Life in Christ

Does Jesus + Nothing Really = Everything?

2011-12-16T15:46:00.018-05:00

The pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Tullian Tchividjian, has just published a book titled Jesus + Nothing = Everything. I know it's dangerous to write a post in reference to a book I haven't read, but Tchividjian has published enough material on his blog (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/) that I'm comfortable responding to his basic thesis about the nature of the gospel and Christian sanctification.

Tchividjian's thesis is that sanctification is nothing more than getting used to your justification. He teaches that the only way to grow in sanctification is to understand your justification better and that sanctification will automatically occur the more you learn to rest in Christ for justification. In response, I would say that while a growing grasp of justification is indeed foundational to sanctification, it is a mistake to say that justification is the only biblical motive for sanctification. What follows will not be an interactive critique of Tchividjian, but more of a positive statement of some of the issues at stake in this discussion.

The Nature of the Gospel
Tchividjian advances his thesis partly by identifying justification with the gospel. But, the gospel is not identical to justification. Justification is certainly very near to the heart of the gospel, and it is a sine qua non of the gospel, but the gospel is more than justification. The gospel is not only the message of Christ's work *for* us, but also of Christ's work *in* us (speaking here only of the gospel at the individual level, though there is certainly a corporate and global dimension to the gospel as well). Put differently, the gospel is not only the promise of justification to free us from the guilt of sin, but also the promise of sanctification to free us from the misery of sin. The gospel is not only the message that Christ is our Priest, but also the message that He is our Prophet and King who overrules the reign of sin within us. The good news is not that Christ is a paltry half-Savior who frees us from condemnation, but leaves us in our miserable sinful condition. Rather, the good news is that Christ frees us from our legal problem as well as our ontological problem.

The Law/Gospel Distinction
Part of the confusion about this distinction is that there are several ways to speak about it, all of which are valid.

1. Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant
This is a redemptive-historical way of speaking about the difference between law and gospel. On this way of speaking, the Mosaic Covenant is termed "law" because it made legal demands but did not provide any true or final way of forgiveness or redemption from sin, and because it did not provide any power to keep the demands of its own law. The New Covenant, on the other hand, does provide a way of redemption and forgiveness through Christ the mediator, and it provides power to keep the law because the law is no longer merely written on tablets of stone, but also on tablets of human hearts.

2. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace
On this way of speaking, the distinction between law and gospel is about the relationship of law-keeping to justification. Under the covenant of works, God said "do this and live," meaning, "Perfectly obey My commandments and you will be justified and have a right and title to eternal life." That's "law." But, the covenant of grace says, "live and do this to enjoy and experience life," meaning "Be justified and have a right and title to eternal life by faith alone because of Christ's righteousness alone, and in light of your justification imperfectly obey My commandments more and more to increase in the experience and enjoyment of the eternal life you already possess." That's "gospel." Notice that on this way of speaking, both law and gospel issue commands/instructions and promises. The difference is a matter of order, not the elements involved.

3. Command and Promise
On this way of speaking, every command or imperative is "law," and every promise of blessing or indicative is "gospel." The biblical commands to love, to keep the law, to enjoy God, and even to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, are all "law." That is to say, they all require absolute, perfect, and inflexible obedience and therefore the Christian is doomed to failure in his efforts to obey any one of them absolutely. In that sense, none of them is "good news." They are the "law." The "gospel," on the other hand, is the good news that Jesus Christ kept every one of these commands perfectly in our place. He loved in our place, kept God's law in our place, enjoyed God in our place, and even believed God perfectly in our place. All of Christ's commandment-keeping procures for us an external righteousness, which is promised to us in the gospel for our justification. But, Christ's righteousness not only procures the gospel-promise of justification, it is also the legal basis of God's sending the Holy Spirit to sanctify us, which is His gospel-promise to change us to become more like Christ for our joy and His glory. Christ's righteousness justifies us *and* causes us to keep the commandments more and more (though imperfectly): to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, love, keep the law, and enjoy God.

The Law/Gospel Harmony
It should be clear by now that the law and the gospel are not at all enemies, but close friends. The law of God shows us our guilt and drives us to Christ for our justification in the gospel. Justification in the gospel, in turn, points us back to the law as our "rule of walking" as the means by which we may increasingly enjoy God and by which He glorifies His great grace poured out within us. The law exposes our need for the gospel. But, the end or goal of the gospel is that we would be conformed more and more to the law. So, the law and the gospel "do sweetly comply."

God's View of Believers' Sin and Obedience
In light of all this, how does God view believers when they sin and when they obey? We need to distinguish between the "legal" relationship to God as Judge and the "filial" relationship to God as Father.

First, in terms of the legal relationship, because of justification, God legally regards and treats believers like they are righteous, even though they are not ever truly righteous. Therefore, when believers sin, their standing before God is perfectly "righteous" and they are pleasing to God the Judge, no matter what they do.

But second, in terms of the filial relationship, God the Father accepts our imperfect (damnable) obedience in Christ, and our obedience pleases Him, even though it is imperfect and detestable in terms of strict justice. It's like a child bringing his parent a drawing and the parent being pleased with it, even though on terms of strict artistic quality, the drawing is ugly.

Just as the believer's obedience pleases the Father, the believer's sin displeases the Father. But, our sin doesn't displease our Father because it offends His justice (that's taken care of in justification; there is no more legal offense); rather, a believer's sin displeases God because it disrupts the believer's fellowship with his Heavenly Father. The Father is displeased with our sin because it causes us grief and because it inhibits both our enjoyment of Him and His Fatherly enjoyment of us.

Motives to Obedience
One final point that needs to be made has to do with the motives to obedience in the Christian life. The Bible provides many such motives. It teaches that we should obey God to please God, from the fear of God, because God the Creator and Sovereign is absolute authority, for the blessings of joy in God that come from obedience, because our disobedience displeases a holy God, because the angels are watching, etc. And, that is just a sample of some of the motives the Bible mentions.

The point to make is this. Each of the motives previously mentioned would have worked to motivate pre-fall Adam. That is, by themselves, each of those motives could have been fully functional in the covenant of works, apart from the mediation of Christ. Therefore, none of those motives may be preached to the believer without or apart from reference to justification by faith alone because of Christ alone.

On the other hand, in light of and on the basis of Christ's righteousness freely imputed to all who trust Him, all other biblical motives to obedience *become* gospel motives. Therefore, justification is not the only motive to Christian sanctification, contra Tchividjian, but it is the fundamental motive and the motive necessary to make all the other motives truly sanctifying.

Grace and Merit – Later Reformed Orthodoxy

2011-07-05T11:04:00.005-04:00

In the previous post, we saw that John Calvin deplored the term “merit” and generally preferred not to use it because he believed it implied that creatures can do good works independently of their Creator. But, later Reformed theologians were not so reluctant. The concept of merit is expressed in Romans 4:4, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” Scripture also teaches that good works in justification would be meritorious: “If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about” (Rom 4:2). Abraham would be able to “boast,” if justification was his “due,” that is, if he “merited” his justification by "works."

So, what of Calvin's contention that providentially determined good works cannot be “meritorious” because they are gifts of God? Compatibilism is the doctrine that providentially determined works are “compatible” with moral blameworthiness and praiseworthiness. In other words, though God's providence determines the works of human beings (whether good or bad), human beings are responsible for their works and either merit reward or de-merit penalty. So, contrary to Calvin's belief that a creature's dependence on God eliminates the possibility of merit, the opposite is actually true. It is precisely because God the Lawgiver determines the acts of His moral agents that they are held responsible (blameworthy or praiseworthy) for what they do. For an excellent treatment of compatibilism, see Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will.

Let's apply compatibilism to Adam in the garden-covenant of works. All of Adam's works were providentially determined by God, and yet, all of Adam's works in the garden were responsible, such that he would deserve condemnation for sin and reward for obedience. Some don't like the idea that Adam could deserve a reward from God because they think it allows the creature to obligate or coerce the Creator. But, God *wants* to delight in and reward that which is good and penalize that which is bad. It is God's nature to love good and hate evil. To assert that He must do so does not trap God in His own creation or make Him dependent on men. Rather, it is simply to insist that God must be God.

Now, apply compatibilism to Christ in His obedience to the covenant of redemption. Where Adam failed in God's providence, Christ succeeded in God's providence. Though the acts of Christ's human nature were providentially determined, He was responsible for what He did. Christ's good works (in life and unto death) pleased a good God and merited the reward for all who are in Him. God "had to" reward Christ for His goodness, but He "had to" because He "wanted to" because He is good.

So, what of the rest of fallen humankind? The actions of fallen human beings in Adam are providentially determined (Prov 16:9; 21:1; Jer 10:23; Eph 1:11). But, they don't merit anything from God because they don't do anything good: “There is none who does good” (Rom 3:12). Instead, their providentially determined sinful actions can only de-merit the penalty of death: “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).

What, then, of the providentially determined actions of believers in Christ? The providentially determined sins of those in Christ cannot de-merit condemnation because Christ paid the penalty for their de-merit (Rom 8:1). But, Christ's merits also purchased good works to be produced within those who are in Him. So, are the providentially determined good works of those in Christ meritorious? Absolutely not! Christ has already “filled-up” divine justice with His merit; so, there is no room for any more merit. Those in Christ are “under” Christ's perfect merit, and the good works in them simply flow from Christ's already perfect merit. Therefore, the good works of those in Christ are not in themselves meritorious but are gifts of God's grace, which are free to us, but meritoriously costly to Christ.

So, here we see that in later Reformed orthodoxy, grace is built upon merit. Providentially determined merit is the foundation of providentially determined grace. God's providential determination is not only the foundation of grace. It is also the foundation of both merit and de-merit, which are more fundamental than grace.

This means that grace does not flow to us directly from the divine decree and through divine providence. Rather, grace flows to us through the merits of Jesus Christ.

Grace and Merit – John Calvin

2011-07-04T14:23:00.004-04:00

The Reformed tradition does not agree on how to understand the relationship between “grace” and “merit.” Merit is about the value of actions. A meritorious action is an act to which God owes a reward. More precisely, a meritorious human action is a good work that justly requires a holy God to reward it. Conversely, “grace” is a reward God gives to someone who has not merited it. It is a gift God freely gives to someone who not deserve it.

Calvin deplored the term “merit” because he believed it an unnecessary philosophical addition to the teaching of Scripture. He abhorred the idea that a creature could merit anything from God because that would imply that the creature is independent of the Creator. The good works of human beings do not originate from themselves. Rather, the good works human beings do are themselves grace gifts of God. Therefore, human beings can never be said to merit anything by their good works. The rewards God gives to good works are, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, “grace upon grace.”

One interesting implication of Calvin's denial of merit is that there is no reason to exclude human works from justification. Now, Calvin did clearly exclude human works from justification and affirmed imputed righteousness along with its corollary: faith alone. But, if good works are gifts of God's grace and have no merit in themselves, then it is not necessary to exclude them from justification in order to retain the gracious character of justification. Perhaps this is why Calvin didn't fault Augustine too much for holding exactly that viewpoint. What Calvin opposed was the Roman Catholic notion of meritorious human works in justification, which human beings independently added to God's grace.

But, there are a few questions that emerge from Calvin's view. First, if human beings cannot merit anything before God, then should we also deny that the human nature of Christ merited eternal life by His righteousness? Second, if human beings cannot merit anything before God by their good works, then why is it important to deny a place to good works in justification? Third, if the good works of human beings cannot merit reward from God, then why should we affirm that the sins of human beings de-merit a penalty from God? This third question leads to some controversial matters, but Calvin taught that the creature is never independent of the Creator, even when the creature sins. And, if the creature is dependent upon the Creator, even when he sins, then how can the creature de-merit a penalty from God as if his sins originated independently of God?

In another post, we'll examine some developments in later Reformed Orthodoxy that sought to answer the questions above.

What Does it Mean to Love Christ?

2011-05-31T10:16:00.002-04:00

Adapted from Holiness by J.C. Ryle.

The answer to this question is no different from what it means to love anyone. What does it mean to love your husband or wife, or to love a parent or a child, or to love a good friend? Love to Christ is not substantially different from love for any person.

If we love Christ, we like to think about Him. He is often present in our thoughts. It is that way between a true Christian and Christ. Eph 3:17 says that Christ “dwells in his heart.” True Christians think thoughts of Christ.

If we love Christ, we like to hear about Him. We find pleasure in listening to those who speak about Christ. True Christians most enjoy sermons that are full of Christ, and they enjoy the company of those who speak of Christ. “Did not our hearts burn within us, while He talked with us on the road, while He opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32)?

If we love Christ, we like to read about Him. The true Christian delights in the Scriptures because they speak of Christ. It is not wearisome to read a letter from a loved one. “You search the Scriptures . . . it is they that bear witness about Me” (Jn 5:39).

If we love Christ, we like to please Him. We are happy to find out what He likes and what He dislikes. We are willing to deny ourselves to please Him. To someone who loves Christ, the Ten Commandments are not burdensome, if they are what pleases Him. “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15); “And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:3).

If we love Christ, we like His friends. Even before we meet a friend of a friend, we are inclined to like him. True Christians regard all other Christians as friends because they are friends of the Lord Jesus Christ. “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15).

If we love Christ, we are jealous about His name and honor. We do not like to hear anyone speak against Him. We feel jealous to maintain His interests and reputation. “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

If we love Christ, we talk to Him. The true Christian has no difficulty in speaking to his Savior. We tell Him all our thoughts. We have no hesitation about telling Him anything that is on our mind. We are not happy until we have spoken our minds and hearts to our friend. We ask for comfort in difficulty. “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:6-7).

Finally, if we love Christ, we like to be with Him. Thinking, hearing, and talking are all important, but if we really love a person, we want to be near him. The true Christian wants to hold communion with Christ without interruption. The true Christian longs for that day when he will see Christ face to face. “Surely I am coming soon. Amen! Come Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20)!

These are the marks of true love. It is no hidden or secret thing that is hard to understand.

What was Adam's Sin in the Garden?

2011-05-13T15:54:00.007-04:00

We're all familiar with the fact that Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But, was that his only sin? Eating from the forbidden tree only violated a "positive law," which is a law that could have been something else and is not itself "moral."

But, think of all the moral laws Adam broke when he ate from the tree.

He broke the first and second commandment: You shall have no other gods before Me. And, no idols. By eating of the tree, Adam valued something over God and idolized the devil's false promise.

He broke the third commandment: You shall not take (or carry) God's name in vain. When Adam ate from the tree, he profaned God's name and reputation.

He broke the fourth commandment: Six days you shall work, but the seventh is the Sabbath. Whether Adam sinned on a workday or the Sabbath day, his sin violated the fourth command. If it was a workday, Adam was living idly and was distracted in the pursuit of something he should not have been pursuing. If it was the Sabbath day, Adam was not resting by faith in God, and he was not worshipping God as God required, but was pursuing a false form of worship.

He broke the fifth commandment: Honor your father and mother is about obeying authorities. God was Adam's father (Lk 3:38) and Adam directly disobeyed God's command.

He broke the sixth commandment: Do not murder. Adam watched as Eve murdered herself (by eating the fruit) and he murdered himself by eating the fruit.

He broke the seventh commandment: Do not commit adultery. Instead of defending, leading, protecting, and seeking the good of his wife, he and his wife both pursued satisfaction in an idol. This violates the positive aspect of the command, which relates to marital fidelity.

He broke the eighth commandment: Do not steal. God did not give Adam the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve stole the fruit.

He broke the ninth commandment: Do not bear false witness. Adam's silence while Eve ate the fruit was pure deception. Adam refused to tell the truth to Eve in the moment she needed to hear it.

He broke the tenth commandment: Do not covet. Adam was not grateful for the Garden, for his wife, for life, or for sweet communion with God in the cool of the day. He was not content with what God had given him, but instead coveted godhood. Adam wanted to be God; so, he believed the devil's lie.

Adam broke each of the Ten Commandments when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

The American Mind

2011-04-19T14:54:00.004-04:00

Have you ever wondered why intellectual childhood is prolonged in our culture? Has it ever bothered you that fully grown adults are so susceptible to advertisements and the suggestions of mass media? Do you find it disturbing that many educated people are unable to follow logical arguments and speak to the question at hand, or that irrelevant material crops up in committee meetings, or that people regularly fail both to define their terms and stick to those definitions? Why do young people forget most of what they learned in school?

In her classic essay, The Lost Tools of Learning, Dorothy Sayers raised many such questions and offered an obvious solution based on the history of education. Schools stopped teaching students how to think and how to learn for themselves in favor of making them memorize information. Educators stopped emphasizing the “method” of learning in favor of teaching “subjects” in hermetically sealed compartments. The result is that students who are most capable of memorization finish school with heads full of data, but their minds are not equipped to process, question, analyze, and draw conclusions about information. The social effect of such education is a public that is generally incapable of thinking clearly and critically about life. But, it was not always this way.

Dorothy Sayers reminds us that classical schools emphasized the “Trivium,” which is designed to teach students how to think, how to learn for themselves, and to become lifelong learners who love books and love learning. The Trivium is a three stage method of education that follows the normal course of childhood development.

When children are very young, their minds are like little sponges. They are most suited at this developmental stage to absorb large amounts of raw information. Classical education takes advantage of this by teaching them the grammar, or basic facts, of language, history, science, and math. This is called the grammar stage of the Trivium.

