Christocentry

No Semi-Pelagian Repentance

2011-11-19T22:48:00.006-06:00

Yes, let us mourn our sins and the poverty of our repentance. But, much more than we mourn, let us rest in the Savior who gives new repentance.

Do not wait to rest fully in Christ the Savior when you doubt your repentance, for you will never be satisfied. Rest first in Him who delivers us by himself from the bondage which so easily besets us.

We simply ought always to trust in Him who saves his people from sin's penalty -- and presence!

The Good Creation (Revised)

2011-10-23T20:38:00.000-05:00

It ought to be considered by those tempted to "make peace" with evolution by professing "theistic evolution," that positing such an origin of the cosmos brings up the question of the origin of evil.

For one thing, any kind of evolution calls into question what was meant when God said that what he had made was "good" at every step, and even "very good" when finished. Did what was good, even very good, arise through mutations and the survival of the "fittest," or any other process that we would consider "natural," even if guided by the providence of God? Is death normal -- or good? Doesn't the creation groan in bondage, until its own resurrection? Was it created in bondage?

Furthermore, evolutionary beliefs lead in the direction of Gnosticism or Manichaeism, since the origin and development of the universe, and the moral condition implied by the process of evolution, also implies that matter and energy, and the laws of the same as presently constituted, are not free from evil -- or else that that evil is good.

Once all this is seen, namely, that evolution is an ancient heresy rising from the grave, coated with a veneer of "theism," then the temptation of "theistic evolution" should be called what it is, and pugnaciously rejected and reviled yet one more time, as it has had to be by the believers since time immemorial.

None of this was unknown to the writers of the Scripture, especially the New Testament. Creation (not something else; there were plenty of options known to the Greeks) is the first article of faith (Heb 11). Theistic evolution is just Epicurus redivivus with a little "theistic" icing.

PS: Theistic evolution, in the manner described above, also justifies the main argument of the "new atheists," namely, that "How can there be a God, when the presence of evil is so obvious?" In other words, the Manichaeism is evident in that the real God, if he exists, cannot cope with or do without the death-dealing evil present with matter and energy, and the laws of nature as they are currently known, and as they came into play during the process of evolution creating the universe -- or else he does not wish to have it any other way, and his "providence" is therefore corrupt. The universe ceases to be the testimony to the goodness of God that it really is and was intended to be, though it is now fallen.

There had to be a good creation -- and then a Fall. If the "Fall" came first -- is just Nature, as science sees it, howsoever it is guided by God's providence, then the Biblical worldview cannot be maintained. Death is then "natural." Therefore, it must be the case that the Fall followed the finished Creation, and there must yet be an End of this fallen Creation and a Beginning of the New Heavens and the New Earth. We did not "evolve" our way to this point, naturally or morally, and we will not "evolve" our way to the resurrection.

The inherent logic of Paul's arguments in Rom 1 and Acts 17 (on Mars Hill) is that all men know that God exists, is creator, and is good, and they also know that both they and the world are broken, that is, that there has been a Fall. Theistic evolution militates against these evangelical arguments by teaching that what amounts to the Fall was inherent in the creation and the creating process, by God's design, from the very beginning. Theistic evolution is thereby an anti-apologetic for Christianity.

With Christ at the Table (Revised)

2011-10-22T12:36:00.001-05:00

The sects wrangle about how the Lord is present at his Table -- or if he is.

But, there is only one question to answer:

Is our Lord present to us because we believe, that is, as a result of our faith? Do we make him present with us? Inconceivable!

We believe in Christ because he is first present, offering himself to us as the God-man through bread and wine, to be received by faith!

Faith can only receive what is already truly offered!

Glory be to God!

Puritans and the Federal Vision

2011-10-08T17:13:00.008-05:00

As I was reading the story of the acquital of Peter Leithart today in the Aquila Report, a thought suddenly sprung to mind. It is a question -- a question to which I do not have an answer, but I think a question worth investigating.

The question is this: What is the correlation between the "parallel soteriology" of the Federal Vision (FV) and the "parallel soteriology" of William Perkins (WP) and his "map" of the spiritual paths of the elect and the non-elect professing Christians?

I'm not saying that FV is modeled on WP. I'm saying that it is probably the case that both are struggling with the problem of apostasy -- a circumstance of immense Scriptural reality, and intense Scriptural warning.

For WP, the non-elect, when subjected to "common" operations of the Spirit in the Christian context may profess faith, seem to be seriously converted, become ministers of the Word, endure for a while, perhaps a long while, and then apostatize incurably, and end up in damnable heresy or disobedience. The consequence of this teaching was an immense emphasis in "Puritanism" on self-examination, whereby a professing Christian could -- God willing -- discern his own case, whether or not he was truly converted, and, if not, "close with Christ" in a saving manner. The result of this doctrinal approach was various, as can be seen in various Puritan writers, some of whom (Thomas Brooks, Heaven on Earth) are more "gracious and pastoral" toward their readers or hearers, and some (Alleine, Alarm to the Unconverted) are more harsh. In any case, the effect of this doctrinal approach was to spread doubt among everyone (including the elect!). Coupled with this was the belief that there were no grounds for assurance that one was in the faith, except those grounds within oneself, which were placed there by the Spirit -- that is, visible elements of sanctification. Now, visibility of the Lord's Work within ourselves is valuable, says Calvin, but, contrary to these Puritans, Calvin would place this source of assurance last in order, faith alone being first, in accordance with Luther's teaching. But, by early Puritan time (and Westminster time 100 years later) this item given last in importance by Calvin has become first in importance. Therefore, the Puritans commonly questioned everyone's conversion, this being thought to be the safest for all. Here, also, is the sore point for many who advocate some form of the FV.

Part of the approach of the FV, as I see it, is to deal the with question of apostasy just as much as William Perkins and his followers among the Puritans. However, an antithetical affection characterizes the movement. Rather than causing everyone to doubt, the approach is taken to bolster any potential spark of faith in all who profess faith in good behavior, and in their children. In some way, this has the look and feel of Lutheranism, with which I'm extremely familiar. If the approach is taken to bless all professions, believing that this approach to pastoral work and doctrine is more in line with Scripture teaching than that approach which spreads doubt, it is certainly conceivable that the teaching in these churches would seem to savor of "baptismal regeneration" (because every child is considered to be a Christian until he proves otherwise), "sacramental efficacy," etc., coupled, necessarily, with a doctrine of "apostasy," which may seem to teach that an actual Scriptural, doctrinal, true conversion can be lost.

Both the Puritan "doubters" and the FV "blessers" of professions of faith are attempting to deal with the Scriptural and experiential fact of real apostasy. (I do not say that this is the only driving force for both parties.) This observation, in my opinion, exposes a weakness within the kind of orthodox, American, Reformed evangelicalism which might oppose both FV and the WP tactics: There is no serious handling of the doctrine of apostasy.

Let's not drop the ball on an opportunity for further reformation!

Meeting Christ in the Apostolic Word

2011-09-20T00:41:00.006-05:00

¹ What was ⁽¹⁾from the beginning, what we have ⁽²⁾heard, what we have ⁽³⁾seen with our eyes, what we ⁽⁴⁾have looked at and ⁽⁵⁾touched with our hands, concerning the ⁽⁶⁾Word of Life— ² and ⁽⁷⁾the life was manifested, and we have ⁽⁸⁾seen and ⁽⁹⁾testify and proclaim to you ⁽¹⁰⁾the eternal life, which was ⁽¹¹⁾with the Father and was ⁽¹²⁾manifested to us— ³ what we have ⁽¹³⁾seen and ⁽¹⁴⁾heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our ⁽¹⁵⁾fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. ⁴ ⁽¹⁶⁾These things we write, so that our ⁽¹⁷⁾joy may be made complete.

(1) John 1:1f; 1 John 2:13, 14
(2) Acts 4:20; 1 John 1:3
(3) John 19:35; 2 Pet 1:16; 1 John 1:2
(4) John 1:14; 1 John 4:14
(5) Luke 24:39; John 20:27
(6) John 1:1, 4
(7) John 1:4; 1 John 3:5, 8; 5:20
(8) John 19:35; 1 John 1:1
(9) John 15:27; 1 John 4:14
(10) John 10:28; 17:3; 1 John 2:25; 5:11, 13, 20
(11) John 1:1
(12) John 1:4; 1 John 3:5, 8; 5:20
(13) John 19:35; 2 Pet 1:16; 1 John 1:1
(14) Acts 4:20; 1 John 1:1
(15) John 17:3, 21; 1 Cor 1:9
(16) 1 John 2:1
(17) John 3:29

From Biblegateway.com

An amazing point of the teaching in this paragraph of I John is that the personal familiarity, to the point of tangible, tactile fellowship with the God/Man, the Creator of the Universe, was not only had by those apostles, and could be described by them to us, but that it is also a fellowship that can be spiritually communicated to us by the Word of those Apostles!

We are accustomed to hearing the Word as the Word of truth. We also know that this Word, in its truth, is spiritually perceived. But, do we always understand that the communication that is instituted through spiritual perception of this Word mediates the Real Presence of Christ to our souls?

This ought to give us a hint why the forces of evil always work in our lives to draw our attention away from this Word.

Luther on God's Glory, Justification, and the Covenent of Works

2011-09-05T17:04:00.002-05:00

I providentially opened one of my books, The Theology of Martin Luther, by Paul Althaus, a “standard” work often referenced by others, to the midst of Chapter 10, “God is God,” and found the following material.

Here are some excerpts, with my comments. Remember that Althaus is a secondary source. All his comments and quotations need to be verified from the readings of Luther that he notices in his footnotes.

Beginning of Quotes from Althaus

The quotes, in alternate typeface, also contain quotes from Luther in quotation marks.

The Creator Works All in All [p 105]

For Luther, being God and creating are identical. God is God because he and only he creates.

God creates and preserves everything. Nothing is and nothing continues to be without his activity. “All things must be God’s, since nothing can be or become, if he would not bring it into existence; and when he stops, nothing can continue to exist.” [p 105]

…

This living omnipresent working of God is the mystery of all reality. God who causes all things is also the only causal agent. For the agent who really works in all things is God, and not the personal and impersonal powers of the world which we think of as causes. God is the first or principal cause; all others are only secondary or instrumental causes.” [p 107]

…

The knowledge that God and God alone works everything has immediate significance for faith. The unchangeableness and the constancy of God’s purpose as well as the trustworthiness of his promises (and threats) depends on his being alone the one who works all in all. Since he determines everything with his almighty working, I know that nothing and nobody can resist his will, change his mind, or restrict his activity. There is therefore no doubt that God is able to achieve the eternal purposes of his love as they are made known to me in his promises. [p 110]

…

This inescapable living presence of God in all that exists is either the most blessed or the most terrible reality for a man, depending on what he knows God’s relationship to himself to be. It is never neutral but is always either saving or damning. We are here confronted with the twofold character of God’s dealing with men in the law and the gospel. The man who has peace with God through believing the gospel can be confident in the midst of the most terrible reality; for God is present even in such a situation and holds it in his omnipotent hand – whether it be death, hell, or hostile earthly powers. … We should therefore fear and trust only in God and most certainly believe that nothing can destroy us; for God is Lord of all the powers that threaten us. We are in his gracious hand, no matter what happens. This is the believer’s royal freedom and joy. Ultimately, he is always dealing with God himself and not with the creature: and he knows how he stands with God. [p 111]

Giving Love [p 115]

Viewed in relationship to men, God’s creative activity is pure giving and helping. He thus demonstrates not only his divine ability but also that he is goodness and love, constantly engaged in giving. Whoever wishes to describe God as God, in terms of his “nature,” cannot speak of him merely as the only and constant creator, but must also speak of him as love. God in the depths of his being is nothing else than love; and love is divine, for it is God himself. “It is God’s nature to do only ‘good.’” This is his glory: not receiving, but constantly giving, freely without hope of gratitude, independently of man’s attitude toward him, that is, in a completely different way than natural men do good. Thus God’s goodness is “genuinely natural goodness.” It “gladly loses its good deed on the unthankful.” [p 115]

…

… In addition to all these temporal gifts God gives men eternal goods, his Son, and therewith himself. “He has poured out upon us both temporal and eternal goods and with them his own being; and he has poured himself out with everything he is and does for us who were sinners, undeserving enemies, and servants of the devil. He can neither do any more than this for us nor give us anything else.” Thus Christ and the fact that he is “for us” is the greatest gift of God’s love. In this gift, God gives himself. [p 116]

Justification Means that God is God [p 118]

…

At this point two elements of God’s creative activity are to be emphasized. First, creating means creating out of nothing. … For Luther this is more than an assertion about the origin of the world. It is an all-inclusive characteristic of God’s creating and working. As such, it manifests itself also in the way in which God works men’s salvation. In this too God creates everything out of nothing. He takes the man who is nothing before Him and clothes him with the worth of the righteous man. [p 119]

As a second characteristic of God’s creative activity, Luther emphasizes that God makes what he makes under the veil or form of its opposite, and therefore also out of its opposite. He creates life under the form of death, yes, by way of death. When he intends to exalt a man, he first humbles him. When he intends to give his gifts to us, he first of all destroys us and what we have and thereby creates room for his gift. … “You exalt us when you humble us. You make us righteous when you make us sinners. You lead us to heaven when you cast us into hell. You grant us the victory when you cause us to be defeated. You give us life, when you permit us to be killed.” … Thereby God demonstrates that he is God and shows the majesty of his creating activity which cannot be compared with any human work. [p 119]

Luther’s doctrine of justification must be viewed in the context of these characteristics of God’s creativity. … [p 120]

Why is a man not righteous before God through his “works,” that is, through fulfilling the law of God? The first answer to that question is certainly this: because no individual from the beginning of the world to its end, and not even a Christian, perfectly fulfills God’s law. Man’s obedience is always imperfect and blemish.[1]

But this is not Luther’s complete and final answer, as is evident from a whole series of statements, many of which derive from the years 1531 to 1533.[2] … Even though a man had fulfilled the basic commandments of the law by fulfilling the double commandment of love, he still would not thereby be righteous before God. For God simply does not recognize the fulfilling of the law as the way to righteousness.[3] Whether a man attempts to fulfill God’s law with his own powers or whether he achieves the righteousness of the law with the aid of God’s power is not of decisive significance. Luther expresses this even more sharply than he did in the Galatians commentary in a conversational comment made about the same time in the fall of 1531. Here he comes to terms with Augustine’s opinion that although man’s attempt to fulfill the law with his own natural powers would not lead to justification, fulfilling the law with the help of the Holy Spirit would. Luther explains that what is at issue is really the validity of this latter righteousness. Luther denies its validity. “If a man were completely and absolutely to fulfill the law through the power of the Holy Spirit, he would still have to appeal for God’s mercy; for God has determined that he will save men through Christ and not through the law.” Whatever significance the law continues to have, it is not intended to be used as a means to justification and salvation. This means that God wills that under no circumstances is the relationship between himself and men to be determined by the law but solely and absolutely by his free grace received through faith. Man is not only unable to gain merit before God in fact, but he is also unable to do so in principle. In every case, he is dependent on God’s unspeakable mercy for his salvation.

Any doctrine of grace or of the Holy Spirit therefore which sees the meaning of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the fact that it creates a supernatural capability of fulfilling the law and thus of earning merit completely misses the meaning of God’s will. For this doctrine of grace still turns man’s attention to the value of his works and ethical achievement, even though these things are carried out with the help of grace. The fact that there is justification only through Christ, that is, freely and through faith alone, is true independently of the fact that sinful man cannot fulfill the law. It is therefore also valid for someone who might be able to fulfill it with supernatural powers of grace, that is, for the Christian. Fulfilling the law avails as little for justification before God as the failure to fulfill it. God simply does not wish to deal with men in this way [underline mine, Boyd].

This will of God is rooted in his very nature and in the primal relationship which, as God, he bears to men. God’s very deity consists in the fact that he is the creator and giver. The desire to bring “works” as achievements before God is the equivalent of a lie that dishonors God as the giver and creator. …… Whenever man seeks to live before God on some basis other than forgiveness, no true fear of God remains. God, however, says “I will remain God; I will be loved, honored, and feared!” And so that he may both remain God and be feared, he forgives man and orders him to live solely by this forgiveness. For this is what it means to fear God as God: to recognize him as the one who both gives us and wants to give us everything for nothing and who desires nothing else from us than that we allow him to do this giving. Whoever will not accept the gifts of God’s free grace for nothing takes away the glory of God’s being God.

…

Luther’s criticism of moralism is therefore characterized by its theocentricity. Its standard is the fact that God is really God. Moralism is regarded as idolatry and blasphemy. “Works righteousness is actually and essentially idolatry.” … Moralism and true fear of God thus exclude each other. “Desire for the righteousness of the law, and having a God, cannot possibly be combined. There is a greater contradiction between fearing or honoring God and wanting to be righteous according to the law than there is between fire and water or between Satan and God.”

…

As moralism is idolatry, so faith in God’s promise in Jesus Christ is the true worship of God. Faith is the proper way of relating to God, not simply in the present because man necessarily breaks down along the way of works, but from the very beginning, because of what God is. … We are to believe not only because nothing else remains for sinners but because God is God and man cannot honor him as God in any other way than by believing – because faith is the fulfillment of the First Commandment.[4] Faith is the only attitude of man which corresponds to God’s nature, God’s deity. God’s true godliness consists in the fact that he is the creator and that he creates out of nothing and even out of its opposite.[5] Faith corresponds exactly to this. Faith expects something from God where nothing can be seen; it waits expectantly against all appearance.

End of Quotations from Althaus

Conclusion

It’s clear that Althaus portrays Luther as having a different doctrine of God and doctrine of Salvation than what we are used to hearing. That is, a doctrine much less “legal” than what we are used to hearing, even in our own evangelical circles. By the way, this, in no way, makes Luther less an advocate of substitutionary atonement (to meet the demands of God’s Law). It is not as if God’s Law doesn’t exist because of God’s Grace, but rather that Free Grace is not a mere instrument to restore the hegemony of the Law, and thus a relationship to God partly based in our own “legality.” Rather, the Law is the instrument to bring death, against the background of which the grace of Christ brings a whole new life.

I believe that all this is worth investigation in the original Luther materials. The strange thing is that when I familiarize myself with the Lutheran views on things, I begin to see these things in Calvin, too, in a way that most Calvin commentators don’t.

[1] I fully recognize here that Luther taught that Adam was created very good (not a sinner at all), and therefore don’t know what to make of Althaus’ allegation about Luther’s teaching, as it would apply to Adam. Perhaps the secondary source (Althaus, a man of the modern era) has unwittingly imported his own idea here, concerning the historicity of the Fall.

[2] This was when Luther was giving his Galatians lecture.

[3] Though Althaus is not discussing Luther’s doctrine of Eden and the Fall, if his allegation of Luther’s doctrine is correct (one should check his references to Luther’s works), then Luther would be no fan of the “Covenant of Works.”

[4] It was quite noticeable in the early part of Book 3 of Calvin’s Institutes that unbelief was clearly the prototypical sin for Calvin – the “original” sin. You will see other commentators on Calvin say that Calvin thought pride was the original sin (the traditional view, and about the only other orthodox choice), but it seemed clear to me that Calvin (at least in the part we covered) clearly implied that unfaith was the original sin.

[5] I.e., from sinners creates saints.

The "Rule of Faith"

2011-09-03T13:21:00.011-05:00

In the early church, at the time of the Apostles, the Scripture was what we now call the "Old Testament." The New Testament teaching was embodied in the oral teaching of the apostles and their representatives (people like Timothy or Titus). As circumstances required, letters, histories, and gospels were written by the apostles or their representatives (such as Mark and Luke). These writings, some of which only went to certain church assemblies at first, spread through the church in process of time, and were regarded as inspired, just like the Old Testament. As the apostles passed from the scene, their immediate heirs taught the church through a combination of the memory of the oral teaching of the apostles and the written works by the apostles or their representatives. In time, the written record of the Old and New Testaments became the repository of truth for the whole church.

In the early period, before the fading of the direct, personal witness of the apostles, the memory of the nature of the apostolic teaching came to be called the "Rule of Faith." The Rule of Faith, with slight variations in each region of the Roman Empire, guided the interpretation of the (Old Testament) Scripture, and set the standard for the New Testament teaching, even in those churches which at that time did not yet possess the entire New Testament.

Several consequences flow from the nature of this historical process:

1) We ought to be curious about the "Rule of Faith" in the early, post-apostolic church. Though their deeper intellectual understanding of theology required considerable time for full development, their use and interpretation of the apostolically authorized writings and and their memory of the oral apostolic teaching is of value to us.

2) Regarding the development of Christian "denominations" we see a similar phenomenon. Each denomination has a "Rule of Faith," which is supposedly derived accurately from Scripture by the founders, which then guides further interpretation of Scripture, often for generations. When persons are "catechized" (even if it's not called that), they are taught the denominational Rule of Faith by which they afterward then interpret the Scripture. As a starting point, this is not wrong, because it is wrong to teach people to approach the Bible from "square one," as if they do not need the fellowship of their brothers in Christ or any preexisting system to interpret it.

Sadly, in many cases, the Rule of Faith is taught by non-contextual proof-texting from Scripture, so that those being taught are not aware of the existence of any Rule of Faith, though an unacknowledged Rule is nevertheless being used to govern their understanding of Scripture. The Scripture and their Rule cannot be distinguished, because the unacknowledged Rule by which they are being taught appears in their own eyes to be Scripture.

It seems to me that several consequences follow from the phenomenon of the "Rule of Faith."

A) The learned in any denomination of Christian believers have a duty to discern what their own transcendent Rule of Faith really is, and to always be prepared to test their Rule against Scripture.

B) This process is beset by two dangers: 1) Questioning the Rule of Faith may be regarded as dangerous and unorthodox among strongly confessional churches, because it threatens changes in the Confession of Faith. These churches may put the Confession (Rule of Faith) above the Bible. 2) Questioning the Rule of Faith, as is done in more liberal churches, may become quite the fad (especially in an academic context), with the result that the historic faith and the truth of Scripture is dissipated with human philosophy and doubts. As a consequence of these two temptations those who critically question Rules of Faith and compare them to Scripture must walk a fine line.

I suggest (these suggestions are not all mine):

A) Rather than abandoning all Rules of Faith, and attempting to start over from the Bible ("reinventing the wheel"), one should start by discerning one's own Rule of Faith, which must be studied and compared with other versions of the Rule of Faith in other denominations, including that Rule of the early church. As it is claimed in the Reformed branch: "We must always be Reforming."

B) Hopefully, through concerted study on the part of all fellowships and denominations, a Scripturally based convergence may ensue over centuries, leading to increase of fellowship. After all, there is only one church.

As a consequence of these thoughts, we see that we must study how to interpret the Bible. This is called "hermeneutics." Presuppositions set in place at seminary may "program" future Bible teachers to interpret the Bible a certain way. But, any such presuppositions always need to be uncovered, investigated, and critiqued believingly.

Covenants and Eschatology

2011-08-21T18:30:00.003-05:00

The Covenants of Works and Grace, taken individually, illustrate the question discussed in previous posts, whether grace came to support the establishment of justice, or whether justice came to support the establishment of grace. I have provisionally identified much later, "orthodox" Reformed Theology as tending to be based in the former (grace comes to establish justice), and the earlier "orthodox" Reformed Theology (Calvin) as tending to be based in the latter (justice comes to support the establishment of grace and mercy).

When grace comes to establish justice, then the Covenant of Works is the lead covenant, and the Covenant of Grace comes to repair the Fall by the work of Christ, and then, by grace, to make possible the fruition of the Covenant of Works established at the Creation. On the other hand, when justice comes to support the establishment of grace and mercy, then the Covenant of Grace is the primary covenant, and the Covenant of Works is instrumental in establishing the reign of grace, in a just manner. In this case, eschatology is taken up with the eternally planned fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace, not the Covenant of Works. And, since the Covenant of Grace has eternally been based in the work of Christ, the fruition of this Covenant cannot be the Covenant of Works established with Adam, but can only be the fruition of the Covenant of Grace established and administered through Christ. This means that the fruition is not something that takes place in this age, but takes place in the age of resurrection.

