Jon Moffitt: Hi, this is Jon. Today on Theocast, we are going to be discussing legal preaching; preaching that tends to remove hope, establish fear, and goes after the lazy Christian. We have a long discussion about the distinction between the Law and the gospel, where legal preaching emphasizes Law in almost every passage; the gospel seems to be a byproduct of the way in which we enter into the Christian life.
In the membership podcast, we talk a little bit more about our personal lives: our journey through legal preaching, and how it is that we discovered reformed theology or Calvinism, how I personally began to struggle with legal preaching and how I became set free from that. At the end of it, we talk about the purpose of the pulpit ministry. What should preachers be establishing – fear or hope? We hope you enjoy the conversation.
This is hopefully an encouragement to pastors and potential pastors out there, and even those who are trying to identify why it is they walk away from a sermon and don’t feel encouraged. They feel as if hope was removed and not established.
Theocast, our ministry, is designed to establish hope and rest. As Christ says, “come to me, and I will give you rest.” – legal preaching seems to do the exact opposite of that. I’ll just read an article to you – and we’ll have this in our show notes so you can go to the show notes section of our episode and get the link there.
He says, “The symptoms of a legal preacher are these: a legal preacher is a preacher who majors in the Law to the neglect of the gospel. In practice, he preaches nothing but Law. He thinks that mentioning Jesus periodically or even regularly means that he is not a legal preacher, and he cannot imagine that people are concerned about the tenor of his preaching because he doesn’t see anything wrong with it. It’s the sort of preaching he heard as a young man, and it’s the sort of preaching he heard in seminary. It’s the sort of preaching he admires in other preachers.”
He is describing me at my very early age – as I graduated from college, I was a legal preacher. I remember telling one of the pastors I served with that I felt like people will not appropriately understand, love, and respect God if they don’t fear him. I didn’t mean fear in the sense in which the Psalmist believes to be fear – not fear as in dread, but fear as in respect. I wanted people to dread God because if they dread and feared Him, then they would obey. They would live holy and sanctified lives.
He says here, “A legal preacher is a preacher who majors on the Law to the neglect of the gospel.” I would even go on saying that they turn every passage of Scripture into Law, even when it is a gospel passage. An example of this was sent to me recently by a Theocast listener. And the question was, “What do you think of this?” It was ten ways to abide in God’s love; they were basically ten laws. If you do these ten things, you will abide in God’s love. How do you turn such a wonderful passage of abiding in the love of God into Law? Unfortunately, this article or this sermon did that.
Legal preaching, where something is meant to establish hope – “God loves you, remain in that.” turns it into “This is how you earn.” They didn’t say earn, but said it in another way. If you do these ten things, you abide in God’s Law.
Justin Perdue: Just like we’ve talked about John 15 – abiding in Christ – and the message there is one of hoping, trusting, and resting in Christ. “Apart from me, you can do nothing.” It’s about union with Christ by faith. We turn that into something identical to what you just said: here are the seven ways that you can keep yourself in Christ, or here are the seven steps to abiding in Christ. It ends up becoming more of an emphasis on our actions, discipline, and diligence versus the grace of God, the mercy of God, the efficacy of the work of Christ, and the sufficiency of the work of Christ in the place of the Christian.
I want to pick up on the turning-every-passage-into-Law thing that you just said. I think you’re exactly right. Again, we’re not the first to make these observations, but we agree with observations that others have made and have made similar observations ourselves.
You just said it: you turn every passage of Scripture into Law, even the passages that are gospel. This is because there is a collapsing of the categories of Law and gospel in the mind and understanding of the legal preacher. This is not a podcast about Law-gospel distinction, but we can’t escape that reality when we’re talking about legal preaching.
The legal preacher does not understand the distinction between the Law and the gospel. For some of those who are new with us, when we talk about Law, we mean anything in Scripture that is imperative that tells us do this and you will live. That’s Law. Do this, and you will have favor with God. That’s Law. Anything that tells us about what has been done for us by Christ to be received simply by trusting him is gospel. So “do” is Law, “done” is gospel.
The legal preacher does not understand that distinction. What he ends up doing is taking every passage and turning it into an imperative to the Christian of what the Christian must be doing, must be applying or how diligent the Christian must be. There’s always this kind of exacting, threatening tone to it that if you need to do this or else. What that ends up doing obviously is robbing the believer of any hope of assurance, peace, and rest. If I’m not doing my part, or I’m not taking this seriously enough, I should be afraid and I should be concerned. This collapsing of Law and gospel ends up stealing assurance, and robbing people of hope and peace, because we never can just allow people to bask and rest in the grace of God.