When they reach early adolescence, children begin to argue with their parents and to challenge the things they are told. At this stage of development, they are prepared to study formal logic. In the logic stage of the Trivium, they learn the rules of right thinking, logical fallacies, and are taught how to process information properly, to make fine distinctions, and to get behind the mere data to the presuppositions and philosophy underlying school subjects such as math, science, history, language, etc. No longer are students merely handed information on a platter to be stored in memory, but they are taught to think about what foundations undergird the information, the logical consistency of the information, and the logical implications of the information. Furthermore, the various subjects are integrated so that it is shown how science relates to history, how math relates to art, how science relates to literature, and so on. Our world is one great unified creation, the product of one divine mind. We need to be taught to think about all of it wholistically and in light of the total Christian world-and-life-view.

In their later years of schooling, youth become most concerned about appearances, what others think about them, and how they present themselves. Now, they are prepared to learn how to present their thoughts in ways that are attractive to others. They are ready to learn the art of beautiful communication from the best classic literary communicators of history. They are taught to write well, speak well, and read good books. It isn't enough to know the facts or to process the facts. They need to be taught how to communicate winsomely. This is called the rhetoric stage of the Trivium.

The Bible commands, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition” (Col 2:8), and Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Classical Christian Education aims to help train children and young people to do this. This is the vision of Cornerstone Classical Christian Academy, which was born out of the vision of Morningview Baptist Church. I commend Cornerstone to your consideration for the education of your children.

What is a "Devoted" Church?

2011-04-12T21:38:00.013-04:00

Acts 2:41-42 says, “Those who received His Word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”

This text shows that the New Testament church devoted itself to certain basic activities. Churches are free to do all kinds of good things, but they must never neglect what is most basic. Historically, these basic things have been called the "primary means of grace," because they are the first means the church must diligently employ. They have also been called the "ordinary means of grace" because they are "ordained" or "instituted" by Christ. The means of grace only sanctify the church and advance the kingdom when appropriated by faith.

The Baptist Catechism says:
Q 93. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord's supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47).

Devoted to the Apostles' Teaching
The Apostles' teaching is deposited in the Bible. The Bible should be read, sung, and publicly preached in corporate worship services on the Lord's Day. God calls His people to faithfully attend public worship to exalt the risen Savior, to be equipped to live in daily fellowship with Christ, to be taught to think rightly about Him, and to live all of life according to His gracious gospel. God's people must not neglect “to meet together as is the habit of some” (Heb 10:25).

Devoted to Fellowship
Fellowship with the saints means knowing one another in Christ, bearing one another's burdens, and encouraging and exhorting one another in holy living. It is not enough to attend public worship without building solid and edifying relationships with other Christians. We need to know each other in Christ to be healthy Christians. Christian fellowship is a means by which the church is strengthened to fellowship with Christ.

Devoted to Baptism
The text doesn't explicitly say they were "devoted" to baptism, but the mention of baptism in verse 41, implies that they certainly were. The church only baptized those who "received His Word," or professed belief in the message preached. These baptized Christians were subsequently "added." To what were they added? They were added to the number of those counted as belonging to the visible church. The fact that the converts were baptized and numbered implies that there was a well-defined local assembly and an accounting for who was a member of the church and who was not.

Devoted to the Breaking of Bread
The "breaking of bread" denotes the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 10:16). The Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, which Christ commanded His church to observe together to strengthen its corporate faith and unity as it remembers the sacrifice of Christ, its union with Him, and its call to die to sin and live as Christ lived. The Lord's Supper is not an empty ceremony. It is a vital memorial meal, and a faith strengthening ordinance for the church, which God said to observe until Christ returns (1 Cor 11:26). Scripture says that faithfully taking the Lord's Supper with the church of the Lord Jesus is an act of communion with Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17).

Devoted to Prayers
The New Testament churches devoted themselves to corporate prayer. Private prayer is important (Matt 6:6), but so is praying together as a church (Acts 4:24-31; 12:5, 12). Scripture shows how God works mightily through the prayers of His people assembled. Our personal and corporate devotion to Christ is strengthened by corporate prayer. Charles Spurgeon, the great English Baptist preacher of the 19th Century, said that the secret of the power of preaching and the advancement of the gospel in his time was the praying church.

How Should We Treat Our Opponents in Theological and Churchly Controversy?

2011-04-09T10:50:00.002-04:00

On Controversy by John Newton

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.

But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! "He knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose. "If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth" (1 Tim 2:24-25). If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

Read Newton's whole letter here.

Baptism as a Means of Grace

2011-04-06T18:36:00.015-04:00

Here are some of my notes from Dr. Fred Malone's sermon at the ARBCA GA on baptism as a means of grace. If you've never read Dr. Malone's book, Baptism of Disciples Alone, I highly recommend it!

What baptism is a means of grace to the believer?
1. Baptism that is a means of grace is the baptism instituted in the New Testament.
2. New Testament baptism is a baptism of disciples alone.
3. New Testament baptism is a baptism of immersion.
4. Baptism is a church ordinance; therefore, the only instituted baptism is one performed by someone authorized by the church.

Is baptism a means of grace?
1. There is no ex opere operato (from the work performed) grace conveyed in baptism.
2. Baptism is not a "seal" of the new covenant. The Holy Spirit is the "seal." Baptism is a "sign" of covenant membership.
3. Baptism is a means of grace appointed by God to strengthen and encourage the faith of the believer who is baptized. Baptism also strengthens other believers and proclaims the gospel to unbelievers who witness the ordinance.
4. Some Baptists wrongly think baptism completes conversion. That notion is neither taught in Scripture nor the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Those who would make baptism a part of conversion overturn the Bible's gracious doctrine of justification by faith alone because of Christ alone.

How is baptism a means of grace?
1. Baptism is a sign to the person baptized of the full salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ. We should never think of baptism without thinking of the Lord Jesus Christ and saving union with Him. The work of Christ on Calvary's hill must always take precedence in our minds and hearts over the ordinance of baptism itself. As the believer joins faith to his baptism, the Spirit of Christ strengthens the believer's faith, which lays hold of Christ who is proclaimed in the ordinance.
2. Baptism confirms forgiveness of sins in the heart of the believer. It testifies to the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. But, baptism itself has no power to accomplish forgiveness of sin, either as an atonement or as a means of appropriating the atonement.
3. Baptism is an appeal to God from a good conscience. We are not to appeal to baptism itself, but we are to appeal to the Lord Jesus Christ directly in baptism. Baptism, therefore, calls us to turn from sin and to Jesus Christ.
4. Baptism becomes a means of grace in older believers who reflect on their previous baptism. It reminds them of Christ and so strengthens their faith.
5. Baptism is a sign of the believer's future resurrection from the dead in glorification.

What are some applications of baptism as a means of grace?
1. When we administer baptism, we ought always to explain the meaning of baptism. We should explain that it represents the work of Christ in history, union with Christ, the work of Christ within the believer, and the promised bodily resurrection of the believer in the future at the coming of Jesus Christ.
2. When we administer baptism, Dr. Malone recommends including it in the worship service proper. Why not perform it in the middle of the worship service after congregational singing to make sure the people understand it one of the elements of worship, not something merely tacked on to the end, or something preliminary accomplished quickly at the beginning?
3. Some say baptism should be administered immediately after conversion as it was in the book of Acts. But, the converts baptized by John, Jesus, and the Apostles in the New Testament already had a thorough understanding of the OT Scriptures and the basics of divine truth. They lived in a culture of the knowledge of the biblical worldview and the expectation of a holy life. By contrast, many in our society do not have that kind of knowledge. They have little understanding of the gospel that they are committing to believe or the Ten Commandments that they are committing to obey. We are to make disciples before we baptize them. If we do not carefully guard this portal to our church, then we will lose the meaning of the gospel because we will lose regenerate church membership. Our churches will go into decline.

Defining the Means of Grace

2011-04-05T17:57:00.009-04:00

I'm attending ARBCA's General Assembly this week with my father-in-law and Fred Malone; so, I thought I'd pass along some of the material. Dr. Jim Renihan, dean of IRBS out at Westminster Theological Seminary West, just gave a thought provoking talk on the nature and meaning of the "means of grace." Here is my outline of some of what he said:

How does God dispense His grace to the elect? He does so through means of grace.

What does “means of grace" mean?
1. “Grace” is God's unmerited favor extended to sinners. It originates with God, and it comes only from Him. Grace provides every aspect of salvation and is completely apart from any works.
2. “Means” comes from the Latin word “media.” These are the instruments, or methods, God employs to bring grace to the elect, both in the inception of salvation and in the continuance of salvation.

What are “the means of grace?”
1. They are not merely good or useful activities in the Christian church and the Christian life.
2. If you examine the Reformed Confessions, you will find technical language used to define and identify the “means of grace.”

From the 1689 Second Londo n Baptist Confession

2LBCF 28:1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.

2LBCF 29:1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

2LBCF 30:1. The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and showing to all the world the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.

There are two criteria of "means of grace" in the statements above.
1. Divine Institution. Or, in sharper language, "dominical" institution. Only the Lord may institute means of grace. Some of God's institutions are limited to a particular covenant, such as circumcision. But dominical institution are divine institutions that come from Jesus Christ in the new covenant.
2. A Promise of Divine Blessing Attached to the Institution. This is covenantal thinking. The acts God commands, or institutes, are related to His covenant. God explicitly promises that He will bless these acts, and thus, we are able to trust His promise of blessing.

What, then, is the method God has appointed by which He accomplishes His converting and sanctifying will in the church?
It is primarily through the preaching of His Word. The preached Word of God is the preeminent means of grace. But God's primary means also include baptism, the Lord's Supper, and prayer. There are some other secondary means as well. Occasional days of fasting and thanksgiving should not be neglected, for example.

Some Cautions
1. This doctrine is not intended to teach that the above activities are the only activities that may or should ever be present in the church. There is a wide variety of activities in which our churches may and should participate. But, the "ordinary/ordained means of grace" are the things we must always do and never neglect. And, these are the only activities upon which we may expect and anticipate God's blessing. there are, however, some things churches may do and perhaps ought to do, but are they are not means of grace and therefore no promise of blessing rests upon them. Such acts may include: associations of churches, ministerial training institutions, youth groups, small groups, Christian schools, home schools, counseling centers, SS, fellowship meals, discipleship meetings, financial giving, etc.

2. We must take care not to invent man made means of grace for ourselves and wrongly expect God to bless them. For example: altar calls [the anxious bench, marketing/business strategies, pomp and ceremony, lights and fanfare, etc.]. That was the error of Roman Catholicism.

3. Not Ex Opere Operato (in the doing it is done). God never promises to bless any acts of obedience to the means of grace when faith is lacking. For example, the preaching of the Word only brings grace to the hearer when the hearer believes the message preached.

For further consideration: Consider how the means of grace relate to the five solas of the Reformation: sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria. Consider how the means of grace relates to the regulative principle of worship (proper worship is “means of grace” worship).

Justification: Does Paul Contradict James?

2011-03-30T09:21:00.010-04:00

Some have said that Paul and James contradict each other on the doctrine of justification. Paul says, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (Rom 3:28), but James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas 2:24). At face value, Paul seems to be saying we are justified by faith alone, while James seems to be saying that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. But, the solution to this apparent contradiction is that Paul and James are using the word "justified" in two different senses. Paul is saying that we are declared to be righteous before God through faith on the basis of Christ's righteousness. James is saying that our works show or demonstrate our righteousness.

Careful attention to the context of James 2 proves that James is thinking of demonstrations of righteousness. Here are a few lines of evidence.

1. James 2:21 says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" The timing of Abraham's justification by works is important. Abraham was first justified by faith in Genesis 15:6, where we're told, "And he believed the LORD and it was counted to him as righteousness." But, Abraham's offering up of Isaac doesn't occur until Genesis 22. So, James is not saying that Abraham was justified by works when he first believed, but only when his initial justification was later evidenced by the works of faith. Abraham's works were demonstrations of a previous justification.

2. James 2:22 says, "Faith was completed by his works." But, what does it mean that "works" complete "faith?" This same Greek word translated "complete" is used in 2 Corinthians 12:9, where God says, "My power is made perfect (completed) in weakness." God can't be saying that His power only truly becomes power in weakness. Rather, He is saying that His power is evidenced in our weakness. In the same way, our faith is evidenced, or completed, by our works. James is talking about evidence in this passage; so, he must be using the word "justified" differently than Paul.

3. The second chapter of James uses a number terms that mean "demonstrate." James says, "show me your faith" (James 2:18), "I will show you my faith" (James 2:18), "Do you want to be shown" (Jas 2:20), "You see that faith was active" (Jas 2:22), "You see" (Jas 2:24). Since the theme of the passage is "showing" and "seeing," it makes most sense to read James' understanding of the word "justified" in that light.

4. It is clear from other passages that "demonstration" is well within the range of the meaning of the word "justified." For example, in Matthew 11:19, Jesus says, "Wisdom is justified by her deeds." It would make no sense to interpret that verse to mean "Wisdom is made to be wisdom by her deeds" or "wisdom is constituted righteous by her deeds." Instead, Jesus is saying that "wisdom is evidenced/demonstrated to be wisdom by her deeds."

In conclusion, Paul and James are using the word "justified" in two different senses. Paul is talking about what makes us righteous before God (Christ alone by faith alone), while James is talking about what proves our righteousness before God (faith working through love).

Is “Knocking on Doors” a Good Method of Evangelism?

2011-03-29T00:08:00.013-04:00

I would argue that the best method of evangelism is what we might call “integrated evangelism,” which involves living like Christ and speaking of Christ at the baseball fields, in restaurants, in our business relationships, at the workplace, and with our neighbors as we go about all of life. It means looking for opportunities to serve others and meet the needs of those around us every day, doing good in the name of Jesus Christ. We ought to become strategic about faithful presence and proclamation in every aspect of life. But, if you can't say that you are already faithful in that wholistic way, and if you know you ought do better at keeping Christ's commandment to preach the gospel out of joy in Him and love to Him, then may I commend Morningview's G.R.A.C.E. ministry to you? Some have thoughtful objections to “knocking on doors” to proclaim the gospel. Let me address just a few of them.

It is One-Dimensional.
Some have suggested that proclaiming the gospel on someone's doorstep may deliver the Word of Christ, but it lacks demonstrations of love and kindness, and so it is one-dimensional. But, the Bible says to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), which means it must be possible to demonstrate love in the way we speak to others. If we visit homes and proclaim the gospel, not just to do our monthly duty of evangelism, but from sincere love for God and His glory, and out of an earnest love and care for the souls of sinners, then others will be able to perceive it. If we can't express love for others in how we speak to them, in the way we show concern for them personally, in the sincerity, kindness, and urgency of our tone of voice, then the problem may be with our sanctification, not with any given method of evangelism. How do we develop an earnestness for souls? We do that by knowing and loving Jesus more. There was none more earnest for the salvation of sinners than our Savior. If we love Him, we'll become like Him.

It is Too Much Like a Sales Visit.
Too many salesmen convince people they have a need they don't really have, and then they try to sell a product that doesn't really benefit the buyer. But, preaching the law and the gospel is about showing sinners that they have an urgent need that they don't know they have and can't know they have. Satan has “blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Cor 4:4), which means unregenerate sinners will always think you're trying to sell them something. They don't see that their sin is outright rebellion against their Creator, and consequently, they don't see that they must be reconciled to a holy God through the blood of Christ. They will never see it apart from the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. This means we shouldn't get too caught up in how lost people perceive our work of evangelism. They will never approve of it, until God changes their hearts. Historically speaking, the road to serious theological error has often come through compromises designed to get sinners to approve of evangelism and missions. Christ was the perfect evangelist, full of love and mercy. They killed Him for it. Let us follow Him.

It is Not Enough Time to Present the Whole Gospel.
The total gospel is revealed in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. We are all still learning the many nuances and inter-connections of all the facets of the gospel of Jesus Christ and how it changes our thinking and daily living. So, it is true that an afternoon visit on someone's doorstep can never communicate everything the gospel communicates. But, it is possible to communicate the basic apostolic teaching about salvation in Jesus Christ in a very brief period of time. That basic message is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, “Now I would remind you, brothers of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you - unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” That basic message is what the Holy Spirit uses to open up sinful minds and hearts. Let us be faithful to sow the seed He has provided.

Thoughts?

Should the Church Preach the Social Gospel?

2011-03-23T00:44:00.017-04:00

I was re-reading Martin Lloyd Jones' book, Preaching and Preachers, in preparation for our elders meeting tonight and benefitted again from wise words about the social gospel and the church. To summarize, Lloyd Jones says the primary means of grace given to the church is the Word of Christ. While she goes about her task of preaching the gospel, the church will incidentally educate, provide knowledge, make men good, improve social conditions, etc., but none of those things is the means God gave the church to build the kingdom.

He writes:

Take all this new interest in the social application of the Gospel, and the idea of going to live amongst the people and to talk politics and to enter into their social affairs and so on. . . . The very thing that is regarded as so new today has already been tried, and tried with great thoroughness in the early part of this century.

The answer is that they were failures, they were proved to be failures . . . I have no hesitation in asserting that what was largely responsible for emptying the churches in Great Britain was that 'social gospel' preaching and the institutional church.

The Church has been trying to preach morality and ethics without the Gospel as a basis; it has been preaching morality without godliness; and it simply does not work. It never has done, and it never will.

Lloyd Jones is not saying that the Gospel doesn't apply to, or have an impact on all of life, culture, society, politics, etc., when it is faithfully lived out. He writes, "My argument is that when the church performs her primary task, these other things invariably result from it." He's saying that the *local church* is not to concentrate on any of these things, or try to use any of these things, as a means of building the kingdom of God. He says that preaching is the primary means of kingdom building.