Now those who believe that fruition comes through the Covenant of Works believe in the resurrection also, and in the eternal state resulting from it. But, the main outworking of the Covenant is the outworking of that covenant that was intended to be carried unto fruition in Adam and his offspring, which is a covenant that is carried out under the auspices of the present age. The fruition of the Covenant of Grace, being a covenant of union with the resurrected Christ, is a covenant which reaches its fruition in the age to come, not the present age.

This is a major difference in eschatology, with, in my opinion, major differences in its effect on practical ecclesiology. Do we see ourselves primarily as engaged in carrying out a vision which conquers the present age? Or, do we see ourselves primarily as engaged in carrying out a vision which conquers through resurrection at the return of Christ for judgment and rewards?

One would be hard-pressed to make the New Testament, which is the eschatological hermeneutic for all Scripture, say anything but the latter!

Righteous by Forgiveness

2011-08-19T22:32:00.099-05:00

When I was in the Plymouth Brethren, one of my fellow church-members said to me that Adam was created "neither good nor evil." This conclusion was reached because in the text of Genesis, God says that Adam, in his Fall, will become like God, "knowing good and evil." The implication is that Adam, as created, did not "know good and evil."

This friend's sentiment bothered me a great deal, because it was always my conclusion from the Scripture text that Adam was created good, which implied a created righteousness. If he were not good (righteous in some sense), then how could he fall? What would the Fall mean?

I believe that I've now come to realize the source of the sentiment expressed by my friend. I think it is embedded within the later history of Reformed Theology, with the development of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works.

Before getting into this, however, let me explain concepts about the relationship between righteousness and sin. There are two paradigms:

1) Righteousness is a positive good, and sin is a negative evil. One can have ones sins cancelled, but this leaves him with no positive good. Something else must happen to create the positive good. To use a physical analogy, good and evil are separate substances, each handled differently, though they do affect one another. One can eliminate the evil, but this does not create the good. Or,

2) Righteousness is the absence of sin. To have a sin forgiven is to be put in the position of never having done it. If that sin is the omission of an act of righteousness, then forgiveness makes it exactly as if that act of righteousness were done. Therefore, forgiving all a person's sins is exactly the same as reckoning that person to be entirely righteous! All the positive evil is reckoned as if never done. All the failed good works are reckoned as if they were done. The process by which this is done is identically the same in both cases. The forgiveness of sin is the reckoning of righteousness. They cannot be separated.

I believe it to be the case that the two paradigms shown above imply major differences in the resulting theologies of salvation.

Now back to Reformed Theology.

It is commonly said that Adam and his elect offspring need both the de-imputation of their sins (forgiveness), and the imputation of righteousness from God. Simply by its mode of expression, this is based in paradigm #1 above. The need for forgiveness and the need for righteousness are regarded as separate issues. These are commonly tied to the passive and active obedience of Christ. In the passive obedience (the endurance of punishment) Christ bore the punishment of our sin and exhausted that punishment. Therefore, the liability is removed and the sins are canceled. Furthermore, the active obedience of his life is a righteousness that is put to our account. This is a separate issue. But, in any case, having both forgiveness and a positive righteousness, we have full acceptance before God.

Note, however, according to paradigm #1, Adam, put in the Garden at the beginning of his trial of perseverance, had no sin, but this did not mean that he was as fully developed in righteousness as God required for eternal life (Westminster Confession). Adam obeys the Covenant of Works by persevering in it. Similarly, in the analogy between Adam and Christ, this would imply that Christ needs to develop his righteousness, because in his human nature even he would be sinless but without developed righteousness at his human birth. Therefore, in order to carry out the job that Adam failed at, Christ would need to fully create his active righteousness, and that, first, for himself. Without this, it could not be imputed to our account.

But, contrarily, we are faced with Calvin's (and Augustine's) conviction that Christ in his human nature was entirely and completely righteous from the first instant of his human conception. This is based in paradigm #2 above. Reasoning back to Adam, this would imply that Adam was originally righteous, too. But, if Adam is originally righteous, in the same way as Christ conceived as a man is originally righteous, then the process of perseverance in the state in which each was made does not create the righteousness that each already has by creation or conception. Perseverance illustrates and confirms the righteousness, but does not create it. This view of the relationship between righteousness and sin shows that each is the obverse of the other. Adam, newly created, and Jesus, newly conceived, are each righteous, though they have done nothing. In other words, sinlessness equals righteousness. The absence of sins exactly is the presence of righteousness. The forgiveness of sins which we receive through Christ exactly is the imputation of righteousness. The imputation of righteousness is therefore not a separate imputation. There is no distinction between the de-imputation of sins and the imputation of righteousness. They are the same thing.

Following out the argument, then, there would be no distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ. His life and his death, but principally his death, all have the same effect upon us, taken together. There are not two separate and independent imputations. He was made sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. But the "dual imputation," or two-way imputation is not an imputation of sins separately from an imputation of righteousness. In the dual imputation, our sins going to Christ and his righteousness coming to us is not merely simultaneous, but two sides of the same coin.

This is why Calvin says somewhere that justfication by faith alone (ie, the imputation of righteousness to us) is defined as the cancellation of our sins. That is, by cancellation of our sins we are righteous. Or, he says in another place, that Christ by his righteousness (which he had from conception) caused the cancellation of our sins. Or, that Christ's "merit" is that he created the Christian life in us. Calvin vehemently denies that Christ's righteousness was obtained for himself first (as the Covenant of Works requires). All that Christ did was not at all for himself, but all for us.

This needs a lot of thought. The proper definition and explanation of the Covenants of Works and Grace, the definition of the purpose of the Creation, the real doctrine of Sanctification, and the real focus of Eschatology are all knotted together here.

I think it likely to be the case that the two paradigms of the relationship between sin and righteousness imply different theologies in all these realms.

Covenant of Works; Covenant of Grace

2011-08-18T19:42:00.003-05:00

This post must be read in light of the previous post:
http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2011/08/grace-and-mercy-vs-justice.html

It being true that Calvin and others see mercy as the reigning motivation within the Godhead vis-a-vis the salvation of sinners, it is now important to understand how this impacts the doctrine of the Covenants of Works and Grace.

If mercy justly triumphs over curse, in principle, then it would seem to be illogical to make the Covenant of Works the reigning paradigm. Making the Covenant of Works the reigning paradigm is to make justice preeminent over mercy. Mercy would be a side-effect of justice, rather than justice being the means of mercy.

We understand, of course, that both justice and mercy are satisfied, when all aspects of Christ's atonement are considered. He was given, when he did not have to be given. He was given in mercy to sinners. And, the reigning motivation of mercy is also just, by this atonement. However, the function of justice is to support the ministry of grace. Therefore, we should not "turn over" the relationship of these factors, such that justice becomes the reigning aspect, rather than mercy.

So, the question then becomes how we can see the Covenant of Works being subordinate to the Covenant of Grace. It's worth noting, from the history of our Reformed theology, that:

1) The Covenant of Redemption, if there was one, is clearly on the side of the preeminence of the Covenant of Grace. If there hadn't been a need for grace, then why would anyone think about any Covenant of Redemption.

2) The Covenant of Works was the specification of a type of relationship between God and Adam which made no provision for sin, other than death. And, yet that Covenant of Works, from which Adam fell by his own will, according to the ordination of God, is embedded within the history governed by the Covenant of Grace.

3) When Adam fell, he "fell into" the Covenant of Grace, already prepared, containing the promise of the Christ to come.

4) The Covenant of Grace is Plan A. Putting the Covenant of Works in charge of history, and interpreting the Covenant of Grace as a side-effect of the full expression of the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Works Plan A, and redemption a side-effect, that is, Plan B.

Grace and Mercy, vs. Justice

2011-08-17T22:28:00.005-05:00

The opponents of penal substitutionary atonement always complain that this view of the atonement makes the principles of the Christian life be based on justice rather than mercy. The grace of Christ showered upon us isn't grace, because it has been paid for by the atonement. It was earned. It is not mercy. Therefore, they allege, mercy simply disappears. The notion of God's pure mercy evaporates from Christianity.

We might laugh at the distortion implicit in this threat, but Calvin and others took it seriously. Calvin goes over this several times in the Institutes, because this serious threat was issued by the Socinians (Arians, non-Trinitarians) of his day, some of whom he knew personally, because they had passed through Geneva.

Calvin resolved the issue in his own teaching by definitely placing Grace and Mercy above Justice (Institutes, Book II, Chapter 17). He does not deny justice. But the satisfaction of justice is subordinate to the manifestation of God's grace and mercy. This is clearly seen in the main "proof text" for this view, John 3:16. God sent his only Son to perform the sacrificial death because he, God, loved the world of sinners. It is does not say that God loved what his Son's work would make of those sinners, though, of course, he did. The verse says that God loved the world as it was, and therefore, because of his love to a fallen world, out of a desire to show mercy, sent his Son to pay the penalty for their sin.

The fact that mercy is the reigning paradigm in the mind of God should affect quite a few things in our own religion and theology. For one thing, we must be people of mercy expressed to the unworthy, knowing that the legal issues have been settled by the death of Christ. This is freeing, because the efforts to express mercy to the unworthy can be quenched by legal scruples.

Another application of the primacy of mercy has to do with our understanding and presentation of the gospel. We are accustomed to presenting the death of Christ and the gospel in legal terms, as satisfaction for sin, which it is. But, the divine reason for providing the satisfaction is so that mercy may have free course. Somehow this should change the way we present the gospel. Christ died for our sins, because by this means God could show us the mercy he desired to give us. I think this makes a difference!

In the witness to the world, the divine mercy should be "on top."

This post is continued here:
http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2011/08/covenant-of-works-covenant-of-grace.html

Incarnation: A Catechism of Awe

2011-08-14T19:33:00.000-05:00

We must not forget that, according to our orthodox understanding, the Person of the Incarnate Savior is the self-same divine Second Person of the Trinity who has always existed forever and ever, and who took on flesh for our salvation.

When Jesus Christ was on earth, one never conversed with a "Mr. Jesus" who was at times only vaguely conscious of his divine mission. One only conversed with the divine Second Person, God himself.

He is that Person through whom the world was made;
He is that Person who took on flesh and was conceived in the womb of Mary;
He is that Person who was born in the stable;
He is that Person who grew up as a child;
He is the "Lamb of God" pointed out by John the Baptist;
He is that Person who was tempted just as we are, yet without sin;
He is that Person who hungered and thirsted;
He is that Person who raised the dead;
He is that Person who is the heir of David the King;
He is that Person who died for our sins and was raised again;
He is the Second Man;
He is that Person who sits at the right hand of God;
He is that Person who says,
"He who has seen me has seen the Father";
He is that Person who is the Word of Life;

To trust in Him means eternal life.

Church Planting

2011-08-13T22:56:00.009-05:00

The following post is a compendium of personal ideas about church planting that have seemed to come together in my mind over decades.

These are just my views, but they are based on real life experiences of at least 3 large, successful church plants, plus several small ones, some of which have failed and some of which have succeeded, plus the fruit of observations and conclusions drawn as to why churches often cannot bring themselves to plant.

Here are my views:

1) Churches (congregations) do not routinely plant churches.

I think this rule holds true among both the independents and in the denominations. It is not only a truism, but perhaps is the way things ought to be, as I will explain below. Church planting is better done in other ways than as a routine policy of individual congregations.

It's true that plenty of counterexamples to observation 1) could be provided. However, I suspect that congregations that are successful, repeat planters of other congregations have special properties about them which are not typical of the usual congregation, and perhaps should not be typical. I'm not saying by this that churches should never try to plant churches. I'm just saying that as a rule this is not the way things work.

I think the basic reason for churches not being able to plant churches is that individual congregations are usually strapped for support, considering all that they need to do in their own ministries. They are therefore substantially unwilling to part with either their money or their staff time or any of their members, which is what it will take to start another church. So, attempts which are made to start other churches as a matter of policy often fail, because the "pull" is toward the center and not out toward the periphery.

Even if the alleged "selfishness" of individual congregations were overcome, such that planting could occur as a matter of policy, one has to ask whether an individual congregation ought to truly do more along these lines, or whether first precedence ought to go toward properly maintaining the local ministries to which it is known that the Lord has already called them.

2) New congregations are planted by individuals, or by interested bodies, at the call of the Spirit, and not by the routine policy actions of existing congregations.

a) An "interested body" can be a significant portion of one congregation which wants to split off from an existing church and form a new one. Or, it could be a body in a more remote location that wishes to "clone" another church which is looked upon as a model or ideal. In all cases, this is an exceptional process and not a typical situation. Such "splants" (split+plant) are often done in bitterness, though in my experience of certain real "splants" of decades past, this is actually a great way for a single congregation to plant a new church, if done willingly! There is high motivation to succeed among the "splanters," and if this is accompanied by the willing support of the originating church, it can and has resulted in successful and friendly plants of new congregations. This requires submission to the sovereignty of God.

b) Another way in which new congregations can be planted is by intentional action of denominational policy through the organs of the "regional church." The fellowship or presbytery can make its own plans using its own resources and personnel (including church planters) to start new works. This approach demands sufficient resources (and authority) at the level of the regional church. Not all regional church governments have the authority or resources (or motivation) to make this happen. This can partly be due to the relative independence of the congregations that form a part of the regional church, a thing often seen among the newer presbyterian denominations which suffered bitterly in the old days from presbyterial authority that was too strong.

In any case, it is not possible for anyone to "plant a church" anywhere without a call from the Spirit. There is no way that simple "authority" can make it happen.

c) The model illustrated by the "Apostle Paul Evangelistic Association." This kind of individual work needs supervision, since none of us is that kind of apostle any more, and therefore this approach fits pretty much under part b) above. The reason for mentioning this at all is that Paul's procedure is so plainly written in the New Testament. Though the churches Paul founded supplied money and some personnel to support his evangelistic efforts by their direct involvement, what he did does not illustrate church planting by the intentional efforts of local congregations to routinely plant new ones. I would suggest that in the unwritten history of the New Testament age, that individuals who were called by the Spirit emulated the Apostle (but under the control of the churches, and not individualistically.)

These ideas are only a small part of the picture. However, I think that thinking this through can help avoid the guilt feelings or sense of failure that can occur in churches when planting of new congregations seems inordinately difficult or delayed. Perhaps the wrong tactics or strategy is being followed. Therefore, I think that a Scriptural and realistic "political science" has its place in understanding how to succeed.

We must discern the practical Scriptural reasons for planting churches. I think that "we ought to, as a church" is overplayed in today's active church-planting climate. As I illustrated in point 2) above, interested individuals (under authority), and interested bodies who wish to move out, are a more typical source of new plants. These are probably more reflective of the call of the Spirit, rather than individual congregations just feeling a burden to "do something."

It would help a lot to understand the historic and Scriptural ways that churches have been planted, to culturally "translate" those ways and means into today's conditions, and then to place the responsibility for church planting upon the shoulders of individuals, authorities and institutions that we believe are really tasked by the Spirit to do it.

Scripture vs. Theology

2011-08-07T19:16:00.005-05:00

It's an old argument -- the Bible vs. "theology."

After 50 years of personal Christianity, a good deal of that time to the present spent reading theology and church history, I find that the "Bible vs. theology" issue is still very much alive. And, I'm not talking about arguments with folks who are against "theology." I'm talking about how Protestant theology, supposedly based in Scripture, can run amok on its own trajectory, regardless of what the Scripture plainly teaches.

Just to give concrete context, I've lately been reading some of the arguments about "neo-Calvinism." But, regardless of the issue of neo-Calvinism, it's clear to me that the broad spectrum of theology in the Reformed "camp" contains many strains, from "neo-Calvinism" to "pietism," which definitely have a life of their own apart from the well-balanced interpretation of Scripture.

We have to see that our difficulty sticking with the Scripture is part and parcel of the spiritual warfare. In that war, submission to God's Word is not optional. Therefore, we must pay attention to the study of the Scripture, the history of the interpretation of Scripture (there has been 2000 years of it, since Christ), and, as a consequence of all this, we must understand the theology of Scripture. We must give divine wisdom and instruction precedence over the Word of Man that passes for "theology" in our circles every day.

Covenant of Works Runs Amok!

2011-08-03T23:23:00.007-05:00

I'm studying Herman Bavinck, preparing to teach a little class about the Covenant of Grace. In process of writing his chapter on the Covenant of Grace, Bavinck(*) begins to wax eloquent about the significance of the Covenant of Works. Before it's all over he falls into a common Reformed trap of making works, obedience, demands, laws and justice the primary theme of salvation history, rather than making the grace of the Triune God be that theme. He doesn't mean to be "legalistic," and I do heartily recommend Bavinck's work, but we must always be careful. In particular, we cannot do without Calvin. I will quote from them both. [my highlights and underlines; funny symbols in parentheses are "footnotes"]

Calvin(#) :

Christ [is] Rightly and properly Said to Have Merited God's Grace and Salvation for Us

By way of addition this question also should be explained. There are certain perversely subtle men who -- even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ -- cannot bear to hear the word "merit," for they think that it obscures God's grace. Hence, they would have Christ as a mere instrument or minister, not as the Author or leader and prince of life, as Peter calls him [Acts 3:15]. Indeed, I admit, if anyone would simply set Christ by himself over against God's judgment, there will be no place for merit. For no worthiness will be found in man to deserve God's favor. Indeed, as Augustine very truly writes: "The clearest light of predestination and grace is the Man Christ Jesus, the Savior, who brought this to pass by the human nature that was in him, through no preceding merits of works or of faith. Answer me, I beg of you, whence did that man deserve to be the only-begotten Son of God, and to be assumed into unity of person by the Word co-eternal with the Father? We must therefore recognize our Head as the very foundation of grace -- a grace that is diffused from him through all his members according to the measure of each. Everyone is made a Christian from the beginning of his faith by the same grace whereby that Man from his beginning became the Christ." Likewise, in another passage: "There is no more illustrious example of predestination than the Mediator himself. For he who made righteous this man of the seed of David, never to be unrighteous, without any merit of his will preceding, of unrighteous makes righteous those who are members of that Head," etc.

In this passage Calvin clearly teaches (in his and Augustine's opinion) that Christ was instantaneously perfect from the instant of the Incarnation. There is nothing here about his having to obey a Covenant of Works in order to achieve active righteousness, so that he would be able to give the same to his saints. Is Christ tempted and tested? Of course. Does he need to persevere in his human nature? Absolutely. Does he learn obedience through suffering? Yes, yes. But, is he "acquiring" active obedience which he otherwise did not have from the moment of the Incarnation? Absolutely not. The grace of the Incarnation, the grace inherent in the God-man, and which he gives to us, was perfect from the first instant of the existence of his human nature. It is by this grace, and being crammed full of this grace, that he blots out our transgressions by his obedience (not by "acquiring merit" through his obedience, to put to our account).

The main point I'm making here, however, is not to argue principally about the covenant of works. It is to argue that Bavinck, compared to Calvin, legalizes the grace of God in some of his concepts and language, in a way shared by many Reformed of his era.

Calvin goes on:

Hence it is absurd to set Christ's merit against God's mercy. For it is a common rule that a thing subordinate to another is not in conflict with it($). For this reason nothing hinders us from asserting that men are freely justified by God's mercy alone, and at the same time that Christ's merit, subordinate to God's mercy, also intervenes on our behalf. Both God's free favor and Christ's obedience, each in its degree, are fitly opposed to our works. Apart from God's good pleasure Christ could not merit anything; but did so because he had been appointed to appease God's wrath with his sacrifice, and to blot out our transgressions with his obedience. To sum up: inasmuch as Christ's merit depends upon God's grace alone, which has ordained this manner of salvation for us, it is just as properly opposed to all human righteousness as God's grace is.

As a consequence, one sees that Calvin places God's grace "on top." And, since there is a need for the sacrifice to meet the terms of justice, that is provided, too, but subordinately. There is nothing here to interfere in any sense with the preeminence of grace. Even the justice of God, which is met by the Mediatorial death on the Cross, is subordinate to the divine intention to display grace from all conceptual angles.

Bavinck:

... The doctrine of the covenant of grace first emerged for the purpose of maintaining the essential unity of the Old and the New Testaments. In keeping with this, also the relation between God and humans before the fall was portrayed as a covenant, specifically a covenant of works. Reflection on the similarity and difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace then led to the insight that the covenant of grace, insofar as it was made with Christ, was a covenant of works. ...

What Bavinck is saying here is that justice is "on top" in the picture of God's saving operations, not mercy. Mercy is a secondary benefit for us. Whereas Calvin brought in justice and the sacrifice of Christ as subordinate to God's mercy, Bavinck has described this saving transaction as entirely a matter of justice, with mercy as a side-effect (for us). The fact that grace comes to us through Christ then becomes strange, in view of the fact that all the internal "mechanism" of salvation is presented in the covenant of works as a matter of obedience, works, law and justice. But, if the legal side, and not the merciful side, is the preeminent thought, then in spite of all the assertions that there is mercy for us, things are going to ultimately turn around and become legal for us, too. Bavinck does not personally intend this, but it still happens.

There is a lot more of this in Bavinck than I can quote here. But, this doesn't mean that Bavinck is an ungracious person. The rationalistic and justicial passion has just captured him in this connection and he is running "amok" with it, along with most of his fellow 19th century Reformed theologians, I suppose.

Bavinck:

... In Scripture there are only two covenants, two ways to heaven for human beings, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works is the way to heaven for the unfallen, the covenant of grace that for the fallen humans. The covenant of works was made with humankind in Adam, the covenant of grace was made with humankind in Christ. He, and he alone, is the substitutionary and representative head of humankind. ... Just as the Father had ordained the kingdom for him, so he ordains it for those who have been given to him. He distributes the benefits he has acquired(@) as an inheritance. ... In both cases [the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace] it is the mystical Christ, Christ as the second Adam, who acts as the negotiating party (%). ... And, since (as is evident from 1 Cor 15:45ff) Adam was a type of Christ even before the fall, so the covenant of grace was prepared, not first by Noah and Abraham nor first by the covenant of grace with Adam, but already in and by the covenant of works. God, who knows and determines all things and included also the breach of the covenant of works in his counsel when creating Adam and instituting the covenant of works, already counted on the Christ and his covenant of grace(&).

The exhortation I leave you with is to begin to see and perceive whether squeezing soteriology through the mold of the Law, while making grace subordinate, truly comports with the tenor of the teaching of Scripture, or Reformation theology. Isn't it rather the case that mercy and grace triumph, and that justice must be satisfied so that mercy and grace may triumph?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The "giving" of the Son (for the satisfaction of justice) was motivated by love for the world, which is the preeminent motive in the mind of God. As a consequence we are delivered from legalism in our Christian lives.

(*) Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, v 3, ch 5, p 227-8 and elsewhere, Baker Edition.
(#) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 2, ch 17, McNeil Edition.
($) Calvin is reconciling mercy and grace by subordinating one to the other instead of leaving them parallel with one another, which causes the conflict he describes.
(@) He didn't have them by nature, because he had to earn them by obedience to the covenant of works. Compare with Calvin and Augustine discussed previously. There is both an anthropological and Christological distinction between these two views, and therefore the distinction between Calvin and Bavinck is likely not a minor matter, but may have ramifications as yet unsounded.
(%) I.e., negotiating with God the Father. Are "negotiations" required?
(&) He means the "covenant of grace" towards us, but as far as Christ himself was concerned it was all covenant of works.

The Capable Counselor

2011-07-31T20:04:00.000-05:00

The Capable Counselor is, of course, Our Lord Jesus. But, one might ask, how can he be the sympathetic High Priest that he is, when he never knew sin? Not being susceptible to temptation means not feeling the pull of sin like I do. How can he sympathize with me, a sinner?