I don’t mean to take us in a different direction, but I know this is where we’re going to go eventually. The fear for the legal preacher is that if he lingers too long on what Christ has done for the Christian and does not give the Christian imperatives, exhortations, things to do, then the listener – the Christian in the pew – might misunderstand him and think that there is no obligation or duty associated with the Christian life.
That’s a big thing – this notion that we must uphold obligation and we must uphold duty all the time lest people misunderstand it.
You and I would agree that there are duties and obligations in the Christian life. But what Christ has done is always primary; our identity in Christ is always primary, and our duty is derived from our identity, not the other way around. That’s where those things are blended together or flipped – it seems, in the mind of the legal preacher, that our identity is determined by what we do, not what we do is determined by our identity.
Jon Moffitt: Just to add a thought to the obligation – and we could even call this obligation preaching or legal preaching – is that they have a fear that if they don’t keep this in front of the believer’s life, they will become lazy. The laziness of the believer is what they’re going after. We at Theocast have been accused of not being concerned over sanctification, not being concerned over obedience, and the other terms antinomians throw out there.
This is what I would say is an overcorrection. Can someone preach in such a way that people don’t see the obligation to obey? Absolutely. But you can’t overcorrect to the side where you are so afraid of grace. You only preach Law; you have to trust grace.
In this article, he says something towards the end, which I think is a fair observation that many people have when it deals with Law-gospel preaching. He says – and this is the accusation against the Law-gospel preachers – that they don’t seem to be nearly interested in sanctification and obedience as they should be; that certainly those fellows aren’t as interested in it as he is. He suspects those fellers of just being lazy. That would be, I would say, many creatures – and I’m not going to name names, I’m going to let you identify these as you will. But a man who gets up in the pulpit and he’s angry at Christians because they aren’t living as dedicated, as separate, and as passionate about obedience and holiness as he is, he will really hone in on holiness. They are going to just preach the holiness of God. I agree that the greater view of the holiness of God, the greater the grace of God becomes. I couldn’t agree more. The greater the Law, the harder the Law.
The other day I preached about the wrath of God, the cup that Jesus drank. One of my deacons came up to me and said, “I couldn’t wait for you to get to the gospel.” What he was saying was that I was stepping down so hard on his throat with the Law. He was so suffocated. By the time I poured the gospel out, he couldn’t gobble it up fast enough. Well, that is Law-gospel preaching where you need to feel the weight of the Law so bad that no one can obey it. Who is going to relieve me from this body of death? As Paul says in Romans 7. There’s a difference between preaching the Law. Justin and I preach the Law every week. You have to because otherwise, you can’t have a prayer of confession. Prayer of confession is not necessary if you don’t preach Law.
Justin Perdue: That’s exactly right. I have a lot of thoughts. I’m going to try to do this in a way that’s clear and systematic. I want to touch on some things that you’re talking about, and also circle back around to some other stuff that we may have already talked about with respect to the Law in general.
I completely agree that if you’re going to be biblical or reformed in your preaching, you must preach the Law rightly. That would mean preaching the Law in its particular uses; the first and the third use, depending on who’s numbering them and what categories you have there. We’ll talk about that more as this show goes on.
With respect to the legal preacher, I have heard this a number of times where somebody will make the statement with respect to the Bible: “Well, it’s all gospel. The whole thing is gospel.” No, it’s not. You’ll even hear people say, “Even in the Mosaic Covenant, it’s all of grace.” Yes, in that the Mosaic Law is given underneath the banner of the Covenant of Grace high level. But the Mosaic Law, as we’ve said a number of times on this show, is a reissuing of the covenant of works with respect to its requirements. We can’t call the Law gospel in that respect.
But you hear guys trying to do and say that, and these are guys who even would claim to be reformed in their theology. That’s just an inaccurate, imprecise representation of Scripture. It’s not all gospel. There are a number of passages that are not gospel at all.
The Law, as it stands on its own, is a damning and condemning reality. Like you just said, Jon, it’s important that we preach the Law in its first use every week – that God is holy and righteous and requires perfect fulfillment and obedience to his holy and perfect Law. If we do not render that unto God, we stand condemned. Then we give people the gospel, and we point them to Christ Jesus, their Savior. A lot of times, this has been my experience, too. The third use of the Law is the Law as the perfect guide for the life of the Christian. A lot of times the legal preacher does not ever really preach the first use of the Law. He doesn’t ever preach the holiness of the Law: you cannot do this, Jesus has fulfilled it for you, trust Christ and have peace with God. He does not do that, as he should. Then he preaches the third use, which is not threatening. It’s the Law. Calvin would even say that the Law is our kind adviser in Christ Jesus, but instead, that legal preacher preaches that third use as though it’s the first one.