I would agree that while the preached Word is the primary means, the local church is to use the Word, prayer, and sacrament as the ordinary means of grace in its worship, discipleship, discipline, and mission.

What do you think?

What does it Mean to be Reformed?

2010-12-21T10:55:00.031-05:00

The Reformed tradition is not limited to the doctrine of predestination, but is a vast biblical expression of all Christian theology and practice. Here are some of the emphases of the Reformed tradition.

Confessions of Faith. The Reformed tradition is unapologetically confessional, though it recognizes the supreme authority and sufficiency of Scripture alone, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit. By articulating various articles of belief, confessions of faith make explicit Reformed theology's understanding of Scripture, and as such, are used as standards of teaching, membership, and discipline in Reformed churches. Historically, the Reformed tradition can be identified and traced by examining the confessions of faith produced by the churches that emerged from the Reformation.

Salvation by Sovereign Grace. Reformed theology teaches that God saves sinners by sovereign grace for His own glory. The Father eternally chose certain individuals for salvation, sent the Son to atone for their sins alone, and on the basis of Christ's redeeming work, gave the Spirit to unite us to Christ for regeneration, justification and sanctification. These truths humble the sinner and glorify God.

Covenant Theology. Covenant theology is at the heart of Reformed theology's Christ-centeredness. Adam failed to keep God's law in the garden covenant of works and so was cursed with death, but where Adam failed, Christ succeeded in the covenant of grace and merited eternal life for His people so that they would receive justification by faith alone. The distinction between the law and the gospel is rooted in the federal headships of Adam and Christ, and is not based on any distinction between Israel and the church or the Old and New Testaments. Throughout the Bible, there is only one moral law of God perfectly embodied in Christ, one promise of grace in the gospel of Christ, and one people of God redeemed by the blood of Christ. Both the Old and New Testaments, therefore, inform and govern Christian doctrine and practice.

The Goodness of Creation. The Reformed tradition emphasizes the fact that God's creation is good and not evil or “worldly.” It is to be used as a means to the end of worshipping and obeying God. Idolatry happens when any created thing is elevated above God and loved more than God or not for His sake. In creation, God provided a good garden to enjoy, and instituted work/vocation, marriage, and the Sabbath rest. It is good to enjoy food, drink, and all material things and physical pleasures under God's law and to His glory.

Communion with God. Reformed theology has historically emphasized a rich devotional life and personal piety by the two primary means of grace: the Word of God and prayer. These direct our thoughts to Christ the Mediator, and to continual communion with Him in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit illumines our minds to understand and apply the Scriptures in all of life. Knowledge of Christ through the Scriptures and prayerful communion transforms our thinking and enables us to live humble, gracious, and obedient lives that glorify Christ. Personal devotions and family devotions are important means of growing in communion with Christ.

The Moral Law of God. God's moral law not only exposes sin and drives sinners to Christ for salvation, but also serves as a guide, or rule of life, for the believer. God's requirement for believers is not dependent on circumstances or future revelations, but is clearly revealed in His moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Believers, therefore, live in liberty, free from the doctrines and commandments of men, and from subjective impressions, since where there is no law, there is no sin.

Faithfulness in All of Life. Practically speaking, living under the gospel of grace with the law as a guide encompasses every sphere of human existence. Love to God and love to men must govern life in the home, church, business (work/vocation), education, arts, entertainment, social service to the poor and needy, and civil government. Obedience in all of life fulfills the dominion mandate of the garden to subdue the earth and rule over it with sacrificial loving service and authority. Christians are therefore to be faithful to Christ and His gospel of grace in word and deed in every aspect of life. This is the Christian mission.

The Primacy of the Church. The local church is the outpost of God's kingdom. It is the primary means though which the gospel of Christ is proclaimed, supported, and defended, through which believers are nurtured in Christlikeness. Reformed churches are committed to an ordinary means of grace ministry, which includes the public reading and proclamation of Scripture, public prayers, the right administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, and loving fellowship. They are devoted to biblical leadership (with the goal of a plurality of elders and deacons), biblical church discipline, and regular family worship in the home. Churches are to be well-disciplined oases of love, grace, and godliness, separated from the kingdom of darkness, while bearing witness of Christ to the darkness. The church is not primarily to be oriented toward unbelievers nor is its primary purpose evangelism but worship. A faithful worshipping church, however, will be evangelistic and missional. The structure and systems of the church are to be determined and regulated by the Bible alone.

Regulated and Reverential Worship. The public worship of God must be regulated by His Word, free from human innovation, and only according to the elements He prescribes. The primary elements of worship are the Word and sacrament. Because our sovereign God is both transcendent and immanent, Christian worship should be both fearful and joyful, rooted in gratitude for redemption in Christ to the glory of the triune God. The preached Word of God is the high point and centerpiece of biblical worship.

Books Read in 2010

2010-11-30T20:58:00.001-05:00

Here's a list of books I read in 2010 in no particular order.

A House for My Name by Peter J. Leithart

God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts

According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy

The Joy of Fearing God by Jerry Bridges

The Fear of God by John Bunyan

Shepherding God's Flock, ed. Roger Beardmore

Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung

Decision Making and the Will of God by Gary Friesen

A Theological Interpreration of American History by C. Gregg Singer

Politics by Wayne Grudem

Republocrat by Carl Trueman

Culture Making by Andy Crouch

Living in God's Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen

Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken

The Callings by Paul Helm

God at Work by Gene Edward Veith

Radical by David Platt

Dynamics of Spiritual Life by Richard Lovelace

The Christian Pastor by Stephen Tyng (still reading)

The Christian Pastor - Lecture 1

2010-11-30T13:47:00.011-05:00

The Christian Pastor: The Office and Duty of the Gospel Minister by Stephen H. Tyng (1873)

I thought it would be helpful for my own personal growth to blog through a book on pastoral ministry this Christmas season. In an age when the corporate model of ministry prevails, the Church of Jesus Christ needs to recover the Bible’s teaching about what it actually means to “pastor.” I want to be a better pastor. Previous generations got this right, and I think we’d be wise to listen to them. I picked up this little book from Solid Ground Christian Books, and it comes recommended by Tom Nettles, who wrote, “The Christian Pastor by Stephen H Tyng is very personable and pastoral and sound.”

Lecture 1: The Personal Object of the Pastor

Tyng begins by distinguishing between a Pastor and a Preacher. A Christian pastor is a Christian preacher. While the two are not the same, they could never be safely torn apart. The preacher’s task is publicly to expound the divine truth and to set God before men. The pastor’s task is to have an affectionate and sanctified heart, deep sympathy for others, and to be able to apply God’s truth with precision to the ignorant, lost, new convert, suffering, weak, growing, and advancing Christian. The preacher must have a sound mind, rich knowledge of the Word of God, and an ability to communicate it. The pastor must know how the human heart works, be able to sort out difficult circumstances, and understand how to apply the Word of God to the consciences of men.

Tyng says he is not going to focus on the details of preaching in this lecture, but on the general duties and faithfulness of a pastor. He approvingly quotes another man as saying, “They are not the great preachers in our Church who are the most useful to us, but the faithful, earnest pastors. Our revivals come more from prayer and private exhortation than from public preaching.” What, then, is the “object” of the pastor in the Church of Jesus Christ? It is to be the authoritative bearer of the divine message. The pastor, therefore, has a twofold task and burden: (1) to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and (2) earnestly to care for souls, to lead them to receive and live for Christ. A pastor is characterized by sincere love: love for Christ and love for men. The love of Christ constrains the pastor. A true pastor doesn’t indulge showy pretense or sanctimonious (and loveless) professionalism, but is motivated by sincere love for the honor of Christ and deep desire for the salvation and sanctification of souls. A true pastor isn’t distracted by cold unbelieving speculation, argumentation, and investigation into Christ’s being and history, but we “know whom we have believed” (2 Tim 1:12). His reality holds our hearts captive! His authority and grace are absolute and full!

First, we declare Him. No matter where we go or what we do, as pastors, we tell the same story over and over. At the sickbed, at weddings, in homes, at funerals, in the counseling room, in discipleship relationships, in the pulpit. We never weary of proclaiming the divine message: God is holy. Men are sinners. In a glorious act of mercy, Jesus Christ took on flesh to identify with miserable little sinners. And He graciously and freely pardons the chiefest of all. Repent and believe on Him. Live! Why will you die? Never be afraid to deliver this message freely. Be candid and free in your approach to all men and to every kind of man. Men will reject the message. But, the only way to have any true and lasting fruit is to declare it with authority, sincere love for Christ, and an earnest desire for the souls of men. You must set God Himself before men. Christ must be thrust before them. There will be no fruit in debating and discussing and arguing about this and that subject. Sincere thoughtful reasoned consideration has its place, but the pastor’s chief goal is declaring Christ.

Second, we are to bring all men to a living Almighty Savior. This means a pastor must not only be a student of the Scriptures, but he must be a student of the hearts of men and of his own heart. You must “take heed that you offend not one of his little ones” (Matt 18:10), nor “break the bruised reeds nor quench the smoking flax” (Matt 12:20). You must vary your applications to all sorts of men, to the immature, the strong, the suffering, the grieving, the backsliding, the ignorant and careless, the self-righteous, the false professor, the young Christian, and the confirmed and consistent Christian. Pastors must, therefore, be students of men, of the streams of sin as they run in the consciences of men, not merely students of Scripture. Pastors must understand not only the cure, but the illness itself. They must know the law of sin and death (Rom 7:23) as well as the gospel.

In a time when many think ministerial “success” depends business techniques and corporate models, we need to hear these closing words from pastor Tyng: “I pray you never forget that our success in this work is not from the wisdom, the power, the eloquence, the magnetism, as it has been called, of particular men. It is wholly from the power of the Holy Ghost. In all truly successful men, it is the power of prayer -- the power of humble, self-renouncing faith -- the power of a close, patient, loving walk with Jesus. . . . Let this glorifying of Jesus be the Sun which lights your public preaching and the outspreading light which makes clear, attractive, and effectual your private ministrations.”

Some Puritan Social Theory

2010-10-29T17:59:00.003-04:00

I just started reading A Theological Interpretation of American History by C. Gregg Singer and found his succinct summary of Puritan political thought in the first chapter stimulating. He shows that the early American Puritans self-consciously based their social and political theory on Calvinism, which emphasizes the sufficiency and supreme authority of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, divine creation, the depravity of man, and God's redeeming grace.

The Puritans affirmed that the Sovereign God of the Bible created the whole universe, rules it in His providence, and reveals laws to order it in His Word. Human beings are therefore to submit self-consciously to God's kingly (sovereign) rule, not only in their individual and church lives, but also in their political, economic, and social lives.

Government Theory

Puritans believed that the Scriptures alone reveal the divine origin, proper scope, and responsibilities of government. Because human beings are totally depraved sinners by nature, government must have checks and balances and must rule according to God's revealed moral law. The government derives its power from God, not from the people, though magistrates were elected by the people. In Puritan thought, both the voters and the magistrates were to look to the Scriptures as the guide to the conduct of the government. Both the rulers and the people were therefore subject to God's revealed Word, and the will of the people could never take precedence over Scripture.

At the same time, there was a separation of church and state. Though the responsibilities of church and state are both rooted in the Bible's theology, the church is an instrument of special grace, while the state is an instrument of common grace. The state is to exercise authority over temporal life, while the church is to preach the gospel for eternal life. Because of the doctrine of effectual calling and unconditional election, the Puritans did not believe that the government could require men to trust in Christ. Thus, their Calvinism formed the foundation of liberty of conscience. The government's role was only to enforce the outward aspect of the Ten Commandments in society, though it must never coerce the human conscience or require men to believe. In contrast to the government, the church's role was to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances, and maintain church discipline. In practice, the Puritans sometimes did a poor job maintaining the separation of church and state because they lost sight of the fact that the connection between the two is theological, not structural or institutional. The church and state did not always keep to their separate institutional callings.

Thus, in the area of political thought, Puritanism left us with a government of law, rather than a government of men (democracy or monarchy). This is seen in our constitutional-republic form of government, which rightly understands law to transcend both the masses and elected officials.

Economic Theory

The Puritan concept of economics differed from the laissez faire economics of Adam Smith. American Puritan John Cotton, for example, denounced the idea that people should sell as high as they can and buy as cheap as they can. Instead, the goal in economics should always be a “just price,” never a “deal” or a “steal.” As a result, Puritans believed in some government regulation of prices in commerce and industry, though they saw this as a restraint on human sin and greed, not as an effort to usher in a utopain dream (as in Marxism). Neither Socialism nor Communism had any place in their thinking. Those systems would have been viewed as a violation of the 8^th commandment (do not steal). The government has no right to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, simply because they are poor. Puritans also strongly recognized the right of property and private ownership, contra Communism.

Working in one's vocation was a valued virtue in Puritanism. Human beings were to work in their callings in an “other-centered” way, for the good of their neighbors to the glory of God. Puritans promoted hard work, but not for personal prosperity. They said men are to work hard out of love to God and love to others in obedience to the first and second great commandments and in conformity to the Ten Commandments. As such, labor was a form of service and devotion to God and thus a form of worship. Since work is other-centered, they believed that the poor and sick and all those unable to earn a living should be cared for by those who are able to work. The government was to provide some assistance in this, but the welfare state was foreign to the Puritans. Cotton Matther rightly predicted result of this Puritan work ethic in his famous saying, “Religion begat prosperity and the daughter devoured the mother.” The hard work that flowed from the diligent devotion of the Puritans produced incredible weath and created a society that valued hard work. But, the material prosperity that flowed from the social work ethic became a cultural idol that led us away from the truth over time.

What is Disciple Making?

2010-10-28T11:43:00.009-04:00

Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert just made a video titled "the mission of the church," which discusses the question of social engagement. Doug Wilson picked up on the video and wrote this piece over at Blog and Mablog.

I think a lot of the confusion has to do with who is responsible to do what. Of course disciple making involves engaging with everything. The Bible addresses every aspect of life. We don't have a narrow, truncated, piecemeal faith. But, every person and every institution is not required to engage everything in the same way. Our precise responsibilities are a matter of personal and institutional callings.

Greg and Kevin seem to be approaching the question largely from the perspective of pastoral calling and the institutional church. When Kevin says (at around 7 minutes) that the Apostles didn't address or seek to transform the whole world (art, literature, education, government, economics, business, etc.), he's only highlighting the Apostolic calling (or pastoral calling) and the calling of the institutional church. But, you can't limit the callings of individual Christians (the church scattered) to proclamation and the transformation of individuals. When we read the whole Bible, especially the OT and NT eschatology, we find that it addresses the whole world.

I agree that pastors and institutional churches are not called to transform the world. We are called to preach the gospel and make disciples, teaching them to observe everything Christ commanded. We've got to center on Christ and whenever we mention anything else, it is secondary to Him. Our vocation is proclamation and making sure God's people never forget that the kingdom is Personal. If we pastors fail to "stay in the lane" of our callings, and if we start trying to excel in the knowledge or practice of politics, art, business, etc., we're going to do it poorly, and we're likely going to elevate secondary issues to primary concerns. On that level, I can "amen" the video. I also agree that every Christian is called to "proclaim" the gospel, not just "live" the gospel.

I think Wilson is right, however, that discipleship is much bigger than changing the minds and hearts of individuals. What will happen when doctors, lawyers, teachers, politicians, artists, and businessmen come to faith in Christ? They will love Christ and keep His commandments in their callings. It will change how they work in the world and the more the church scattered fills up society, the more society will be transformed. We saw this in the Awakenings. Whole towns and cultures were transformed. As pastors, we need to teach that faith in Christ and conformity to His likeness touches every part of life, including our callings.

My struggle with Wilson, and I read his blog regularly, is that he seems to think the calling of the institutional church and of pastors is to change the world. I don't see Wilson preaching Christ, speaking warmly of the Savior, clearly summoning our affections to be settled on Him, to rejoice in Him, to find comfort in Him, to delight in His imputed righteousness, and in the gift of His Spirit. Wilson seems to think his chief pastoral responsibility is to call us to change the world. I think Wilson's chief responsibility is to call us to Christ and to stay fixed on Him personally.

So, I think a lot of this debate has to do with our respective responsibilities and with keeping first things first. We need to recover the biblical Reformed doctrine of "vocation." I recommend The Callings by Paul Helm and God at Work by Gene Edward Veith for anyone who would like to read up on the subject. Institutions have callings (church, family, government, entertainment, business, education, etc.). Individuals also have callings that are usually connected to social institutions. We need to learn to trust and love Christ, to keep His commandments in whatever God has called us to do, knowing that He is the one who multiplies our labors and brings forth fruit, even when it seems like our little piece of the pie isn't that valuable and doesn't have much impact. We shouldn't feel guilty about loving Christ and keeping His commands while staying at our posts (and in our own lanes). We need to be content and take care not to venture beyond our callings, since if we are truly in our calling, then that is how we will make *the most* impact for the kingdom of Christ.

There are my two cents.

A.W. Pink: A Study in Dispensationalism - Part 3

2009-12-24T12:11:00.004-05:00

In the third chapter, Pink takes Dispensationalism to task for "separating" (rather than appropriately distinguishing) law and gospel. Classic Dispensationalism claims that a literal reading of the Bible leads to a contradiction in Scripture, unless the interpreter understands that the Jews were under the law, while Gentiles are under the gospel.