There are many problems and questions with this approach. I think that the answers to these questions lie here:

The Word of God, the One who was in the beginning and who was with God and who was God, took on flesh and became a man. When he did so he gave up nothing of his deity, but he did take upon himself our nature, yet without sin. When this happened, the Person who took on flesh did not become a different person. The Divine Logos, the Lord, the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, took on a full human nature, while remaining the same Person that he was and is forever and ever. He was, is, and ever shall be full deity -- for the Son exercises all the powers of deity and is worshiped. He took on, is, and ever shall be a man, in all the fullness of all humanity. And in this manhood he was tempted by the direct, personal ministry of Satan -- a true temptation, but he did not fall. As he was tempted in all parts of his manhood, and yet resisted that temptation successfully, he then became the sympathetic high priest who can come to the aid and comfort of the tempted in all their temptations.

We see, then, that it is not the case that those who fell are those who felt the temptation more strongly, and therefore that they are those who can sympathize more with the fallen. Rather, it is the case that their weakness could not preserve them. Therefore, those who fall, until recovered spiritually from their fall, are poor counselors for those faced by temptation.

The One who never fell, but who did feel the whole strength of all temptations, is the best counselor. He knows all, sees all, feels all, and having made the first creation, he is competent to make the second and greater re-creation. He is able to make sinners whole, by Himself. He said, No one who trusts in me shall be put to shame.

Love One Another (Revised 07/29/2011)

2011-07-29T23:22:00.001-05:00

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life -- is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. 1 John 2:15ff

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. 1 John 3:1-3

Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:13-15

By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16

... whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing to His sight. And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. 1 John 3:22-23

... every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:3-6

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 1 John 4:7-11

Little children, keep yourselves from idols... 1 John 5:21

It probably seems simple-minded to many nowadays that the New Commandment, and virtually the Final Admonition to the Christians from Our Lord himself (and John) is to "Love One Another." We take it for granted that we do, but don't understand the context in which this is said.

Close examination of the contexts of John and 1 John shows that the context of "loving one another" is the evil context of the "world." The unremitting and lethal envy of the world, now more hidden, and then again exposing itself, is obviously one main reason for this exhortation. The experience of Our Lord in the world is and will be our experience in the world, until the Day of Glory when we are revealed to the cosmos as the Sons of God. This is a good reason to "hang together, lest we hang separately."

This comment may seem to you to be extreme in our current situation. After all, we are going forth into the world, boldly by our influence and quality activities increasing the Lord's dominion over all his enemies. But, let me put forth a caution. Even though it seems so plain to us that we are not deceived by the world's evil, we need to look more closely at this question.

We are exhorted by Our Lord to love one another. So, think about what will it look like to love. Remember Jesus' description of eternal life -- it is to know the Father and the one whom he has sent (Jesus Christ). This knowledge, of course, is not a bare external knowledge, but an intimate knowledge. In fact, it is hard to discern the qualitative difference between knowledge and love. In a relationship these two go hand-in-hand. So, we might say that for us to "love one another" is much the same as for us also to "know one another."

But, knowing and loving one another cannot be based on mere acquaintance. It takes time spent with one another in all the vicissitudes of life -- the pains and joys, ups and downs, sins and graces. We must see our fellow believers as the true spiritual friends and family members that we can rely on in the midst of our enemies. We must know and love one another, and help and pray for one another, in order to reap the fruit of Our Lord's commandment!

You have to see that institutional, routine acquaintance, and friendship by "Sunday-howdy's" and slaps on the back does not manifest the degree or kind of love which is the fulfillment of Our Lord's New Commandment. We all have our friends, to one degree or another, but how much time and effort is expended on becoming acquainted with and actually coming to know our fellow believers with whom we are bound together in this church?

Nor is fulfillment of Our Lord's commandment found in the vision of the church as a smoothly running institution, maintaining membership lists, listing prayer requests, working the mercy ministry, and tending the budget. The necessary formal side of institutional life is not the inner life of the church. Without that inner life with one another, developed in corporate worship and private spiritual fellowship, the best run church institution is a mere husk. One can be caught up participating in the institutional life of the church and have no time left to experience the spiritual fellowship called for in the New Commandment to love one another.

Do we even have a desire for the real thing? Is there even any kind of cognizance of what the real thing is in the souls of many? It's hard to say. The eternal, time-kept business of our lives truly belies the Christian profession that we hold. The Word may be in us, as the parable says, but the thistles and thorns of worldly busy-ness are choking out its fruit. There is no time for spiritual fellowship!

Why do we think that the "cares of the world" which strangle the Word are bad things! Bad things would drive us to God! The "cares of the world" in that parable, at least the kind of "cares" that can infect us, are likely to be "good things," such as the business of the world, making a living, getting educated, traveling, being excellent in our professions, being good citizens, training our children, engaging in acts of charity, etc. But, these things become idols when the fruit of the Spirit and the spiritual intimacy of our relationship to one another as believers are sacrificed to them.

Is it even possible that we could change? It will obviously take a miracle. But, all I know to do is to pray, and not give up.

Paraphrasing John: "Little children, love one another -- and keep yourselves from idols"! These two thoughts are intimately related in John's thought, and ought to be in ours! It is precisely the idolatry of "good things" that seduces us and subverts our love for one another! Moloch sometimes wears a pretty face, and he is then all the more dangerous!

Participation in all the "good things" takes away from us the short time we have to spend on the thing that really counts -- to love one another (sacrificially) as Our Lord loved us. Only then, seeing this in us, can the world know that Christ has come (John 17:20-23.

Holy Catholic Church

2011-07-24T16:31:00.009-05:00

It's important, especially in the Reformed theological context, to think about the origins of the Covenant of Grace, especially as it is revealed in the Covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, 17, 22). We find that this covenant, with its prophesied innumerable offspring and great Seed (Christ), is the prototype and model for the New Covenant, based in the work of Christ. As such, the prototype made with Abraham is a pattern for certain elements of the New Covenant.

We find that the Abrahamic Covenant requires the circumcision of Abraham and his (male) offspring, and that this circumcision is made in hope of the Seed (Christ) to come. We also find that this circumcision is the sign and seal of justification by faith alone (Rom 4). Therefore, the model of the application of circumcision is the model of the application of Baptism in the New Covenant (Col 2:11-12).

Now the Covenant with Abraham created the People of God. That People was created on the basis of Abraham's faith. It is a family of old and young, sustained by God down through the generations. But, not all the heirs of Abraham had the faith that Abraham had (Rom 9:6ff). Nevertheless that People was all marked off from the world by the Covenant of Circumcision, circumcision representing the conversion of heart associated with faith like Abraham's. Therefore, the People of God are holy as a body, but not always all holy as individuals, having the circumcision of the heart (male and female). As a consequence there was frequent judgment during times of disobedience and apostasy, ultimately even exile from the Land. But, the Covenant remained and still remains for God's People, even in view of the judgment. There will be both judgment and restoration. This all happens in Christ.

Just as the People of God in old times were a people separate from the world, professing the True God, so are the People of God in our day. God the Father has special care over this people, the catholic and apostolic church of believers, which is found in all churches which preach the Word and administer the Sacraments in a Scriptural and godly way.

We conclude then that God's Power to redeem will be shown in this worldwide People, regardless of the depths to which they sink, and that the families of the earth will be blessed, in accordance with the promise made to Abraham, all by the power of God.

So, who are Christians? They are the People of God, identified with the profession of his Name in Baptism. Are they every one individually converted, that is, spiritually born again in such a way that they show forth the fruit of the Spirit of Christ in them? They are not. However, they are the people of God, over whom he rules in both judgment and grace. Judgment begins at the house of God, and the disobedient and apostate are weeded out. Yet, also, in that self-same household and family we find the salvation of our souls in true and living faith.

Pay attention to the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. They all say that we believe in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and we believe the Catholic and Apostolic church! This Holy Catholic Church, the People of God, is a Body important enough to be mentioned in the essential creeds of the church along with the Holy Trinity!

This church is the Household and Family of God, built by God, affirmed in the Creeds, and is no optional fellowship created by mere associations of believers.

May God grant that we pay proper respect to the wonder and glory of our participation in this Body!

The Testimony of Glory

2011-07-16T22:52:00.003-05:00

Our Lord Jesus prays for us in the Upper Room:

"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You -- that they also may be one in Us, in order that the world may believe that You sent Me.

And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, in order that they may be one just as We are one -- I in them, and You in Me -- in order that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. John 17:20-23.

In this prayer, we see that our destiny, as a result of our Savior's prayer and sacrifice, is that we shall be and now are one in the fellowship of the Father and the Son, just as the Father and the Son are one in each other. Furthermore, this unity is created by the same glory now given to us which was first shared by the Father and the Son before all worlds. This union in glory, visible to the world, effectually converts the world.

In the unity and glory being revealed in us, things ordinarily considered incommunicable to the creature have become ours, such as having God the Father of the Eternal Son also be our Father, a present sharing in the blessings of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), and present participation in his glory (Rom 8:30).

Contemplation of these astounding facts ought to lead to boundless spiritual astonishment and love for the Father and his unique Son who think of us this way. Wherever we see Christ speak of the love and glory between the Father and the Son we ought to recognize that this love and glory is meant for us, too.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

As the Son was full of grace and truth, so are we, by his grace.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18

No one has seen God at any time -- but we have seen him in Christ, and the world will see him in us.

The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. John 3:35

For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. John 5:20

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. John 14:12-14

By Christ's authority, from his works and signs, comes to us a testimony of like kind. Built upon this foundation we glory in his Name, and shed forth his glory before the world, and do signs in his name and power which continue the witness to his glory and majesty through us, that the world may believe that Christ is the Savior.

Head and Heart Meet Sin

2011-07-13T01:22:00.004-05:00

It's out of fashion to speak of the difference between head and heart, but I'll follow Calvin's example and do it anyway.

Head and Heart on Faith

It's easy to give lip service to faith in Christ, and to speak with head knowledge, but still be tempted to fall away under temptation. The head alone just talks, but it is the heart that believes unto righteousness. Yet a person who is weak of heart in regard to faith doesn't always know it, and may speak from the head confidently and with enthusiasm about loving Christ. (Remember the parable of the sower, and the seed thrown on rocky ground.) A person must develop depth of faith in the heart, in order to have the spiritual fortitude to follow Christ through thick and thin.

Head and Heart on Sin

Likewise, looking toward sin, the head and heart may not agree with one another. Repentance of the head is easy, because we all really do know the difference between right and wrong. It doesn't take the gospel, or faith in Christ, to know this. However, to truly repent of one's own sins takes the heart as well as the head, and is the gift of God. There has to be a depth of heart in repentance before one's own sin is seen in its true horror. Even then we never really know it all, because repentance is a life-long process. Our sanctification could be defined as backing up over the lines we've crossed that we know about, and then discovering, behind those lines we knew about, ever more lines and degrees of sinfulness we had crossed negligently and ignorantly before getting to the ones that got us in outward trouble. Discovering lines behind lines and striving to back up behind them continues throughout a life of sanctification. Repentance toward sin, then, is the process of backing back up over not just the main line we crossed to get ourselves in outward trouble, but also all those other lines we crossed first, while we were on our way to the main one.

This is why the initial stages of repentance from any particular sin may leave a person in danger of relapse. The sense of horror about that sin may be very low. One is aware of a line that's been crossed, and one may think that moving back on the right side of that one line (outwardly) is good enough. The sin is known, but the knowledge is not a deep heart knowledge. Actually, to get back securely far from that one line that was crossed to get in outward trouble, a person will need to back up over a lot of other lines in the heart. Staying near that main line, though outwardly on the correct side of it, tempts the Lord, and will leave a person susceptible to relapse.

The cure, which is the gift of God, is to not stop with repentance about the outward things which get us in trouble, but to begin to slaughter the inward sins that lead to the outward ones.

God said, through James, "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you." We should count on it. Jesus said, "Come unto me, all you that are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Also, hardness of heart, or lack of repentance, isn't something that's just relative to certain sins. We can't be hard of heart here and soft of heart there. If we're hard of heart about one particular sin, then we're really hard of heart about them all.

True repentance affects the whole man.

Sin and Apostasy

2011-07-09T20:18:00.005-05:00

One usually thinks of apostasy as due to an intellectual rejection of the doctrine of the faith. This can be true. John (1 John) says that the antichrists who have gone out from us indicate that it is the last hour. However, in Scripture there are many passages that speak of apostasy, and most of those passages do not speak of intellectual denials, but of moral apostasy. They speak of sin.

John said that people do not believe, to begin with, because their deeds are evil (John 3:19-20). Therefore, it stands to reason also that apostasy can come about due to a fundamental heart-preference for sin rather than fellowship with Christ. This happens in those who have professed allegiance to Christ, but who have not believed the gospel with their whole heart.

In 1 Cor 10, Paul shows that tinkering with sin is the path to apostasy.

¹ Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, ² all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, ³ all ate the same spiritual food, ⁴ and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. ⁵ But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

⁶ Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. ⁷ And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” ⁸ Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; ⁹ nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; ¹⁰ nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. ¹¹ Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

¹² Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

The context shows that the warning is about apostasy on the part of those who have received the sacraments and professed the faith, but who have preferred sin to Christ when the going got tough. This occurs in this place in 1 Corinthians because the Corinthian laissez-faire attitude toward holiness (as portrayed in their emphasis on enjoyment of rights) is tantamount in Paul's eyes to a threat of apostasy. He doesn't want to see this, and so he gives the warning.

Now there is also assurance here. Paul goes on to say that, for those who truly know God,

¹³ No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

Therefore, for those who truly know the Lord Jesus, we have a secure guarantee that he will not permit us to be tempted in such a way as to cause us to fall away from him. But, along with this guarantee, and concurrently with it in our own hearts must be respect for the exhortation:

¹⁴ Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Sin is characterized as what it really is -- idolatry. When we flee it and trust in Jesus Christ clothed in the gospel, we know that our Christ will carry us through and not permit us to be lost.

Marriage Rights versus Married Love

2011-07-08T20:10:00.009-05:00

In 1 Cor 9 and 10, the Apostle is concerned to address the Corinthian habit of expressing their Christianity in terms of "rights." And, the context will show that he is not opposed to respecting the rights, and especially the moral sensitivities and weaknesses, of others. It is living by one's own rights, regardless of the effect on others, that the Apostle regards as un-Christian and dangerous.

He points out that though "rights" have their place, they are not an absolute, and the real Christian life is motivated by love and not by "rights." He goes on in those chapters to speak of this at length. Furthermore, he points out at the end of chapter 9 that he keeps his body under, disciplining himself lest he be cast away even though he has preached to others. Clearly, he sees that an emphasis on "rights" (for oneself) can lead not only away from ministry opportunity (which depends on the sacrifice of rights), but can lead to the loss of ministry -- or worse.

As an example, consider marriage "rights."

The Lord sometimes ordains a degree of celibacy between married couples (apart from disability) as a consequence of poor spiritual fellowship between the spouses, even when his own word makes that celibacy ill-advised (1 Cor 7:1-5). Our Lord has the sovereign right to ordain this, and we must accept it, and pray. This hopefully may have the effect of revealing to our own hearts how much our relationship to our spouses is based on ideas of our own rights instead of on love. The “love” that we give to our spouses, if we do, could be an ulterior motive.

However, if we begin to actually love our spouses, even in celibacy, we may begin to see this kind of estrangement resolve, given enough time. From creation, the marriage union was designed to be a union of persons through love, and the body was given to provide a means for the expression of that love and to promote the welfare of that personal union.

Marriage was never designed to be a tool by which to satiate our flesh or to manipulate our spouses.

The New Commandment (Revised)

2011-07-07T13:21:00.000-05:00

This post has been slightly revised for emphasis in the last three paragraphs.

I grew up dispensational, being taught Dispensationalism by Hal Lindsey while he was assistant pastor of Berachah Church, Houston TX, a long time ago, before he wrote books or became famous.

Much later, along about 1982, I think, through hearing teaching and doing some reading, I saw that the Dispensational approach was not in full accord with the Scripture. But, rather than trying to find a substitute for Dispensationalism, I decided to withdraw from detailed study of eschatology, and simply to hold the "catholic" position that Christ is coming again, bodily, for the Day of Judgment, at which point we will be resurrected bodily to enjoy eternal fellowship with him. In other words, I gave up direct study of eschatology, and gave my attention to other topics.

This benign neglect of curious detail worked until 2005.

At that point we joined a church with a strongly postmillennial cast, and so I began to hear about this approach first-hand, being immersed in both the doctrine and the practice of the church. I did not know that this experience was also set to be a lesson in eschatology!

Even now I do not know to what extent the functioning of the internal, mutual ministry of the church is influenced by what appears to me to be the reigning postmillennial eschatological doctrinal position. So, perhaps this exercise is simply a learning experience for me. It is certainly the case that Our Lord has decreed that I will now learn some eschatology!

Now, my main interest is not an abstract investigation of millennial types. My main interest concerns the effect eschatology has on the spiritual life of the church.

This investigation, in turn, takes place amidst my personal redemptive-historical theological view which regards the New Testament scriptures to contain the preeminent hermeneutic for interpreting all of Scripture -- both Old Testament and New. Therefore, all the unfulfilled, and yet to be fulfilled, eschatology of the Old Testament, as well as the New, is interpreted and explicated according to the norms of the New Testament writers. The New Testament is never transcended throughout the age. It is not a standard of ecclesiology and Christian ethic suited only for the childhood and youth of the church, but is also supremely suited for her maturity.

Now, the New Testament carries within it themes of triumph, themes of conflict, themes of judgment, themes of love for the world, and themes of separation from the world. All these themes need to be well-balanced and Scriptural in the life of the church.

Now, we know that the church is both separated from the world and in the world, just as the individual Christians are. We are in the world but not of the world. Furthermore, my reigning concern on this topic is that the mutual love shown in the internal fellowship of the church, in separation from the world, is (along with gospel preaching) the visible testimony to the world that Christ has come.

Another way to put this is to say that the redeemed humanity, the visible church, is a new, gospel-preaching and gospel-acting culture, a counter-culture to the world, which testifies in the world and to the world what is the nature of the inner life of the New Humanity, and that this testimony of the true inner life of the New Humanity is the testimony to the world that Christ is the Savior.

Jesus said, in the Upper Room, after Judas had gone out (John 13:31ff):

So, when he [Judas] had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and glorify Him immediately. Little children, I shall be with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come,’ so now I say to you. A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

We are probably so used to reading about the New Commandment that we hardly grasp the astounding significance of Jesus saying this: He's exceeding Moses (not that Moses would ever disagree with what Jesus is saying). John, of course, was lying back toward Jesus while they were reclining at the Table and marked this saying well. Even the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers about John's deportment as he was carried to church in a chair in his old age was that he was continually exhorting them to "Love one another." This is not some kind of mushy, gooshy emotionalism, but John's recollection and re-anouncement of the New Commandment, which he obviously regarded as the real guiding principle of the New Covenant: In the quote from the gospel given above, "Love one another" is repeated three times!

Therefore, a scriptural eschatology, regardless of the positioning of the "millennium," and regardless of how much the Kingdom of God is fulfilled in this present age, must teach us how to execute the New Commandment! The Church must know, or come to know, what real Christian love for one another actually is, and must live it in Christian community.

But, there is a problem. There appears to be no time for the cultivation of deeper Christian friendship and mutual ministry amidst urban busy-ness and the accompanying idolatry-of-good-things.

It may also be so hard to see the need because the upper-middle class church is materially "rich and in need of nothing," even though spiritual poverty is actually widespread (Rev 3:14ff).

Might it also be, to some degree, a defect in eschatology? Can an eschatology and vision of individual and church "world-engagement" be a detriment to the inner social life of faith, apart from the world?

Are Baptists Reformed?

2011-06-29T00:15:00.012-05:00

We are in a day when peace between the denominations is in high esteem -- and I'm for that, as long as our theological discussions continue, in order to elucidate the exact nature of our important differences, toward the end of spiritual growth and spiritual and doctrinal union with one another. It is in the light of this that I say to my Reformed or Sovereign Grace Baptist friends that they are not Reformed. They are certainly Reformational, but they are not "Reformed." It's important to say this, in the interest of doctrinal integrity, since there's a massive rush on nowadays, in Reformed circles to deny much interest in the distinction between "Reformed" and "Baptist."

First, one is not historically Reformed because one accepts the Five Points of Calvinism (the TULIP). Lots of Calvinists, Thomists, and Augustinians accept the Five Points in principal, but it doesn't necessarily make them Presbyterian or Baptist, or even Reformational! But, in our day, any Bible Church, Presbyterian or Baptist person who accepts the Five Points is commonly said to be Reformed.

It has to be said that to be Reformed entails a view of the Covenant(s) which is distinctively not Baptist. The doctrine of infant baptism is based in the covenantal understanding of the Reformed. The Baptist understanding of the covenant is different: The Church is not Israel, though it is some kind of successor (or replacement) to Israel. So, not only is the doctrine of the Covenant fundamentally different between the Reformed and the Baptists, so too is the ecclesiology, which is based on the Covenant. In Baptist ecclesiology the (visible) church is a body of ("guaranteed") converted people. I put the word "guaranteed," of course, as a joke, but that's the theoretical basis for Baptist ecclesiology. The Reformed basis for ecclesiology is that the Church is a visible People of God, individuals, families (and their children) containing members in all sorts of spiritual condition, but who profess the faith.

As an example, consider the human family. I know it's playing hardball to say this to a Baptist friend, but Baptist ecclesiology does not include the human family. Reformed ecclesiology does. Baptist churches are formed from converted people. Reformed ecclesiology converts people.

One could go on, but enough has been said.

Calvinistic Baptists are certainly not Reformed, and should not call themselves that, nor be called that, because it misrepresents their understanding of Covenant and ecclesiology.

It seems true to me to even say that the American "Reformed" churches have given over so much to "Baptist" ideas and ecclesiological principles that they aren't Reformed any more either. We are ecclesiological "Baptists" with a tradition of sprinkling babies!

I've said enough.

God bless us all.

This World, or the Next?

2011-06-28T23:27:00.017-05:00

It's worth making it a primary consideration in one's Christianity, whether the emphasis is going to be on this world (age), or the next world (age). Is the Kingdom coming in this age in such a manner that our focus can be on its progress in this age, that is, do we believe that the Kingdom of God will be manifest in this age so strongly that the Final End is more or less the "icing on the cake," rather than a catastrophic revolution bringing in the resurrection state?

If the Kingdom comes gradually and fully, then our hope, though sourced in heaven, certainly lies in the progress of this age. If the Kingdom comes catastrophically, then our hope is both sourced in heaven, and lies in heaven. In other words, does heaven come to earth gradually, so that we focus on its coming in this age? Or, does heaven come to earth catastrophically, so that we focus on the age to come?

It easy to see that I've phrased this question in terms that speak straight from the New Testament about catastrophe. It's vital that we view the New Testament revelation as the reigning Kingdom Hermeneutic, or we will not have the proper focus on the nature of the Church and our relationship to the World.

If the Kingdom fully comes gradually in this age, then our focus IS on the world. The ultimate correspondence of the Church and the World is expected. However, if the Kingdom comes catastrophically, then our focus is on the Age to Come. Then, a spiritual "separation" is maintained between the Body of Christ and the current Age (world).

The path of union with the world, even the neo-Kuyperian concept of the Organism of the Church permeating the world, while the Institution of the Church is limited to its own sphere, is contrary to the eschatology (as well as the ecclesiology) of the New Testament. Common grace displaces special grace. We will be "orthodox" liberals, will lose our "separation" from the world, will lose our spiritual fellowship with one another, will lose our morals, and will finally lose our doctrine.

But, the Scriptures are plain. All men are either sons of the devil or sons of God (1 John). Light and darkness do not comport with one another. God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. There is a harvest, in which the wheat come to fruition is kept as the King's Harvest, but the chaff and tares are thrown into the unquenchable fire! Therefore, the spiritual antithesis between the Body of Christ and the "world" cannot end until the Day of Judgment.

To lose our "separation" from the world by a wrong eschatology will be (and has been, in history) the ruin of the church. The wrong kind of postmillennialism can be heresy! We must not go there!

