I thought that in response to Challies, instead of getting into the theology under question; I would go right to the passage that Tim references to 
introduce the concept of a temporary or ineffectual faith. In fact this has become the locus classicus for folks to refer to when suggesting that it is possible for Christians in the 21st century to have a “false-faith.” Below is the text under consideration:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ ~Matthew 7:13-23 (NIVr)
I am simply going to offer some observations—versus brute exegesis—on this passage. My hope will be to suggest an alternative frame from which to read this pericope; contra the one Tim Challies, and most (at least Calvinist) interpreters view this from.
My first suggestion would be to look at the context wherein this passage is situated. Jesus is talking about his disciples, and warning them to be wary of false prophets. The idea of false prophets for the Jew would not be foreign; Israel very early on, in the Torah, is warned about false propehts. In fact Yahweh makes clear that the way his people could know if they were in the presence of false prophets would be if what they prophesied came to pass or not. Likewise, Jesus develops this line of thought (found in passages like Deut. 13; 18:21-22) for his disciples, now, to be able to identify these all too common of characters (“wolves”) amongst God’s people. Jesus says that these kinds of characters will be those who think because they spoke in a “holy language,” did miracles (maybe like Elisha), or all kinds of “sacred” acts; that this would be grounds for them to enter into the kingdom of the Messiah. So the primary issue and context is that Jesus is indicating that just as there always has been false prophets in Israel, there still is; and thus always will be, even until the end.
What the contextual markers suggest to me, is that the way that it is usally used—like the way Tim Challies is using it—is not what Jesus was intending to deal with or answer. In other words, when someone in the 21st century reads this passage (uncritically) through a 16th & 17th century set of theological assumptions; that this lens yields an impact on said exegetes’ interpretive decisions in a way that would make them think that this text’s primary intention is to discuss issues surrounding justification, sanctification, & glorification (with all of the dogmatic assumptions surrounding that, which was given shape within the post-Reformed caldron of development).
All of this to say, I believe that Tim Challies’ (and anyone else like him) appropriation of this passage does not parallel or correlate with what Jesus originally was intending to teach his disciples. The context in Matthew does not seem to be providing a matrix for a teaching on the fine points of justification. Instead, it seems to be dominical teaching about the fact that there are false prophets in Israel who will seek to establish their own righteousness (cf. Mt. 5.17-20); through good works, prophesying (even in the “Messiah’s” name), healing people (see the sons of Sceva cf. Acts 19.11-20), etc. And therefore, Jesus’ disciples should be wary and aware of such characters; even in the environs God’s people. In brief, Jesus’ intention was not for this text to become paradigmatic for our idiosyncratic and dogmatic machinations upon our broader concerns relative to a theory of salvation.
My conclusion, without actually engaging in exegesis, is even upon simple observational reflection; the way this classic text is utilized is unwarranted, and in fact makes this pericope walk on all fours toward an end that it was never intended. I would propose that the reason this kind of interpretation has become dominant amongst Western interpreters (even Leon Morris interprets this passage like Challies; e.g. “Calvinistically”) is because a certain strain and mode of theological discourse has become dominant in these here parts. Which will lead me, naturally, to at least a couple more posts of looking at what the informing theological grid must be for Tim Challies to come to the conclusions that he does about the possibility for there to be what can really only be called temporary faith.
PS. My mom is coming into town for an extended weekend (through Monday); so it might not be until early next week that I get my next post up on this . . . we’ll see. I actually think my next post in response to Challies will be on how the “analogy of scripture” and the “analogy of faith” should impact the theological assumptions that we bring to Matthew 7 interpretively. I am afraid that what is happening, in Challies’ case, is the usual situation, wherein the interpreter comes to the text with the idea that s/he does not have a prior commitment to a theological tradition that impinges upon and informs said exegetes’ interpretive conclusions relative to whatever text happens to be under consideration. We all do, and I think it best to admit that up front. I think if we would do that we would be more able to be critical in our exegetical endeavors. In other words, Challies just assumes his interpretive tradition (5 point Calvinism), without apparently wondering how that is shaping his questions about assurance supposedly found in Matthew 7.
Nice post Bobby. Great job focusing in on the immediate context as well. If i could, I would like to add that I think that the Gospel of Matthew specifically pits the way of Jesus against the way of the Pharisees; the broad way is the way of the Pharisees, the narrow way the way of Jesus. It was an intra-Judaism debate that centered upon who truly represented YHWH within Israel. Those who said “Lord, Lord” were not Jesus followers who thought that they were saved, but it turned out that they were not; they were the followers of the Pharisees (the false prophets) who thought that they were following YHWH, but were actually deceived. Those who followed Jesus were building on the rock, those who followed the Pharisees were building on sand. Anyway, that’s just my two cents; I’m not sure that I added anything to what you said; I was just hoping to contribute something. I thought it was important to note that the Sermon on the Mount was centered in the midst of a dispute over the legitimacy of Jesus’ Messiahship; not in the midst of (as you have stated clearly) dispute over a post-Reformation theory of justification. Interested to hear your further comments in the next post. Have a great weekend with your family!