Classic Dispensationalism separates the law and the gospel by separating the Old and New Testaments. The OT Law teaches "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Exod 21:24). But, the NT Gospel teaches, "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt 5:39). This is a contradiction, according to the Dispensationalist, unless it is understood that the Exodus text applies to Israel under the law-dispensation, while the Matthew text applies to the church under the gospel-dispensation.

Pink says that this way of separating law and gospel is a mishandling of Scripture. He says, "The former passage is one of the statues appointed for public magistrates to enforce, whereas the latter one lays down rules for private individuals to live by!" That distinction was true in the OT and it is true in the NT as well. Even under the NT, governments should apply the principle of "lex talionis," and even under the OT, individuals should never have taken the law into their own hands, but should have turned the other cheek. Leviticus 19:18 says, "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." Proverbs 25:21 taught that we should love our enemies, "If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink."

Dispensationalists also argued, according to Pink, that Deuteronomy 6:25 contradicts Romans 3:20. Deuteronomy 6:25 says, "It will be our righteousness if we observe all these commandments before the Lord our God as He has commanded us." The Hebrew term "righteousness" is the same word that is sometimes translated "justification," and therefore the text teaches justification by works." But, Romans 3:20 says, "By the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight." According to the Dispensationalist, this would be a contradiction in Scripture, unless we understand that Deuteronomy 6:25 applies to Israel under the law, while Romans 3:20 applies to the church under the gospel.

Pink argued that Deuteronomy and Romans aren't at all contradictory. He wrote, "Both passages are equally applicable to Jews and Gentiles in all ages." Deuteronomy 6:25 "has to do with practical 'righteousness' in the daily walk, which is acceptable to God; the other [Romans 3:20] is a doctrinal declaration which asserts the impossibility of acceptance with God on the ground of creature doings." Pink said, "'Our righteousness' in Deuteronomy 6:25 is a practical righteousness in the sight of God. It is the same aspect of righteousness in 'except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees' of Matthew 5:20, the 'righteous man' of James 5:16, and the 'does righteousness' of 1 John 2:29." Justification before the bar of God's strict justice has never been by works, not even in the OT (Abel: Gen 4:4; Heb 11:4; Abraham: Rom 4; David: Ps 130; 71:16), but the Christian's imperfect faithful practical obedience in sanctification is called "righteousness" in both testaments.

In both testaments, salvation is solely by grace through faith. "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen 6:8); "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious" (Ex 34:5-7); "The Lord was gracious to them" (2 Kgs 13:22-23); "though your sins be as scarlet, they be white as snow" (Isa 1:18); "gracious is the Lord, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful" (Ps 116:5); "Bless the Lord O my soul and forget not all His benefits, who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases. . . He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities" (Ps 103: 2, 3, 10). The OT was filled with grace! Salvation in the OT was by grace alone, just as it is in the NT.

The Gospel and Sanctification

2009-12-23T21:01:00.002-05:00

James Grant posted an excellent article by guest blogger Mark Jones in which he argues that the "gospel" is not limited to justification by faith alone but also includes sanctification. Mark Jones is a PCA minister at Faith Presbyterian Church in Vancouver, British Columbia. He did his doctoral work on the Christology of Thomas Goodwin.

A. W. Pink: A Study of Dispensationalism - Part 2

2009-12-19T19:30:00.004-05:00

Just to be clear, I believe that Dispensationalists are brothers in Christ and that the dispute between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is a secondary issue. It is, however, a significant issue because it effects how one views and applies God's Holy Word. In the second chapter of his book, Pink addresses two points of doctrine advocated by Dispensationalists.

1. The Dispensationalist says that Jewish Scripture is not "to us" but that it is "for us." When the Dispensationalist is faced with the fact that the Bible says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," he distinguishes between the prepositions "for" and "to," insisting that while all Scripture is "for" us, it is not all "to" us. Some Scripture, indeed most Scripture, is "to" the Jewish nation, not "to" Gentile believers.

Pink replied that this is a "distinction without a difference." In Hebrews 3:7, the New Testament quotes the Old Testament and says, "The Holy Spirit says," not "The Holy Spirit said." The Holy Spirit speaks to us presently, today, through the Old Testament. Pink also said that the distinction is "impertinent and impudent." Scripture itself never teaches that any portion of it is not "to" the Christian. Furthermore, the principle is dishonest, since if any portion of Scripture is not "to" us, then neither may we appropriate it "for" our benefit. We have no right to the benefit of any text if it is not "to" us. The Dispensationalists have no biblical ground to "dispense" with God's Word in this manner because Scripture never teaches the distinction between "to us" and "for us."

Pink went on to say that the New Testament teaches the opposite of what Dispensationalists teach. 1 Corinthians 10:11 says, "Now all these things happened to them for examples [margin, "types"]: and they are written for our admonition." He then quoted John Owen as saying, "The Old Testament examples are New Testament instructions." Furthermore, Romans 15:4 says, "whatever was written in former times was written for our instruction, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." "Hope" comes from believing divine promises, which means that the New Testament teaches that Old Testament promises to the nation of Israel are for the hope of the New Testament believer.

Three things are true of Old Testament promises, according to Pink. First, Christ purchased all the promises of the Old Testament for the redeemed. Second, most of the Old Testament promises were typical in nature, pointing forward to heavenly blessings in Christ. Third, Pink wrote, "a literal fulfillment to us of those promises must not be excluded, for since we still be on earth and in the body our temporal needs are the same as theirs, and if we meet the conditions attached to those promises (either expressed or implied), then we may count upon the fulfillment of them."

2. The Dispensationalist draws a definite and broad line between the Law and the Gospel. Dispensationalists think their system is the strongest at this point. They like to insist that one can no more mix law and gospel than oil and water. Pink, however, disagreed.

Pink said that law and grace are not contradictory but complimentary. Law and grace are found together in the Garden of Eden, in God's dealings with Noah, at the giving of the Decalogue, in the Levitical system, and at Calvary and throughout the New Testament.

He cites Romans 3:31 in support of the complimentary nature of law and gospel. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: indeed, we establish the law." While it is true that the believer's justification is entirely through grace and no law keeping of his own, that does not mean that God's standards have changed or that He has relaxed His authoritative claim upon us. Quite the contrary. God's plan in redemption is to honor and enforce His law in His people.

There are three ways that the Gospel honors the Law. First, Christ was the "surety" of the elect, which means He paid the penalty of the law and merited its blessing because the elect themselves could not pay. Christ's total fulfillment of the law's precepts honors the law. Second, in regeneration, the Holy Spirit writes the law on the hearts of the elect, causing them to love and delight in it so that it is no burden to them. Third, the Christian himself voluntarily and gladly takes the law as a "rule of life" so that he declares with Paul, "with the mind, I myself serve the law" (Rom 7:25).

Pink wrote, "So far from the law and grace being enemies, they are mutual handmaids: the former reveals the sinner's need, the latter supplies it; the one makes known God's requirements, the other enables us to meet them. Faith is not opposed to good works, but performs them in obedience to God out of love and gratitude."

A.W. Pink: A Study of Dispensationalism - Part 1

2009-12-18T15:01:00.022-05:00

Now that I've graduated and it's Christmas break, I have a bit of time for some recreational reading! One of the books I've always wanted to read but never got around to reading is A.W. Pink's (1886-1952) A Study of Dispensationalism. I realize it's not the best or most thorough critique of the Dispensational system. For a critique of Dispensationalism respected even by Dispensationalists, I recommend Understanding Dispensationalists by Vern Poythress. Still, Pink's book is a piece of history that I think is worth knowing. So, I'm going to read it and blog about it. Here's a bit of biography: A.W. Pink began his theological journey as a Dispensationalist, but he started to move toward Covenant Theology in 1929. Pink took the dispute between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology very personally, which is evidenced by the fact that his book is full of spicy and passionate verbiage. For example, Pink said, "consciously or unconsciously, Dispensationalists are, in reality, repeating the sin of Jehoiakim, who mutilated God's Word with his penknife (Jer 36:23)." Pink believed that the Dispensationalists were as bad as the liberal higher critics who utterly destroyed the unity and integrity of the Bible.

What is at Stake
Pink began by explaining that he had just written extensively on the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture; therefore, he felt compelled to write about the application of Scripture. To do that, Pink thought he needed to refute Dispensationalism. This is an important point. The differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, according to Pink, are about the Bible's application. He believed that we can defend the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of the Bible, but if we interpret Scripture so that large portions of it don't apply to us, as the Dispensationalists do, then we haven't really established the Bible's authority.

Another interesting fact is that throughout Pink's entire volume, he never mentions eschatology (end times) or the doctrine of baptism (whether we should baptize infants or believers). Many people wrongly think of Covenant Theology as being synonymous with a certain kind of eschatology or with infant baptism. Pink's book, however, never mentions either of those doctrines. Historically, Baptists and non-Baptists have been covenant theologians. Benjamin Keach was a Baptist covenant theologian (Pink himself was a Baptist); John Flavel was a non-Baptist covenant theologian. Theologians from every millennial persuasion (pre, a, and post) have been covenant theologians: John Gill (premil), Louis Berkhof (amil), and Jonathan Edwards (postmil). The real heart of the dispute between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism is about how much of the Bible applies to us today.

Dispensationalism
Pink pointed to a text often quoted by Dispensationalists in support of their system: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Tim 2:15). Dispensationalists, according to Pink, claim the word "dividing" refers to "correctly partitioning the Scriptures unto the different peoples to whom they belong." Dispensationalists say that part of the Bible is to the Jews, while another smaller part is to believing Gentiles. The Old Testament, from Genesis 12 onward, is to ethnic Jews only. Some (hyper) Dispensationalists even went so far as to say that the four Gospels are Jewish, that James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2&3 John, and Jude are to godly Jews in the future tribulation period. All Dispensationalists agree that nothing in the Bible that was written to national Jews applies to Gentile believers. Dispensationalism insists that to "rightly divide" the Word of God is to divide the the Jewish Scriptures from the Christian Scriptures. Of course, that is an incorrect interpretation of 2 Tim 2:15. Pink explained that to "rightly divide" the Word of God (2 Tim 2:15) simply means to interpret and apply the Bible correctly.

The Unity of the Bible
Rather than dividing the Jewish from the Christian Scriptures, the Bible presents itself as a unified book with a single story that applies to all of God's people of all time periods. Romans 15:4 says, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." The Old Testament was written to instruct us, to help us persevere, to encourage us and to give us hope through its promises! 1 Corinthians 10:11 says, "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." The things that happened in the Old Testament are a present example to us, and the text explicitly says that Old Testament examples serve to instruct us. Speaking of the Old and New Testaments, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." Speaking of the Old Testament alone, Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15 "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." The Old Testament is gospel! The Old Testament gives wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ. Pink says, "The Old Testament believers were saved with the same salvation, were indebted to the same Redeemer, were renewed by the same Spirit, and were partakers of the same heavenly inheritance as are New Testament believers."

The Diversity of the Bible
None of this should be understood as a denial of the differences between the Testaments. Though the Old and New Testaments preach the same law and gospel, and though there is only one people of God in both Testaments, there are differences between them. The book of Hebrews, for example, mentions a better hope, covenant, promise, and sacrifice in the New Testament, but the book of Hebrews also teaches us that the "betterness" of the New Testament has to do with the contrast between the shadow (OT) and the substance (NT). There are two Testaments for four reasons, Pink says. First, the testamental contrast distinctly differentiates the covenant of works from the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is shadowed in the Old and brightly illumined in the New, both of which are set against the backdrop of the garden covenant of works. Second, the contrast shows how two different companies, Jews and Gentiles, are united in one body, Christ. Third, the contrast highlights the wonderful providence of God, which ensures that God's promises are kept throughout the history of redemption. Fourth, the contrast allows the Old Testament types to be confirmed and manifest in the New Testament antitypes.

John Flavel: Ten Errors of Antinomianism

2009-12-17T13:02:00.003-05:00

John Flavel (1627-1691) was an English Presbyterian clergyman who wrote against 10 of the chief errors of Antinomianism. The term "Antinomianism" means "against the law" and refers to a theological error that diminishes or denies the necessity of faithful law-keeping among Christians. Flavel was partly motivated by a desire to separate Antinomianism from the true doctrine of free grace. Here are the 10 errors Flavel identified:

1. They make justification to be an immanent and eternal act of God and affirm that the elect were justified from eternity.

2. They claim that justifying faith is nothing more than being persuaded of one's previous justification. Justification by faith is nothing more than a manifestation to us of what was really done from eternity.

3. Men ought never to doubt their faith or question whether or not they believe. To question one's faith is to question Christ, they say.

4. Believers are not bound to confess sin, mourn for it, or pray for forgiveness of it. All the sins of believers are forgiven, and a pardoned sin is no sin at all.

5. They say that God "sees" no sin in believers. God can see no adultery, lying or blasphemy in believers since those sins were pardoned from eternity.

6. God is not angry with the elect, nor does He afflict them for their sins.

7. When God laid our sins upon Christ, Jesus literally became as completely sinful as us, and we became as completely righteous as Christ.

8. Believers do not need to fear either their own sins or the sins of others. No sins can do them any harm whatsoever.

9. They do not allow the new covenant to be made with believers, but insist it was made with Christ only for us. Thus, all conditions in the new covenant were kept by Christ and there are no conditions in the new covenant to be kept by the believer.

10. They downplay the need for men to examine themselves by the marks and signs of grace. They consider it a fundamental error to make sanctification an evidence of justification.

See John Flavel, "Giving a Brief Account of the Rise and Growth of Antinomianism," in The Works of John Flavel (reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner, 1997), 3:555-57.

The Lord's Day: Why on Sunday?

2009-05-23T14:05:00.009-04:00

Consider carefully the following evidence that the redemption accomplished through Christ’s resurrection determined the day for Christian worship:

Jesus Christ arose on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1). He entered into his rest from labor, not on Saturday (the seventh day), but on Sunday (the first day of the week). As Jesus entered into his rest on the first day, so he encourages us to begin the week by resting in the confidence that He will provide for all our needs for seven days with only six days of labor.
Jesus Christ appeared to His assembled disciples on the first day of the week, as well as to Mary and to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (John 20:10; Luke 24:13). By these appearances on the first day of the week, the resurrected Lord set a pattern for meeting with His disciples. They began expecting to meet with Him on the day of his resurrection, which is the first day of the week.
Jesus appeared to the assembled disciples one week later on the first day of the week, with doubting Thomas present this time (John 20:26). Already a new pattern of assembly for worship was emerging. God’s new covenant people were making it a habit to assemble together on the first day of the week, the day of Christ’s resurrection. Jesus honored these assemblies by appearing to the disciples at this time, and encouraged their faith in Him as the resurrected Lord.
The resurrected Christ poured out his Spirit on the assembled disciples exactly fifty days after the Sabbath of the Jewish Passover, which was the first day of the week (Acts 2:1; cf. Lev. 23:15–16). The word Pentecost means “fifty,” referring to the fifty days after the Sabbath of the Passover. Forty-nine days would span seven Jewish Sabbaths or Saturdays, and the fiftieth day would then fall on a Sunday, the first day of the week. So it would appear that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit came on the first day of the week, when God’s new covenant people were assembled for worship. So the pattern would be established more firmly. Both the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit occurred on the first day of the week.
As Paul spread the gospel of Christ among Jews and Gentiles throughout the world, the first day of the week was used as the time for Christians to assemble for worship. In Greece, Paul and Luke assembled with the people of God to break bread and to hear the preaching of God’s word on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). This was the day that the people of the new covenant assembled to hear God’s word.
Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth to establish the pattern for their presenting of offerings for the service of the Lord. He ordered the Christians in Corinth to follow the pattern that had already been set with the churches in Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1). On the first day of every week they were to consecrate their offerings to the Lord (1 Cor. 16:2). This schedule for honoring the Lord had become the pattern for God’s people throughout the churches. The churches were not to present their offerings any time they wished. Rather, on the first day of each week, all the Corinthian Christians were to follow the pattern that had already been set among the Galatian churches. The first day of the week was the designated time for the presentation of offerings to the Lord.

O. Palmer Robertson

Why on Sunday? New Horizons, March 2003.

The Truth About Angels and Demons

2009-05-22T13:54:00.005-04:00

Westminster Theological Seminary has put up a helpful resource in response to the new movie "Angels and Demons" based on Dan Brown's novel by the same name.

HT: In Light of the Gospel.

Comparing Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

2009-05-21T23:08:00.001-04:00

Jason Robertson at Fide-O created a post comparing Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Check it out.

HT: Road to Emmaus.

Karlie Elizabeth Hicks is Here!

2009-05-04T19:27:00.003-04:00

Praise the Lord for His bountiful blessings!!! Karlie Elizabeth was born at 3:28 pm; she's 8 pounds 2 ounces, and 20 inches long! The doctor says all is well, and mama's doing great too. : ).

From ancient times, it has been traditional to recite Psalm 127 in celebration of a new birth. The Lord is a gracious God who is bountiful in His blessings!

Psalm 127:1 A Song of Ascents, of Solomon. Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. 2 It is vain for you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep. 3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; The fruit of the womb is a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. 5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They shall not be ashamed, When they speak with their enemies din the gate.

The Christ Centered Character of Covenant Theology

2008-12-13T10:10:00.005-05:00

Covenant theology affirms:

1. Two great covenant heads over all humanity - Rom. 5:18-19, "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 1 Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." The contrast between these two federal heads and all in them causes redemption in Christ to stand out in the foreground.

