D. Scott Meadows Interview (Part 2)

So in light of that, Scott, and I don't know if I have the story exactly right, but I was reading The Whole Christ by Sinclair Ferguson, and he was talking about some of these, not dispensational charts, but charts that Bunyan, both Bunyan and William Perkins drew, or had somebody draw for them, showing salvation in chart form.

I'm not explaining it well, but you know what I'm going to probably say. And what Ferguson said was, Bunyan's chart had certainly its origins in the triune God and all that, but Perkins' chart was very much directed through the person and work of the Lord Jesus.

And I thought it was fascinating that Ferguson said if you'd ask Bunyan to say, why is your chart not so Christ-centered, he, Bunyan, would say, it's not. In other words, it just kind of, it just went right past him.

How Christ-centered is William Perkins, especially now that you've read all ten volumes, and what could you tell us about that.

Emphasis? Well, I think it's fair to characterize him as very perceptive on the law and the gospel, and in that sense, he would be Christ-centered. And I think Perkins was a superior theologian to Bunyan.

For one thing, he had a better education, and he was more perceptive in the whole sphere of covenant theology. And that is an unfair advantage, I think, he had over the tinker from Bedford, John Bunyan.

Peter T. Leeson. Very interesting. I was in Bedford, England in 2000, and they had opened up the John Bunyan Museum. When I grew up, the only Bunyan I know was Paul Bunyan and his ox babe, but that was a different Bunyan.

And we went to the John Bunyan Museum, and it was fascinating because you saw the chair that he sat in while he was in prison, and you could take the leg off, and it was a flute that John Bunyan made.

But there was an anvil there that had John Bunyan's initials on it, and they thought it was his, Scott, and so it's in the museum. And so, he would have that on his back with a knapsack, and when he would get to a house, he'd, of course, take that sack off of his back, and he'd be very happy because that anvil, again, not a large one, but still kind of heavy, puterish, to get that anvil off his back.

He was happy to get that burden off his back, and so that is a good reminder of that burden of sin that Bunyan got right, at least on that one,.

Right? Yes, I mean, Bunyan was a great saint of God, and we love and appreciate him so much. He was admired by John Owen for his preaching gifts, as is famously known, I think. But he shouldn't have been the president of a seminary, I could say.

Well, it's interesting. Sometimes people want seminary presidents just who are, you know, popular or who can get money in or something like that. Very insightful. All right, Scott, we're coming to the end of this.

Go ahead, sure.

I was just going to say one thing. Sure. I've become especially interested in the topic of historical theology, extending all the way back to Christ and the apostles, including the Church Fathers, the Medieval Church, the Reformation Church, and the post-Reformation, and I find myself most deeply appreciative and admiring the period of Reformation orthodoxy that was about a century after Calvin and Luther, and this was a time when these masterful confessions of faith like Westminster and the 1689 were produced.

Now, for those of our churches that actually subscribed to one of these confessions, it's really important for us to appreciate the historical theology, which was the soil out of which those confessions grew, if we're going to genuinely understand and embrace the system of doctrine taught in these confessions in an originalist way.

So that's where I am.

And would you say, Scott, that Jim Renahan's book is what you're looking for when it comes to understanding what the authors of the confession meant and said?

I think Dr. Jim Renahan's book on the 1689 is sui generis in a class by itself. There's nothing comparable to it that I know of, and I told him in person, I think that book will be a significant part of his legacy a hundred years from now.

So, I just think so highly of him and of his work in that commentary.

So, Scott, we have a men's group that meets on Saturday mornings here at the church. Pastor Steve leads it, and they're called the Machen Men because they've studied a lot of Machen books. And they're going through that book by Jim right now.

And I think the students are really learning a lot. And when I moved to New England here in Worcester, Massachusetts, 1997, I met Jim. He was a pastor of Heritage Baptist Church before he went out.

I preached there.