That’s my observation that I’ve said a number of times. You preach the third use as though it’s the first use. You preach it in this threatening tone like you better do this, or you’ll be condemned, or you’re not really a Christian. Brother, I don’t think you’ve understood the Law in its uses appropriately.
Paul in 1 Timothy 1:8 says we uphold the Law as long as it’s used lawfully. Exactly. I don’t think the legal preacher does that. It creates a lot of confusion, is so damaging, and it robs people of assurance and peace because they end up thinking if they don’t do an appropriate job of conforming themselves to the word of God, if they don’t have an appropriate level of desire or affection or discipline or whatever, then they need to be afraid. Anybody with a brain and a conscience is going to say, “I don’t know where my hope stands.”
I have a few other thoughts. The issue with laziness is a thing. You brought this up: the legal preacher seems to have in his crosshairs all the time the lazy Christian. It seems to me that so many sermons from legal preachers about holiness are preached with the assumption that everybody listening to the sermon does not want to be holy. It’s the assumption that everybody listening does not want to be godly.
Jon Moffitt: Let me interject there: that they don’t have the level and the intensity that they should. They think their intensity level needs to be higher.
Justin Perdue: You’re right. Maybe it’s not that people don’t want to be holy or godly at all, but they don’t want it badly enough.
Jon Moffitt: They’re compromising.
Justin Perdue: There’s this sinking suspicion in the mind of the legal preacher that the audience really loves ungodliness and really just wants to be comfortable in their sin, rather than wanting to love God with all their hearts, wanting to obey the Lord, and wanting to be holy. Brother, who are you talking to and who do you understand your audience to be? In my own local church context, for example, I don’t know anybody in my church who wouldn’t sincerely say, “Yes, I want to be holy. I want to be godly. I want to love God with all my heart. I want my heart to be thrilled in worship.” The problem for all of us is that we want that in our inner man, and at the same time, we battle against sin and our own corruption.
I think in the mind of the legal preacher, there’s not an appropriate understanding of the sinner-saint reality either; that Romans 7 is in the Bible; Galatians 5:17 is in the Bible. Where we’re told that the spirit and the flesh wage war against each other and we don’t do what we want to do. That seems to escape the mind of the legal preacher as well. It’s our observation that that laziness in the lazy Christian is always in the crosshairs. What you end up doing is scolding, berating, and unsettling people in order to motivate them toward holiness. It’s like if these people are going to be sufficiently motivated for holiness and godliness, I need to get up here, unsettle them, and light a fire under them so that they’ll be motivated to pursue it. If I don’t do that, and if I just continue to preach Christ, they will be content and apathetic in their current state.
Jon Moffitt: They are removing hope in the same way we would remove hope. I don’t have a problem with removing hope when it comes to a false hope, meaning if you’re trusting in your profession – you came forward at the end of a service and you asked Jesus into your heart – the sinner’s prayer, if you’re trusting in your baptism, or if you’re putting your trust in any kind of action that you performed.
Most of the time it’s the Southern Baptist world – they said the sinner’s prayer, and that’s what they’re going after. I can’t tell you how many church members I had that said that they’ve been saved like 700 times. “I really mean it this time.” If they’re going to go after those people and removing their hope, I don’t have a problem with that because that is not really hope. That’s not a very solid foundation. I don’t have a problem walking over with a hammer, popping that glass, and shattering it saying, “Listen, you don’t want to stand on that. That’s not where you want to stand.” What you do is you put your hand on their shoulder and you lead them over to the corner foundation of Christ and say, “This is where you want to be.” You don’t lead them over to legalism. You don’t lead them over to Law. You don’t leave them over to obligation because that too is not the foundation that we stand on.
I’m not calling these guys heretics, and I’m definitely not saying they don’t understand the gospel. But when it comes to the everyday Christian life and how it is that I am to respond in holiness to the Father, you can either motivate people through fear or you can motivate them through hope and love.
I want to use this as an example: the apostle Paul was a preacher. He would write letters that would be read on his behalf because he couldn’t be there to preach. If you go and read these passages – and Ephesians is a great example of this – he begins by identifying himself when writing to the church of Ephesus. Ephesians 1:2, “Grace to you and peace from our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” He begins this way. As a matter of fact, that same phrase he begins within Philippians, he begins in Colossians, and then he ends the same way. He ends the letter with “grace and peace to you.”