"New Measures"

2011-06-27T19:28:00.003-05:00

The term "New Measures" originated as a reference to new techniques of Christian persuasion that were developed during the so-called Second Great Awakening, beginning in about 1800. The main figure in the development of the New Measures came to be Charles Grandison Finney. His techniques involved the use of the "altar call," and the "anxious bench," which, along with the nature of the preaching, were used to stimulate supposedly spiritual responses to the preaching of the gospel. The New Measures were seen as pragmatically usable by Finney and his disciples in all generations, and were practices that, if used, would not leave the church to a passive submission to divine sovereignty. "Conversions" could essentially be manufactured.

The whole controversy introduced by Finney has never gone away, and in one form or another "new measures" have always been with us ever since. There are even new "new measures" invented all the time.

One example of such new measures may be seen in the "seeker sensitive" church movement. The idea here is that making the church like the world will attract the world. Attracting the world will allow the gospel to be "snuck in," without causing too much offense. People are seemingly told that to be a Christian is to be no different from the world - except for faith in Christ. But, this cannot be in any way reconciled to Christ's call for total commitment to a life-style that is hated by the world. The Incense of Prayer and the Holy Odor of Obedience are not seen.

We see the same thing in teen evangelistic ministry, if that ministry basically consists of a teen-sensitive "party," to which a little gospel exhortation is discreetly attached.

All these, and all things like them, are "new measures."

But, the gospel is not to be "snuck in" in the middle of social activities under cover of which it masquerades. The gospel is preached straightforwardly: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again on the Third Day, according to the Scriptures, and was seen by hundreds of witnesses, including the authorized apostles who have preached his word in the founding of his church, and whose writings speak this gospel to us today. This same Jesus is coming again to judge the world in righteousness. All who trust in him shall be forgiven, and cleansed from all their sins and will never be put to shame.

Glory be to God!

Divine Mysteries and Worship

2011-06-26T16:29:00.005-05:00

Good systematic theology of the Great Mysteries of the Faith (Trinity, Incarnation, and others) teaches us not only about the essential dimensions of these mysteries which we must know, but also how to understand that these are mysteries which we must contemplate in worship with awe and wonder.

In other words, a mystery is not a "wall," shutting out our thoughts with intellectual complexity. Rather, it is a revelation of the unfathomable depth of the greatness, glory and goodness of God. A divine mystery is, therefore, a well of life, by which we contemplate God's glory.

The mystery of the Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are things about which we must speak, according to the terms of Scripture. We must know these facts, insofar as they are revealed. This is part of accepting the gospel. We need to get the revealed dimensions right. But, do not think that a mystery of the Divine Nature and Divine Works is simply an intellectual thing that only experts might understand, neither let it only function as an object of rote memorization. Rather, understand such a mystery as leading to the worship of God, where we peer into Him and His works with ever-increasing joy and wonder for all eternity. The more "expert" we become in the contemplation of such mysteries, the less we have intellectual complacency in our knowledge, and the more we appreciate the unfathomable depth of the great glory of God.

The function of good systematic theology, therefore, is to bring these awesome mysteries before us to stimulate our worship, by which we are moved by God's Glory, in our mind, emotion, and will to serve Him as our God.

In this way, the theological discipline is at the root of all liturgical art and thought.

Authority: From the Larger Catechism

2011-06-21T23:25:00.003-05:00

To the Men of the Church:

To struggle with issues of authority is so much the common struggle of life. Husbands and wives struggle with each other, parents struggle with children, and adults struggle with managers and employees in the workplace, and sometimes with the civil government, and church officers struggle with the church members.

We know that the Scripture teaches us to respect all legitimate authority, and also that all legitimate authority also ought to behave respectably. We know these principles, but often don’t know how to apply them. This takes much wisdom, which is to be sought in God’s Word, as it applies itself in the midst of life’s experiences.

This little paper on Christian Ethics will attempt to address some concerns that I have heard expressed among us. Now, there is nothing in this paper that you have not already read in God’s Word – nothing that you do not already know in principle. But, there is much wisdom and advice for us on the subject of authority and its uses given in that portion of the Westminster Larger Catechism discussing the Fifth Commandment (“Honor your Father and Mother”, Question 123). This remarkable elaboration of a full and inner meaning to the fifth commandment needs to be pondered by us men, because the tendency of our flesh is to rule our wives, children and subordinates, however unwittingly, with a spirit of self-centered neglect, or in some cases domination, and at the same time to look upon our superiors in a spirit of rebellion, however hidden. The Catechism teaches us how to diagnose these sins.

What follows in the next section is Law. By it we are instructed. We learn the way to behave to live a good life. By it we also see the untruth that lies within all human beings, and most-so within our own selves. So, holding before our eyes the picture of Our Lord and Servant Jesus Christ, we call upon our Father in Heaven to make these commands live in our souls, not by human power, but by divine power, through the grace of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, with humble dependence upon God, and wishing and praying for the best for us all, I submit this paper to you.

May God help us be men!

An Excerpt from the Westminster Larger Catechism
“Honor Your Father and Your Mother …” (Exodus 20:12)

Perhaps it is not often thought that the Fifth Commandment has ramifications that affect more than family life. But, if you recognize that the human family, under God, is the original authority among men created by God, then it’s easy to see that the authority structure God calls for within the human family must also illustrate a principle of authority that affects all of life.

The Catechism uses the terms “superiors,” “inferiors,” and “equals.” This is the language of authority and status in 17^th century England, and the Christian West in general, at that time. We shouldn’t take offense against this language, but we do need to understand it: The terms “superior,” “inferior” and “equal” are relative terms. For example, your manager at work has the right to give you direction concerning your work. You have given him this right by taking employment from him. At the same time your manager has given a similar right to his own manager. Your manager is your “superior” as long as the employment relationship lasts. At the same time, your manager is an “inferior” to his manager. Now, life is littered with hierarchical relationships of many kinds (work, marriage, family, government). The language of “superior,” “inferior,” and “equal” is used in the Catechism to speak in a simple manner to all such relationships in general terms, in order to teach the common principles that apply to all of them.

The authors of the Westminster Larger Catechism therefore expand the Fifth Commandment, based on the analogy of family life, in a number of questions, most of which are reproduced here:

Q 124. Who are meant by “Father” and “Mother” in the fifth commandment?

A. By “Father” and “Mother” in the fifth Commandment, are meant not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts, and especially such as by God’s ordinance are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or common-wealth.

The term “common-wealth” refers to civil life: work, education, government, etc.

Q 125. Why are superiors styled “Father” and “Mother”?

A. Superiors are styled Father and Mother, both to teach them in all duties towards their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations: and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.

For men, “superiors” are: fathers to their children, husbands to their wives, church officers to their church members, managers to their employees, government officials to their citizens, etc.

Likewise, for men, “inferiors” are: grown men to their fathers and mothers, church members to their church officers, employees to their managers, citizens to their government officials, etc.

The Fifth Commandment teaches men, in their positions of leadership, to express an appropriate family-like love and tenderness to all subordinates in their own families, in the church, in business, in education or in government. This is a love and tenderness which is wisely tempered appropriately to the situation, according to the nature and type of the relationship.

Likewise, where men are subordinates, we are exhorted to a greater willingness and cheerfulness to perform the duties our superiors request, with a kind of “parental” respect, which is again wisely adjusted to the situation.

The vision given here is that God-ordained hierarchical authority partakes of a family-like relationship of respect and love between superiors and inferiors, which is adjusted appropriately to the nature of the various situations in which we find ourselves.

The rest of the questions more explicitly illustrate the meaning of this.

Q 127. What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?

A. The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is all due reverence in heart, word and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities and covering them in love; that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.

The primary duty enjoined upon us in this answer is that we must support and protect those above us in authority, that is, our parents, our work supervisors, our church officers, or our civil government, so that their authoritative position and government is more honored. Their authority has been established by God, and to disrespect this is to disrespect the government of God.

One should notice the nuances in the answer: We should obey our superiors’ lawful commands and counsels. We should pray for them, and give thanks for them (even when they do wrong!). We should imitate their virtues and graces. We should defend their status, and bear with their infirmities in love, in order that we may honor them and their position.

There’s a lot said here about attitude, but nothing about slavery. Nevertheless, the authors of the Catechism see Scripture teaching that authority is an honorable and worthy necessity within the body of the family, church and common-wealth, and that maintenance of honorable authority is most necessary for the well-being of all these institutions.

Q 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?

A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors, are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against their persons and places in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.

Here again, in the conclusion of the answer, we see again the importance that the authors of the Catechism attach to the Scriptural mandate to respect authority. The rebelliousness of inferiors may bring shame upon the inferiors, but the real concern is that it brings shame upon those in the position of authority, and by attacking authority subverts the well-being of the institutions of family, church and nation.

We Americans tend to think that freedom and equality govern everything, but the freedom and equality that we enjoy are very definitely sustained by authority, operating in its proper and most appropriate spheres.

Q 129. What is required of superiors toward their inferiors?

A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel and admonish them; countenancing, commending and rewarding such as do well; discountenancing, reproving and chastising such as do ill; protecting and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body; and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.

This paragraph describes how we ought to treat our wives, children, church members, employees and fellow citizens when operating from a position of authority. We are to be conscious of the power we have received from God to bless our wives, children, fellow church members, employees and fellow citizens – the power we have to love, pray for, instruct, counsel, admonish, commend and reward those who do good. (Likely we won’t forget to somehow reprove those whom we think disobey or do evil.) That is, we must make sure that we exercise the benevolent functions toward all our subordinates, while protecting and providing for them in all things necessary for soul and body, and illustrating grave, wise, holy and exemplary behavior before them, as an example.

All this procures glory to God and honor to ourselves as leaders, and so preserves the authority that God has given us. In other words, our authority can be diminished or finally lost by bad or negligent behavior, in the family, at work, in the church, and in the government! It is not an authority that inheres in us, willy-nilly, whether we behave or not, because it is possible to lose the office which has given us the authority.

Q 130. What are the sins of superiors?

A. The sins of superiors are, beside the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing or leaving them to wrong, temptation and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous or remiss behavior.

Important sins to ponder in this answer are: neglect, self-centeredness, commanding our subordinates to do unlawful things, things against their consciences, or things they cannot do, not rewarding them for doing good, correcting them unduly, not protecting them from temptation to do wrong, or from danger, provoking them to wrath!

The exercise of improper authority dishonors the one mis-using it, and lessens his authority.

Q 131. What are the duties of equals?

A. The duties of equals are to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving honor to go one before another, and to rejoice in each others gifts and advancement, as in their own.

Q 132. What are the sins of equals?

A. The sins of equals are, beside the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement or prosperity one of another, and usurping preeminence one over another.

Q 133. What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment, the more to envorce it?

A. The reason annexed to the fifth commandment, in these words, That your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God gives you, is an express promise of long life and prosperity, as far as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good, to all such as keep this commandment.

The bold face typeface giving the reason for obedience, as shown in this answer, is in the original transcript of the Catechism. This promise is given in two places in the Bible, in the Old Testament and in the New.

Application

The way to wisely apply the rules for men is not to place the most emphasis on enforcing upon our subordinates the rules that apply to them. We must first apply our own rules to ourselves. We must remove the beams in our own eyes before attempting to remove the specks in the eyes of our subordinates.

Also, the “great commandment” applies here. Our Lord said, “Love one another, as I have loved you.” He washes our feet. According to his Word, the one to be the greatest among us must be the greatest servant. He was, and is, Lord and Servant to his church. We must follow his lead, in order to be both “lord and servant” to our wives, children, fellow church members, employees, and fellow citizens.

A Brief Illustration of the Means of Grace

2011-06-03T00:03:00.011-05:00

The term “Means of Grace” refers to God-ordained religious practices (hearing the Word preached; receiving the Sacraments) which are used as instruments by the Lord in converting and edifying his people.

Since these religious exercises are physical, mental and spiritual in nature, some understanding ought to be sought from the Word concerning the relationship between these activities and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Let me introduce a physical model which might help explain what I mean: Think of the physical activity of hearing the Word preached, coupled with God’s work in making the Word spiritually understood by us.

Consider the following figure #1:

The Holy Spirit Works

The Word Preached ---------------> Hearer

The idea being portrayed here is that the preaching of the Word and the actual work of the Spirit to sovereignly prepare hearers are independent activities that may even take place at different times. There is a “right angle” between the effects of the ministry of the Word preached and the ministry of the Spirit giving understanding of the Word. Word and Spirit come at the hearer in different ways and at different times, according to the sovereignty of the Spirit.

Now consider the following figure #2:

Holy Spirit ->Word preached -> Hearer

In this image the work of the Spirit is pictured as happening in intimate conjunction with the preaching (without intending to imply that the Spirit never works independently).

These two figures convey two different impressions of the function and significance of the “Means of Grace.”

In Figure #1, the “means,” which in the example is the preaching and hearing of the Word, is decoupled from the Spirit in some measure (without in any sense denying the profound necessity for the Spirit’s ministry). The Spirit works independently from the “Means of Grace,” and we have no sure connection between the exercise of the “Means of Grace” and the work of the Spirit.

In Figure #2, a peculiar supernatural significance is attached to the preaching. There will be times when the dead will be command to live – and they will. The preaching takes on a significance beyond the conveyance of information to hearers who have been prepared by other means, independently of the preaching. There is real supernatural power in the preaching, which from time to time may even become visible to us, just as Jesus raised Lazarus, not by supernaturally waking him from the dead so that he could hear his name being shouted, but simply by the shouting of his name: Just as “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

Now the same approach can be used with respect to the Sacraments. They preach. In a sense, they do nothing more than preach, since there is no Sacrament without the Word. A Sacrament is the gospel in Word, and in seen and felt Images (taste, etc.). Figure #1, illustrating the “uncoupled,” or “distant” connection between Sacrament and Spirit leads to one conception of the “Means of Grace” in the sacraments, namely, that they are not means by which grace is received at all, but are testimonies to grace already given by the Spirit in another way, and perhaps at another time. On the other hand, Figure #2 intends to show the strong correlation between the Spirit’s work and the preaching of the Gospel, and also the Spirit’s work and the administration of the Sacraments. There is real supernatural power there.

Significance of the Two Figures

When the angle between the religious exercise and the work of the Spirit is large (independent), then we have a “low church” view of the “Means of Grace,” if they are granted at all to be “means.” When the theological angle between the religious exercise and the work of the Spirit is small (parallel), then we have a “high church” view of the “Means of Grace.” This extends not only to Word and Sacrament, but even to liturgy, etc., which takes on a kind of quasi-sacramental character. Indeed, it extends to the spiritual fellowship of the church herself.

In the “low church” view, there is no chance that the “means of grace” will be substituted for Christ. But, the full understanding and usage of “means,” and the respect that goes with them, will be lacking except for the preaching. The exclusive emphasis on preaching can then change the church into a school, where information is mainly conveyed, along with a few rudiments of worship. A high view of sacraments, or of the real character of preaching, of liturgy, and of the real nature of the church herself, will probably be lacking – though the fellowship in the Lord among the people is certainly enjoyed. The “high church” way of life will be rejected, because “the Spirit doesn’t work that way.” He doesn’t work through means like that, or to that extent. They believe fully in the works of the Spirit, but that independency between the religious exercises and the work of the Spirit dominates the thought.

In the “high church” view, there is more respect for the “Means of Grace,” and more edification through them, according to the terms of Scripture. However, it is also possible for the “means” to be exalted unduly, or for Pharisaism to set in as people pride themselves on mechanically operating the liturgical machinery. The centrality of evangelical preaching again comes to the fore here, as the salvation of the spiritual “highness” which is accorded to the Means of Grace.

How do we characterize the relationship between Means of Grace and the Holy Spirit?

With a high view of the Means of Grace, we have to have a Scriptural balance on what we think of these Means. For example, in Romanism, the elements of the Supper are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. That is, Christ is himself “incarnate” in the sacrament. (I realize this is a misuse of the word “incarnate,” but please bear with me). Since Christ himself is really there in the elements of the Sacrament, he should be worshiped there. But, we see no evidence of this in Scripture. Christ is not “incarnate” in the elements of the Supper. So, how is he present? I suggest that we may speak of the elements being used as “instruments” or “mediators” of Christ’s bodily presence. Likewise, Baptism is an instrument of Christ’s presence, and preeminently preaching is an instrument of Christ’s presence. There is a high degree of “parallelism” between the use of the Means of Grace and the ministry of the Trinity through the Spirit. But, by maintaining the “instrumentality,” we are preserved from an unscriptural reverence for bread, wine, water, Bibles, or the persons of preachers. They are real mediators of the real thing, but they are not the real thing in themselves.

Now, we don’t have any idea how the Spirit works. We do not understand the spiritual “engineering.” It is helpful to take Calvin’s approach here, and say that the Scripture revelation is “accommodated” to our babyish understandings.

Therefore, when we read

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

we must admit that the bread and cup are a (real) participation in the body and blood of Christ through the elements as instruments or “mediators” in the hand of God. We do not make them instruments of grace to ourselves by the force of our own faith, but they are real instruments in the hands of the Spirit for grace which we receive by faith.

When we eat and drink, we may rest in the true and living faith of the gospel, that by receiving this sacrament I do receive the forgiveness of sins, and participation in all the virtues of Christ, as well as commit myself to him and his body, the church.

Boyd Murrah

23 October 2008

revised 14 Dec 2009
revised 3 June 2011 for the blog

The TULIP vs. Reformed Theology (revised)

2011-05-30T19:43:00.004-05:00

It seems to me (as a person knowledgable about Reformation times and its theology, both Lutheran and Reformed), and also somewhat knowledgable concerning the 19th century American Princetonian Theology (and its competing Mercersburg Theology), that mainstream "orthodox Reformed theology" as we know it in our place and time in the Reformed Church at large has fallen into reductionism and serious theological imbalance.

What has happened, as I think I see it, is that the mainstream American vision (the Princetonian Theology) has evolved from the original Reformation form into a system of thought which is simply "evangelical," in the 19th and early 20th century sense, to which is added the "Five Points of Calvinism."

The key theological concept which distinguishes this kind of "Reformed Theology" appears to me to be "Particularism." One can read B B Warfield's Plan of Salvation, for instance, and this is plain to see. He makes the virtual definition of Reformed Theology to be Particularism.

However, one seeks in vain for this "look and feel" in the Reformation versions of Reformed Theology. Particularism is there, but within Scriptural bounds. Predestination and election are taught, but this is by no means a monopoly of the Reformed theology! Observing that God does not preach the gospel to all nor does he save all those to whom the gospel is preached, and also having Scriptural doctrines about this is far from making the Reformed Theology simply a vehicle for preaching Particularism.

Therefore, I believe that our "modern" inheritance from the Princetonian legacy, as valuable as it is, is a serious distorting emphasis within the theological system which we profess to represent. True Reformed Theology is "catholic," offers the Gospel to all who hear it, and is not simply a vehicle for making a hobby-horse of Particularism.

Truth is, the evangelical+5point notion of Reformed Theology is seriously affected by the spirit of Revivalism, Americanism, and too much Rationalism. The Revivalism and Americanism are inimical to the true Reformational and Reformed idea of the institution of the Church. And, the Rationalism is the fruit of the proximity of the Enlightenment. If the mind of man can solve all mysteries (as the Enlightenment postulated), then it is tempting to think that the mind of man must be able to fight back using the same tools in the defense of Christianity, as 19th (and 18th) century Reformed Theology evidently thought. Perhaps no one ever thought that the human mind could thereby unwittingly be overextended into realms beyond its competence, and that to attempt to defend Christianity by using the same methods and tools as the world would be an error, and might even lead to spiritual and intellectual disaster.

One can see the visible affect of the pre-eminence of American Reformed "Particularism" from "outside the camp" by reading Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics. His main "enemy" in this work of American Confessional Lutheranism is the Particularism of the Reformed Church. To Pieper, Particularism as preached by the Reformed Church is the single greatest error of that church, and the one which most radically de-Christianizes and refutes it. Now, as surely as Mr. Pieper's complaints need to be taken seriously by the Reformed, this is surely a powerful 19th century style response to the 19th century over-emphasis on Particularism in the American Reformed Church. This "Particularist Reformed" spirit still lives on among the Reformed in the 21st century, especially in the more Baptistic circles. But to many Reformed thinkers nowadays this definition of the meaning of "Reformed," and the rationalistic tactics that go along with it, is beginning to be recognized as old-fashioned.

In this post-Enlightenment age when we have been freed not from the use of the mind but from rationalism, we need to rethink our theology in a manner which more meekly evaluates our rational capabilities, more highly evaluates the meaning of Scripture, and which avoids the "five-point trap" of thinking that only those points adequately characterize the whole of Reformed Theology.

There is a world of books out there about this.

One could profitably begin with D G Hart's biography:
John Williamson Nevin, High Church Calvinist.

Christian Suffering, Spirituality and Eschatology (revised 5/28)

2011-05-28T14:59:00.000-05:00

This is the first post of what may be an occasional series of posts on the interrelationship of Christian Suffering and Eschatology.

The basic thesis of these posts, which I will try to support over time, is this: The age-long continuance of Christian Suffering is such a significant emphasis in the New Testament, that a view of the progress of this age which sees a gradual end to suffering by the time of the Second Coming of Christ must be an eschatology which is seriously at odds with the New Testament.

A few points are:

1) The general cast of the New Testament is opposed to gradual entrance of conditions of such spiritual and experiential peace and plenty such that the transition to the eternal state is not catastrophic. Put another way, the eternal state does not come by a process of development, or spiritual evolution, in either extent or quality. I do not deny by this that the current age has a path of spiritual development, and that that development tends to the sharpness of the distinction between good and evil, nor do I deny that the preponderance of Christianity, and its effects, increases.

2) The experimental suffering which is put forth as the norm in the Bible as a whole, and especially in the New Testament, must be the experience of all believers in this age, until the end of the age. The maintenance of Christian spirituality depends on this. Therefore, a view of the end of the age in which spiritual conditions approach conditions in the Eternal State is inimical to the New Testament vision of the spiritual value of the suffering that characterizes the present age.

3) The whole Bible narrative of the believers' experience shows that an easy life is spiritually harmful to those still in the un-resurrected flesh. Our fidelity to God is only guaranteed through spiritual struggle. Christ, the perfect man, learned obedience through suffering.

4) The spiritual purity and "separation" of the church from the world, so important in the text of the New Testament, is at stake. The only way to maintain our testimony and actually have an effect on the world is to maintain this separation. The liberal churches have simply identified their eschatology with popular political and social progressivism in all its methods and results, and thereby demonstrate the result of this kind of "postmillennialism." A theonomic replacement of the world's carnal "law" with God's Law will not fix this problem, because the problem is spiritual in a way which transcends "law." The Church is a New Creation, not simply a renovation of the Original Creation.

5) Finally, the "proof-texts" for the evolution of gradual spiritual perfection do not support this picture. Any sustained argument built up from the full revelation of the New Testament will show the continuing threat of apostasy -- even a final apostasy, and the spiritual warfare between the wheat and the tares will not end until the harvest.

Good and evil will "come to a point" at the harvest at the end of the age in such a manner that Christian suffering will remain the Christian lifestyle until the end of the age. Our hope is in the Eternal State, not some near-perfect manifestation of God's Kingdom before that time. To focus attention and hope on the pre-Eternal State as capable of containing the near-full manifestation of God's Kingdom is to lose the eschatological vision, and potentially to fall into the trap of worldliness which is condemned in the New Testament.

Our expectations in this age must be properly focused, lest the spirituality and separation of the Church from the World be lost. If the spirituality and separation of the Church is lost through some kind of "gospel reductionism," and if the central focus of the hope of fulfillment in an Eschaton which transcends the current aeon and its ways of life is lost, the result will just be "liberalism" again.

The Piety of Christ

2011-05-16T16:18:00.008-05:00

The greatest injustice that ever took place, or ever will, happened at the day and hour that Our Lord Jesus Christ voluntarily took the blame for our sins. In doing so, he manifested the highest act of righteous piety ever seen, or ever will be. He cried, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?"

When forsaken, he cried this. When taking taking our punishment, he cried this. At his lowest, even at death, God was his God! Having been "made sin for us," he remained the pure sacrifice for our sin.