Oh, did you? Okay. Kind of in a little library area or something. I don't know what the building was. And then he moved to Escondido for the IRBS or whatever the acronym was at the time for that Baptist wing there at Westminster.

So, I probably told you the story, but it is good to repeat it. I was in line at a U-Haul trying to get a U-Haul truck, probably been in New England for three weeks. The guy at the counter was super mean and rude, and I was trying not to lose my temper.

And he asked me one more time for my name, and I had to say it very sternly. And I was very thankful I didn't lose my temper. Long line of people behind me. We can't figure this out. I thought, welcome to New England.

And I turned to walk away, and two or three people behind me was a man standing there. And he said, so you're Mike Ebendroth, the new pastor in West Boylston. And it was Jim Renahan.

Wow.

And I'm so happy I didn't lose my temper.

Yes.

So good.

And a man of weightiness was there observing you.

See? Let's do this, because...

Can I say that I met him in the 1990s? And in those days, there was a parachurch ministry called the Reformed Baptist Pastoral Training Institute.

RIPTE.

Yes.

Okay, he...

And I was privileged to be on the board of RIPTE, and also to teach some classes in RIPTE. In the 90s. I'm old, Mike.

Well, I think we're both old, because I went back to take, I think, Hebrew and one other class just for fun at RIPTE. I think it was in the basement there or something, so I don't know what classes you taught.

But another man that he's since died, not Jim's brother, but Ron Baines, and I met. And you know what? He was very kind to me, even though at the time I was very much a master seminary guy down the line in terms of every doctrine.

But he was kind to me, so it proves that Reformed Baptists can be nice to ornery young men.

I knew Ron Baines, and he was a prince of a man, and I loved him very much. So, I taught Synoptic Gospels and Pastoral Oversight Ministry at RIPTE.

All right. Well, see, we do intersect every once in a while, and we live so close, it's to my shame we don't see each other more often.

Well, I'm the loser for that, Mike.

So, we're going to extend this show into two shows, if you've got time, Scott. I'm going to now like a little round of I'm going to say a name, and then you have approximately one minute to make any comment you'd like.

It can be pro, it can be con, it could be one word, but I'm just going to say a name, and then I just want to see where this goes. Sound good?

You're going to do this to me and then invite me to another opportunity?

Well, I think you know me well enough, and I know you well enough that I probably am going to know the answers you're going to give, but it's just kind of a fun round robin. Jonathan Edwards.

I will play along.

Jonathan Edwards.

Great Awakening.

All right. Thomas Aquinas.

A weighty, scholastic theologian of the Middle Ages.

All right. Cornelius Fantil.

Known for pioneering a new manner of defending the Bible called presuppositionalism.

Are you a presuppositionalist?

I wouldn't describe myself that way.

How would you describe yourself? Just between us.

Well, look, I'd say this. The Church of Jesus Christ knew how to defend the faith before the 1900s, and everything that was really great about Fantil's teaching, others had said before him, and everything that was a novelty about his teaching is dubious at best.

Okay. That's why this is called No Compromise Radio.

Yeah. Well, I would say that about my teaching, too. So, any new ideas I have are extremely suspect.

Which gets you—.

I'm a baton passer.

Which gets you back to the importance of historical theology to study. I know I'm going off track here, but if you had to recommend our listeners to read a book on historical theology or a, you know, two-volume set or something like that, somebody at your church says, Pastor Meadows, I'd like to know more about historical theology.

I'm a layperson. What book should I read? You would say.

Well, okay. For a layperson, I can't say enough good for 2 ,000 Years of Christ's Power by Nick Needham. That's a five-volume set which tells the story of the church's development over almost all its history, and it's also a wonderful summary of doctrinal ideas that were associated with leading lights in Christ's church.

So, that's what a 2 ,000 Years of Christ's Power—I've read a good bit of that with my wife out loud, and she was perfectly capable of absorbing it, so.

Wonderful. All right, back to our list here. B .B. Warfield.