2. Two great covenants over all of history - The covenant of works in Adam and the covenant of grace in Christ. Recognition this doctrine via the analogy of faith is essential to the proper interpretation and proclamation of every biblical text. Covenant theology is the hinge that stands between biblical theology (progressive revelation) and systematic theology (God, Man, Christ, Church, Eschaton) and recognizes Christ as the centerpiece of Scripture, theology, and of practical applications to the conscience.

3. The progressive revelation of the outworking of the covenant of grace to mankind. This is called “biblical theology.” Biblical theology is not just theology that is "biblical." Rather, it is the account of the historical progression of divine revelation in the Bible in each epoch, finding its center and climax in the person of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:12 says, "Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of [the] promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

4. The doctrine of Law and Gospel in all the Scriptures (Covenants of Works and Grace) are simply the outworking of the two great covenants and their heads in the whole of Scripture. This is the systematic theology formed from exegetical and biblical theology. The law reveals God's demand and our condemnation, while the Gospel reveals that Christ accomplished God's demands for our justification and life. Galatians 3:10-14 says, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.' Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them.' Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

5. The New Covenant of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and establishment in history of the grace of redemption planned by the Father before the foundation of the world for all the elect in Christ. 2 Timothy 1:8-11, "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher."

The Mandate for Christ Centered Preaching

2008-12-12T21:35:00.004-05:00

Here are some things about the mandate for Christ-centered preaching that I have learned from others.

Our Lord Jesus and His Apostles were masters of Christ-centered preaching. Every word our Lord uttered was ultimately about His person and work as our Prophet, Priest, and King, especially when He expounded Old Testament texts. The Apostles followed their Master’s example in this regard. Every evangelistic sermon and every epistle was ultimately centered on Jesus Christ, His Person and work, applied to sinner and saint alike. In every application to the Christian’s life, there was somewhere a Christ-centered basis for that application, which was always related to His Person and work. I am not saying that Jesus Christ was mentioned by name in every text of His preaching and the Apostles’ teaching. I am saying that who He is and what He has done permeates all Christian proclamation. So, is there a biblical mandate to preach Christ in all the Scriptures? Is the pastoral preacher and expositor required to preach Christ?

The Mandate in Evangelistic Preaching
First, it is clear that the Apostles preached Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to the unconverted (Acts 5:42, 8:35, 11:20). He was the center of their message. When Paul first came to Corinth, he preached Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.”

Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, His Person and work, was the subject matter of Paul's evangelistic preaching in Corinth. The same can be seen of Peter on the day of Pentecost and in the other evangelistic messages of Acts (Acts 2; 10; 17).

The Mandate in Pastoral Preaching to Christians
The Apostles did not merely preach Christ in His Person and work to the unconverted. They also preached Jesus Christ to Christians, tying their rebukes, exhortations and doctrinal instructions to the person and work of Christ-- past, present, and future. It is impossible to read the Epistles, which were to be read in their entirety to the churches (and thus were sermonic) without seeing that the Person and work of Jesus Christ is both the power of justification and also the center of sanctification. The letter to the Hebrews is commonly accepted as an example of preaching to Christians.

To the Colossians, Paul described the content of his preaching and teaching to Christians: Colossians 1:28, “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.”

John began his first epistle to Christians: 1 John 1:3, “What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”

Paul also tied his exhortations to the Corinthian Christians to the Person and work of Christ. For instance, when warning against adultery, Paul said: 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.”

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul encouraged Christians in their daily work with the resurrection of Christ and its promise of His glorious return: 1 Corinthians 15:57-58, “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.”

Thus, the Apostolic preaching to both the unconverted and to the converted, was proclaiming Christ to make every man complete in Him. That is the biblical mandate to preach Christ in His Person and Work both to unbeliever and believer.

But is there a biblical mandate to preach Christ in every sermon from every text? There is:

Ever since Gen. 3:15, Jesus Christ, the Savior, has been the centerpiece of God's revelation. Adam represented us and fell into sin, breaking God's covenant of works, which required perfect obedience unto life. Now, Jesus Christ, the last Adam, is the only Mediator between God and man. He is the only Savior of sinners. The entire OT points forward to His coming by way of promise and anticipation, and the entire NT is the revelation of His coming to fulfill that promise. The New Testament explains how the OT is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Therefore, just as He is the focus of God's biblical revelation, so also must He be the focus of our biblical preaching.

Sometimes, in the rediscovery of biblical truth and the Reformed faith of our Baptist forefathers, we hear phrases like this: "The central truth of all Scripture is the sovereignty of God over all things" or "the central truth of all Scripture is the glory of God." Sometimes we hear sermons and read books glorifying the sovereignty and glory of God. But, if we wish to glorify God Himself, then we must glorify God in His perfect self-revelation, which is the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and Him crucified, risen, reigning and coming must be our emphasis to the glory of the Triune God. His person and work must be the focus of all our preaching because God Himself must be the focus of all our preaching.

The center of Scripture in revealing the Godhead’s glory and sovereignty to man is Jesus Christ, His person and work as Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. Jesus Christ is the Father’s representative in carrying out these functions. There is a biblical-theological mandate to preach Christ in all the Scriptures because both the OT and the NT are theologically centered in Jesus Christ.

Federal Theology: The Covenant of Grace

2008-12-12T18:13:00.005-05:00

In classic federal theology, the covenant of grace is understood in two different ways. For some, it was understood as one of two covenants, such that God's total redemptive purpose included both “the covenant of redemption,” which was formed among the persons of the godhead in eternity and “the covenant of grace” which was principally formed between God and the elect in time. For others, “the covenant of grace” was viewed as a pact among the persons of the Trinity. They said that the eternal covenant of grace had two aspects because it was made (1) with Christ and (2) with the elect in Him. I take the latter view because the former seems to multiply entities beyond necessity.

The covenant of grace was formed in eternity past, but was executed and obeyed in time during Christ’s earthly life. In eternity past, God made a covenant with Christ in which God promised justification and eternal life to those in Him on the basis of His perfect obedience to the law. During Christ’s earthly life (which was His “probationary period,” corresponding to Adam's "probationary period" the garden), Christ kept the law both by positively obeying its commands and by suffering under its curse. His perfect law keeping merited justification and eternal life for all of the elect. His merits purchased redemption for that moment at which the elect would be vitally united to Him through faith. Thus, the covenant of grace was a conditional covenant of works from Christ's perspective. He had to merit its blessings.

Because Christ successfully satisfied God’s law during His time on earth, those who were chosen "in Him," will necessarily be given all the benefits purchased by His merits. Those who are “in Christ” obtain the right to justification even before they are conceived or regenerated. The right to justification is not the same thing as justification itself. But having the right to justification guarantees and requires that God bring each of Christ’s constituents into physical existence (that they be born) and that He bring them into a state of regeneration and faith so that they are able to experience actual justification and eternal life. The right to justification necessarily issues in actual justification. After regeneration and faith, the elect are immediately granted actual justification and eternal life and based on Christ’s righteousness. Thus, the covenant of grace is unconditional from the perspective of the elect. Regeneration, repentance, and faith are not conditions of entering into the covenant of grace or of remaining in the covenant of grace. Rather, they are unconditional blessings of the covenant of grace. This is true, even though repentance and faith are conditions in the covenant of grace in the sense that they are antecedent to subsequent blessings in the covenant. Ex: Faith is not a condition of the covenant of grace, but it is a condition (logically speaking) of justification in the covenant.

Because all who are united to Christ are blessed with actual justification, which is the right and title to (or, "ownership/possession of") eternal life (objectively), they must also come into the experience and enjoyment of eternal life (subjectively). Only those who are holy can joyfully experience eternal life in Christ. Therefore, God blesses those who are in Christ with increasingly renewed natures, which put off sin and put on good works, such that just as they grow in holiness, they also grow in the joy of knowing Christ. Christ's righteousness purchased not only our ownership of life (justification-objective), but our experience of life (sanctification-subjective) as well! When those “in Christ” die they will enjoy the ultimate blessing of eternal life in heaven, which is the consummate reward of Christ’s perfect righteousness.

Guidance in Christian Liberty

2008-09-05T00:29:00.006-04:00

I'll get back to federal theology and the covenant of grace in the next post, but I wanted to write a post on Christian liberty. According to Scripture, "where there is no law, there is no transgression" (Rom 4:15), and "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt 15:9; Isa 29:13). Christians have God-sanctioned liberty to do anything that doesn't violate God's law revealed in Scripture. The Bible doesn't forbid card playing, going to the movies, drinking, dancing, going to the beach, smoking, sleeping in, watching TV, taking naps, eating really good food, skydiving, vacationing, mixed swimming, reading novels, etc. All of these activities fall under the category of "Christian liberty" and thus may be done without sinning. However, the Bible also urges Christians to be wise and moderate in their behavior. Here are four principles that must always guide the Christian in his exercise of liberty:

1. Love for God. Sometimes "liberty" is used for a cloak for idolatrous self-indulgence. Everything in creation must be used for the glory of God, and Christians must take care that they don't turn their liberties into opportunities for idol worship. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Timothy 4:4 says, "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." 1 Peter 2:15-16 says, "For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."

2. Love for the brethren. It is true that no one may bind the Christian's conscience with man made laws, but concern for the welfare of fellow saints must always deeply effect a believer's decisions about how to live. Out of love for the brethren, a Christian must do what he believes will edify his fellow believers and prevent them from stumbling into sin. Galatians 5:13 says, "For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." 1 Corinthians 8:9 says, "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." 1 Corinthians 10:23 says, "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up."

3. Love for the unconverted. A Christian should regulate his liberty by its effects upon unbelievers and he should choose behaviors that are likely to win some to the gospel. Christians should refrain from cultural offense and from participating in activities that society believes are sinful. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 says, "19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."

4. Watchfulness over one's own soul. Sin remains in the heart of every believer, though not every believer struggles with the same remaining sin. Therefore, if a Christian judges himself weak and prone to temptation through various liberties, he is obligated to refrain from practicing those liberties. Romans 13:14 says, "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires." 1 Corinthians 9:23-27 says, "23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. 24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

Federal Theology: The Covenant of Works

2008-07-05T18:39:00.005-04:00

According to federal theology, the whole system of Christian doctrine hangs on the two federal (representative) heads of Adam and Christ. Biblical history is structured around the covenant with Adam, or the covenant of works, and the covenant with Christ, or the covenant of grace. Each individual's experience is only properly understood with reference to whether he is "in Adam" or "in Christ." So, I want to begin laying out this "federal scheme" by describing what is meant by the "covenant of works." Future posts may deal with the "covenant of grace."

God made a covenant with Adam in which He promised Adam justification and eternal life for perfectly fulfilling the law. Had Adam kept the law perfectly, as a federal head, He would have merited justification and eternal life for all of his posterity because they were federally united to him. I don't say that Adam was created in a state of justification and adoption, since God the judge never revokes the life-blessing of justification and because God the Father always preserves His sons and never casts them off, but Adam fell; so, he couldn't have been in a state of justification from the beginning. Therefore, it is better to say that Adam was created with the possibility of meriting justification and eternal life, but not in a state of justification or eternal life.

We're not told explicitly, but it makes sense to say that there was some period of trial or probation through which Adam had to pass in order to merit justification and eternal life. If there were no trial period, after which he would be rewarded with justification and eternal life, then he could never have functioned as "federal" or "representative" head for those who were "in him." He would be forever working to maintain present blessings, never actually able to purchase and secure any final benefits for his constituents. Thus, it is logical to conclude that there was some probationary period, the length of which is unknown, after which Adam would have merited and secured the right to justification for his posterity.

Had Adam successfully completed this probationary period, all of his posterity, who were "in him," would have been given all the benefits purchased by his merits. His children and their children after them would have had the right to justification before they were even conceived based on Adam's righteousness, and this would have guaranteed and required that God bring each of Adam's constituents into physical existence so that they could experience actual justification and eternal life. The right to justification necessarily issues in actual justification. Upon conception, they would have been immediately granted actual justification and eternal life and based on Adam's righteousness, God would have preserved those united to Adam in justification and eternal life by working perfect holiness in them forever.

However, as you know, none of this took place. Instead, the exact opposite happened. Adam sinned against the law of God. There is no need for a probationary period in which Adam would have to sin consistently over a period of time to demerit condemnation, since even a single sin against God's holy law demerits condemnation and eternal death. Adam's sin resulted in the immediate condemnation of Adam and his sin demerited the liability to condemnation and eternal death for all who are united to him as their federal head.

Therefore, upon physical conception, all of Adam's posterity is immediately cursed with actual condemnation based upon Adam's first sin (unrighteousness). Their liability to condemnation becomes actual condemnation as soon as they are conceived. This liability to condemnation legally guarantees and obligates God to bring into existence all who are represented by Adam so that they might be called to account for their act in their representative head. Though they did not act subjectively in their own existences, they acted really by virtue of Adam's legal representation on their behalf. Finally, because all who are born "in Adam" are immediately cursed with actual condemnation, they must suffer the penalty of that condemnation, which involves God cursing them by giving them over to more and more sin and to totally depraved natures which grow wise in evil and do no good whatsoever. Those who go to their graves "in Adam" and who were never transfered to the headship of Christ during this life will suffer under the penalty of eternal death in hell, which is the final consequence of Adam's first sin, of condemnation in him, and of their own actual transgressions which flow from that first sin.

A Reply to Mark Horne's Post

2008-07-05T11:08:00.016-04:00

Mark Horne graciously replied to my post yesterday to clarify his views on perseverance and apostasy. I am thankful for his clarification. He wrote to say that he does not believe that the non-elect are ever regenerated, justified, and adopted (in the Westminsterian sense, though he may use those words differently in different contexts). Thus, those who are regenerated, justified, and adopted never fall away from those graces but always persevere to the end. I am grateful that Horne affirms this wonderful biblical truth.

However, Horne made a couple of comments in his post on Hebrews that led me to some wrong inferences about his beliefs.

Horne wrote, "One [the writer of Hebrews] encourages to continue to run and warns against giving up the race, the other [the experimental pietist] asks for self-examination to determine whether or not one has already been put on the train."

But, why would the writer to the Hebrews encourage unregenerate, unjustified, and unadopted people to "continue?" It would seem that such people need to do more than "continue." They need to move from death to life (1 Jn 3:14). They need to be born again (Jn 3:3). The writer of Hebrews addresses his hearers as "repentant" (Heb 6:6), "sanctified" (Heb 10:14, 29) "enlightened" (Heb 6:4), and under the "blood of the covenant" (Heb 10:29). I interpret the author's terminology to be a judgment of charity. The author is taking the Hebrews at their word, charitably granting that these confessors (Heb 3:1; 4:14; 10:23) are truly what they confess to be: regenerate, justified, and adopted (even though they may not be).

In contrast, Horne evidently believes that in Hebrews these terms refer to the "common operations of the Spirit" (WCF 10.4; WLC Q.68), which come short of God's eternally saving graces. He'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that. But, why would the writer to the Hebrews urge mere continuance in graces that fall short of regeneration, justification, and adoption? Why wouldn't the author urge those who partake in common operations of the Spirit to make certain that they have come all the way to sincere repentance and faith in the Spirit, and that they have come to Christ for justification, and to the Father for adoption? My own view is that the author's references to the graces given to the Hebrews aren't references to common operations at all, but to genuine conversion (charitably granted).

When Horne sets continuance in opposition to the need for self-examination and conversion, I'm at a total loss because it implies that continuance alone is necessary, when in reality, both conversion and continuance in faith are necessary. Though it's not my position, I can understand how the warnings of Hebrews could be interpreted to be the "common operations of the Spirit." That's a fairly standard view among Reformed theologians, and I'm not objecting to that view. Many good men hold it. But I don't understand how anyone who holds that view can pit the need for continuance (for those who are both regenerate and have the common operations of the Spirit) against the need for self-examination, regeneration, conversion, justification and adoption (for those who are unregenerate and have the common operations of the Spirit) the way Mark Horne does.

It makes no sense to interpret the writer to the Hebrews as telling the church to continue in the common operations of the Spirit. That's far too weak an exhortation because what is needed to inherit the future blessing of eternal life is regeneration, justification, adoption and perseverance in faithful obedience to the end. Because that doesn't make sense to me, I assumed it doesn't make sense at all, and I inferred that Horne must believe that sincerely repentant, sanctified, enlightened, and blood covered Christians (who are regenerate, justified, and adopted) can fall away from the faith and go to hell. Thankfully, he has now said otherwise. Perhaps he can clarify further and help me to see the sense of it.

Horne also wrote, "For the same reason Hebrews doesn’t threaten Calvinism, so it can’t prove Arminianism–even if we grant them their exegesis. Claim that Hebrews is about 'genuine Christians' all you want, it still won’t prove that God does not preserve his elect."

These are probably the sentences that threw me off the most. Horne claims that Arminian exegesis of Hebrews is no "threat" to Calvinism. But, Calvinism has never merely taught that God preserves His elect. It has always taught that God preserves His saints. Arminian exegesis of the book of Hebrews claims that genuinely repentant, justified, and adopted people (i.e., saints) can and sometimes do fall away from those graces and go to hell. Thus, Arminian exegesis most definitely "threatens" Calvinism, though it may not threaten "monergism." Horne doesn't say that he has granted them their exegesis, but his willingness to say that "if we do, then Calvinism isn't threatened" made me think he was sympathetic to their exegesis and may even embrace a version of it. He has since clarified and asserted otherwise. I am grateful for that because the Arminians do teach that those who are regenerated, justified, and adopted fall away and go to hell.

