The Kingdom intersects theSermon on the Mount; I have written about this topic before,
so I won’t reiterate the same points, but after reading The Sojourner Chronicles, Buddy Overman is spot on. He critiques a recent article from World
Magazine written by Anthony Bradley. He notes that Bradley’s argument is that
some of the new reformers, like David Platt and Acts 29 churches, are pressing a “Radical
Christianity” and “New Legalism” on the church, to which Overman refutes with
some credible points.
I see the danger not in radicalism or legalism, to which
men like David Platt steer well clear of and other Acts 29 pastors, but in antinomianism.
Fancy word right? If we break it down, it makes perfect sense; the word anti or
against, and the Latin nomos, meaning
law (here’s a good link for deeper biblical study on the issue). Views like Bradley’s can be
dangerous, in that if the believer denounces the holiness aspect, he/she may
jeopardize the Gospel’s power of
grace. Quite honestly, the “grace covers everything” argument was made in the
first century and Paul vehemently affirmed that while there is forgiveness
through Christ, there are still consequences for sin.
Downgrading the definition
of doulos, to which Paul and Peter describe
themselves in their letters to the churches, the Greek word for bondservant or slave,
is a major dilemma in Americanized Christianity. While pastors as I, will teach
God’s forgiveness of sin through the grace and blood of Christ and that as a
free gift, obedience must be part of the equation, not in salvation, but in Christian
ethics and walk. Integrity matters!
Therefore, antonomianism
becomes a legalism in and of itself, this danger is far worse because it serves
as a false guide for the believer to relax in his/her own understanding and not
on the holiness and rightful Kingship of Christ—namely that He purchased the
believer—He is outright owner.
In my opinion, there is no
fear of radical legalism in the new reformed churches, for the reasons of grace; they get
it. Charles Hodge sums it up:
“Antinomianism has never
had any hold in the churches of the Reformation. There is no legal connection
between the neglect of moral duties, and the system which teaches that Christ
is a Saviour as well from the powers as from the penalty of sin…”[1]
While one may argue that
this was Bradley’s idea in noting radical Christianity and new legalism, his
dilemma rests in the underpinnings of lawlessness. Paul stated that Christians
do live by the law—the law of faith (Rom.3:27). This means that our walk must match our profession—I realize, this is
hard, difficult, seemingly impossible at times, but as Overman correctly points
out “it is self-evident that Jesus' call on each of our lives is a radical missional
call of faith—one that requires radical self-denial, radical allegiance,
radical public faith, and a radical pursuit of reaching the lost.”
Therefore, I stand with
Overman, we must be radical and missional.