He is not establishing fear, he is not establishing dread, and he does give Law because the gospel is not sweet unless there’s Law and he does give obligation. He says, “Listen, you need to consider how to build one another up in love. You need to protect the unity.” But all of that is centered from the position of grace. He establishes hope and then he presents obligation. He says in Ephesians 4:1, “You need to walk worthy in the manner of which you have been called.” What is that? The response to that is love. So we are not saying there’s no obligation for the believer. There is obligation, but that obligation is not what determines whether your hope is established or not. It’s a byproduct of hope. It is not the establishment of hope. There’s a difference. Byproduct versus establishment.
Justin Perdue: Thinking about the pattern of the apostles. The letter to the Philippians pops into my mind where there are certainly exhortations throughout that letter. We all are familiar with Philippians 2 where we’re exhorted toward humility and we’re pointed to the model of Christ who humbled himself to the point of death – even death on a cross. And then in Philippians 3:1, Paul says, “To write the same things to you is no trouble for me and is safe for you.” He goes on at that point to remind the Philippians that a righteousness according to the Law is nothing. Paul talks about it in his own experience: that he had a righteousness according to the Law that would surpass practically anybody’s, but he considers that as trash when he considers the righteousness that is according to faith in Jesus Christ that God gives us.
Throughout the epistles, these things are just peppered in: we’re talking about humility, we’re talking about how we live together as a body, and let me remind you of where your righteousness comes from. The Romans example that we use all the time is when Paul is encouraging the Roman saints. He talks constantly about their identity and their union with Christ. I agree with you, Jon, that if we’re going to exhort believers in the church, and we’re going to give imperatives – which we absolutely need to do – we need to do it in the way that the apostles do it. We need to do it by establishing first identity and status as justified, united to Christ, and then talk about how the redeemed live.
When I was preaching through 1 John – and we could do a Dazed and Confused on 1 John sometimes about how misunderstood that letter is, because it’s often upheld as like the great litmus test of salvation. “Measure yourself up against these standards to determine whether or not you’re saved.” I don’t think that’s John’s aim in that letter. He’s writing to a church that’s been bombarded by false teaching and apostasy, and he’s comforting the redeemed. When I was preaching through that letter constantly, John’s posture here is not to smoke out the lazy Christians or to smoke out the nominal Christians; his posture is to comfort the saints.
For example, he’ll talk about the confessions that believers make, that Jesus came in the flesh and that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. He’ll talk about practicing righteousness. He’ll talk about loving the brothers. His tone and his posture is not so much “You better love the brothers and if you don’t love the brothers sufficiently, you’re not in Christ.” He’ll say, “Hey guys, we’re the redeemed and the redeemed love each other.” It’s just a very different posture. “Let’s do what the redeemed do.” That’s what you and I are saying. Herald to the saints: trust Christ, you are righteous, you’ve been reconciled with God; you have peace with God in Christ through your union with Christ by faith; now let’s live like the redeemed live, and here’s how we’re to live together. It’s very different than “you better live this way or you’re going to just prove yourself to be an unbeliever.”
Like you said, one establishes hope and one robs people of any possibility of hope. One is a good motivator for life in the church; the other is a very poor motivator for life in the church and the Christian life in general. It’s a world of difference for those two perspectives.
One last thought: if the legal preacher, in his mind, really thinks that the people he’s preaching to are at best lazy or are at worst unconverted – which it seems that that’s the case when you listen to many of these certain runs in these guys preach – brother, you seem to be thinking that you’re preaching to an unbelieving audience. If that’s the case, then why in the world are you just lambasting people with Law and never giving them Christ? If you really think that these people might not be Christians, then preach the first use of the Law in all of its holiness, in all of its righteousness, and all of its terror outside of Christ, and then give people Jesus. “Let me tell you about the Savior. Let me tell you about the one who has fulfilled the Law for you. Let me tell you about the one who took upon himself all of your law breaking, corruption, guilt, and shame, and drank the cup of God’s wrath and atoned for your sin. Let me tell you about absolution, forgiveness, mercy, grace, and peace that are found in Christ by faith alone. Let me tell you about that.
But that’s not how it goes. You just ended up getting a guy up there yelling at people about how they’re supposed to live and that is gospel-less so often. It might be a tip of the cap to the gospel, or some sort of acknowledgment of the gospel or maybe an assumption of it, but they’re not preaching Law and gospel in its fullness to people that they seem to think might not even be Christians. That blows my mind a little bit.