A Wrong View of the Warning Passages

2008-07-04T17:42:00.008-04:00

I just read a post by Mark Horne in which he said that an Arminian reading of the warning passages of Hebrews does nothing to threaten the monergism of Reformed theology. Though he's not explicit, I assume he means that God monergistically causes some of the non-elect to become Christians for a time, but then God later permits (or causes) them to fall away and go to hell. The eternally elect persevere to the end and inherit eternal life, but not all regenerate, justified, and adopted Christians are eternally elect; therefore, non-eternally-elect Christians always fall away. The reason some Christians persevere and some fall away is because God causes some to persevere, but not all.

I believe that view should be rejected because it calls God's Fatherhood into question and because it runs counter to the teaching of the Bible. The Bible represents God the Father as one who preserves His sons because He loves them. He keeps all His sons to the very end. God never casts off His sons or causes them to fall away. Here are a few passages which teach that God preserves to the end all Christians who are drawn effectually by His power.

Christians Remain Christians to the End
John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

1 Corinthians 1:7-9 "our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."

Philippians 1:6-7 "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me."

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass."

Hebrews 3:14 "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

Hebrews 10:14 "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."

They Were Never Christians in the First Place
In addition to the above passages which teach that those God redeems remain in grace to the end, there are biblical texts that teach that those who fall away from the faith were never actually Christians in the first place.

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'"

John 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him."

1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

A Warning Passage: Hebrews 10:29

2008-06-28T10:17:00.008-04:00

Hebrews 10:29 says, "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?"

Scholars interpret Hebrews 10:29 in a number of different ways. But, my view is that the passage is addressed to the visible church, to professing/confessing Christians, and it warns against final apostasy and the penalty of hell.

The writer to the Hebrews is addressing professing Christians, some of whom are believers and some of whom are unbelievers, even though he refers to them all as "sanctified" (Heb 10:29). The New Testament letters frequently address the visible church as "elect," "justified," "called," etc. See Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2, "to those sanctified in Christ Jesus;" 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1-4; Eph 1:1-14; etc. The authors of the New Testament speak in these terms, even though not everyone in the visible churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, and Rome was actually "elect," "called," or "sanctified." For example, we know that some of the professing Christians in the New Testament churches committed apostasy (such as Hymenaeus and Alexander from Ephesus: 1 Tim 1:3, 19-20; cf. 1 Jn 2:19). The Bible often refers to false professors as people who "believe" (Lk 8:13; Jn 8:31, 37) because that's how these professors would describe themselves. The fact that the writers of the New Testament speak of all the members of the visible church as though they are Christians and refer to visible church members in terms that identify them as Christians is called a "judgment of charity." That is, Paul and the other New Testament writers "charitably judged" that visible church members were actually what they claimed to be. They referred to visible church members in terms that they would have used of themselves.

Hebrews 10:29 is speaking of visible church members who professed to be sanctified. Therefore, the warning is addressed to professing Christians, to both genuine and false believers.

The author of Hebrews is warning that if even a genuine believer were to reject Christ and profane the blood of the covenant, he would fall away and go to hell (Heb 10:26, 31). Now, the writer says that this will not happen to genuine believers: see Hebrews 10:39, "We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls." But, the reason such warnings are important, even for believers who will never fall away, is that according to Louis Berkhof, "They prompt self-examination and are instrumental in keeping believers in the way of perseverance. They do not prove that those addressed will apostatize, but simply that the use of means is necessary to prevent them from committing this sin. Compare acts 27:22-5 with verse 31 for an illustration of this principle" (Systematic Theology 548).

Still, it is true that some of the visible church members who are here called "sanctified" (because they professed to be such) may have actually fallen away from their profession, committed apostasy by returning to their former way of life in Judaism, and gone to hell. These confessors/professors never truly believed in the first place, but they were charitably called believers because they professed belief. Fred Malone writes, "The book of Hebrews is dealing with confessors (3:1; 4:14; 10:23) who may prove false" (Baptism of Disciples Alone, Revised and Expanded 248). Hebrews 3:1 says, "Consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession." Hebrews 4:14 says, "let us hold fast our confession." Hebrews 10:23 says, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope." Thus, the only people in view in the book of Hebrews are those who have given a credible profession of faith and have been subsequently baptized and incorporated into the visible church. People who have confessed Christ, been baptized subsequent to that confession, and joined a local church sadly can and do commit apostasy because some confessors are true believers, while others are not. This is the phenomenon addressed in the book of Hebrews.

In conclusion, Hebrews 10:29 warns visible church members (charitably judged: "sanctified") not to turn away from Christ, and it warns that if anyone turns from Christ, he will go to hell. It warns both genuine believers and false believers. This warning is one of the means by which genuine believers are preserved in faith, and it is one of the means by which hypocrites can be exposed and may actually be converted to the salvation of their souls.

The warning of Hebrews 10:29 is a means of grace to bring false professors to faith, to keep genuine believers in the faith, and it explains what happens to those who once professed faith but now reject Christ.

R. Scott Clark Denies Particular Baptists are "Reformed"

2008-05-03T11:05:00.008-04:00

Dr. R. Scott Clark has written a post denying that Particular Baptists can be considered "Reformed." While I'm certainly not interested in fighting over words, there is an important historiographical principle at stake; so, I've decided to weigh in.

One huge weakness of Clark’s post is that it doesn’t appear to have any historiographic-theological controls. He simply asserts that the Reformed community is defined by its historical confessions which are "received by the churches." But then, he says that the “churches” have rightly modified the Reformed confessions to conform to Scripture (what historical-theological controls govern their right to do this!?). The American Reformed church, says Clark, has rightly moved away from theocracy and revised the WCF accordingly.

I have two responses to his assertions. First, his definition of “Reformed” seems to be arbitrary. More on that later. Second, I see no reason that Baptists do not measure up to Clark’s own characterization of the “Reformed.” Our Reformed/Particular Baptist forefathers modified the Westminster Confession along the lines of the central theological insights of the Reformation in order to remove the objectionable paedobaptistic elements, which elements were historically related to theocracy and the Papacy (Clark does not object to removing theocratic elements).

Additionally, I submit that there is a more historically grounded way of defining the term “Reformed.” The “Reformed” churches are those that have worked out the central theological insights of the Protestant Reformation in their confessions and covenants. Most historians would agree that the basic insights of the Reformation are all related to the “solas” of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura (Regulative Principle of Worship, anti-Papacy and church-state episcopacy, priesthood of all believers, Christian liberty, biblical preaching), Sola Fide (Covenant Theology, one way of salvation through all the biblical covenants, anti-sacerdotalism, the necessity of personal faith in Christ), Sola Gratia (natural inability, soteriological monergism, predestinarianism), Solus Christus (definite atonement, covenant of redemption, imputed righteousness, Christ-centered preaching), and soli Deo Gloria (the eternal and unconditional divine decree governs all of history to the end of God’s glory; this is the best of all possible worlds). Thus, Arminians, Socinians, etc., who came out of Reformed churches actually reverted from the theological insights of the Reformation and, thus, they are not Reformed.

On the other hand, the Particular Baptists, who emerged from English Reformation churches (from Anglicanism through Congregationalism), were not moving away from Reformed theological insights, but sought thoroughly and consistently to apply them to ecclesiology, which had not been done comprehensively to that point in history. The Particular Baptists rigorously applied the Reformed hermeneutic of “Sola Scriptura with NT priority" via the Regulative Principle, which resulted in the elimination of paedobaptism (the Bible does not command the baptism of infants as an element of worship; therefore, it is forbidden). They stressed “sola fide” together with the need for conversion and sought to discipline their churches accordingly, restricting the right to membership to those who genuinely believed. The Particular Baptists revised covenant theology to correct the church-state synergisms of Calvin and Zwingli and in so doing they brought covenant theology into conformity with the whole testimony of Scripture. This fits Clark's own definition of the "Reformed" having the responsibility to conform their confessions to Scripture and it fits with my definition because it recognizes that those confessional changes must be consistent with the central insights of the Reformation.

On a historically controlled definition of “Reformed,” it would seem that one would have grounds on which to argue that Particular Baptists are the ones who are “Reformed,” not the paedobaptists, who are at best "Reforming." It should also be noted that some Presbyterians today are not “Reforming” but “Reverting.” The Federal Vision doctrine is moving many Presbyterians back towards the church-state, theonomic, high church vision of the Papacy with inflated views of clerical authority (undermining sola Scriptura) and the sacraments (undermining sola fide). They have a dual category soteriology, which reads every biblical soteriological concept in terms of "the decrees or eschaton” and “the covenant,” which only blurs “sola gratia,” because it emphasizes the fundamental conditionality of participation in the covenant people of God. This is directly related to their failure to apply consistently the theological insights of the Protestant Reformation.

Why should we obey God?

2008-04-23T15:12:00.001-04:00

What should motivate us to walk in obedience to God's commands?

1. Gratitude for what God has done. This is the “fundamental” and “first” (primary) motivation of obedience, but it is not the ultimate or final one. Each of the biblical covenants begins with a description of what God has done, and only then proceeds to outline the covenant principles, which are to be obeyed (Gen 6:8-9; Josh 24:2-3; Exod 20:1-21; Lev 19:33-36; Deut 15:15). Just as redemption is the heartbeat of the OT, so also, it is fundamental to obedience in the NT. Paul’s letters begin with what God has done and only then move to discuss what we should do in response. “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things” (Rom 8:32). Because God gave us Christ in the past, we can trust that His commandments are for our good in the future. Redemption is absolutely fundamental to Christian obedience. “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:17-21).

2. Imitation of God. As God’s people behold His excellent holiness, they admire Him, love His character with complacent love, and want to be morally pure as God Himself is pure (Lev 19:2; Lk 6:27-26). Hungering and thirsting for righteousness goes here, I think.

3. Fear of God. Motivational fear is “filial," not “servile." It does not fear that God will cast us out of relationship with Him, and does not fear that we must perform to stay in relationship with God. “By this is love perfected with us so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment because as He is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment and whoever fears has not been perfected in love” (1 Jn 4:17-18). Proper biblical and motivational fear is the fear that unbelief leads to hell, but it is also fear of fatherly discipline, and of offending the One we love. But trust in and love for Christ drives out the fear of hell.

4. For our own good (Deut 10:12-13). Obedience brings future blessing. Ultimately this good is the blessing of personal fellowship with and enjoyment of God Himself, both now and in eternity. If redemption is properly the fundamental or primary motivation, then “blessing” is the ultimate one. Christians must obey the Lord in order to experience Him now, and in order to enter into heaven to enjoy Him there. But, this motivation is contingent upon redemption. If God did not demonstrate His steadfast and unconditional love for us in the past, then there would be no reason to trust Him with our futures. There would be no reason to think that His commands for us are for our good.

The Denominational Theory of the Church - T4G

2008-04-19T19:11:00.006-04:00

According to Bruce Shelley, the dissenting brethren of the Westminster Assembly articulated the denominational theory of the church in terms of four fundamental truths.

1. Differences about the outward form of the church are inevitable. This is due to mankind's inability to see the whole truth clearly.

2. Our differences on the outward form of the church are not matters of indifference. Even though they do not involve fundamentals of the faith, every Christian is obligated to practice what he believes the Bible teaches.

3. The universal Church of Christ can never be fully represented by any single ecclesiastical structure because there are true followers of Christ in a number of ecclesiastical structures.

4. The mere fact of separation does not itself constitute "schism." It is possible to be divided at many points and still be united in Christ.

There was a beautiful display of these realities this past week at the Together for the Gospel Conference where pastors, church leaders, and laymen from a number of different denominations gathered to celebrate their unity in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

God Promised Abraham and His Seed an Everlasting Possession

2008-03-29T14:04:00.005-04:00

Genesis 17:8 says, "8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."

How could God make this promise uncondtionally to ethnic Israel, since unbelieving ethnic Jews will be in hell suffering everlasting destruction? The only Israelites that will enjoy Canaan as an everlasting possession are believing Israelites. And, believing Gentiles will be enjoying it right alongside of them (Matt 5:5; Rev 21:1-3).

Thus, the promise of Canaan as an everlasting possession is infallibly certain, yet it is only certain for Israelites who meet the condition of faith. This promise will certainly be fulfilled because God will work faith in all elect Israelites, guaranteeing that they will inherit the promised blessing along with the believing Gentiles, who are one people in Christ (Eph 2:11-22).

Have Abraham's Descendants been as Numerous as the Stars of Heaven?

2008-03-28T13:28:00.004-04:00

In Genesis 15:5, God told Abram, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars if you are able to number them. Then he said to him, so shall your offspring be."

Has this promise been fulfilled? Yes.

Nehemiah 9:23-24 says, "You multiplied their children as the stars of heaven, and you brought them into he land that you had told their fathers to enter and possess. So, the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land of the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would."

Are the Land Promises to Israel Fulfilled?

2008-03-22T16:53:00.004-04:00

YES! The Bible teaches that Israel has already realized all of the land God promised her.

"So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass" (Joshua 21:43–45).

See also Joshua 23:14-15, "14 And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. 15 But just as all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the LORD your God has given you, 16 if you transgress the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you."

Nehemiah 9:8 "You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give the land of the Canaanites, The Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, And the Girgashites -- To give it to his descendants. You have performed Your words, For You are righteous."

Some Bible teachers refer to Numbers 34:2–12 and Joshua 13:1–7 as proof that Israel did not ever reach the boundaries God promised it. However, those texts, which teach that Israel had not yet inherited the promised land, come before Joshua 21:43–45. But when we get to the end of the book of Joshua (21:43-45), we find that Israel had finally inherited what God promised it.

Some argue that since there were other nations in the midst of Israel (Josh. 23:4–7), Israel never truly possessed the land. However, that fact doesn't mean that Israel failed to possess the land in truth. In fact, Scripture calls the nations “an inheritance for your tribes” (23:4). They are part of the spoils of war. God also makes Israel's retention of the land of Canaan conditional. He says, “Be very firm, then, to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you may not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left” (23:6). If Israel failed to obey these stipulations, then the nations in their midst “shall be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you” (23:13). Thus, the fact that Israel had not driven out all of the occupants of Canaan did not mean that they failed to possess and inhabit the whole terrritory God promised them.

The Witnesses' Sixth Visit

2008-03-22T14:59:00.004-04:00

Today, I received my sixth visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses. There were three of them this time. Two were the same, but the third was a new person. I started off our talk this time by responding to their belief in "soul death." I handed them a paper with an outline of some of the Bible's teaching on the continued conscious existence of the human spirit after death. They're going to look that over and get back with me next week.

I was prepared today to talk with them about the "kingdom of God/heaven," but they wanted to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity. We ended up re-hashing a lot of ground that we've covered before, but I think it was good to go over it again. They started off by pointing out the places in the Bible where it strongly affirms that there is only one God. I heartily agreed with them and told them that I am a "strict monotheist." Then, they said that the encyclopedia calls the "Trinity" an incomprehensible doctrine. They argued that God is not a God of confusion; therefore, the Trinity must not be of God. I responded by asking them if they fully comprehend Jehovah, that he never had a beginning, that he is the Alpha and the Omega, etc. I argued that though the Trinity is incomprehensible in the sense that we cannot understand it fully, it is nonetheless coherent, takes into account all of the biblical data, and it is without logical contradiction. They then pointed out places in Scripture that show a distinction among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I explained that there is one God who is three distinct, but not separate, persons. God is one in essence but He is three centers of consciousness, each of whom perfectly loves the others. The personal name of this one triune God is "Yahweh."

I argued from John 20:28 that since Thomas says to Christ, "My Lord and my God," Jesus is God. They said that Thomas was calling Jesus "God" in a sense subordinate to Jehovah (citing 1 Cor 8:5-6). They also said that Isa 9:6 prophesied that Christ would be called "God." Therefore, Thomas was fulfilling prophecy. I argued that since Isa 9:6 prophecies that Christ would be called "God," doesn't it make sense that He actually is God!? I also asked them if they would call Christ "my God," just like Thomas did. They said that they would not. So, they admitted that they would not refer to Christ in terms that Scripture itself affirms are appropriate.

They asked me, "If Jesus is God, then did God die?" I said, "The humanity of Christ died, but not His divinity." They asked me whether the Bible teaches that. I responded that the Bible teaches that Christ's physical body hung on the tree and perished. The Bible never teaches that Christ's divinity perished because divinity cannot perish. Next week, when they come back, I may mention that in the death of Christ, Scripture recognizes that in some sense God died. Acts 20:28 says, "Care for the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood." There are some textual issues with that verse, but the weight of evidence is on the above rendering. Also, Revelation 2:8 says, "The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life," and the phrase "first and last" refers to God throughout the Bible. These passages are not saying that God's essence died, but that the second person of the godhead died in the death of Christ's human nature.

I again argued that Christ is "worshipped," according to the Bible. That happens in the resurrection story: Matthew 28:9, speaking of Christ, says, "And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshipped him." This is not an isolated event in Scripture. Jesus is worshipped, but worship is to be reserved for God alone. God will not share His glory with another (Isa 48:11), and salvation is of the Lord (Jon 2:9). If Jesus saves, as they say He does, and if Jesus is not God, as they teach He is not, then Jesus shares in the glory of our salvation and robs God of the glory that He alone is due. Their response was to say that while we glorify Christ and do Him "obeisance," we do not worship him, and He gives all the glory He receives in our salvation back to Jehovah. But that response will not work because the Greek term for worship (esp. proskuneo) does not simply mean "obeisance." It means "worship." And, even though Christ gives all glory to God, the fact that He receives any glory at all for our salvation demands that He is God, since God alone saves and God alone gets all the credit for our salvation.