A Princeton tradition and the beginning or close to the beginning of some modernism that infiltrated the present Reformed prevalent way of thinking that departs in some ways from the older Reformed tradition.

Okay, I wanted this to be shorter. I'm going to break my own rules. Tell us about that a little bit. I'm interested in learning about that, Scott.

Well, I have a set of Warfield's works, and I have profited from them, and there's so much that can be said that's very, very good about Warfield, but he was, for example, along with Charles Hodge, somewhat influenced by the blowing winds of evolutionary theory in his day, and so this just illustrates that men tend to be children of their times, and influenced by not the best influences sometimes.

Okay, good, insightful.

I think there was an adequate appreciation for the early creeds, for example, in some of those men, and it's not that they rejected them, but there just came to be more of a view that a scientific modern approach to theology was superior to a traditional approach, and that's when a lot of the problems began to infect Reformed theology today.

Okay, good. Two more names. Greg Bonson.

Yes. I know he's associated with presuppositionalism. I haven't read much of Bonson. Extremely clear and gifted writer, but philosophically, I'm not where he is when it comes to presuppositionalism.

Okay, I think he was a mono-covenantalist, too, I believe.

All right. I didn't know that.

All right. Last name, David Martin Lloyd-Jones.

Right. I always listen to Lloyd-Jones preaching with pleasure, even if there are minor disagreements, but I would say this, Mike. You could distinguish two strains of thought in modern conservative Christianity.

One tends to be more revivalistic, and the other tends to be more historically Reformed. Now, Lloyd-Jones really was a representative of a more revivalistic approach than the historically Reformed approach.

I have not read the book Revival. I think it was Revivalism or Revival by Lloyd-Jones. I almost thought to myself, it's probably got some kind of revivalish, charismatic stuff in there. Would I be right?

Well, I think to call him charismatic might be misleading because of connotations of that word, but I believe that Lloyd-Jones taught a doctrine of subsequence with respect to the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, so that not all Christians are baptized by the Spirit or in the Spirit, and that's an experience that born-again Christians should seek and have after they're converted.

Like you, Scott, I love that. Oh, sorry.

That would be a departure from the traditional Reformed doctrine and more akin to Pentecostalism.

I was reading the Ephesians commentaries that were essentially his sermons and enjoying so much of Ephesians 1 -3 and following and just exalting, magnifying the Lord, just praise. It's like fireworks of praise.

And then I don't know how many sermons he did on the sealing of the Holy Spirit, but even after nine or 10 sermons, I still didn't believe his subsequent sealing ministry stuff. So, anyway.

Yes. Well, here's something I would say to your listeners. When we become mature as Christians and theologians, I think then we realize that there's no one man that gets it all right. And so many men who loved Christ and did a great work in the church were essentially sound but had aberrations, you could call them.

And we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We learn what we can from each contributor and pray for guidance to, you know, digest the meat and spit out the bones. And so, we love Bunyan and Warfield and Lloyd-Jones, even where we might have some differences with them.

Amen. Talking to D. Scott Meadows today, pastor up in Exeter, New Hampshire, live free or die. Do you have to wear motorcycle helmets when you're riding your motorcycle?

I wish I had a motorcycle and a helmet because I would ride it, but I don't. If you have... I saw a magazine article in an evangelical magazine showing Chuck Swindoll on a Harley Davidson with a leather jacket.

And I've aspired to be like Chuck Swindoll in that way someday.

I think it's a true story, Scott, that he drove into the master's university, not seminary, but the university chapel on his motorcycle. Maybe it wasn't running, but he coasted in with his leather getup and they called him the sermonator.

I can believe that. And knowing his personality, I think he loved it.

Well, in the old days, Scott, since we're talking about theologians and spitting out the bones and stuff like that, if we disagree, and how R .C. Sproul said no one's got more than 80 of their theology right, I have become more and more appreciative as time has gone on for Chuck Swindoll and no real scandals or anything financial or moral and just a joyful man.