By his death, therefore, we have life. By his mighty act of weakness -- his death -- the powers of the Devil were defeated. Our sins were canceled. The wrath of God was satisfied. The honor of God was upheld. Christ the Savior was still God.

The Prince of Life could not be held by death. The source of Life gained Life again, and we have Life in Him!

Glory be to God!

Monarchy and Marriage

2011-04-29T16:56:00.002-05:00

Recents events -- the Royal Wedding -- call out different responses from different folks. It's good in the midst of all the sentiment and adverse or neutral response to regain some kind of Biblical perspective.

1) The government is a monarchy -- Jesus Christ is King.

It's necessary to remember that this King -- eternal God the Son -- is also one of us, virgin born of a woman, born under law, yet without sin. Our King has died -- truly, glassy-eyed dead -- under the curse due our sin and the attacks of Satan, and yet by divine power he has has returned to life -- life eternal, in total harmony with his divine nature, no longer subject to death, and he has triumphed over the devil and all dark powers, and risen to the right hand of God the Father, where this Man reigns over heaven and earth!

Christ has died!
Christ has risen!
Christ will come again!

On the day of reward, justice and judgment, the divine royalty of the God-man will be visible to every eye.

2) Our monarch, God the Son, marries.

The wedding supper of our Lamb, a never-ending feast of glory, awaits us. And, we who believe in him are the bride! Even now we are one with him through baptism! Even now, we are inhabited by his Spirit! Even now, spiritually, we sit with him on his throne!

In the day of fulfillment the royal wedding glory of the majesty of the Lamb will overpower us, when we see him as he is! If we saw his glory now, we would die from it, but in that day we will be able to drink in never-ending drafts of it forever and ever.

The faded memory and dim promise of this royal hope still stirs somewhere in the hearts of all our race, even in the hearts of those who reject kings -- or who reject the one, true King of Glory. But, blessed are all those who trust in him!

The Second Man and the New Creation

2011-04-23T19:44:00.002-05:00

In Christ the Old Creation died,
undeliverable by the Law, and crucified for sin.

In Christ the New Creation rose to life,
where sin reigns no more.

The world we see with the eye of flesh does not know this, but, thanks be to God, the mystery of Christ has been revealed to us by the Spirit. The Christ and the New Creation which we now see only with the eyes of faith we shall see with our own eyes when he comes again. We shall see and touch the Lord Jesus whom we love through the Spirit!

Glory be to God, and to Christ the Lamb of God, who will raise us from the dead!

Come, Lord Jesus!

Holy, Holy, Holy

2011-04-19T23:22:00.013-05:00

John on Patmos saw into heaven:

^{Rev 4:6} Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back. ⁷ The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. ⁸ The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:

      “ Holy, holy, holy,
      Lord God Almighty,
      Who was and is and is to come!”

⁹ Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, ¹⁰ the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:

       ¹¹ “ You are worthy, O Lord,
      To receive glory and honor and power;
      For You created all things,
      And by Your will they exist and were created.”

When I was a spiritual kid I naively thought that there was something mechanical about this worship of the living creatures and elders, eternally repeated.

That was before I understood that each act of worship, repeated eternally and ever sincerely from the heart of each, was, every time, a consequence of their ever new and eternally increasing amazement at the infinite depth of the unfathomable glory of the Triune God!

Following Christ the Savior

2011-04-18T23:36:00.005-05:00

^{John 12:20} Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast. ²¹ Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” ²² Philip came and told Andrew, and in turn Andrew and Philip told Jesus.

²³ But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. ²⁴ Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. ²⁵ He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. ²⁶ If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.

²⁷ “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. ²⁸ Father, glorify Your name.”

Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.”

The inquiries of the Gentiles provoke our Lord to think of the sine qua non of his mission, the sacrifice of himself. The overflow of the church into the whole world is now called for. In fact, the world has come "knocking." Therefore, our Lord must not shrink back, but die -- and multiply. He preaches to himself, but also to us!

In this, we see our Lord as the author or pioneer of our salvation. He does not ask us to go where he has not gone before. He leads the way! All we need to do is to follow him. We do not go alone, but in the company and footsteps of the Great Shepherd who gives his life for his sheep.

What ambition, what riches or fame in this dying world counts compared to the fellowship of the Son of God? He who loses worldly riches, fame or comfort gains eternal riches, fame and comfort in the family of God the Father!

Our Lord, paradoxically points out that his suffering is his glory! What we shrink back from instinctively, just as a soldier shrinks back from death in his feelings, our Lord shrinks back from, too! But, he also recognizes that in his suffering he is glorified. Like a soldier-hero who gives his life for others, our Lord lays down his life under the wrath of God, enduring the pains of hell in body and soul which we shall never see, and all for his love of poor sinners such as we are!

Shall we not trust him with our souls and bodies? Shall we not follow him, even in his sufferings? Let us serve him and be with him where he is, forever! Glory and honor from God our Father await us!

Singing in Harmony

2011-04-16T20:23:00.003-05:00

It's not uncommon to hear people seriously affected by certain traditions of worship object to singing in harmony in the church. I suppose that the usual reason for this is that singing in unison (actually octaves) is supposed to be more emblematic of the unity of the church. This idea is very old and goes back to the traditions of the post-apostolic church in its Greek philosophical environment.

The only problem with this, as I see it, is that to limit our singing to monophony is similar to limiting our gifts to be of a single kind. Would it be a better expression of unity in the church if all of us were eyes? I don't think so. If the harmony of the different parts of the body is emblematic of the harmony of the gifts of the Spirit in the church, why isn't it reasonable that a harmony of voices in the church could be a chord, rather than an octave?

Hardness of Heart

2011-04-10T21:56:00.011-05:00

The descent into sin is often a consequence of slow hardening of the heart. Likewise, repentance and the rise out of sin requires what is often a slow softening of the heart.

Paul makes it plain in Romans, Chapter 2, that full knowledge of the Law -- the difference between right and wrong -- is perfectly compatible with blindness toward one's own depravity. Jesus said (Matt 23) that the Pharisees sat in Moses' Seat, but blindly and continually broke the law. This happened because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus' story about logs in ones own eyes, compared to splinters in others could fit here, too.

Therefore, if we even recognize our sin as sin, what passes for "repentance" may often not be very serious. From bare knowledge of the Law, one can admit to sin. But, it requires divine illumination to see sin in its true light -- to be horrified by it -- to be repulsed by it -- to hate it and pray against it. While the heart is still hard, insensitive to sin, it is profoundly easy to fall again, because the only real fear is the fear of being discovered by man. Softening of heart takes time. In fact, it is a lifelong process. It's a common thing for old men who are godly to repent of sins they committed at much younger ages. Back then, those sins which were so easily ignored are now repugnant in memory.

It's interesting to notice the relationship between Law and Gospel in this matter. The Pharisees could thoroughly understand how to apply the Law to others, but not to themselves. It is beyond human capacity. Bare knowledge of the law may harden you in your own sin. Only the Gospel delivers from sin. "Come unto me," said Jesus, and "I will give you rest." Only the grace of Christ softens the heart. This is the real work of sanctification, and it is not a work of man.

We ought to continually repent and believe the gospel of our Lord, worship the Triune God, pray, especially for others, fight sin always, and never stop serving Him -- and wait for His deliverance.

It will come.

Sin shall not have dominion over us, because we are not under Law but under Grace.

Sin and Deliverance

2011-04-03T21:19:00.003-05:00

Paul is clear. The unmitigated ministry of the Moral Law is a ministry of death to sinners. But, then we should likewise by no means think that the unmitigated ministry of the Moral Law is life to believers. Paul is clear:

^{Rom 3:19} Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. ²⁰ Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. ²¹ But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

The phrase I bring out in significance is the comment "apart from the Law." What Paul is saying is not that the Incarnation, Ministry, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Session of Christ at the Right Hand of God has made the Moral Law "keepable." What Paul reveals is that the Way of Life is the path to fellowship with God apart from all Law. Yes, the gospel must be received, but the gospel is not Law. It is a free gift. The Gospel may be called the "law of faith" by Paul, but this is to distinguish the way of faith from the way of works which belongs to the Moral Law. The "Law" of faith is not another name for the Moral Law. The way of faith is the only way to fellowship with God in Christ, and this way is apart from the Moral Law.

Now, Paul goes on to teach that our deliverance from the bondage of sin is part and parcel of the way of faith, because it is connected with our union with Christ, which comes about inwardly through faith by the Spirit and is reckoned outwardly in baptism. He speaks of the contrast between Letter and Spirit, meaning the contrast between the word of the Moral Law and the Spirit of Holiness who comes upon us in Christ. There is no divorce here between forgiveness (justification) and holiness (sanctification). The way to forgiveness is the way of the gospel apart from any stricture of the Moral Law whatsoever. So is the way to holiness. Not that we aren't instructed by the Moral Law. The Moral Law, as descriptive of the ways of God, is beautiful. In Christ, it does not curse, but it nevertheless always accuses. One would have to be dead in conscience not to feel the accusation, even as a true believer. Therefore, as Paul teaches, the law is not the medium of our deliverance from sin. We are delivered in the way of the free grace of the gospel, a way that does not burden us with accusation, but invites us into fellowship with Christ freely. Do we then not care whether we are delivered from our besetting sins or not? Surely not. We must repent. We certainly must fight against our sin. But, we can only be delivered from it by our death and resurrection in Christ. We can only be delivered by the way of free grace. We can only be delivered by fellowship with Christ, and he only receives sinners.

Are you seeking deliverance from besetting sin? Give up all your attempts at obedience for acceptance with God. You are not acceptable to God that way. The harder you try, the worse it will be. The Letter of the Moral Law will stimulate more sin, as you strive for acceptance. Stop that process. Truthfully accept your state of moral poverty. Rest in Christ the Savior. Rest in him whether your friends, your spouse, or your church accept you. See Christ's deliverance! You will still have to fight sin, but Christ in his grace will begin to take it away.

This is the way of deliverance.

It is not our victory.

Is The Gospel a Law ? (revised)

2011-04-01T00:40:00.001-05:00

There are a million kinds of legalism, for most deviations from the doctrinal and practical center of our faith in the direction of "holiness" can be labeled that way, or at least tend to that.

Gerhard Forde (Lutheran theologian) once described himself, looking in the mirror, as if he were introducing himself to a 'twelve-step group': "Hello. My name is Gerhard Forde ...., and I am a legalist." He was referring to the natural propensity of all men -- especially the unregenerate man, and that portion of our own Christian nature which is as yet unredeemed.

Any motion away from the center of grace in Our Lord Jesus Christ ends up in legalism of one kind of another. This is just natural, because we are naturally "legal," not naturally "graceful."

My complaint in this post will center on a doctrinal tactic seen often in Reformed circles -- a tactic probably pathognomic of our movement, though by no means held or taught by our confessions, nor by many of our best teachers. It is this: The propensity for describing the whole of the Christian life under the rubric of "law," instead of recognizing the distinction between Law and Gospel, and how their relationships interplay.

When we think of repentance and faith as obedience to "law," the Christian life then just becomes an obedience to the Law which is made easier by the work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit. The same orientation to Law pervades the exhortation to faith and the exhortation to obedience. But, the Gospel makes a free invitation to receive salvation. It is not a "law." (See Rom 4:15 in context). Receiving this invitation of free grace by faith results in the spiritual freedom of sons -- a state of not being under law, or sin, in the inner man. The Spirit coming as a gift brings salvation as a gift, and freedom from law and sin in the inner man, resulting in the fruit of the Spirit, fruit which is not against the law, but which begins to fulfill the law, by love. Peace and freedom in the inner man -- that is, love -- is the real motive for the acts of love, the fruit of the Spirit that the gospel calls for.

The Law gives us the vision of what ought to be (but isn't), and we must have this testimony for our warning and instruction. But, evangelical obedience is produced by the Gospel. It is not produced by the Law. Love only comes with the Spirit of freedom. Spiritual freedom is the free gift of grace, received through faith alone in the atoning work of Our Lord Jesus Christ -- nothing else.

Qualified for Ministry

2011-03-14T19:05:00.015-05:00

Sincere men in any kind of Christian ministry (and the believer-priests, too) mourn often over their lack of spiritual qualifications -- a fact which is especially evident to themselves. How can it be that God has called me to ministry, when I view my efforts as pretty much a failure, not only because my skin is too thin and my ministry profitless, but also because it's obvious that my character and gifts don't match the requirements for this job!

This is a serious question, and it is a question tied intimately to our doctrine of sanctification.

I think the following train of thought may help.

There are two ways to respond to our lack of qualification. The first way is to make it an idol. The second way is to accept it, as we pray and work out our callings.

First, we have to recognize that "personal qualifications" can definitely become an idol. It is intrinsic to the flesh to want to be "great" in all the ways that the flesh wants to be great, especially in religious leadership. To see the prevalence of these things, think of those whose mouths speak about the word and worship of God, but whose hearts are far from him. They are absolutely certain of their piety (until moral disaster strikes), but their piety is an unholy desire to please men rather than God. This syndrome can masquerade as piety even among those who know the Lord. We always want to be "greater" in our own and all other men's eyes than the Lord meant us to be. We hate our spiritual poverty, and may even rage against it, but are blind to the hidden, fleshly motives lying behind our raging. Perhaps this is a characteristic threat latent within any vision of piety which focuses on "self-development" by spiritual disciplines and instruction. Luther, who had been the most zealous and repentant monk, characterized all of them as a class, as he had been himself, as being infected with this "Pharisaic" zeal to be perfect in the eyes of God and man, instead of accepting the gift of salvation made to sinners, which is received by sinners by faith alone.

It's foolish, of course, to deny that we must fight sin in our flesh. It's absurd to say that spiritual disciplines of Scriptural character are not needed, and it's insane to say we don't need instruction. But, piling up all these things which we indubitably need does not focus on the central issue -- self. Denial of oneself, in obedience to Christ, can become a "personal achievement," too. Jesus surely did not mean that we should make it a personal project to focus on ourselves in self-abnegation. He meant that we should stop following our own projects and start following his, even if it means a cross. We should just forget our projects, our glory, our "qualifications," our accomplishment of duties, and our wonderful, Christian character, and instead think only of Christ's glory and Christ's project. We should accept our spiritual poverty as a fact. As Luther said on his deathbed, "We're all beggars."

The odd thing is that when we thus forget ourselves while being engaged in our calling, that is, when we accept our weakness and lack of qualification as a "given" -- a quiet fact, to which we quietly and obediently submit, as we continue in our callings, that it will dawn on us one day that we have silently and quietly, even without our own knowledge, become "qualified." This will happen -- and then pride will strike, and seeking glory in our personal qualifications will become a temptation again.

May all the believers rest in the gift of salvation to spiritual beggars, of whom they are chief, and thus unconsciously and quietly be truly qualified to speak for Christ's project, not their own!

This is the work of God in us.

The way up, spiritually, is the way down to the Cross. The way down, spiritually, is the way up to human glory. Stay away from human glory.

And, those qualifications in I Timothy and Titus? Those qualifications are for other people to see (in you) -- not for you to see (in yourself).

Unveiled Faces

2011-03-10T00:07:00.001-06:00

The living creatures around the throne of God veil their feet and faces before the glory of the Lord. But, we who believe in Jesus Christ view his glory with unveiled faces. The vision of the glory of his face changes us into his own image.

God

2011-02-27T15:53:00.005-06:00

I suspect that most of us are greatly troubled by wrong ideas about God, and therefore are inadvertently plagued by a form of atheism.

We ought to remember that the idea of "God" is not limited to Christianity or the true spiritual life, but is in fact an idea well-known to all, including the philosophers (witness the arguments for God's existence that have been produced by them).

In view, then, of the fact that every thinking member of the human race is left with an idea of God (against which we rebel by nature), we need to compare and contrast this common idea of God with the God of revelation who is known to us in his Son.

This is obvious to us when we think about it conceptually and abstractly. We know that the God known to all men apart from Christ is not trusted or worshiped in the way that we trust and worship Him as we know him in Christ. The trouble we have, I suspect, stems from our retaining in our minds the knowledge of God, as it is known vaguely and philosophically, and then mistaking this philosophical knowledge of God for the revealed knowledge of Him in Christ. Confusing ourselves in this way, we retain abstract concepts of God which are out of accord with the true knowledge of Him, and thus our religion and spiritual life are weakened and corrupted. After all, the "common" knowledge of "God" is not the knowledge of a God in which people trust!

The place to begin is with Jesus Christ himself, where he says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Jesus Christ is the very image of God the Father. Look to Jesus in order to see what God the Father is like. The title "Father" is not something abstract, but it has a meaning! We should adopt this meaning, in all its glory and grace, for the well-being of our souls!

Politics

2011-02-23T22:13:00.012-06:00

In view of the political controversies between Left and Right on the American scene in AD 2011, and in view of the attitudes and manner of speech being used on all sides, it is useful to make a reference to the teaching of Scripture on this point.

As I quote from The Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 13, consider whether your own political rhetoric, or the rhetoric and accusations of those you support, fit the pattern shown in the following passage:

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Verse 1 establishes the main principal of God's government in the world. What we must ask ourselves is whether all comments and actions in public or private which are made about personalities, policies, and the rule of governments on the political scene partake of the spiritual submission to God which is called for in this verse. Surely, in fact, you will find much said which partakes of the spirit of lese majeste rather than Christianity. Surely, in fact, you will find much said which is more like libel and slander -- things said for which people would be sued and bankrupted or go to prison for saying, if what was said wasn't said on the political scene. It is a disgrace for any Christian to be involved in these kinds of dealings, or to support those who act this way.

2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For all those who are political conservatives of some stripe (as I confessedly am), we have to understand that God will not bless our political sins.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

Why is it that government is now the "enemy" in the rhetoric of the Right? We support the forces of "law and order," or "morality," or the Armed Services, but government is still the "enemy." What is going on here? Whatever it is, it is not righteousness.

4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

As a patriotic American I can solemnly claim that we have the best human government in this country that God has ever seen fit to set over any people in the modern era. And we hope it spreads! Do we thank God for it? Why is the best government ever, at this moment in history also the "enemy"?

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the auth 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

More later.

In the World, But not Of the World

2011-02-22T00:57:00.008-06:00

Just a thought. We sometimes seem to think that the best way to be a Christian is to be like the world culture in which we live, with two fundamental exceptions:

1) Believe in Christ, with a true and living faith, and
2) Do not disobey the Moral Law.

Therefore, we watch the world's videos, listen to the world's audios, copy the world's styles, use the world's hobbies, spend time on the world's passions and concerns. Yet, in spite of our critiques of these things, our "Christian" culture is still formed by these things. Sometimes this seems to be thought of as the best way to understand and witness to the world. Using the world's language, culture, music and arts, fashions, etc., is supposedly the best way to appeal to the world on behalf of the gospel, or even just the best way to be a Christian.

I would like to suggest that this falls far short of the call of Scripture, and far short of the call of the Church over millennia of time. A simple inspection of the Scriptural data supports this. And, church history, of which we nowadays seem to know little, speaks the same way. Christ forms a "culture." This culture is not simply the world's culture plus a Christian critique. This culture manifests all the creative spirit that God has put in man, but does so from a Christian basis. This Christian basis is not simply the world's culture plus the gospel. The Christian basis makes for a revolutionary antithesis from the world's culture, and creative continuity with the best of the Christian past. Since the church is not, never has been, and never will be "the world," until the Kingdom of God comes at the great day of Resurrection and Judgment -- that is -- as long as the wheat and the tares exist in the field of the world -- this necessary distinction in cultures must be maintained.

As an example, consider music in the church. It has consistently been the case throughout church history that church music was required (by the church) to be different from the world's music. But, nowadays, perhaps for the first time in history (?), church music has been relativized, and, in popular contexts including worship, is made to be as much like the world's music as possible. In the past, the distinction in culture between the church and the world never inhibited gospel testimony, and there is no reason it should inhibit gospel testimony today. So what is the fundamental reason for convergence of worldly and "Christian" music style? Is it an attempt to attract the world? Well, it never was the case that people were attracted to the church, in truth, because it was like the world. Just the opposite. Is it because the "modern" worship tradition rejects or rebels against the Christian past -- if it knows about it? Probably. And it certainly isn't the case that the "modern" worship tradition has a depth of art that comports with the depth that is our inheritance in the church tradition. So what is going on here?

These cautions and questions can be raised about many other factors in our lives besides music:

1) All things not being done with a view to eternal fellowship with God.
2) Non-Christian addictions and time-wasting on entertainments, clothing fashions, sports and adult toys dispensed by the world.
3) Worldly emphasis on competition, money and security, and status.
4) Primary emphasis on work instead of family life and church life.
5) Institutional relationships (colleague-ship), rather than personal relationships (friendship).
6) The lack of emphasis on motherhood and fatherhood.
7) False notions of education.
8) The home as motel, amid a ceaseless round of activities outside it.
9) Unquiet and non-contemplative lives.
10) Living for short term pleasures.
11) Addiction to visual and aural media instead of reading the best stuff.
12) Constant communication, rather than peace.

This isn't just a bunch of "legalism." It's about a life in Christ, lived in the midst of (and visible to) the world. This life in Spirit and in Truth, and our love for one another, is what attracts people out of the world to Christ.

They're not attracted by what's not different and better.

Glory and Anti-Glory

2011-02-03T20:39:00.001-06:00

We think too much in worldly terms concerning glory -- and other things, too.

1) Paul is clear in 1 Cor 1 that it is God's intention to shame the worldly powers in all their greatness by means of those who are weak and shameful in the eyes of the world. The world has one idea of what power and glory are, and the church has another, opposite idea. From our standpoint, the world's power and glory are vain, but our power is glorious, because we know and are empowered in all our weakness by God the Lord. The world, on the other hand, is empowered in all its strength by that fallen angel doomed to the Lake of Fire.

2) Think about Christ's suffering. He was doomed by the world, and the Prince of this World, to shameful death on the Cross. Yet, from the standpoint of faith, our Lord on the cross reigned as from a throne!

3) Think about our sufferings as we follow in the footsteps of Christ. The world thinks that our hope in Christ in the age to come dooms us to lack of self-fulfillment in this age. From our perspective, any hope of self-fulfillment in this age is futile. The only real hope of any fulfillment lies in the age to come.

4) The world thinks that disease and difficulty, and eventually death, are evils to be avoided at all costs. Suffering, while occasionally seen by the world as heroic, is really looked upon as an unmitigated evil. From our perspective, we learn obedience through suffering. Our character is built through suffering. In suffering we give thanks, and testify to the grace of God, because we know that we will be rewarded with eternal rewards for spiritual endurance through suffering.

These instances could be multiplied. In every case the world's conception is opposite to ours. What is glorious to the world is hateful to us. What is glorious to us is hateful to the world. The world fears the world to come, because they know they will get what they deserve. We long for the world to come, where we will receive as a gift the full inheritance of all that God has to give. It will be a day of fulfillment and glory, in the only world that matters, and our lives are now filled with joy and anticipation as we wait for it by faith.

Paul said that he was crucified to the world (in Christ), and that the world was crucified (subjected to capital punishment) with respect to him. The Cross is the great separator that crucifies the relationship between this age and the one to come.

Christ was made sin for us, taking away our sins on the cross, and triumphing over death for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him by faith.

Therefore, believe and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord! Receive the Spirit of God who wages war against sin within us, and who fills us with all joy! That Spirit is himself God's own down-payment to us from the inheritance we are destined to receive in the Age to Come!

Repentance and Faith -- Two sides of a Coin

2011-01-31T22:59:00.003-06:00

When the level of faith grossly exceeds the level of repentance in a person, then it turns out that what appears to be "faith" may be mostly "easy believism." The consequence of this state of mind can be a slow slide into sin. In the midst of ease the hardness of heart grows stronger. When a person slides long enough, sins can begin to break out into the open and be seen by others. There can be discipline from the Lord and from his church. A slide that continues long enough can end in departure from the faith and excommunication by the church.

The reason for all this is that "easy believism" is not real faith. It is not real faith because the warfare between flesh and spirit has been forgotten. This "easy believism" is not real trust in Christ to forgive us our real and recognized sins, and to give us victory in a real war. The warfare has been forgotten in the midst of battle, the heart is hardened, and the enemy achieves quiet victories. "Easy believism" is not the gospel, because The Gospel is only the gospel in the midst of a real war.