I learned today that the Witnesses don't believe that Jehovah is omnipresent. He is located in space, though His "spirit" emanates from Him, such that He has knowledge and contact with all everywhere. They want me to exchange a limitless God for a limited one. I must say, I'm not tempted to do that in the least.

Finally, they closed our discussion today by inviting me to their annual celebration of Christ at their kingdom hall. I told them that I would go to their meeting if they would come to our church. I said, "It's only fair!" They said that they can't do that. We parted on good terms and they will be back next week.

The Jehovah's Witnesses Came

2008-03-08T15:26:00.004-05:00

The Witnesses came to my door for the fifth time today; so, I'll need to catch you up on what happened last time too. Last week, they spent most of their time trying to argue three things from the Scriptures. There were three of them this time: two men and a woman.

1. The human "soul" is identical to the human "body." The "soul" is the whole person. And, they said, our persons have no immaterial aspect.
2. Our souls die, just like our bodies. They argued that there is no consciousness, life, or existence after human beings die.
3. Naturally, it follows from this that there is no "hell" or eternal conscious torment of unbelievers. But, the converse is also true: there is no heaven awaiting believers who die. The best believers can hope for is to be resurrected to reign in paradise on earth in the future. No Jehovah's witnesses believe that they will go to heaven because only 144,000 who have already lived and died get to inherit the blessing of heaven.

This is their gospel. Our only hope of any future existence after death is to do enough good works under the authority of the Watchtower organization so that we will be raised to live in paradise on earth when God raises us from the dead.

After listening to their presentation and answering their questions, I asked them if I could ask a few questions of my own. I used the outline posted below, and they were not impressed. They said that there is a sense in which Jesus is the "Alpha and the Omega" but He's not God (Jehovah). They also said that the speaker changes from Jehovah to Jesus in Revelation 22:16. They called it a "quote within a quote." However, I responded by saying that it seems to be the same speaker because of the drumbeat refrain, "I am coming soon" in verses 7, 12, 20, which refers to the return of Christ, who identifies himself as "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" (v. 13). I argued that they have no contextual warrant to say that the speaker changes in verse 16.

I then asked them about the cross and whether Christ fully satisfied God's justice on their behalf. I asked them whether they were saved by their works and the work of Christ or by Christ's work alone. They said that we must cooperate with God's grace with our free wills. I then said, "So, you believe that God shares the credit for your salvation with you? Doesn't the Bible teach that God will not share His glory with anyone (Isa 48:11)?" I then pressed them, saying that if salvation is on the basis of works, then it is no longer by grace (Rom 11:6). I explained that Christ purchases a whole salvation for us. He fully satisfied the justice of God to purchase the double blessing of justification and sanctification. Christ's work alone satisfies God's justice for our justification. And, Christ's work purchases the work of the Spirit in us for our sanctification, such that all who are purchased by Christ, not only believe for justification, but also produce fruit in keeping with repentance and endure in a pattern of good works to the end.

They asked me if I believe in free will. I said, "no, not like you do." I cited Romans 3:10-12, and said that God has to change our hearts and powerfully bring us to Himself if any of us are to be saved (John 6:37, 44, etc.). They didn't know how to deal with that and soon after they said they had to go.

TODAY
Today they came back. This time there were four of them. I began our conversation today with arguments that the human spirit is personal (not just a life-force), and that it continues after death. Our spirits have a will (Matt 26:41); they can rejoice (Lk 1:47); they render service to God (Rom 1:9); they have knowledge (1 Cor 2:11); they speak (1 Cor 14:2); they pray (1 Cor 14:14); they can sing (1 Cor 14:15). Therefore, our spirits are not an impersonal life force! They are the immaterial part of us, which is very personal! Paul said, "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor 5:5). Thus, this personal spirit may be saved! They had no response to this other than to say that 1 Cor 5:5 refers to one of the 144,000 and does not apply to us. They didn't deal with my argument for a personal spirit.

One of them then asked me how it could be "just" for a man who has lived 100 years as a sinner to go to hell for all eternity. They said that an eternal hell would violate God's justice. I cited Rev 14:9-11 and Rev 20:10-15 to prove that Scripture teaches that hell is eternal. They argued that the Revelation passages are simply figures of speech. I said, no, Christ is said to be present for this (14:10) - Christ's presence is not figurative. Then, I told them that God's justice positively demands eternal punishment in the form of conscious torment for unbelieving sinners because God is infinitely holy. A single sin against an infinitely holy God demands infinite punishment because to sin against God at all, even once, is to sin against God in all of His infinite holiness. I then explained that this is why Christ must be God. He must be God, a being of infinite worth and holiness, in order to satisfy the infinite offense of sinners. At this point, I tried to clearly preach the gospel to them again and explain that our whole salvation is in Jesus Christ when we come to Him by faith, which is always accompanied with repentance. They had no idea how to reply to that; so, we moved on to another subject.

The last thing we talked about was the Watchtower organization. They believe that the Watchtower organization provides an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Those who disagree with that interpretation can be subject to discipline and shunning. I explained the doctrine of the Bible's sufficiency (2 Tim 3:17, etc.). This was interesting because they seemed to want to agree with me on this. They admitted that the organization could be and has been wrong on certain things. I asked them what would happen to them if they were to come to a correct interpretation of the Bible that disagrees with the organization's wrong interpretation at some point. They wouldn't answer me. They said we should humbly wait for the Lord's light. I asked them whether the organization would require them to believe something that we are convinced is untrue on the basis of the Bible. They were a bit unclear on that.

They could only stay for an hour today. But, today's meeting was much better than last week's. They listened more and more communication took place. I gave them a copy of the 2nd London Confession of 1689 and told them that I think it well summarizes the teaching of Scripture, though it is not authoritative above the Bible and is a fallible document.

We parted on good terms and they said they would be back next week, and we'll talk about "the kingdom." Please continue to pray! And stay tuned.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are Coming!

2008-02-29T10:05:00.006-05:00

At least, they say they're coming. For the past three weeks, the Jehovah's Witnesses have come to my house to talk with me about the gospel. Every Saturday at 11 AM, there is a knock at my door. The first week, they didn't stay very long. All they did was introduce themselves and give out their literature. The second week, things got a little more interesting. We got into a discussion about the kingdom of God, the deity of Christ, sin and redemption, and whether or not we should worship Jesus. The third week, they gently challenged my view of the deity of Christ by using Philippians 2:6. The verse says that Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." We also talked about texts that teach His divinity, such as John 20:28 and Heb 1:8. I tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity to them in a simple, straightforward way. I also explained the gospel to them. They said they'd be back next week, which is tomorrow. But before they left, they encouraged me to study Genesis 1 in preparation. I suppose they're going to ask me about the Holy Spirit, who they believe is an impersonal force. So, I'm getting ready for that, but I'm also getting ready to show them what their own New World Translation says about Christ's divinity.

They're supposed to come again at 11. I don't know whether or not they will, but please pray that the Spirit will open their hearts to His Word (Hebrews 4:12-13). They are greatly deceived, and they are oppressed by the Watchtower Organization. They desperately need God's mercy. God is powerful to save. We're going to have cookies and drinks for them tomorrow when they come.

Here is the approach I'm going to take with them. I'll ask, "Would you agree that if the Bible teaches that Jesus is Jehovah God, you must accept that fact, even if you cannot fully understand how Jesus can be both God and man?" Then, I want to take them through the following outline:

1. Deuteronomy 6:4 - There is only one God, Jehovah.
2. Isaiah 43:10-11 - God is Jehovah, the only Savior, and there is no other.
3. Isaiah 44:6 - Jehovah God is the first and the last.
4. Revelation 1:8 - Jehovah is the Lord God Almighty, the Alpha (first) and the Omega (last).
5. Revelation 22:13 - Jesus is the Alpha (first) and the Omega (last), the beginning and the end. See also verse 17. We know Christ is the one speaking because of the repeated phrase, "I am coming soon" throughout the passage (vv. 7, 12, 20).
6. Revelation 1:17-18 - The one God who is the first and the last died and rose again.

I encourage you to write this outline in the back of your own Bible in case you ever have an opportunity to speak with the Jehovah's Witnesses about the hope that is within you. It's adapted from an appendix in Everyday Evangelism by Billie Hanks, Jr.

Law/Gospel Contradiction?

2008-02-24T09:24:00.007-05:00

In a recent White Horse Inn broadcast, the hosts of the show denied that the Sermon on the Mount is the Gospel. They said that Christ's sermon is primarily a law, which drives us to rest in Christ for our justification. iMonk responded with questions about some of the assertions that were made.

But, I'm convinced that Christ was preaching the Gospel throughout the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7). It is certainly good news to say, “Keep these laws to be rid of the miseries that come from sin and to enjoy the blessing of God!” “Obey and you will be blessed with the enjoyment and happiness that comes from the possession of eternal life!” The law of Christ is not bad news for the believer who is already justified. If it is not bad news, and if it teaches us the way to enjoy our relationship with Christ, then it must be good news!

It's important to remember that "the instructions for sanctification" aspect of the Gospel only comes after the announcement of what God alone has already done to redeem His people. The heart of the gospel is, “Christ has completely satisfied the law for His people! He paid the penalty and earned the blessing! Just look to Him in faith and you will have a right and title to eternal life!”

But, the whole gospel message is more than simply an announcement of what God has done in Christ by the Spirit to overcome the effects of sin. It also includes the good news of what we can and must do to enjoy His purchase.

The gospel involves all three of Christ’s offices: He is our prophet (herald); He is our priest (justification); but He is most certainly also our king (sanctification).

Here is an excellent paper by J.C. Ryle on the similarities and differences between justification and sanctification. It is a quick read, and it is absolutely superb.

I highly encourage you to read Ryle's paper.

HT: James Grant

Following up on "The Church, State, and Politics"

2008-02-15T11:07:00.018-05:00

I'm not satisfied with either theonomy or Klineanism. There are glaring problems with the theonomic model, but a Klinean perspective raises the questions Ben expressed in a reply to my post on "The Church, the State, and Politics." Those questions, I think, can be summarized in this way: What do we do when the conscience of a culture will not agree that the violation of God's social moral laws is wrong? I'm not sure what Kline would say. Lee Irons seems to think that we should just preach the gospel and never try to force the issue with unbelievers when they have "dug in" on an issue. If all our loving arguments and attempts to persuade the culture fail, we should not try to get laws that will force the culture to submit to God's social standards. This is evidenced by Irons' apparent approval of, or refusal to fight against, the same-sex marriage law.

So, Klineanism doesn't seem to be an adequate alternative to theonomy. The historic view of politics among Baptists was that the state should never legislate the consciences of men and that speech is a function of conscience. An early forerunner of the Baptists, Thomas Helwys, wrote, "For mens religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answere for it, neither may the King be iudg betweene God and man. Let them be heretikes, Turcks, Jewes or whatsoever, it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure" (A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity 69). I agree with that sentiment (see John 18:36). Therefore, all men should have the right to free speech and the free exercise of religion. This means that public blasphemy should never be a punishable offense. The state should uphold the right of all men to worship as they please and the right of men to try to convert others to their faith. Connected to this, I would argue that the state should protect the right of Christians to worship on one day out of every seven.

However, the state should directly enforce the *outward aspect* of God's social moral laws *within its sphere* of authority. Magistrates are responsible before God for this. God's laws are revealed in the Bible and summarily contained in the Decalogue. The state should punish those who physically murder or harm other human beings. It should punish rapists, child molesters, homosexuals, adulterers, and thieves of every stripe (embezzlers, robbers, swindlers, unjust merchants, identity thieves, etc.). Governments should punish businesses for harmfully polluting the environment, since that is tantamount to murder and causing harm through disease, etc. It should regulate businesses in ways that prevent them from harming their employees, and it should punish those who perform and have abortions. The state should also have laws that penalize those who sign contracts and then break them.

That said, it is not within the sphere of the government's authority to punish rebellious children, unless the children rebel in ways that violate laws that are in the state's sphere of sovereignty. Children are under the authority of their parents. If parents refuse to do their jobs and their children end up being social deviants, murderers, etc., then the state's role kicks in. It is not the state's job to educate children; the Bible gives that responsibility to parents first and churches under them. It is the state's job to protect children from physical harm; so, the state should prevent children from abuse and neglect (do not murder).

This is neither an Anabaptist nor a classically Calvinist view of politics. It's a classic Baptist view.

Thoughts?

Teachability: Part of True Mentoring

2008-02-15T10:07:00.005-05:00

Dr. Haykin had the following to say about true mentoring:

"What happens in the mentoring process, be it pastoral or academic? It is not the case that the person being mentored is totally passive and the mentor has all of the answers. Rather, a true mentoring experience is one in which there is a subtle interplay between teaching and learning on both sides. In the true mentoring experience the mentor also experiences what is to be a learner. And being a learner, summed up by that exquisite word 'teachability,' lies at the heart of what it means o be a true leader."

Those are good words.

The Church, State, and Politics

2008-02-09T11:03:00.000-05:00

During this election season, more than any other I can remember, I find myself struggling to think more carefully about the relationship between the church and the state. We have Obama and Hillary on the "secular progressive" side, and we have Huckabee, who is trying to appeal to cultural Christians, and McCain, who evidently can't stand the "evangelical right," on the conservative side. For me, the question is larger than the particulars of this election. The election is simply the catalyst of my anxieties.

I'm struggling to work out a coherent and consistent biblical theology of church, state, and politics because I want the Bible to govern my opinions in every sphere of life including opinions about the public square. There are two extremes among Reformed theologians: Theonomy (via A. Kuyper) and Klineanism. I'm not on board with either position, especially not with theonomy.

Theonomy
Theonomy is advocated by the likes of G. Bahnsen, R. Rushdoony, and G. North. This system teaches that Israel's government is the model for all civil magistrates at all times. They argue that God's law, revealed in Scripture, is the only norm for all the human spheres of relationship, including the home, the church, and the state. They say that the standing civil laws of the Old Testament along with their sanctions should be enforced by the governments of every nation.

Contrary to what one might expect, theonomy claims that the Old Testament recognizes a separation between the church and the state: Israelite priests were not to run the government and Israelite kings were not to make sacrifices. It also claims to allow for liberty of conscience and for non Christians to live peaceably within the borders of a theonomic state (the stranger within your midst).

However, theonomy teaches that the state should execute public blasphemers (Lev 24:10-16) and idolaters (Deut 13:6-18). That is, if you keep your opposition to Christianity to yourself, you may live in peace, but if you try to convert others to your non-Christian religion, then off with your head. Furthermore, theonomy claims to make allowance for all kinds of Christian denominations, but it does not allow for the advocacy of any form of Christian theology that opposes theonomy, since that would be an attack upon the establishment. Thus, I would be in trouble for writing a blog that offered any criticism of theonomy, and any denomination that opposed theonomy (such as historic Baptists) would not be allowed to exist.

So, theonomy would prohibit the free and open exchange of ideas and would use the sword of the state to punish all who argue against either Christianity or theonomy. That doesn't sound like much separation of church and state or civil liberty to me. It seems theonomy has much in common with the Islam and its ideal of sharia law, in which Muslim theologians interpret and apply the Koran to the civil government and culture. Devout Muslims believe that sharia law should be the norm for every society on earth and they have a vision for the conquest of the nations. Of course, to be fair, the Muslims see this conquest taking place through military action, while theonomists say that the conquest will come only through the advancement of the gospel and the ushering in of the millennium (most theonomists are postmillennialists).

Klineanism
I'm still in the process of learning about the Klinean model, but here is what I've gathered so far. Those who know the system better than me are welcome to correct any misrepresentations. The city of God (believers and the church) and the city of man (Gentile civilization) are supposed to be distinct, and the city of God should not try to conquer or otherwise "take over" the city of man because it will not work and is contrary to the gospel of Christ. The government, culture, and civil sphere in general are too weak to maintain a public Christianity. Here is their biblical-theological justification for their model.

After Cain killed Abel, Cain constructed a civilization. Cain's city was destroyed in the flood for its godlessness, but after the flood, God promised that he would never destroy the city of man again until the day of judgment. The city of man should be allowed to continue alongside the city of God until judgment day (Matt 13:36-43). After the flood, Genesis 9 teaches that the image of God in man (i.e., common grace) was the foundation of civil law for all the nations prior to the Mosaic covenant. God's moral law is in the heart of every man, and it teaches that the government should punish murderers, thieves, and other social deviants.

The Mosaic covenant, along with its civil and ceremonial laws, was a temporary covenant, intended for the nation of Israel alone. It was never for any nation/culture/government but Israel. No other nation can claim to be under that covenant, and no other nation can claim any of the legal blessings or curses promised to that nation because Israel was a chosen nation, a special people for God's own possession. God promised to do them good for obedience and to discipline them in their disobedience, but he makes no such promises for any other nation. Israel alone was placed under a heavy legal burden as an example of God's holiness to the nations and in anticipation of Christ's fulfillment of that law burden. Israel's covenant was also specially designed to preserve Israel as a nation through severe discipline until the coming of Christ. After Christ came, the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and abolished as a covenant, such that no nation is obligated to keep the Mosaic covenant. We are free from the Mosaic law-covenant (Gal 3:15-4:7).

Not only is no nation obligated to keep the Mosaic law, for Christians to demand that any nation yoke itself to the Mosaic code is contrary to the gospel of Christ. Men must embrace the gospel voluntarily. Men become Christians when they are persuaded in mind and heart to embrace Jesus Christ. If the government comes with a "club" and an argument, men will not listen to the argument but will pretend to be Christian because of the club.