Amen, Brian. Thanks for adding what you have, I totally agree with your assessment; and in fact to me what you say is what the context demands. This is not some strange teaching for Jesus, i.e. to challenge the faulty identity-belief structures woven into 2nd Temple Judaism, in fact this shapes much of Jesus’ ministry. And it is what finally gets him crucified (cf. Jn 5.18). I just think, as you, that folks like Challies sorely miss the actual context; and thus this becomes a excellent illustration of how powerful our interpretive traditions can become! Thanks, we had a great time with my mom today, and plan on having a great day tomorrow too :-)!
Pingback: Responding To Tim Challies §3: Theodore Beza, “Need Some assurance . . .” « The Evangelical Calvinist
I thought the locus classicus was the parable of the sower? I have just finished reading your three posts on Challies discussion and don’t really see much response beyond, “That just can’t be what the Bible is saying”! Is there somewhere else where you expand on your views?
Hi Hermonta,
The parable of the sower would be a crux interpretum, relative to this topic; indeed, it could be seen as another locus classics on this topic, at least the way it has been “used” by classic Calvinist exegetes, and that tradition (scholastic).
But since this series of posts is over 6 mos. old, I don’t really have the time or motivation to engage in further explication at this point. Nevertheless, I did make some, from my perspective, substantial observations about methodology and prolegomena in my series of posts; I said much more than “That just can’t be what the Bible is saying.” In fact, I presented a complex of theses that require further development; and so at least, if you are going to engage me on this, you need to show me that you have interacted with what I have actually said to this point—other than just wiping it away, casually, with your assertion about me apparently saying that this just can’t be what the Bible is saying—I said much more than that (even in this post) about the context in which this text is situated in its occasional sitz im laben.
In other words, Hermonta, if you want to spend more time in engaging what I’ve said; then I’ll be more than happy to reciprocate in kind. But since I have already spent much more time writing these posts than you have reading them; then I think it fair that I require that you spend a little more time engaging what I said, which you said you read; beyond providing an anecdotal or terse comment as you have thus far.
If you want to know what I think about Calvinism, and my version of it, in general; then read my category on Critiquing Classic Calvinism or Evangelical Calvinism.
But in the end, you’re right; what Challies has written on this topic simply cannot be what Scripture communicates, since the inner-theologic of scripture and the integrity of God’s life in his self-revelation in Christ demand a different reading than that provided by Challies and the ‘tradition’ that he exegetes or thinks from.
Hello Mr. Grow,
Thank you for the response. I am going to have to disagree that you posted much of anything in the series of three posts. In the first one, you simply laid out points that Challies made. The second one, this one, you argued that the context of the narrow is the gate passage does not allow it to carry the weight that the “self examiners” want it to carry. In the third post, you complained about Beza doing the best he could, but in the end being wrong and bad. I really don’t think anything has been put forward, where someone who held the traditional view of assurance, and read your posts, would even blink.
It seems that you either 1)Don’t understand the classic view or 2)You don’t see the problems that the classic view is attempting to address
1)In the classic view, the ground of our assurance is God’s Character, God’s Promises, and Christ’s completed work, as Challies pointed out. Given this and given that there is false assurance, temporary faith etc. and no human has assess to the Lamb’s book of life, one will need to do some self examination.
2)You believe that there is no such thing as temporary/non saving faith and there is no such thing as false assurance. If you do believe this to be the case, then I have seen nothing in these three posts or in the other critiquing Calvinism posts that justifies such a stance.
The really unfortunate thing, is that I am pretty excited about your evangelical calvinist book, and especially the essay by Marcus Johnson on original sin. Union with Christ looks to be one of the most exciting subjects in traditional Calvinism today.
I hope you have a good holiday with your family.
Hermonta
@HG,
Lets keep some perspective. This is a blog, and my response to Challies represents an occasional, even knee jerk response.
I don’t think I would have made it to where I have made it thus far, educationally, if I was unaware of the lineaments of Reformed theology in general, and this topic of assurance in particular (esp. as a Reformed theologian myself). In fact I am slated to write a chapter for a forthcoming book on this very topic. My chapter is on the doctrine of assurance in the theology of Thomas Torrance.
You apparently haven’t read much of my posts, because I have written on this stuff (like on the practical syllogism, experimental predestinarianism, pactum salutis, etc etc) at length in some instances.
Anyway, you still haven’t dealt with what I have said in this particular post about the context in Mt 7 and false prophets in biblical theology.
Also, I am working from an alternative theological ontology and doctrine of God and election than the classic—if you haven’t noticed—and thus this will inform my exegetical conclusions and observations. The fact that I haven’t developed those at length here simply comes back to the fact that this is a blog. Again, if you want me to engage you in a serious level then you’ll need to interact with what I have written in this post for example.
As far as Beza and the the Post Reformed orthodox tradition that follows (scholastic); they certainly have their place, but I reject the repristination of them that the orthodox today engage in. I am interested in constructive retrievals of their theology instead.
You need to read me more I think; your comments seem a little presumptuous thus far.
Merry Christmas
PS. Our book is an excellent volume, I think. JOhnson’s chapters help to make it that!