not to say that.Justin Perdue: It’s not a badge of honor.Jon Moffitt: It’s a negative thing and we’re going to explain to you why. Someone may think, “Why would ‘Bible’ and ‘-ism’ be a bad thing?” Typically, “-ism” isn’t good. Not always the case; Calvinism isn’t necessarily bad—it has gotten a bad rap—which I just did an introduction to that on Ask Theocast. Check that out.But to stay focused: biblicism. Justin, give us a quick definition of what it is. Then we are going to work through about five or six examples of what happens when you don’t use Scripture properly, or you’re a biblicist, this is what it ends up producing.So what’s a good definition, a simple definition, of a biblicist for our listeners?Justin Perdue: Let me define it in a simple way, and even use pop level accessible language in talking about this. You already alluded to it once when you said a person would describe themself as a Bible person. Another way that you hear this commonly presented is people will say, “no creed but Christ”, or, “no confession but the Bible”. People will say that the only thing that we need to use is Scripture and any kind of framework outside of the Bible, or any tools outside of the Bible are not useful; it’s not faithful or it’s not responsible to use such things to understand the Scripture. And so you end up getting this kind of a situation where people will say that if the text does not say it explicitly, then we cannot preach it and we cannot teach it.Jon Moffitt: Or the reverse is true: “The text explicitly said it, therefore I’m going to preach it.”Justin Perdue: Sure. We’re going to give illustrations of this, like you said, in broad categories and the like.What ends up happening is you make the Bible sound very schizophrenic because you quote chapter and verse in isolation and you don’t interpret that verse within its broader context, even maybe within the book that it’s situated in, let alone within the epoch of redemptive history that it’s situated in, or let alone the entire Bible. And so you