And if somebody has all their doctrine right, I like to be correct in my doctrine. But it's nice when it translates to people's faces and joy. And Chuck Swindoll is one of those kind of men I'd say, I'd like to be like Chuck, joyful and happy.

And I really love Chuck.

Swindoll. Yes. I never met him, but I heard him many times on the radio. And I remember him defending the sovereignty of God from Romans 9 in one sermon, which I very much appreciated. And I know that he was concerned to oppose legalism in the church, which is a valid concern.

Amen. He started off his ministry, I think for two years outside of Boston. I think he was a themite, Bob theme guy. And then he left and went to Fullerton with the E .V. Free Church, and of course now in Texas.

If I were to pull up your computer or your iPhone or whatever you have and I went to Scott Meadows podcasts, when you have time and you're not reading through volumes of William Perkins, what kind of podcast do you listen to?

Do you listen to history? Do you listen only theology, sermons? What's on your podcast list? No Compromise Radio I would say is at the.

Top of my list. I'm less of a podcast guy and more of an audiobooks guy. Okay, good. And what, do you use Audible or do you use Chirp or what's your? I do. Okay. And I also use Christian Book, oh wait a minute, what's it called?

I think it's a Christian Book app that has audiobooks as well. But mainly Audible. I'm listening to, let's see right now, let me look at my phone and.

Pull up the author. All right, you pull that up and if you listeners want to listen to Dr. Skyway, I keep calling you Dr. because I see that D there, D. Scott Meadows, you can go to sermonaudio .com, sermonaudio .com, many of you know that site, just type in D. Scott Meadows and I'm looking at the page right now and there are, oh, about 800 sermons that you could pull up, 819 to be exact, and it's got a little ad for Bob Jones University next to your face, so I don't know if that's sermon audio.

I didn't know that.

So in my Audible library, things I'm listening to lately are SPQR by Mary Beard, which is A History of Rome, Caesar and Christ by Will Durant, that's one of a long series of reputable histories, Crisis of Confidence by Carl Truman, that's his updated book on creeds and confessions, The Divine Comedy by Dante, and The Dying Citizen by Victor Davis Hanson.

Those are some of my interests. I love that. I tried to get Victor Davis.

Hanson on No Compromise Radio, but I never got a call back. You know, he knows Koine Greek very well, so when he gives tours over to Israel, he's usually teaching from his Nestle Elan 27, I think, so that's fascinating to me.

I think he's Roman.

Catholic, but he certainly has good insight. Yes, that's all unknown to me. I'm edified by.

Your personal acquaintance. Well, I wish it was personal. He did go to University of Santa Cruz, UC Santa Cruz, and my wife is from Santa Cruz, but I appreciate his insight. All right, you gave me a quote this week, last night, matter of fact, by a man named William Marsh, and you said, I came across this today, so I'll read it, and then tell me what you think about this.

We are justified freely, by grace, meritoriously, by Christ, instrumentally, by faith, evidentially, by good works. William Marsh. So many things in there that you might say, good, but is it all good?

We're justified freely by grace, meritoriously, by Christ, instrumentally, by faith, evidentially, by good works. William Marsh. What's your take on that?

All right, give me just a moment as I call that up, so I can be looking at it while I comment. Here's my thread with you.

Pete. You did tell me that he was a 19th century Anglican clergyman, and I think the last Anglican clergy person that I thought of was the lady that tried to lecture Trump, but that's another story.

Yes. I think I prefer William Marsh.

Okay. So, do you think we're freely.

This is a statement about justification.

Yes.

So, let's parse it. He says we are justified freely by grace. Well, that's true, but, you know, a sturdier way to state that is by grace alone.

Good.

Because this doesn't even distinguish us from Rome. Rome teachers were justified by grace, but there's a difference. So, the Protestant Reformers insisted on the word alone to make it clear that grace is really, really free, but that's a quibble.