On the other hand, when the level of repentance grossly exceeds the level of faith in a person, then it turns out that what appears to be "repentance" can become legalism, or a monk-like religiosity that cannot enjoy the gifts of God. This can be connected with self-righteousness and pride -- great sins in the midst of all that "righteousness." For the elect and the true believers it can lead to sadness, spiritual depression, and even despair. There is no relief in the midst of the spiritual warfare, which is filled with failure.

The upshot is that dividing repentance and faith, and allowing one or the other to atrophy, is in either case a route to sin. Success lies only where both repentance and faith are coupled in a Scriptural manner. The gold coin of spirituality has two sides. One side of the coin, by itself, is not the coin at all! Faith without repentance is not real faith. Repentance without faith is not true repentance. Faith is only faith when coupled with true repentance. Repentance is only possible when founded in faith.

As believers we ought to love righteousness and hate sin. We must have faith in the definition of sin found in the Moral Law and the teaching of Christ. We must recognize the evil within ourselves, and begin the fight against it, and we must trust in the total forgiveness of sin and the spiritual power against it, both given as a gift by our Savior through his sacrifice for our sins.

As soon as we come to know the Lord, a fight should break out between sin and righteousness in our souls. It is a war -- even a death struggle. In this war, the Spirit begins to give us victory through faith in Christ as he is clothed in the gospel. It is not as if we ourselves achieve victory in the fight, but the Lord gives victory while we fight. Recognition of the enemy, and the fight against him are integral to the process of repentance. This recognition of sin, and the resulting war against it, is made possible by the omnipotence of Christ, who is engaged in the battle with us and in us, and who is totally on our side! In the midst of the struggle with sin, there is the exultant knowledge of our victory in Christ, and our total acceptance, even today! There is mourning for sin, but there is even greater joy in the gift of Christ! This is the kind of life where hardness of heart begins to be put away, where sin is seen as ever uglier, and where Christ and his grace are seen as infinitely more precious. Joy rules in the midst of mourning, and victories begin, in the Name of the Lord.

I've likened the spiritual life to a coin with two sides -- repentance and faith. Another useful analogy might be to an airplane with two engines. Trying to fly that spiritual airplane on only one engine is going to lead to a crash! Things weren't meant to work that way.

Single

2011-01-22T17:22:00.009-06:00

The previous post spoke of the "dual foci of the Christian life as being 1) home, and 2) church." This continues to be true for singles.

The home of preference for singles is the home they grew up in, especially for females. In any case, if a single person finds it necessary or proper to move away from the family place, a firm association with the church and with families in the church must be established. The single life can be a lonely life, and single friends, while appropriate, are no substitute for the God-created paradigm of family life which is offered by fellowship with families in the church.

This imposes a responsibility on the church, as well. Singles of any age need friendly and spiritual care. We are all responsible for this, but families are especially responsible.

Let us remember, too, that "singles" need good families around them in order to provide models for the formation of their own families, if they desire to marry.

The help and counsel of a family may help them achieve this goal!

And, there are other singles that also require care! Widow(er)s, divorced, and single mothers, too.

Home

2011-01-17T23:30:00.001-06:00

It seems to me that the dual foci of the Christian life are 1) home, and 2) church. Nowadays, this concept has a lot of competition. In the old days, a farm family could labor hard at times, and watch the crops grow (and pray for the right rains) at other times. One could go fishing, or one could have company. There was often time to sit and talk. Overarching all was Church and the Pastoral and Christian fellowship for mutual support that centered there. This life could be very busy, but it was in tune with God's creation of the Family and of the Earth and of the Body of Christ. In spite of the busy-ness at times, and the absolute dependence on the providence of God, this life was intrinsically "quiet" in a serious sense.

Nowadays, it's hard to find a family that has a quiet home life. Not only are there media that can distract the attention of those who use them (and may be addicted to them), and which, taken to excess, destroy real life. But, those who refuse these addictions via media may be caught up in a round of other ceaseless activities -- often child centered. It could be too much sport. It could be too much debate. It could be too much politics, or too much music (and I say this as an amateur musician). It seems that it is almost always competitive. It almost always will involve activities not always connected with development of the virtues leading to a quiet life. Fame, glory and ambition may masquerade as the virtues of "getting the best educational opportunities for my children." The result is that many families are scarcely at home. A quiet home life may be unnerving, or be viewed as a kind of deprivation. Having been a "home-schooler" myself, I must say that my indictment applies to many in this movement, also. The original idea behind "home-schooling," namely, that "home-schooling" is centered in a quiet and godly family life, may now be hard to find in our environment.

Developing a quiet home life requires sacrifices -- even sacrifices of good things, because many of the activities I've indicted ARE good. The problem is that they have become the CENTER. But, living in the world does not mean living like the world. Good things can become idols. Competition to be seen as the "best," in terms of power, is not a Christian virtue.

May God help us to see the light, and to focus on things above, where our real life is centered in Christ! This is not a call for nostalgia. It is a call for the survival of the family. When the home is a motel, and not a quiet refuge, and when the home is not the home of spiritual virtues and the contemplation of God's grace in Christ, then children grow up not knowing a home, and parents hardly know each other. We are not living in this age, to get the fleshly glory that can be given by this age. What pleases men is not what pleases God. Dedication to "good things" can be idolatry, when the better things are displaced in our affections and understanding.

God helping us, let us have peace -- at home. In our busy culture, this may require strong repentance and wrenching changes, but receives the divine enablement and reward.

Next time: About "grown children" and single adults not in families.

Divine Humor

2011-01-10T19:34:00.010-06:00

When the stunned Saul entered Damascus, blind, the Lord sent Ananias to heal him and (probably) baptize him:

Acts 9:10-16 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." 11 So the Lord said to him, "Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 "And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight."

13 Then Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 "And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 "For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake."

The Lord has been being persecuted by Saul, so now Saul will serve the Lord, and ironically be persecuted himself. Tit for tat. Eye for an eye.

This persecution for the name of Christ is, of course, a blessing and worthy of all reward.

So the Lord laughs as he blesses Saul in his divine "revenge."

Let There Be Light!

2011-01-07T23:03:00.002-06:00

"Let there be light!"
     The world was made!
   Adam, murderer, killed it.

"It is finished!"
     A New World made!
     Jesus, Savior, Victor!

"Let there be light!"
     Souls alight!
     Made again in resurrection,
   Unfallen and infallible,
     Sprung new from His creating hands!

     No more death, no more sin,
     No more cursing Law!

     Alive to God, forevermore!

Ideals Hiding Idols?

2011-01-05T15:34:00.001-06:00

The deception of sin is such that sin can masquerade as righteousness. Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light in order to achieve his ends. Wrong masquerades as right, and, to those who are deceived by this, their righteousness in their own eyes hides from themselves a multitude of their own sins.

Our flesh is so weak that we are unable to discern the hidden idol at the heart of what appears to us to be righteous in our own selves. Therefore it behooves us as believers in Jesus Christ to implore the help of God to reveal to us our own idols, and to give us the power to disable and destroy them.

Every one of us ought to look over all our bright and shiny personal ideals and high-sounding personal goals, and look for dark sides that we haven't clearly seen before. These secretly empower our lusts, discontent, and personal conflicts. Only the power of Christ can deliver us from all this and bring peace.

The Son of God in Church

2010-12-28T14:27:00.034-06:00

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.

This presence of Jesus Christ in the midst of the gathering of his church is not just omnipresence as we normally conceive of it. It is a special presence by which he makes himself present "in the midst of the church" when we gather in his name. He is a Person, and he is really there. We have company. Or, rather, we have come into His company. This is not just the presence in our hearts that we always carry with us. This is his special presence in our gathered worship. He is "in the room with us," in the Temple of his Church. It is like Isaiah in the Temple, but only seen by faith:

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!" And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.

Or, John on Patmos:

Revelation 1:12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death."

We are all familiar with how we behave in the court of civil authority, all sitting so quietly, hearing the bailiff say "All Rise" as the judge comes in, seeing the judge's robe, and his commanding presence, the deference and orderliness of the attorneys (and defendant) in their suits, the ritual and process of court business, the seriousness, the oaths, the testimony of the witnesses, ... and hearing the Verdict.

Knowing how we respect God's civil authority, how much more should we be filled with awe, gratitude and joy, in gathered worship in the gracious court of God's Presence, where we meet our Lord literally among us and hear him speak his Word through his servants, where we confess our sins to him and receive his forgiveness and teaching, where we glorify him as he showers his grace upon us, and where we present to him our offerings of gratitude as he feeds us with Himself at his table!

More on Feast Days in the Reformed Tradition (v 2)

2010-12-23T13:53:00.007-06:00

This is Version 2 of this blog post. Version 2 rewrites the final exhortation which you might have read in the initial version of this post written previously.

One reads in the Second Helvetic Confession, concerning the "church calendar":

CHAPTER XXIV

Of Holy Days,
Fasts and the Choice of Foods

THE TIME NECESSARY FOR WORSHIP. Although religion is not bound to time, yet it cannot be cultivated and exercised without a proper distribution and arrangement of time. Every Church, therefore, chooses for itself a certain time for public prayers, and for the preaching of the Gospel, and for the celebration of the sacraments; and no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure. For unless some due time and leisure is given for the outward exercise of religion, without doubt men would be drawn away from it by their own affairs.

THE LORD'S DAY. Hence we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain set hours in the week appointed for meetings, but that also the Lord's Day itself, ever since the apostles' time, was set aside for them and for a holy rest, a practice now rightly preserved by our Churches for the sake of worship and love.

SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance.*

THE FESTIVALS OF CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity[1], circumcision[2], passion[3], resurrection[4], and of his ascension[5] into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples[6], we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone.

Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all[7].

FASTING. Now, the more seriously the Church of Christ condemns surfeiting, drunkenness, and all kinds of lust and intemperance, so much the more strongly does it commend to us Christian fasting. For fasting is nothing else than the abstinence and moderation of the godly, and a discipline, care and chastisement of our flesh undertaken as a necessity for the time being, whereby we are humbled before God, and we deprive the flesh of its fuel so that it may the more willingly and easily obey the Spirit. Therefore, those who pay no attention to such things do not fast, but imagine that they fast if they stuff their stomachs once day, and at a certain or prescribed time abstain from certain foods, thinking that by having done this work they please God and do something good. Fasting is an aid to the prayers of the saints and for all virtues. But as is seen in the books of the prophets, the fast of the Jews who fasted from food but not from wickedness did not please God.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FASTING. Now there is a public and a private fasting. In olden times they celebrated public fasts in calamitous times and in the affliction of the Church. They abstained altogether from food till the evening, and spent all that time in holy prayers, the worship Of God, and repentance These differed little from mourning, and there is frequent mention of them in the Prophets and especially by Joel in Ch. 2. Such a fast should be kept at this day, when the Church is in distress. Private fasts are undertaken by each one of us, as he feels himself withdrawn from the Spirit. For in this manner he withdraws the flesh from its fuel.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FASTING. All fasts ought to proceed from a free and willing spirit, and from genuine humility, and not feigned to gain the applause or favor of men, much less that a man should wish to merit righteousness by them. But let every one fast to this end, that he may deprive the flesh of its fuel in order that he may the more zealously serve God.

LENT. The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful. It is certain that formerly there were various forms and customs of fasting. Hence, Irenaeus, a most ancient writer, says: "Some think that a fast should be observed one day only, others two days, but others more, and some forty days. This diversity in keeping this fast did not first begin in our times, but long before us by those, as I suppose, who did not simply keep to what had been delivered to them from the beginning, but afterwards fell into another custom either through negligence or ignorance" (Fragm. 3, ed. Stieren, I. 824 f.). Moreover, Socrates, the historian, says: "Because no ancient text is found concerning this matter, I think the apostles left this to every man's own judgment, that every one might do what is good without fear or constraint" (Hist. ecclesiast. V.22, 40).

(The quotation of the Chapter from the Confession will stop here.)

OPPOSITION TO "CHRISTMAS"

There is enough here, I think, to pretty well undermine claims that the Regulative Principle of Worship denies the use of Christ-centered elements of the "church calendar" by a Christian assembly -- at least on the grounds of the doctrine of this Confession.

One can have one's free opinions on the subject of special days, and the church cannot impose observance of any special day, fast-day, or feast-day against a man's conscience, but all these are left to the free use of individuals, and the churches.

To deny the evangelical character of an individual or church because Christ-centered elements of the "church calendar" are used therefore cannot be accomplished on the grounds of the Regulative Principle without having a "tighter" principle than is established in this Confession. One is free to have a "tighter" principle, but one is not free, on the grounds of history, to deny the evangelical or the Reformed character of an individual or church, simply because Christ-centered elements of the historic "church calendar" are used.

All who feel bound in conscience to stay away from all church celebrations of this character should certainly be free to do so, but it is likely that they will also miss out on opportunities for edification in the knowledge of Christ.

A TIP ON OBSERVING HOLY DAYS

I suspect that those who oppose the Christ-centered holidays are in churches which don't observe them. Most believers' conceptions of these holidays may then be filled with the vision of the civil and secular manifestations which surround a holiday (such as Christmas). Not being in liturgical churches, they may not realize that Holy Days are celebrated religiously with worship services, singing, praying, reading the Scripture, sermons, and the Lord's Supper in the church buildings and also in the homes of the Christians. This means that a Holy Day is an evangelical opportunity for edification in the knowledge of Christ.

AN EARNEST EXHORTATION TO THOSE WHO OPPOSE "HOLY DAYS"

The use, or opposition to the use, of Christ-centered "holy days" in the church ought to be done only in good conscience and in truth, using the Scriptures, accurate doctrine and good knowledge of relevant history, without casting unfair aspersions on other brethren, thereby promoting division in the Church.

Furthermore, for anyone arguing on this issue to bear any kind of false witness historically, doctrinally or morally, either directly or by hint or slur, just isn't the way of truth. All sides must argue in a spirit which desires as much unity with other believers as conscience permits and as the Scripture demands. The Moral Law does not allow me to fight, willy-nilly, "just because I'm right and it makes me feel good," even if I am right. This can be a real temptation. I know. I like a good fight, too. Pardon me, but I'm trying to hold down the flesh in this regard, as I write this!

If free observance of Christ-centered days in the Church Calendar is the right of the church, as I allege, then I have to discipline myself not to wound your conscience by insisting that you ought to do something which is actually against your conscience, just as it is not your right to deny my use of my liberty to have extra days to worship Christ, as long as I don't do it in such a way as to cause you to sin. All the rules of policy about things like this are spelled out by the Apostle Paul.

We ought all to fight like Christians, according to the Moral Law and the rules of Scripture, and fight for "hills worth dying on," by spending our time defending big stuff -- like the Gospel, instead of fighting one another while the Spirit grieves.

May the Lord Jesus deliver us from this!

-----------------------------------------

* This is not the same doctrine as the Westminster "Puritan" Doctrine of the Sabbath, which sees the Lord's Day and Sabbath as synonymous, nor is the nature of the "rest" the same, either.

[1] This is the so-called "Christmas Day."
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Circumcision_of_Christ
[3] This is the so-called "Good Friday."
[4] This is the so-called "Easter," or "Resurrection Day."
[5] This is the so-called "Ascension Day."
[6] This is Pentecost.
[7] This is to be done any time, but the so-called "All Saints Day" can be used for this, too.

Fast Day, Feast Day

2010-12-20T13:06:00.027-06:00

In certain corners of the conservative Christian public space this time of year (the Christmas Season) there emerge feisty discussions of the meaning, validity and Christian "legality" of observing Christmas.

My contribution is as follows:

THESES

1) According to the Regulative Principle of Worship, the Church may declare "thanksgiving days" in recognition and remembrance of major events of divine providence.

2) Reasoning from the lesser to the greater, it is therefore within the church's liberty to declare "thanksgiving days" in remembrance of greater things, such as major events in the life of Christ.

3) But, this liberty of the church to remember major events in the life of Christ has been decried by a false application of the Regulative Principle of Worship, which stems from anti-Roman Catholic sentiment.

4) As a result of the church denying herself the use of her liberty to declare "thanksgiving days" in remembrance of major events in the life of Christ, the emphasis and development of these major gospel events is lowered within the life of the church, and

5) The "church calendar" has been secularized to contain only civil holidays and days of remembrance.

DISCUSSION

I read somewhere that the tradition of "public days" called for by Church and State was carried to this country from European origins, and that in this country the tradition was carried forward, probably initially mostly by New England Puritans. They would call for days of fasting as well as days of thanksgiving, in response to events of providence, such as wars, plagues, famines, victories, deliverance from enemies, etc.

Therefore, as they saw it, the Regulative Principle of Worship, in harmony with Scriptural (Old Testament) examples of days of feasting and fasting, in no way prohibited the declaration of fasting- and feasting-days in modern times when it seemed appropriate in the providence of God.

But, the non-Anglican Reformed and Baptist believers took considerable exception to the traditional "church calendar," including any recognition of the days devoted to remembrance of major events in the life of Christ. There are several reasons for this that I can think of quickly:

1) The "church calendar" was cluttered with all sorts of saints days and other inappropriate material, distracting attention from Christ.

2) There were probably legal requirements requiring participation in church holidays, rather than permitting free participation in good conscience.

3) But, perhaps most important of all, the "church calender" was "Catholic," and therefore to be avoided.

As I see it, anti-Romanism is the reigning thesis in this argument opposing Christmas, not the Regulative Principle of Worship. Anti-Romanism distorts the pure application of the Regulative Principle.

Anecdotally, it is alleged that some Puritans would prostrate themselves (lie on their faces) on the floor in private prayer, but would not kneel. Kneeling was "idolatrous" because Catholics did it.

I can't verify the accuracy of that anecdote, but the alleged reason for avoiding kneeling illuminates the well-known attitude of many of the advanced Puritans and Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries to Romanism in general: It was considered to be entirely a cult of the anti-Christ, and therefore, all religious behaviors in public and private had to avoid doing anything that looked "Catholic." Besides kneeling, this includes use of "holy days" from the traditional "church calendar," even "holy days" in remembrance of Christ.

CONCLUSION:

It seems to me that the fast-days and thanksgiving-days of the early American and Puritan experience have now evolved to become a new, secularized "church calendar." New Year's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day, etc., etc. have become the new "feast days," and are often mentioned or possibly observed in some churches. But the church has denied herself the right to declare "thanksgiving-days" in honor of Christ!

Nowadays, in churches which profess to adhere to the Regulative Principle, all you might have for an extraordinary meeting during this season could be a meeting on Thanksgiving Day or New Year's Eve.

What a loss!

The Glorious Man, Our Savior

2010-12-10T00:53:00.009-06:00

I have reproduced the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews below. As you read it, notice how the author mixes references to the divine and human natures of the Son of God as the author recites his argument for the superiority of the Son to the angels. I have marked some minor alterations in the first verse or so, to help bring out the contrast being made between the prophets and the Son. Suggested or certain references to the manhood of the Son are underlined.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us "by Son," whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who, being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire."

But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions." And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail."

But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation? (Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 1, alt.)

The fully and completely divine and the fully and completely human attributes and natures of the Person of the Son are interleaved and mixed in this record of his career in such a manner that the natures are not distinguished in order that each nature might receive its own appropriate glorification. Rather, all the glory of the God-man is holistically applied to his whole being -- including the manhood!

Therefore, as the Westminster Larger Catechism states:

WLC 39 Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man? A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.

WLC 53 How was Christ exalted in his ascension? A. Christ was exalted in his ascension, in that having after his resurrection often appeared unto and conversed with his apostles, speaking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and giving them commission to preach the gospel to all nations, forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our head, triumphing over enemies, visibly went up into the highest heavens, there to receive gifts for men, to raise up our affections thither, and to prepare a place for us, where himself is, and shall continue till his second coming at the end of the world.

WLC 55 How doth Christ make intercession ? A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

What Adam lost, Jesus Christ has more than regained. Our Head, our Husband, our Savior, our Prophet, our Priest, and our King is in every case the selfsame single God Incarnate, Man Divine, the God-Man, a man of our flesh, full of knowledge, wise and sympathetic, compassionate, forgiving all manner of iniquity and sin, a High Priest ever on our case to save us, the answerer of all our prayers, the giver of all good, the Helper of the weak, the Savior and deliverer of sinners, filling us with the triumph of his power and glory, for His Name's sake.

Will he not help you?

Gospel, Gospel! And there is no Gospel

2010-12-06T22:11:00.000-06:00

Life under the Gospel is just not at all easy.

Talk of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is easy, but enjoying the peaceful and nonthreatening environment of gospel talk is not the same as exercising faith in the Christ of the Gospel.

Believing in the Christ of the Gospel delivers from all condemnation only those who are, and who continue to be, abased by their sins before God. But, sadly, we're more ashamed if men see our sins, than we are if God sees them.

This feeling of abasement and shame before God, so seldom felt (and a product of his grace), is also a strange feeling because it is simply so wonderful. It moves a person powerfully toward humility. It is inevitably sanctifying.

The justification of the shamed and their sanctification cannot be parted.

Sin as Discipline

2010-11-28T21:03:00.000-06:00

Jesus said that the Pharisees put on their show of legal righteousness simply to impress other men. Elsewhere he blamed men for seeking the glory that comes from men, instead of the glory that comes from the only God.

All this serves to focus our attention on our motivations for avoiding outward sin as Christians. Haven't you noticed that we feel more repulsed by our sins if other Christians see them? We're ashamed to look like fools -- in the eyes of men. We seek the glory of men.

The pungent consciousness of being seen to be a sinner by other men, and the resulting personal feeling of disgrace, ought to serve us notice that our focus is in the wrong place. The real disgrace of sin is that it is done before God.

Therefore, whenever we feel the disgrace of having been seen to be sinners by men, we ought to transfer this sense of disgrace we have in the eyes of men, to a sense of disgrace we ought to recognize that we have in the eyes of God.

In this manner, our consciousness of sins before men can be a form of discipline to remind us of our spiritual isolation from our Father, so that we may begin to be meek again before him, and be delivered from the personal pride and vain-glory that comes from a life lived in the sight of men instead of the sight of God.

Atheism and Creation

2010-11-27T20:02:00.004-06:00

A good understanding of the doctrine of Romans 1 and Acts 17 explains why the atheistic cry is so hot these days. The stronger the evidence for creation, that is, for God, the stronger the atheistic backlash. This is because the natural tendency of man is to reject the knowledge of the Creator. The more that knowledge is forced upon him by scientific discoveries, the more he reacts against that knowledge of God which is conveyed to him by those discoveries. Rather than seeing the hand of God in the infinite complexity of the universe (or DNA, or trees), he rebels and sees nothing, even to his own moral and logical destruction. The illogicality of all this has been explained a million times. But, this is not a logical problem. The more the universe screams "God," the more the atheist screams "No." It's just a given.

I heard a story that a famous atheist stepped into a famous church somewhere, and pontificated amusingly on his famous atheism by saying that he didn't just disbelieve in God; rather, he hated him!

So, now we have the "atheist argument for the existence of God" to add to our list of proofs!! LOL*

Boyd Murrah, BA (Physics), Rice University, 1965.

* For those who are not up to speed on this acronym, it means "Lots Of Laughs"

The Mysteries of Blog Ministry

2010-11-23T16:30:00.004-06:00

Running a blog like this has its mysteries.

The first mystery is, Who reads it? There is virtually no comment response to this blog, except from the occasional friend. It's like writing into a vacuum. However, in that vacuum there definitely are readers. I can run the analytics on the blogsite and see the readership statistics, and, by deduction, can determine that the blog is being followed repeatedly by individuals unknown to me. I do know that one is in India.

I'll bet pulpit ministry is like this, too. The mystery of who you are really and truly helping could be quite different from the visible response, positive or negative. One could even doubt the effectiveness of one's ministry. Keep in mind that there are those silent followers who need you. Teachers and preachers only water. It is God who gives the increase -- somewhere where we least expect it. I would ignore the visible clamor (positive or negative) and think in faith about those silent hearers somewhere in the local church, or in the wide world, whom the Lord thinks need to hear what we say!