Jon Moffitt: If you understand Calvinism, or if you consider yourself to be a Calvinist, you have to wonder if they are preaching to the unbeliever they do know that the only way in which they will be converted is through the gospel. We don’t know the tension of every preacher, but sometimes you feel like they are preaching to the unbelieving crowd. If you are preaching to a crowd that is openly denying Jesus – they know the gospel and they don’t care and don’t want to believe, then you can preach some pretty heavy condemnation upon because they know the truth and they’re denying the truth. Paul and Jesus bring some pretty heavy condemnation on them. But if you’re dealing with people who are trapped in sin or confused, or I would say uneducated – they’re weak in their faith and you bring Law to them and you don’t bring the gospel… Gospel is what bolsters our faith. Gospel is what grounds us. This is why Paul says, “I want to come to you and preach Christ and him crucified and Christ and him crucified is not the gospel unless it comes to you by grace.” If you are giving all the facts of Christ’s life and you disassociate it from grace, or you never conclude that these are yours by grace, then you’re not really preaching the gospel. If you’re hearing preaching and it feels like the preacher is angry, he is constantly warning you about your attitude and your actions towards God and you walk away concluding, “I’m not sure he offered me hope. I think he offered me fear. That if I don’t get myself in line that I should…” They’ll use verses like, “Examine yourself to see if you’re of the faith,” and what they mean by examining is they immediately point to your actions. That is not what Paul means. 1 Corinthians – they got the gifts wrong, they got love wrong, they got sexuality wrong, they got idol worship problem. They got it all wrong.
What does Paul do? He comes in and he reestablishes their assurance in love, reestablishes the gospel and says, “Listen, you’ve misunderstood the gospel. You’ve misunderstood grace. You’re boasting in it.” He corrects some antinomianism with the gospel. He opens it with one, I’m not ashamed of the gospel. Number two, I want to come and preach the gospel to you.
Justin Perdue: An observation along the same lines of what you were just saying is that a lot of times, the legal preacher seems to be very dissatisfied with where his people are. He seems to be frustrated with them constantly. I think Scott Clark in his article – that we’ll link to in the show notes references this as well – paints a hypothetical picture of the congregant coming up to the pastor and saying, “Pastor, are you frustrated with us? Because it seems like you are always dissatisfied and frustrated with us.” That does seem to be the tone and the posture of so many guys where the people are not doing as they should be; they don’t take things as seriously as they should, they’re not diligent enough, they’re not disciplined enough, their affections aren’t good enough. “I’m going to, again, light that proverbial fire under you to motivate you through intensity, exacting tone, demands, and even in this threatening sort of vibe. I’m going to unsettle you.” It’s interesting as we think about the posture of Paul in the letters to the Corinthians. I’m also mindful of 1 Thessalonians 4:1 where Paul says to the Thessalonian Christians essentially this: what you’re doing, do so all the more. He’s exhorting them to continue on in the faith and in the Christian life. He doesn’t just lambaste them for all the ways they fall short. He says, “You’re already doing this and this. So as you are doing, just do it all the more. That I think is a much better representation of what our pastoral posture should be: establish people in their identity in Christ – their status as justified, adopted children of God. “You’ve been given a spirit of adoption, not fear, and you are safe. Look at what God is doing in you. Look at how your life is changing. What you’re doing, do so all the more,” rather than, “You’ve got a long way to go.” It’s totally different in posture and tone.
Jon Moffitt: You will not hear legal preachers admit to their own frailness and need of grace. Paul would constantly say, “I’m the greatest sinner that I know.”
Justin Perdue: And we trust he meant that.
Jon Moffitt: Right. He didn’t say it once. He talked about how if he stacked up his righteousness, he considered it as worthless. “Oh, wretched man that I am. Who will save me from this body of death?” I think he was referring to his post-conversion experience, not his prior. Paul did not see himself as a wretched man on his road to Damascus. When he was confronted and converted, that’s when he went, “Oh, my. This is who I am now.”
A legal preacher will be looking down upon the congregants, trying to pull them up to his standard. A gospel preacher is one who is down with his people trying to lift them up into hope. He is not trying to pull them to his own standard; he is trying to push them to Christ and to uphold them. It’s the difference between the removal of hope because they’re trying to create an action versus the establishment of hope as well as trying to create action. I want my people to love each other, and the best way they will do that is when they feel as if all hope is secure, that they don’t need to love each other because they’re establishing God’s love. They don’t need to love and obey and fight sin because if they don’t, there’s the fear of God. They have it already. This is Ephesians 4:1. This is how you respond worthy to the call which you have been called. As we always say, identity forward.