I wish I had a button here, Scott. I wish I had a button here that would, you know, help me with my quibbling. You know, if I had a button, a control button with. That's as close as I have to quibbling right there.

Okay.

The second part of this statement is we're justified meritoriously by Christ. I know what he means, I think. But it's hard to express anything about this truth in three words. And again, it's missing the word alone.

Again, the Roman Catholic Church says we're justified by Christ. That his life and death was meritorious. So, this isn't really saying much. And then he says instrumentally by faith. And that's certainly true.

Faith is the alone instrument of our justification. Faith is the empty open hand that receives Christ and all of his benefits for nothing in return. But again, you notice Marsh leaves out the word alone.

But here's my real concern about the statement. It's the last part that says evidentially by good works. Now, I think that's misleading and unhelpful. It's not that the justified don't have evidences of their justification in good works.

But that's not how we're justified in this sense of the first three phrases. What I mean is, Mike, when God justifies a person, he justifies them as a sinner with no good works. So, it's simul justus et peccator, simultaneously a sinner and counted righteous.

And I'm afraid that that tenacious adherence to grace alone that I'm expressing is lost in the inelegant way that many evangelicals would talk about good works as the evidence of our justification.

Can you repeat that?

If you know what I mean.

Yeah, I do know what you mean. Can you elaborate on that so our listeners know the fine point that you're trying to make?

All right, I'll try. So, I think in this statement by Marsh, the first three phrases have to do with God justifying us by grace alone, through faith alone, and Christ alone. But that's not what he's talking about in the fourth phrase.

Because God doesn't find any good works in us when he justifies us. And so, perhaps he's conflating two different senses of justification. God justifies us freely for Christ's merits through faith alone when we have no good works.

We justify our profession of faith by our good works, like James says in his epistle. But that's a different use of the word justification. So, it's too clever by half, I think.

So, sometimes, as you know, Scott, the word in the original Greek that we would translate in English is justify, and sometimes it's translated as to vindicate. So, justify or vindicated. And I was thinking about Luke, the gospel of Jesus.

According to Luke, I'm in chapter 7, and John the Baptist is in jail, and he wants to know if, in fact, this is the one who is to come. He sends his men there, and Jesus is very kind to John, and then he extols John even publicly, tells a little story about this generation and flutes and dirges and everything.

And then it says in verse 35 of Luke 7, yet wisdom is justified by all her children. I don't know what the King James says, but that's the.

ESV.

Wisdom is justified by all her children. And so, certainly, the sense there is like what you said with James 2. Wisdom is vindicated by all her children. So, is that what you're talking about here when we're talking about the senses of the word justification and vindication?

Scott Dawson. It is. That's an excellent illustration, Mike. I think modern evangelicals, even some high-profile famous preachers, have gotten in trouble on this because they've expressed themselves substantially differently than the Reformed confessions and catechisms, which they inadequately respect.

You know, these things were worked out so beautifully and precisely in that old language, that pattern of sound words, we have no need to reinvent the wheel. And when we try, we can't speak the truth better than our forefathers have on this.

So, let me recommend, you know, very much, for example, the Heidelberg Catechism as a place to learn about justification.

Great advice. Scott, the time has gone by fast. I did something I normally don't do. I usually talk to people for about 27 minutes. Then after that, I think, I'm on to the next thing in life. They've offered me some interesting stuff, but not that interesting.

Yet I could sit and listen to you for a long time, and I always learn something. I appreciate the way you carry yourself and your commitment to be a Christ-centered preacher and to be humble about it.

And essentially, I think the goal of your ministry is that you, Scott, want to decrease so the Lord Jesus can increase. You can always, if you need to get a hold of Scott, you can write me, Mike, at NoCompromiseRadio .com.

I'll forward the email to Scott. And you can go to Sermon Audio to hear him preach. Scott, thanks for being on the show. I appreciate you and your ministry.

I appreciate that, Mike. It was a pleasure to be on.