This is the real ministry, though it may be hidden from us.

Perhaps we only see "flashes" of it from time to time.

The Look and Feel of Sanctification

2010-11-18T00:06:00.003-06:00

We may describe all the world as filled with two kinds of people -- short ones and tall ones. That gray area between the two is problematic, of course, but the distinction between short and tall is still valid. Similarly, one is either on the road or off -- and there's a gray area that doesn't invalidate the basic distinction. So, we may classify schemes of sanctification. There are two kinds (and a gray area in between). Those two kinds are:

1) Progress in sanctification means you gradually achieve a measure of triumph over sin, such that you see less and less of it in your life.

2) Progress in sanctification means you see more and more sin in your life.

I will assert strongly in this post that #2 is the proper position. Let me explain.

The commonest observation in spiritual things is that the spirituality immature and unwise do not see the full depth of their own sin. They typically don't even see the sins in themselves that are obvious to others. Sin may appear to others to run wild in them, but sin may appear to themselves to be quiet. The immature see little in themselves, and they perpetrate much that they're not aware of.

The mature, on the other hand, see much evil in themselves, but outwardly, at least, mostly perpetrate less -- at least in the judgment of other people. The consequence of maturity is that humility develops. This is not just a virtue accumulated by nice good boys, but is a result of knowing the depth of sin in themselves (that others do not see). As a consequence, the mature are less apt than most to think highly of themselves -- for very good reasons. They also understand the magnitude of grace more than the immature, and they rest in it.

One can understand the danger faced by those who take the opposite view of sanctification. They think they are doing better and better spirituality because sin gradually disappears from view in the inner man. Too much of this will result in a fall.

Therefore, it's wise to pay attention to the doctrine of sanctification you read. If it promotes the idea of triumph rather than repentance, confession and absolution, then that doctrine may lead you astray.

Woe to you on the day you have nothing to confess.
"If we say we have no sin, the truth is not in us."

Confess big ones.

Glory

2010-11-14T20:33:00.004-06:00

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. NKJ Matthew 5:16

The saints shed forth a glory (described under the metaphor of light) during their activities before the eyes of men, which makes the works of God in them visible to men, and brings glory to the Father in heaven. This enlightening glory is not just the words or works of the disciples, but is a supernatural glory shed forth from them as a spiritual light which enlightens the eyes of the onlooking men and gives them some vision of the truth.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

The point of this passage is that for Christ to manifest himself, he spiritually manifests his own uncreated glory. To receive Christ is to perceive his glory. The exhibition of Christ is the exhibition of his glory. This may happen through our words and actions done in his Name, but the "glory" which is exhibited transcends all in a supernatural manner. To preach the Gospel is to supernaturally exhibit the glory of Christ by the power of the Spirit.

This, the first of his signs [turning water into wine], Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. John 2:11

It's not possible that the "glory" that was manifested is just the miracle of the transformation of the water. Things like this have been done before by the prophets. The "glory" is a supernatural manifestation of Christ's essential being and character, which was spiritually perceived by the elect.

"And the glory which You gave Me I have given them [the believers], that they may be one just as We are one: John 17:22

Just as Christ manifested the glory of the Father, so we manifest the same glory, just as he did. All our words and works before the world manifest this intra-Trinitarian glory. This is the basis of our effectiveness. It is not the knowledge. It is not the good works. In the midst of and through our knowledge, preaching, gifts and good works is the even greater manifestation of the invisible supernatural glory that has been given us by Jesus Christ.

May Christ open our minds, hearts, hands, and whole lives to be filled with his glory, and to manifest it in the church and in the world, to save and transform others into the same divine image to which we are being conformed by inheriting and gazing at this same glory in the face of Jesus Christ.

Voluntarism and Irresistible Grace

2010-11-07T17:53:00.004-06:00

To my readers: Pardon me for this somewhat technical post. For context, see a previous post at URL: http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/10/justification-and-sanctification.html

Define "voluntarism" as the doctrine that our wills are the controlling factor in the progress of our sanctification. Voluntarism does not necessarily deny free and sovereign grace, because God can freely and sovereignly ordain the movements of our will and spirit, while those movements appear to us to be initiated and carried forward by our own volition (with God's help in power). In other words, free and sovereign grace can theoretically coexist in the same theological system with a strong doctrine of the human will, voluntarism. Things can be all of sovereign grace (in the hidden background), while they simultaneously appear to us to be ultimately dependent on our positive volition, though that volition is helped forward in execution by the power and grace of God.

Giving other names to this conception, we could say that "calvinism" can contain within it a bubble in which our consciousness lives and moves, and in that bubble, all our progress can appear to be regulated on "arminian" principles. This is the nature of the strongest accusation that can be made against the nature of the spiritual piety characteristic of much Puritanism.

But, I assert that if it walks and talks like "arminianism," then that is what it is. For it not to be "arminianism," in our subjective experience, we have to deny the voluntarism in some degree. That is, it must not be the case that our sanctification is subjectively totally regulated by our own volition. Put simply, we are made better by Christ through the Spirit even when we do not want to be. Though we are reconstructed as new men by Christ, and we ought to begin to act like it and to fight the spiritual warfare, it is an absolute fact, and must be an experiential fact, that our sanctification is not in our own hands, but is in Christ's hands. To make ourselves implicitly the "lords" of our own progress is the path of despair, not victory, and is even a kind of blasphemy.

Mystical Experience as Fear

2010-11-03T14:38:00.008-05:00

It's interesting to see in the mystical literature so much emphasis on good feelings, but little or nothing said about bad feelings. The problem is that the experience of those who have had real contact with God so often has been an experience of bad feelings -- or death.

Isaiah saw Christ in the ancient Temple -- and condemned himself.

Peter, James and John saw Christ transfigured -- and were cowed and disoriented.

John on Patmos saw Christ's face as bright as the sun -- and fell as though dead.

Paul and Daniel saw and heard things -- about which they were not permitted to speak or write.

Paul's vision of the Third Heaven -- resulted in unremitting demonic attack.

Remember Job the righteous, who, after suffering the implicit threat of being unmade, had to confess God's incomprehensibility.

Peter, in what he thought was a sympathetic moment to his Lord, could hear his Lord call him "Satan."

The Angel of the Lord could answer Joshua's question, "Whose side are you on?" with the answer, "Neither!"

In our own experiences outside the canon of Scripture:

Have you thought -- God's predestination to eternal happiness might not have included you!

When you spiritually heard the call of Christ, were you struck with sudden unmeasured love for Christ -- and equally unmeasured panic lest you lose his fellowship forever?

Each of these negative experiences was closed in joy -- in the end. But, the immeasurable joy of the end is elevated forever by the experience of primal fear that has gone before.

Yes, the sweet experiences (actually power-experiences) of Christ in our thoughts, prayers and speech are wonderful. But, the power is rooted with antecedents in the fear of God that deserve remembrance.

This is the true testimony and function of The Law and The Gospel in the Church.

-----------------------------------------------

One does not normally think of Luther as a mystic, but his published evidence shows that he is. Think of Luther, in his long odyssey hating the God who predestined him to sin and condemned him for it, having his eyes suddenly opened to Paradise, seeing the gift of salvation through the blood and death of his Lord Jesus Christ! It is the brutality of this wrench of mind and soul which opened the door on the Reformation!

Without experience of this brutal contrast the essential nature of the doctrine of justification by faith alone cannot be appreciated or spiritually savored. It becomes a bland thing, contrary to all good sense and even contrary to the Bible so it seems to many, and this doctrine eventually falls into the background and is forgotten again -- until the Spirit moves, and the cry of despairing souls is again satisfied by the free grace of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Justification and Sanctification (revised 11.02.2010)

2010-11-02T22:51:00.002-05:00

We believe in justification by faith only, and therefore distinguish the judicial process of being declared righteous in the Court of God (justification) from that process by which we begin to be made righteous (sanctification). This is different from the medieval and pre-Reformational conception that justification is sanctification. In that medieval concept, justification and sanctification could never be separated, but the assurance of final justification was not possible, because sanctification appears to be so variable and imperfect.

Now, the danger for those making a distinction between justification and sanctification is that the two ideas may "wander off from one another," so that justification and sanctification are achieved by radically different methods, with radically different philosophies of life lying behind them. To put it crassly, one can begin to think that justification is achieved by faith only in the Gospel -- not by doing anything at all -- but that sanctification is achieved by an arduous process of self-improvement under the Law. I express this crassly because one will hardly ever see it put so blatantly. I say it in this extreme fashion, in order to show what I mean by saying that justification -- resting in Christ -- can be made to differ so much from sanctification -- a life of labor, that theological and practical confusion is brought into the Christian life. How can you rest and labor at the same time? These things must be reconciled.

Advocating a reconciliation is not a new idea. The history of theology since the Reformation is littered with attempts to do this, but no consensus has been achieved. As a starting point, however, it's clear that we need to keep justification and sanctification in union with one another, but distinguished. As a familiar example, we speak of the union of the two natures of Christ in one Person, the divine Second Person who has taken on the attributes of manhood. As such, the two natures are tightly unified under a single Person, but at the same time the natures (not the Person) are distinguished, so that Christ remains a single Person, yet fully God and fully Man. So, in our doctrine of justification and sanctification, we need to keep these two elements tightly unified under the heading of salvation by grace, even though we continue to distinguish the judicial acceptation of our persons from the infusion of grace into our persons.

------------------- EXAMPLE ---------------------

Why is it that in the medieval scheme the variability and poverty of our faith and works implies that we cannot have assurance in this life concerning our justification or final perseverance unto acceptance by God, whereas in some Reformed (actually, Puritan) versions of the doctrine of assurance our mortification of sin and our good works are precisely supposed to be the major evidence to us that our position in Christ is secure, and that we have been truly justified (by faith only)?

Put another way, how could it ever be that those who believe sin indwells believers ineradicably in this life (Protestants) could ever receive assurance of justification from the quality of their combined faith and works, when those who believe in perfectibility in this life (Romanists) cannot have any assurance on the same basis? How can those who see themselves as "worse" believers than Romanists have any assurance based on performance, when even Romanists confess that they cannot?

I'm reading the great Puritan theologian John Owen's treatise On the Mortification of Sin in Believers.1 The treatise is full of many valuable bits of teaching concerning sin and repentance. However, these bits are gerrymandered together with other material to enforce a virtually unendurable demand for perfection in repentance and holy walking. It is "spiritually" Arminian,* triumphalistic and perfectionistic. As a result I cannot tell that anyone who takes really, really seriously what Owen describes as the truly sanctified life could ever consider himself to be anything but a "second class" Christian at best, if indeed he considered himself to be a Christian at all. Owen's perfectionism is often fit only to produce despair in poor saints.

Then, shall it be well with men, when they have an equal respect to all God's commandments. God will justify us from our sins, but he will not justify the least sin in us (p. 125).

I can't fathom what Owen thinks of himself. He never speaks in the first person about his own depravity.

On the other hand, I see John Calvin speaking quite otherwise in the Institutes 2:

Therefore, God does not, as many stupidly believe, once for all reckon to us as righteousness that forgiveness of sins concerning which we have spoken, in order that, having obtained pardon for our past life, we may afterward seek righteousness in the law; this would be only to lead us into false hope, to laugh at us, and mock us. For since no perfection can come to us so long as we are clothed in this flesh, and the law moreover announces death and judgment to all who do not maintain perfect righteousness in the works, it will always have grounds for accusing and condemning us unless, on the contrary, God's mercy counters it, and by continual forgiveness of sins repeatedly acquits us (Vol 1, p 777).

Calvin also somewhere says that when a believer compares the righteousness he thinks he has to the ungodliness he knows he has, that he cannot gain any assurance from his works that he knows the Lord at all. He must only rely on acceptance with God by faith alone, and can only gain his assurance from that knowledge of his acceptance which he has apart from his works. Seeing God work in our lives, and having assurance from that, says Calvin, is something that we might see in retrospect, and will know it to be something we ourselves are not the cause of. But, this assurance of God's intervention in our lives to produce righteousness is not the primary evidence of our justification and assurance today.

The spiritual "smell" and teaching of Owen and Calvin could not be further apart.

Here is a quote from the mystical (contemplative, medieval, Romanist) standpoint that is relevant to this:
My comments in [square brackets] and my underlines

At this point I would return to the reason for the close correspondences between these traditions [he means the Contemplative and the Puritan]. Insofar as I can see, they are due to something deliberate in the Reformed (especially the Puritan) tradition's efforts to reform the church more fully; namely, a return to the medieval contemplative mainstream to recover insight concerning sanctification. The Puritans differed from the medieval contemplatives chiefly in the ambitiousness of their plans. Where contemplatives tried to make saints of those in monasteries, the Puritans tried to make saints of everybody. Here the Puritans forgot one of their basic tenets -- the fallenness of humanity -- which precludes such optimism. The contemplatives were more realistic. Only those who really want to and are willing to surrender themselves fully can become saints. Coercion will never produce the kind of holy obedience God requires.3

It is interesting, in view of the supposed allegiance of the Puritans to a thoroughgoing doctrine of human depravity, that the contemplative in this quotation can accuse the Puritans (so ironically) of not taking the depth of human depravity among the believers very seriously.4

Any believer seriously troubled by sin must have had his very faith called into question by Owen's doctrine, or any like it. Owen regards most so-called Christians with a jaundiced and disrespectful eye. Since any mature believer sees his ingrained depravity even more deeply than an immature believer, it is hard to understand how even a mature believer could feel right. This doctrine of sanctification would likely (and probably has historically) created churches full of sorrowing and doubting believers -- not what is seen in the New Testament.

Owen's doctrine of sanctification strangely overshadows the doctrine of justification, assurance and free unmerited grace found in the Gospel. It is as if justification and sanctification have separate trajectories, and operate on separate principles: That is, the work of the Holy Spirit which produces regeneration, repentance, faith and real union with Christ, fully by grace through faith alone, will not sanctify a believer according to substantially these same principles. It truly must be the case that the work of the Spirit in the Gospel is the foundation of sanctification! But, to Owen this is not subjectively the case in a believer's life. The believer must operate by substantially different spiritual principles for justification than he does for sanctification. This indicates theological and spiritual poverty in Owen's doctrine of justification and its consequences. He thinks that justification "fixes" your legal problem with God, but does not begin to produce sanctification on the same gracious principles. Justification and sanctification thus have wandered off on separate courses. The objective and felt grace of the gospel, producing the love of God (and thereby the hatred of sin), has vanished away as the engine of the spiritual life.

1 This public domain text may be found in Kapic and Taylor, ed., Overcoming Sin and Temptation, Crossway Books, 2006, pp. 41-139.

2 McNeil, ed., Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.

3 Donald Alexander, ed., Christian Spirituality -- Five Views of Sanctification, article by: E. Glenn Hinson, A Contemplative Response to the Reformed View, p. 93.

4 I suggest that Owen's doctrine of the anthropology of believers includes a redefinition of sin to be only those heart or external actions to which the will does not assent. This would reinterpret his writing on mortification in order to put it into more practical terms. But, this more "practical" doctrine is just the doctrine of the hated "Papists." Concupiscence is not sin, etc. Virtual perfectionism is possible. This, in turn, could point in the direction of some flavor of Arminianism, or more likely, the Neonomianism of Richard Baxter or the doctrine of Bp. Jeremy Taylor.

* The reason for using the term "armininian" is explained in the post at the following URL:
http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/11/voluntarism-and-irresistible-grace.html. There is a well-known Arminianism concerning the doctrine of predestination. But, here I refer to parallels in the doctrine of faith, and of volitional sanctification.

The Radiance of His Glory

2010-10-24T18:38:00.006-05:00

It seems to me that the meaning of the word "glory" needs a good deal of contemplation. We should never skip over this word casually when we read it in the Scripture
(quotes from the ESV):

John 17:1-5 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Jesus speaks of his earthly ministry as glorifying God the Father on earth. This was Christ's work that he was sent to do, and he accomplished it. In this phrase, Christ encapsulates a way of looking at his work which we need to ponder.

Notice that he does not simply describe his work as ethical teaching, though an ethic is certainly taught. Nor does he merely inculcate right religious doctrine, though right doctrine is vital. Neither is he merely a miracle worker, proving the benevolence of God. Nor is he merely an example. He does not just fill the mind with teaching, or the emotions with love, or the will to action only. What he does is show forth the glory of God. It is the sight of the glory which saves us from our sins.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

At Cana, after turning water to wine:

John 2:11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

The glorious thing was not the supply of better wine, but the spiritual vision of Christ's personal glory that radiated through the incident.

Regarding the sickness of Lazarus, who died, and who was raised by Jesus:

John 11:4 But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

and

John 11:39-40 Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days." Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?"

Lazarus' coming out of the tomb was not the glory of God. The fact that there was a miracle was not the glory. The glory to be seen spiritually is the glory of the person and nature of Christ himself, which is radiated through his saving action. The nonbelievers at the funeral never saw the glory, because after seeing the miracle they went to the Jewish leadership, who promoted Jesus' destruction. But, the believers saw the glory. Those who were being saved saw it. The saving knowledge of Christ came by the manifestation and vision of his glory.

John 12:36-41 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

Radically, we find that Christ has shared his glory with us!

John 17:22-23 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

Therefore, our ministry to one another is a manifestation of this same glory, and when this glory is seen and understood by the world, it testifies (savingly) to the world that Christ has come and saved his people.

To act like a Christian in spiritual love to one another, and then to the world, radiates Christ's glory. To preach the gospel is to radiate the glory of Christ.

This is why the preaching of the gospel is not merely the teaching of right doctrine, nor just the exhortation to right affections, nor only the call to right actions. All of these follow from something else:

2 Corinthians 3:7-11 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

2 Corinthians 4:3-6 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:1-3 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ...

Lord Jesus, deliver us from our spiritual dimness! Show us your glory, so that we may truly glorify you!

Christian Community in the City

2010-10-19T14:43:00.008-05:00

Christian "community," (sometimes called fellowship), is that social and active fellowship enjoyed by the believers, whereby we edify one another in our life in Christ. This post investigates the nature and vitality of Christian community in the city.

Now, the greatest impediment to Christian Community, in city life, is the lack of time. The ceaseless round of weekly activities uses up all the time. There is no Christian quietness or time for spiritual fellowship. Quietness is boring -- or frightening. It is certainly not a virtue in our busy world. If you are quiet, you may lose an opportunity to get ahead!

Most times, I'm sure, our weekly activities are all considered to be necessary or excellent benefits to ourselves and to our children which we cannot afford to pass by. Particularly is this the case when it comes to giving our children that initial boost in life which we believe that they need for future success. Business requirements, too, including "church" business, can dominate our schedules. Whatever the cause, a vital casualty of this lifestyle is Christian community. When, in the city, there are so many available activities, even so much "good" that can be engaged in, even so much Christian good, the virtues of a quiet life are lost and remain undeveloped in our souls. Christian community, if it exists at all, can only be "scheduled" like everything else. But, can those necessary heart-to-heart talks always be "scheduled"? No. They will just never happen.

The church has always thought this busy-ness to be dangerous and wrong.

So, how does time for Christian community, or even time for personal contemplation, come about? Something has to be sacrificed! And, if your life and your family's life is not filled with time-wasting activities, then something good will have to be sacrificed. And, in order for something good to be sacrificed, Christian virtues of a quiet life must rise in our consciousness, beyond the good of the good things we must sacrifice!

Here are some random thoughts:

You train your children in all sorts of intellectual programs and physical sports for their future good. Yet, how much of this is competitive training which teaches them to be motivated by the desire to be "first"? Is this realistic -- or Christian? Think of your own life experience. How will this motivation to be "first" serve them throughout their lives? How much of the intellectual activity or physical sport which they engage in are to train them in accordance with their actual gifts? Is any part of their lives given over to "play"? "Boredom" is a vital stimulant to creativity. Can you arrange your educational program to train them ultimately in those things that they are best at, and in which, by living as quietly as their calling permits, they will contribute to society and church in a productive manner?

People in business, educators and church-workers, male or female, can ask the same questions about their own professional activities. How much of this is necessary, and how much of what I do is to feed my personal ambitions?

The bottom line is this: Is it spiritually clean to be busy all the time? Have we made "idols" of good things? Can life be quieter? Can there be more time for God and our fellow believers?

The answer to this must be "Yes!". But, then, we Christians must live differently than the world -- even differently than the rest of the "Christian" world that is as busy as the world!

There needs to be a taste of Paradise in our Christian social lives, just as there is in worship.

Bible

2010-10-15T16:07:00.016-05:00

The Bible is not a resource for the church or for the Christian life. It does not exist so that the world or the church may draw upon the elements of knowledge, understanding and wisdom that are found in it. It is not a resource for liturgy, or for personal sanctification. It is not a resource for academic study, or the accumulation of doctrinal knowledge, or any or such like use. The Bible is not a passive resource under our hands, and if we make it so, we rebel against it!

Consider Paul's exhortation to Timothy:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:14-17)

By understanding the text in red above, it is clear that the word of the Apostle Paul (preaching the New Covenant) is on the same level of authority as the Sacred Scripture (by which Paul means what we call the "Old Testament").

Furthermore, just as Paul was not primarily a resource which allowed himself to be passively used, but on the other hand was an active instructor, so it is with the Scripture. The Scripture is not a passive "resource" which we use, but is an active power, through the Spirit, that has within it the ability to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

In fact, as seen in the words in blue, above, the very words of Scripture are breathed by God. This is reminiscent of the divine in-breathing into Adam at his creation. New life comes to us by the Spirit as we hear the creative Word spoken by God. The Church of Christ lives by the actual, active speech of the Word of Christ, bringing spiritual life to our souls.

How serious it is, then, that we listen to this Word in every way that it speaks to us. How serious it is to study the Bible, not as a "resource," but to be taken hold of by it, and by it to be recreated into new men and women of God! We should marvel at this divine speech, pine to hear it, and seek to understand it.

A church which is not characterized by this hunger is a church which merely uses the Bible as a resource, implicitly under men's control, to justify their own projects, and to bring a nostalgic smell of Christianity into her life! Cut off from her food, this church will eventually die. Her spiritual soul will fade away into a haze, her work mechanically operated by those who trample her courts, until finally the Lord himself takes away her candlestick!

May it not be this way.

Luther, and Justification by Faith Alone

2010-10-13T00:01:00.009-05:00

Revised 10/13/2010

Luther's spiritual state, and his spiritual evolution and ultimate conversion to new views of justification, are commonly separated from the doctrine itself in our understanding. This is because we approach the Scripture seeking the Scripturally objective sense of it, concerning this doctrine. It matters not what we or (or Luther) think, or what our spiritual state is. What matters is what the Scripture teaches.

But there needs to be a wrinkle here. Yes, it is true that the Scripture teaches "justification by faith alone." But, we need to consider how to use and apply this doctrine. We are helped toward this goal if we really do closely consider the relationship between Luther's spiritual turmoil and his "re-discovery" of this apostolic doctrine.

Luther originally accepted and labored under a doctrine of repentance which was usually stated like this: "To those who do what is in them, God will not deny grace." The question for Luther was whether or not he actually, honestly did "what was in him," that is, whether he ever did what he was really capable of doing for God. In the end, he thought not. All his works, he saw, were contaminated by sin. The result was that the "system" of repentance and Christian assurance broke down and failed. Now, if Luther isn't just out of his mind (an untenable position), then this means that Luther finally cared about the experiential truthfulness of this plan of salvation, and he found that the plan was a failure.

One might ask why other serious Christians did not discover this. It's a mystery. Perhaps they just did not put as much faith in that plan of repentance, or perhaps they did not worry about the sin which remained in their works. If they were serious Christians, they must have thought, just as Johann Staupitz, Luther's confessor said to Luther, that one must at some point just stop being angry at God and confessing sins all day, and trust in the God who grants grace. (This, of course, is implicitly to trust in justification by faith, while denying the doctrine). Luther, however, tested the medieval church doctrine to the bitter end and found it wanting. Because he strove for The Truth in this respect, he came to see The Truth on this point in the Scripture. Consequently, there was a Reformation, which was provoked in largest measure by this doctrine of free justification.