We rest, therefore we obey. The legal preacher says, “If you want to rest, you better obey,” which is the complete opposite. You cannot obey enough to have rest; you just will never obey enough; you’re always going to fight against sin. But you can rest if you’re resting in something that is outside of yourself; the good news of the gospel is rest is found outside of yourself. The Law should keep you from ever resting in your own self-righteousness. From the experience that I’ve had through the years of hearing legal preaching is that – and they wouldn’t say it this way but unfortunately it’s the conclusion – they’re trying to get you to rest in your own self-righteousness. You and I both know that’s very dangerous because you don’t have enough self-righteousness to have enough hope when it comes to the end of your life. It just won’t be enough ever.
Justin Perdue: Paul’s model of upholding himself as the utmost, the foremost, or the chief of sinners is helpful for any of us who would ever get in the pulpit and preach. Like you, I don’t think that Paul is using that language in 1 Timothy 1:15-16 when he calls himself the foremost of sinners. I don’t think that’s a rhetorical tool and tactic to try to create a reaction. I don’t think that’s smoke and mirrors; I think that’s legitimate. I’m convinced, Jon, that the guys who are the most effective in the pulpit, biblically speaking, are the preachers who are most in touch with the depth of their own corruption.
If we are appropriately mindful of how wretched we are, as the man standing in the front to herald the good news and to preach the word of God, then we would never assume that that we have any kind of merit or righteousness to stand on. We would never downplay the severity of our own sin or the depth of our own wickedness, and that’s going to help us in preaching, counseling, and teaching other people because we would never encourage them to look to their own merit or their own righteousness. We would never downplay the depth of their corruption. If anything, we’re going to just continue to beat the drum of “You are far worse off than you ever imagined.” Even for those of us who have been in the faith for a season of time and are being sanctified, we still are much worse off than we ever could see. There is more sin in us than we realize but here’s the good news: there is even more mercy in Christ. This is why you must continually look to him for your hope and your confidence as the ground of your assurance and not look to anything in you. I’m not saying that this is what guys think, but it seems that a lot of the legal preachers have lost some touch and some sense of the depth of their own corruption, because it’s almost like in their own minds, they’re doing pretty well; to be able to almost look down upon others and preach with the kind of condescending tone or the notion that you would want to pull people up to your level biblically is craziness. If they’re going to imitate us, there may be some things in my life that are worthy of imitation by God’s grace, but ultimately imitate me as we all look to Christ for our hope. Join me in looking to Jesus Christ for our righteousness. Join me in looking to Christ for everything.
Jon Moffitt: If I’m demonstrating love, grace, peace, and patience, sure, imitate that. But often when people think of that, they think of the spiritual disciplines. They think of the standard like I have established these standards and you need to look at my standards and establish your life according to my standards. No. If you think if I’m demonstrating grace and you can see that, then sure, imitate that. But there’s not much about my life that you’re going to want to imitate.
Justin Perdue: What you’re describing are fruits of God’s Spirit in which are held out for all of us. God will produce these things in us. We would look to those things and say that’s really good – I’m seeing love in his life, or I’m seeing patience in her life, and God gets the credit for that. That is something that I want to see more of in my own life. Absolutely. But like what you’re saying, what is often upheld are these things that actually aren’t explicitly in Scripture. They’re like life habits and practices that may be wise or may be not. It’s like I need to do everything that he’s doing if I’m going to be godly like that. That’s really not been so helpful.
Jon Moffitt: Well, we are out of time. We need to move over to the members podcast. We have more to say on this – there might even be some advice to preachers. If you find yourself to be a legal preacher, how do you make the change? I’ll give the description of that moment where I made that transition. Justin and I both grew up in legal preaching. How do you transition out of it?
We’re going to spend a little bit more time on what the purpose of the pulpit in the membership podcasts is. If you don’t know what that is, that is an extra podcast that we do for those who support our ministry. It’s just a simple way for us to say thank you for taking your money and supporting our ministry.
You can get a 14-day free trial. Go over and listen to several of those to hear about them. It also has a backlog of over two hundred episodes of our regular podcast, over a hundred of our membership, and all of our articles. There’s also an education series on there. There’s a lot of information. It’s a simple way to help support Theocast to keep the message of rest going around the world.
Thank you for listening and we’ll see you next week.