This is all highly instructive. We have to conclude then that justification by faith alone is only understood from the heart and relied upon by believers who truly see, mourn and hate their own ineradicable depravity. Only those who have despaired in their striving for sanctification can know the glory of free grace. Believers who have not reached the end of themselves cannot have heartfelt faith in Christ's free justification. For them, "Justification by Faith Alone" may be a battle cry of their religious party, but spiritually, it is just words. Such believers are open to false gospels. They are open to the use of legal methods for sanctification -- if they are interested in sanctification. Some may think in their hearts, "I'm justified, so I don't need to repent," thus implicitly denying their professed religion. Therefore, we must conclude that misbehavior by Christians, truly converted or not, is not a denial of the truthfulness or usefulness of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. When repentance comes alive, and sensitivity to sin constantly increases, and personal depravity becomes an ineradicable object of mourning and hatred in our souls, then salvation as a free gift (justification by faith alone) opens the doors of paradise to believers such as these. The joy and love imparted by this experience is truly sanctifying. It is spiritual deliverance. It is a power-relationship to the Spirit and to grace, instead of a power-relationship to law. It is the only truly sanctifying doctrine, and therefore is ultimately the doctrine of a standing or falling church. The whole Christian life is the continual re-discovery of free grace, as we struggle against our remaining depravity and sin.

How should we ever think, then, that "Justification by Faith Alone" is simply an easily accepted initial doctrine of the faith, and that once this "believing" is done and we are justified, then, as a separate activity, we take up the serious business of "working on our sanctification." It is only in the midst of the struggle of sanctification that the inbreaking of the divine peace continually delivers us! In the end, in the day of final deliverance, the free justification and unmerited reward of God will be all there is, in glory, forever and ever.

Megachurch

2010-10-09T18:20:00.014-05:00

If you take close look at events on and after the day of Pentecost, you'll notice:

1) The little gathering in the Upper Room before the Spirit came was about as big as a typical church of any denomination today -- about 100 people, 120 to be more exact.

2) The church after the day of Pentecost contained 3000 men. Assuming their households are not included, we have to add those, if they are residents or have their families with them. This reckons to, say, 15,000 souls. There was another conversion later (Acts 4:4), where the head count of men in the church increased to 5000, or perhaps another 5000 were added. If the latter, and if this count does not include households, we're now talking about 40,000 souls. All this assumes a household count of 5, including the head. This is probably small. Even if they church grew to only 5000 men, then assuming 5 per household, this multiples to 25,000 souls.

One concludes from this calculation that the initial task of the apostles and elders was to take up emergency measures to handle church growth. We know later (Acts 6) that they set up 7 men to act as "deacons."

So, we conclude that 11 apostles and 7 deacons could take care of 25,000 - 40,000 church members, including dealing with the funds which were brought in due to the sale of property (Acts 4:32ff), and the logistics of distribution to widows, etc. (Acts 6)??

No. We do not conclude this.

There's no way 18 guys could take care of this. We have to conclude that a barely functioning infrastructure (there were complaints) was set up to help the leadership do this job. We have to conclude that those 7 deacons were leaders and managers of the relief effort. We likewise have to conclude that the apostles had help in their particularly pastoral duties. After all, it's clear that at the time of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), that there were a lot of elders and leading brethren under them!

Therefore, the mere statistics of this episode show that elders and deacons are the leaders and managers of a much larger pastoral and ministerial effort to care for church members spiritually and physically.

As a consequence, when we see the blessing of church growth among ourselves, it is mandatory that we, by the wisdom of the Spirit, also imitate the early church by creating the necessary pastoral and diaconal infrastructure using reliable church members in order to carry forward the work of the church.

Any other approach will lead to organizational failure and leadership burnout.

I started out the day opposed to megachurch. Hmmm.

If a church happened to gain 30 members every two months and stopped losing folks out the back door, they'd need to be ready.

PS: Information about the total population of Jerusalem at feast time (such as Pentecost) varies from 600,000 (Titus, in AD 70) to 3,000,000 (Josephus). Another source states, 120,000 - 200,000 (presumably not just at feast time) in the time of Herod the Great. Edersheim says people camped out during feast time. Some claim that Jerusalem was 70,000 - 80,000, but this is probably not at feast time, when huge crowds of pilgrims would come to the city.

More on Sanctification

2010-10-07T23:33:00.003-05:00

One might ask a fundamental Protestant question about justification and sanctification: How do the two concepts of "rest" and "war" comport with one another? "Rest," of course, refers to the "rest" of faith on the justifying work of Christ's cross. "War" refers to the active fight between flesh and spirit inside ourselves as believers.

Those who emphasize "rest," spanning the spectrum from orthodox Lutheranism through "deeper-life/higher-life/let-go-and-let-God" spirituality expect to prosecute the war within by spiritual rest. Will they not always be suspected of harboring antinomianism? Likewise, the fighting side will always be suspected by the others of having a commitment to legalism. War periodically breaks out between various proponents of these two camps.

The most significant engagement is that between orthodox Lutheranism and the orthodox Reformed. The Reformed always doubt the ability of the Lutheran way to really come to grips with sin and sanctification. The Lutherans are certain that the Reformed only have a half-way commitment to grace. This war has not yet been brought to an end through a common understanding, and therefore, the Lutheran/Reformed schism remains unhealed.

Sanctification (revised)

2010-10-03T19:00:00.007-05:00

The original badly written article has been revised to improve the sentence structure.

If sanctification were a process of becoming better and better by striving against sin by the Spirit (which, of course, we must do), and if we measured our progress by comparing ourselves against the standard of the Law, how would this comport with the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Likely this way: We would have to separate the process of justification from that of sanctification, because justification and sanctification were carried out by different methods. Justification would be carried out through faith only in the gospel apart from Law, and sanctification would be carried out by laboring at holiness (which, of course, we must do) while using the Law as our guide. This results in a common doctrinal dualism found in the churches. The consequence among the insensitive Christians is perhaps legalism, as they practice a socially acceptable Christianity. The consequence among the sensitive Christians is despair, through their (correct) perception of their constant sinning.

This kind of distinction between justification and sanctification does not do justice to the fundamental principle of grace inherent in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It reduces the relevance of this doctrine to the process of sanctification, and to the whole Christian life. This is wrong. We need a doctrinal formulation which makes justification and sanctification work together in a holistic doctrine of the Christian life that actually works.

Now, if justification by faith alone be the key doctrine for sanctification, it is obvious that real sanctification comes about by moving away from striving for personal self-improvement (before the Law) and toward Spiritual reliance on free grace in Christ. Sanctification is measured less by accomplishment, as we perceive it, and more by repentance, humility, the sense of forgiveness, and the empowering vision of free grace in Christ, producing the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience ... .

This does not mean that we need not strive against sin when it threatens. Because we are still in flesh, we have to fight and hopefully defeat sins at least some of the time. But, real victory comes by deliverance from the power of sin by the grace of God. It is not a product of human effort. We may not see holiness coming over us as we persevere in repentance, and in humility, and in our joy and peace in Christ -- but others do. The most self-forgetful, who are least fond of measuring their spiritual accomplishments, and who meekly boast in the merits of Christ will be the sanctified.

And vice versa.

Life Achievement (v4)

2010-09-20T20:50:00.004-05:00

A saint near death writes in his will, commenting on his efforts to glorify God:

But alas! The desire which I have had, and the zeal, if so it must be called, has been so cold and so sluggish that I feel myself a debtor in everything and everywhere, and that, were it not for his infinite goodness, all the affection I have had would be but as smoke, nay, that even the favors which he has accorded me would be render me so much more guilty; so that my only recourse is this, that being the Father of mercies he will show himself the Father of so miserable a sinner.

One may marvel at the professed humility of such a saint, John Calvin, but unwittingly continue to regard these comments by Calvin as a wonderful sounding example of pious language on the part of a great Christian man. But, this falsifies what the man is teaching in his final witness! Because his example of real humility is not taken seriously, our own desires for greatness are not exposed as sin, and our own path to greatness is not revealed.

In fact, if Calvin's own self-image near death were ours now, then we would be more like him. At the end of our lives, we should hope, like Calvin, to have finally achieved the true vision of our own humility and weakness -- and therefore to have finally rested in total reliance on the Grace of God.

What a goal! A self-vision like this is a judgment on the idols of personal glory. It is a real hope, that having learned obedience through suffering in the cause of Christ, we may in the end recline on our death beds, in the arms of Christ, and be carried by his grace to glory -- the glory reserved for those who rest on his finished work, and not their own.

Christ's "Descent into Hell" in the Creed

2010-09-05T20:16:00.006-05:00

The phrase "He descended into hell" in the Creed has a long history, and so does the interpretation of it.

History of the Creed

The so-called "Apostle's Creed" is an evolutionary product of the need for a Baptismal confession of faith. This began in the eastern part of the Roman Empire and slowly progressed toward the west. Each region or church might have some variation of this, but it was used to certify the authenticity of the public confession that a person made who was to be baptised.

History of the Phrase "He descended into Hell"

According to reputable sources, the phrase "He descended into hell" appears in the Creed about the year 400. As this baptismal creed became standardized in form in the west, the phrase in question became a fixed part of it about 750.

What the Phrase Means

First, note that the word "hell" does not refer to a place of torment. It refers to the "abode of the dead," or "sheol" in Hebrew. When Jesus Christ is said to have "descended into hell," he did not descend to endure punishment.

The Reformed tradition mostly interprets the "descent" as a reference to Christ's suffering the pains of our punishment on the cross, or refers to the descent as a summary of the "died and was buried," indicating the fullness of the state of death that was his.

Note that Acts 2:22-32 refers to Christ being raised from the realm of the dead. This implies that when he died, he entered the realm of the dead -- sheol.

A list of standard Scripture references is: Job 38:17, Psalm 68:18-22; Matthew 12:38-41; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:7-10, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6. From: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/descendit.htm

Though we've mentioned some data to substantiate the credal statement from the Scripture, the discussion of this subject often proceeds to speculate on Christ's supposed deliverance of the Old Testament deceased believers from the good side of sheol. Regardless of the outcome of any discussion on this aspect of the subject, it is not referred to in the creed.

Useful links for a fuller discussion (even the Pope's is good):

http://www.tenth.org/qbox/qb_000716.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP890111.HTM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p1.htm
http://www.eaglewing.org.uk/theology/creed/descent.html
http://www.vorthosforum.com/export/Articles/Did%20Jesus%20Descend%20Into%20Hell.pdf

The Hegemony of the New Testament

2010-08-26T23:29:00.013-05:00

Its hard to believe that so many aberrations of historic Reformed theology have developed in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Most of these aberrations can be cured by the application of two principles from the Scripture and from historic Reformed Theology. These principles are:

1) The New Testament reveals the hermeneutic for all of Scripture.

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." Luke 24:44-49

2) The world-view of the New Testament is age-long.

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:9-14

If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory. Colossians 3:1-4

When these two principles are applied, all sorts of doctrinal distortions fade away.

Most of the aberrations that face Reformed theology rely on a judaizing hermeneutic which forces a foreign understanding upon the New Testament, originating from a false interpretation of the Old. This, in turn, requires an implicit or explicit denial that the New Testament world-view is age-long.

The implications of these two principles are revolutionary for those caught in a false hermeneutic.

Guilty!

2010-08-17T15:04:00.011-05:00

The word 'guilt' is used several ways. It may be used to refer to what's real before God, that is, to being actually guilty of a sin, whether there are guilt feelings about that sin or not. 'Guilt' may also be used to refer to feelings commonly associated with being in an objective state of 'guilt,' whether that objective state is accurately assessed or not. In other words, there can be a disjunction between actual guilt and feelings of guilt. Persons who are guilty may not feel guilty, and persons who feel guilty may not be guilty.

Feelings of guilt, even among repentant Christians, are not uncommon. These feelings usually come about because of real or perceived offenses (sins) that they have committed. But, when the guilt feelings persist too long after reconciliation has been attempted, then we must look for a cause.

Now, if it weren't for the judgment of God upon us that we are "Not Guilty!" in Christ, and if it weren't for Christ's continuing ministry of reconciliation which he performs on our behalf, we would be guilty -- always! The fact that guilt feelings may continue after forgiveness then has to be explained -- or at least the Scriptural antidote given, since this is an abnormal condition.

First, we have to note that the world, the (that is, our) flesh, and the devil are always on our case, often to tempt to sin, and always to make us feel guilty! This is one of the prime Satanic works. He, and his minions, and the world he controls, along with the self-righteousness of our own flesh all conspire together against the free grace of the gospel. In order to be delivered we must understand the following teaching, seen many places in God's Word, but especially here:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 15:56-57)

and

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. (Rom 6:14)

and

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (Rom 7:4-6)

None of this means that the Law of God is evil. It means that the Law of God provokes the non-believers to rebel. And, if believers do not realize that they are not under the Law's curse and bondage, then believers will continue to operate under a load of guilt. This sense of bondage actually can lead to more sin, even in believers! Therefore, it is necessary that as repentant believers, we be delivered in all our feelings from past guilt.

When the rooster crowed, Peter was busy denying his Lord. But, he went on to be the head spokesman and leader of the apostolic band. Peter implicitly denied the gospel in Galatia by not sharing a table with the non-kosher Gentiles in the church, for which he was rebuked in public by Paul. Paul, of course, had been a kind of executioner of the church, before his conversion. King David -- well, we know what he did. None of these spectacular spiritual recoveries or conversions is any sanction for the practice of sin, but they are sanction for receiving effectual forgiveness in fact and in spirit, in reality and in the feelings, as we move forward in the Christian life.

Our sins -- well, they're canceled before God and the church, because the condemning Law written against us is canceled.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:13-14)

Calvin remarks (Inst. XIX.2):

Christian freedom, in my opinion, consists of three parts.

The first: that the consciences of believers, in seeking assurance of their justification before God, should rise above and advance beyond the law, forgetting all law righteousness. For since, as we have elsewhere shown, the law leaves no one righteous, either it excludes us from all hope of justification, or we ought to be freed from it, and in such a way, indeed, that no account is taken of works. For he who thinks that in order to obtain righteousness he ought to bring some trifle of works is incapable of determining their measure and limit but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Removing, then, mention of law, and laying aside all consideration of works, we should, when justification is being discussed, embrace God’s mercy alone, turn our attention from ourselves, and look only to Christ. For there the question is not how we may become righteous but how, being unrighteous and unworthy, we may be reckoned righteous. If consciences wish to attain any certainty in this matter, they ought to give no place to the law.

Nor can any man rightly infer from this that the law is superfluous for believers, since it does not stop teaching and exhorting and urging them to good, even though before God’s judgment seat it has no place in their consciences. For, inasmuch as these two things are very different, we must rightly and conscientiously distinguish them. The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness, for we have been called to sanctification. Here it is the function of the law, by warning men of their duty, to arouse them to a zeal of holiness and innocence. But where consciences are worried how to render God favorable, what they will reply, and with what assurance they will stand should they be called to his judgment, there we are not to reckon what the law requires, but Christ alone, who surpasses all perfection of the law, must be set forth as righteousness.

Predestination and Evangelism (rev. 7 Oct 2010)

2010-07-29T00:19:00.011-05:00

You'll have to pardon me for making this post a little technical, but I think the big words are useful in this post. I'll try to define them, for my purposes, as I write.

One of the theological struggles of the Reformed theology is to properly maintain the visibility and relationship of both particularism and universalism. In the context of the doctrine of salvation, we may speak of "election," or predestination to salvation, which is God's choice of those sinners upon whom he will have mercy. This is a kind of particularism. Yet many Scripture passages show God making a universal offer of salvation to all the sinners who hear the gospel preached. This is a kind of universalism -- not meaning that all get saved willy nilly, but meaning that all are in principle offered the free grace of the Gospel.

The problem here is to ask how the particularism of election and the universalism of the gospel offer are to be reconciled with one another. What is the balance? How to we keep one aspect of the truth from being emphasized in some manner which is wrongly at the expense of the other?

It's pretty simple to envision the consequences of imbalance toward predestination. When the divine predestination dominates, then the question that will be asked implicitly is whether the people I propose to witness to are elect. I think this is "subliminal." The consequence will likely be the downplaying of evangelistic efforts. God is in charge. Let him bring them. If they show an interest, we'll try to take them in. Why spend your effort on so many who are likely non-elect?

Now it sounds like I'm mocking, but I'm serious. I think I'm describing a position that is implicitly held in the heart, though never expressed verbally, nor consciously acknowledged. What else can happen if you think God really doesn't express love to all who hear the gospel offer, or that his gospel call to everyone who hears is not a bona fide offer? You really cannot say to anyone that "God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life," if you wonder if it's true! You don't dare say to someone what you're actually thinking: "Christ's death may or may not be for you, but if you believe that it is for you, then you will be saved by it!"

This way of thinking is all wrong.

No matter how true predestination is -- and it is very true -- it is still the case that a bona fide offer of the gospel is made by God to all sinners who hear the gospel preached. If God is going around having the gospel preached all over the place and making bona fide offers of salvation to all who hear, who could ever think that love for sinners, and recognition of their real need for the gospel, should somehow be stifled by the doctrine of predestination?

To think so is contrary to every decent Reformed doctrinal statement ever written on the subject. The Westminster Confession says, referring to Adam's breaking of the Law of God:

WCF 7:3 Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant [of creation], the Lord was pleased to make a second,(1) commonly called the Covenant of Grace, whereby He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;(2) and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.(3)

(1) Gal. 3:21; Rom. 8:3; Rom. 3:20,21; Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6.
(2) Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16; Rom. 10:6,9; Gal. 3:11.
(3) Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:44,45.

You will notice that the offer of salvation is made by God (through his preachers). The genuineness of the offer cannot be denied by saying that it's the preachers' offer, and they don't know who the elect are, and therefore they have to preach to everyone. That's not the Confession's point, and that's not God's point!

No matter how predestination and gospel preaching may seem to conflict in our rationality, we have to accept the Scripture presentation of both sides of this issue.

Both are simply true.

Finish Well

2010-07-23T20:36:00.000-05:00

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

In some eras and theological regions of the church there have been seasons when excruciating emphasis has been laid on starting well in the Christian life.

Now, it is excruciatingly important to know the right teaching about Christ -- the right gospel -- that Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, gave himself for our sins, died and rose again, ascended, and reigns from heaven, forgiving repentant sinners and adopting them as his children, and giving them spiritual enablement to begin to follow him.

But, knowing our own hearts -- it's sometimes another thing. Some have great assurance in Christ, but some have little. Some backslide and wonder if they can be recovered. Some wonder if they were ever saved. Some have even gone through the motions of baptism many times.

But, when I read the Scripture I don't see an excruciating emphasis on the kind of introspection that wonders if I've started well -- or at all. The emphasis in Scripture for the baptized is on disregarding what is behind, confessing sins, daily (or hourly) grasping hold of Christ in his grace, pressing forward only in reliance on him, and keeping this faith until the end.

See the quotation at the start of this post? Peter addresses "you"! He is not addressing outsiders. Peter is speaking to the visible church -- the real, solid Church of Christ on earth -- filled with saints and hypocrites, and those who struggle to be spiritual -- and he is saying that the Lord is patient -- so patient that some could accuse him of slowness in fulfilling his promise of redemption. But he is so patient, so that all of "you" can come to repentance.

The message is the same for all. For however long you've been a Christian, or however long you've wondered whether you are one, begin again now to trust and follow Christ, in the midst of his church.

Receive anew the gift of salvation -- every day -- and in so doing, you will finish well!

The Mystery of Christ in You, The Hope of Glory

2010-07-18T21:24:00.020-05:00

From Colossians 1:25-28 (The Epistle for July 18, 2010)

Paul writes:

... I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, ...

Now, the whole Word of God is a big subject, but Paul speaks of fully carrying out the preaching of the Word, not with the sense that he must exposit the whole of Scripture to them (though he does this in principle), but that he must finish the process of revealing and expositing the whole Word that had been begun in the Old Testament revelation (before Paul's time) but was only completed in the New Testament time, with its special emphasis on doctrine and experience previously hidden -- the "mysteries."

Picking up the quote, this is seen by the underlined words:

... that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, ...

Then, Paul continues with a more explicit indication of what this mystery is:

... which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

The teaching of the doctrine of "Christ in you," leads to the experience of it by faith. It is real, not just an abstract idea.

Paul continues, indicating that "Christ in you," and "You in Christ," are complementary conceptions for the same reality.

And we proclaim Him [Christ], admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ.

This passage indicates that the revelation of Christ among the Gentiles (not just Jews), bringing Jew and Gentile into a true and real union with Christ, is the surpassing spiritual reality that constitutes what the New Covenant actually is and does. This intimate union, we in Christ and Christ in us, is the only salvation, and it is what those Old Testament saints waited for, and have finally received, along with us.

This union is our certain hope of glory.

Union with Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Table

2010-07-11T23:34:00.015-05:00

It is very interesting to see how Paul's doctrinal exposition in the Epistle to the Romans presents the doctrine of union with Christ in a certain order.

In Chapter 5, we have the presentation of the similarity and distinction of the two racial heads Adam and Christ. The two are made the heads of their two races, and not much is said about the mechanics of the union. This is obvious in the case of Adam: physical generation, leading to offspring in his own image. But, what is the means of union with Christ? Well, Paul doesn't give details for us in Chapter 5. We just see that we are represented by Christ, who conveys to us life, rather than the death conveyed to us by Adam.

This direct imputation from Adam to me, or from Christ to me is called "immediate imputation." Paul teaches the "immediate imputation" of sin (and death through sin) from Adam as head to each member of his posterity, and also teaches the "immediate imputation" of the righteousness of Christ to each one who is in him.

In Chapter 6, Paul then speaks of our deliverance from the realm of law and judgment by describing our union with Christ through baptism. This union is described as a union with him in his death -- a union which continues from that point on into his resurrection and glorification. His death is the disconnection for us both from the old age of law and judgment, and is followed by his resurrection and ours into the realm of the New Creation, we being resurrected spiritually in our souls now, and ultimately also in our bodies. This union with him is a union which is so close that we in Christ are plunged with him into his very death, and then included with him in his very resurrection in righteousness.

Therefore, Paul, in Chapters 5 and 6 of Romans definitely describes our union with Christ, first with him as head (Chapter 5), and then in him by a union sealed by baptism, which disconnects us from the dominion of the law (Chapter 6).

In Chapter 7 of the Epistle, Paul then begins to bring in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one whose power works in us to recreate us anew in a way that the letter of the law on the bare flesh could not do. The experiential and practical effects of our union with Christ are mediated to us by the Spirit. By him, we are made over into the image of Christ, so that Christ is in us, the hope of glory. Just as the "bloodline" was the basis of our relationship with Adam, so that his sin is imputed to us his posterity, so it is the case that Christ's righteousness is imputed to his "bloodline," his "posterity," which is a creation of the Spirit. By the Spirit, we grow within that union with him which is described in Ephesians 5 as being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. The Word of God received in faith, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper convey and seal this union to those of faith. This union is no theological figment or abstract concept, but a reality.

The "reality" of the "real presence" at the Lord's Table is the reality of this vital and realistic union with Christ -- a union which is fed and grows by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Baptism, Baptism remembered, and the Bread and Cup received in faith.

Infant Baptism

2010-07-06T17:04:00.008-05:00

I think that the biggest and simplest reason for infant baptism is discovered by simply asking the question, "Is the family normatively part of the institution of the church, or not? Yes, or no?"

I suspect that most folks (whether they baptize infants or not) really want the answer to this question to be, "Yes!" No believing parent wants to say that his family lies outside the God-ordained spiritual scope of the work of the church.

There are a lot of proof-texts to support the answer "Yes," but the total argument isn't dependent on proof-texts, but rather on the total witness of Scripture. Infant baptism is best supported by making it obvious.

Focusing on the details of the bark and leaves of all the trees in the forest of Scripture while looking for proof texts, misses the big picture of the forest as a whole.

In Scripture the big picture is also doctrinal.