On the Klinean model, Christians should defend the liberty of conscience and the right of all men to believe and argue for whatever they wish. But, Christians should also try to persuade unbelievers of the value of keeping God's social commandments (the second table of the law), and work alongside of them to bring about justice and liberty for all. Christians should not, however, beat the city of man over the head with God's law in an authoritarian way. Instead, we should appeal to reason and to the image of God that is within everyone on the basis of common grace.

The Klinean does not hope that this present world will be transformed into Christendom. He is politically active out of love for his fellow image bearers, but he doesn't believe that political action will usher in the kingdom, nor does he believe that the city of man will ever fully or truly embrace any one of God's laws. Rather, he believes that the city of God and the city of man will exist side by side until the judgment day. It is not the role of the church to bring the state into subjection to God's law or to itself. But, by working for good in the state, and by appealing to the image of God in every man, there can be larger and smaller successes by which mercy is shown, suffering relieved, the weak defended, etc., though these "successes" will never overtake the city of man completely. Nor should they.

Versions of Dispensationalism

2008-02-04T15:30:00.000-05:00

Here is something I wrote in the comments section of a previous blog post. I'm posting it here in case anyone missed it, and because some dispensationalists have been known read this blog, and if I'm misrepresenting them, I want them to call me out on it.

Dispensationalism (A General Definition) – Divides the Bible into two separate and distinct peoples: Israel and the Church, and the two do not mix or overlap.

Classic Dispensationalism – Sees the OT as applying only to Israel and promising a Messiah to rule over them only. Had Israel agreed to submit to Christ’s rule at his first coming, Christ would have set up his earthly kingdom among them at that time, but Israel refused. Therefore, God formed the church as an “intercalation” or “parenthesis” (an interruption) which stands between God’s 1st dealings with Israel and his 2nd dealing with Israel in the millennial period. None of the Old Testament promises of law or gospel apply to us Gentiles in the church at all. We are under the New Testament only and the OT promises are for the nation of Israel, not for us. This position was held by most old school dispensationalists.

Hyper Dispensationalism – Holds that not only the OT but also the Gospels and possibly other books of the NT are for Israel only. The Gospels with all of their laws and commands do not apply to us. Paul’s writings, primarily (sometimes exclusively) are for the Church. Hyper-Dispensationalism denies Lordship-Salvation because while Israel had to work for its salvation under the law dispensation, the Church does not work for its salvation under the gospel dispensation. This view is pretty rare today.

Progressive Dispensationalism – Affirms the “already – not yet” method of interpreting OT prophecy. The “Progressive Dispensationalists” say that the promises God made to Israel in the OT are “already” being fulfilled in the church (this is a move toward covenant theology), but are “yet” to be fulfilled for national Israel in the future millennial reign (this is like classic Dispensationalism). This view would only differ from my own in terms of eschatology. It would see a future for national Israel in the millennium, and I would see a future for true Israel in the final state. While I don’t agree with any form of Dispensationalism, this is the mildest form of it. I struggle with how this position can be viewed as logically consistent, since it claims that God can genuinely fulfill promises to national Israel in the church, but that God must fulfill those promises to national Israel in the future.

The way in which I believe all of these views err is that they think the OT promises of land and prosperity to national Israel were for that nation without respect to the faith or faithfulness of the Israelites. Thus, on that basis, they make a hard distinction between Israel (David) and the Church (Paul). They say that David and Paul are part of two totally distinct peoples with totally different promises. I believe that the promises God made to Israel are ours in Christ.

Are Baptists out of step with the gospel?

2008-02-02T13:33:00.000-05:00

Some have accused Baptists of denying the gospel because they insist that baptism (immersion) must precede any participation in the Lord's Supper. John Stott, for example, argues that Galatians 2:11-14 teaches us to welcome all believers to the Lord's Supper, regardless of what mode of baptism they received. Stott says that when churches make immersion a prerequisite of communion at the Lord's Supper, they are denying the gospel.

However, there are two problems with Stott's notion.

First, it proves too much. If we were to admit people to the Lord's Supper on the basis of faith alone, then it would be wrong to insist that baptism itself is prerequisite. Surely Stott doesn't believe that. A simple profession of faith alone in Christ alone would have to be sufficient, and no manner of church polity could govern the Lord's Supper.

Second, Galatians 2:11 does not say that Peter refused to take the Lord's Supper with the Gentiles. Rather, it says that he drew back from dining with the Gentiles in a fellowship meal. It also says that he separated himself from them. Peter's sin was that he refused Christian fellowship to genuine believers. The picture here is not that Peter refused to partake of the Lord's Supper with the Gentiles but that he wouldn't eat with them at church fellowships. It is entirely possible that Peter did participate in the ordinance/rite of the Lord's Supper with the Gentiles while still refusing to dine with them at fellowship meals, though we are not told what actually took place.

Baptists are happy to dine with brothers and sisters who have not been baptized, to fellowship with them, and to enjoy their company as fellow believers. I would gladly sit down for dinner with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards! They are beloved brothers in Christ, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they would greatly edify me. I would certainly not keep back from them or separate from Christian fellowship with them. The universal church is a marvelous thing and we can benefit from Christians across all Christian denominations and churches.

However, an unbaptized person should not be permitted to join the church or invited to take the Lord's Supper because the pattern of polity revealed in the NT is that baptism precedes membership and Communion. We can love a person and have fellowship with him even while insisting that the NT pattern of polity be followed.

Confession and Conversion

2008-01-17T14:58:00.000-05:00

What is the relationship between an orthodox "Confession of Faith" and soteric "conversion?" Many churches throughout history have had orthodox confessions of faith, but not all churches have stressed the importance of conversion: i.e., personally turning away from sin and toward Christ, exercising faith, love, and joy in Him. For example, historic Anglicanism confessed the Thirty Nine Articles of Faith; the Lutherans held to the Book of Concord; and Presbyterianism adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith. Each of those is an orthodox confession. Interestingly, since the 1600's all three of these denominations have adjusted their doctrinal affirmations, moving further and further away from the original statements. In the 1900's, that doctrinal apostasy resulted in church splits/schisms in all three denominations and ended with the old denomination affirming heresy and the new split returning to biblical orthodoxy.

I submit that one of the reasons for the doctrinal corruption in each of these cases is a lack of emphasis on conversion in all three denominations. There is a tendency in the paedobaptistic and externalistic denominations to try to "nurture" a corporate "faith," without insisting on individual, personal faith and love to Christ, without pressing the consciences of individuals, urging them to come to Christ. The eventual result of such neglect is an unregenerate denomination, which does not love the truth of biblical confessions of faith. Arid, loveless, intellectualism inevitably jettisons biblical confessions of faith and naturally adjusts church doctrine to conform to the ideals of unbelief.

An orthodox confession of faith only remains the confession of a church when that church stresses conversion and faithfully practices church discipline because only converted people love the truth. The unconverted will do anything they can to jettison it.

Therefore, the maintenance of a regenerate church membership is necessary for lasting confessional orthodoxy.

Our Present and Future Life

2008-01-04T15:50:00.000-05:00

I've argued that the Bible gives us two different classes of texts with respect to eternal life. One class reveals that eternal life already belongs to the believer. Another class shows that eternal life is something that is yet future. How can both of these things be true? One way of explaining the already/not yet of eternal life is quantitative. That is, we might simply say that the believer already experiences some of eternal life, but has yet to experience the fullness of eternal life. While that is true, there is a more fundamental, qualitative distinction to be made.

A Present Possession (Objective)
The biblical terms used to describe the believer's current relationship to eternal life imply possession or ownership. The believer "has eternal life" (Jn 5:24; 6:47). This possession or ownership of eternal life is something God gives to those who are His (Jn 10:28; 17:2). It is a free gift (Rom 6:23), which means it is not merited or earned by those who receive it. The possession of eternal life is granted to the elect, to those who were chosen in Him eternally, and it is granted to them at the moment they first believe (Acts 13:48). We can never earn eternal life so as to buy it for ourselves by our own works of obedience to the law (Gal 3:21). Rather, eternal life was purchased by the righteousness of Christ in His life, death, and resurrection (Rom 5:18, 21) and bestowed freely upon all in whom the Spirit works regeneration and faith.

A Present and Future Experience (Subjective)
Eternal life is something that believers experience or enjoy in the present at the moment they first believe. However, the full enjoyment and experience of eternal life is yet future and contingent upon perseverance and transformation into the likeness of Christ (which transformation is always manifest by good works). If you lose your [temporal] life, you will find [eternal] life (Matt 10:39). Those who inherit eternal life in the future are those who in this life turned from the world to Christ (Matt 19:29). Those who do righteous deeds gain access to the experience eternal life in heaven (Matt 25:46). Rom 6:22 teaches that the outcome of sanctification (i.e., perseverance) is eternal life. The Bible says that we have to fight in order to experience and enjoy eternal life: "Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called" (1 Tim 6:12). Revelation 2:10 says, " Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life."

An Example:
Possession. My little girl and I have a relationship. She is my daughter. She did nothing to earn her status of "daughter." She was simply born into my home freely. Nothing that she does will be able to make her "not my daughter." Her "daughter" status is utterly unconditional. She is permanently and unconditionally in relationship with me.

Experience. However, for my daughter to enjoy our relationship, she must obey me. That's because if she does not obey me, I will make sure that she doesn't enjoy our relationship. A happy daughter is an obedient daughter. But, if she disobeys, I will lovingly and graciously discipline her, removing from her the enjoyment of our relationship, so that she might enjoy it more at a later date. The enjoyment and experience of our relationship is contingent upon her works.

Similarly, God, who is eternal life, gives us Himself freely. But, for us to enjoy Him, we must become like Him and obey Him. An unregenerate man who entered into heaven would not enjoy it. Indeed it wouldn't seem like heaven at all. In order for us to experience what is truly heaven - God Himself, we must be glorified, made into the likeness of Christ, or else we would never enjoy Him.

Put differently, Christ's objective righteousness alone makes us morally or legally fit for heaven (justification). But our subjective righteousness makes us naturally or ontologically fit for heaven (sanctification).

The Possession of Eternal Life is Received by Faith Alone

2008-01-01T21:29:00.000-05:00

Not only does the Bible teach that the experience of eternal life is "not yet" and contingent upon perseverance in good works to the end of life, but it also teaches that believers come into possession of eternal life "already" by grace alone through faith alone.

Jhn 3:15 "so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Jhn 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Jhn 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.

Jhn 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Jhn 5:40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Jhn 6:33 "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."

Jhn 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Jhn 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Jhn 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

Jhn 10:10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have {it} abundantly.

Jhn 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

Jhn 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,

Jhn 17:2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.

Jhn 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Jhn 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Act 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance {that leads} to life."

Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they {began} rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2Cr 3:6 who also made us adequate {as} servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Gal 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

1Ti 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Tts 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.

1Jo 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

1Jo 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

Persevering Work is Necessary for the Experience of Eternal Life

2008-01-01T12:48:00.000-05:00

There are two classes of texts in the Scriptures with respect to eternal life. One class teaches that we must labor in good works in order to experience and enjoy eternal life. The other class teaches that eternal life is already ours. In my next post, I'll list the passages which show that eternal life is a present possession. Then, I'll explain how these two strands of biblical teaching on eternal life fit together.

Mat 10:39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Mat 19:29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Luk 18:29-30 And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

Jhn 5:28-29 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good {deeds} to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil {deeds} to a resurrection of judgment.

Jhn 6:27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

Jhn 12:25 "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.

Jhn 12:50 "I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

Rom 2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

Rom 6:22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.

Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

1Ti 6:18-19 {Instruct them} to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.

Tts 1:1-2 Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

Jam 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which {the Lord} has promised to those who love Him.

1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

1Jo 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Jud 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

Rev 2:10 'Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Is Perseverance Necessary for Eternal Life?

2007-12-29T16:34:00.000-05:00

While there are many in the evangelical world today who claim that salvation is only by faith, the Bible clearly teaches that salvation involves good works and that they are necessary to experience eternal life. Justification is by faith alone, but salvation, taken as a whole, is by faithfulness. Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Charles Stanley and other no-Lordship proponents claim that a person's heavenly inheritance is secure based on a decision that the person made at some point in his past without respect to whether or not the person is presently living a godly life.

Contrary to that antinomian (against the law) vision of Christianity, Christ teaches that the only one who will enter the kingdom of heaven is "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:23). And, God's "will" is not limited to "faith alone," but includes faith, repentance, love, and good works of faithful obedience to God's law. Mark 13:13 says, "The one who endures to the end will be saved." Christ said that the man whose house stands is the one who "hears my words and does them" (Luke 6:46). In context, this "doing" of Christ's words cannot be reduced to the act of "faith alone," but includes a robust godliness (Luke 6:20-45). Christ very pointedly told the disciples "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love" (John 15:10).

The epistles are full of such admonition. 1 Corinthians 10:12 says, "Therefore, let anyone who thinks that he stands, take heed lest he fall." Then again in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 2 Corinthians 5:10 says, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." In Galatians, Paul warns us, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6). Later in the same letter, Paul wrote, "For the one who sows to his own flesh, will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" (Galatians 6:8).

In the book of Hebrews, we find many warnings that teach us of the necessity of perseverance for the experience of eternal live. "For we share in Christ, if we hold fast our original confidence firm to the end" (Hebrews 3:14). "Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear, lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it" (Hebrews 4:1). "Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience" (Hebrews 4:11). "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:9). "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for our sins but a fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26). "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).

The book of Revelation too, warns us that we must be overcomers in order to inherit the promised future blessing. "To the one who conquers, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7). "Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Revelation 2:10). "The one who conquers, I will grant to sit with my on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne" (Revelation 3:21).

Finally, "The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son, but as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:7-8).

Top 9 Biographies

2007-12-29T14:35:00.000-05:00

Michael Haykin recently blogged about the top nine biographies that have had a profound impact on his life. Here they are:

1. Iain Murray, DM Lloyd-Jones (2 vols.)

2. Faith Cook, Grimshaw of Haworth

3. Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore (Adoniram Judson)

4. Timothy George, Faithful Witness (W Carey)

5. Andrew Fuller, Memoirs of Samuel Pearce

6. A Dallimore, George Whitefield (2 vols.)

7. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo

8. George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards

9. Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards

I would only add Charles Spurgeon's 2 volume autobiography and the missionary John Paton's autobiography.

Do Not Forsake the Assembly

2007-12-17T15:45:00.000-05:00

Hebrews 10 says Christians are to stir one another up to good deeds, “not forsaking our own assembling together” (v. 25). But, what does that mean? The key term “forsaking” translates the GK word egkataleipontes (pres act ptc nom pl masc), which is from the lexical root egkataleipo. According to Mounce, the term is rightly glossed to read “to leave, to leave behind, to forsake, and abandon.” BDAG says it means “to separate connection with someone or something., forsake, abandon, desert.” Kohlenberger adds “to give up.”

The writer to the Hebrews uses the word only one other time. Hebrews 13:5 says, “God has said, Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” The word “leave” does not have the same finality as “forsake.” The idea of “forsaking” carries the notion of total abandonment. Paul uses the term in 2 Tim 4:10 and 4:16 to speak of those who totally abandoned him. “For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica” (2 Tim 4:10). “At my first defense, no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me” (2 Tim 4:16). Therefore, the GK term translated "forsake" in Hebrews 10:25 means that the believer must not abandon the Christian assembly.

In conclusion, this text does not mean that a person must come to the assembly every time the doors are open. Rather, it means that we must not “abandon” the assembly. But, what does that mean? Is the notion of abandonment purely subjective? If people come regularly for Christmas and Easter every year, have they “abandoned” the assembly? What if they come once a month and never more, but they come consistently every month? How do we know when someone has abandoned the assembly? Is it purely subjective? I submit that unless we have a clear doctrine of the Sabbath, then we have no objective measure by which to decide what “forsake” means. I would argue that to “forsake” the assembly means unrepentantly breaking the Sabbath (which includes exceptions for acts of mercy, piety, and necessity: Matt 12).

The Sabbath

2007-12-17T15:18:00.000-05:00

Thesis: The "one in seven" day “rest” (Heb: shabbath) is moral law and thus perpetually binds all human beings at all times.

This is evidenced first of all in that it is a creation ordinance (Gen 2:1-2) and not a law instituted after the fall for the purpose of typifying Christ. Therefore, Christ cannot be said to "fulfill" and abrogate it the way He fulfills and abrogates the ceremonial laws. Rather, Jesus fulfills the Sabbath command in the same way He fulfills the rest of the Decalogue - He is the perfect picture of Sabbath keeping and He brings the Old Testament Sabbath to redemptive historical maturity. So, Christians are to keep the Sabbath day in light of Christ and as it comes to us through His hands.

Secondly, the Hebrews kept the Sabbath before God gave the Mosaic law (Exod 16:30); thus, any abrogation of the Mosaic covenant cannot imply the abrogation of the Sabbath command itself because the Sabbath is not merely a "Mosaic law."

Thirdly, the clear NT abrogation of the Jewish ceremonial Sabbath (Rom 14:5; Gal 4:10; Col 2:16) does not imply the abrogation of the "one in seven" day “Shabbath,” i.e., rest (Gen 2:1-2; Exod 20:8-11), which is the essence of the eternal and moral law of the Sabbath. The substance of the Sabbath is not "adiaphorous" or an arbitrary "positive law," but a reflection of God's own character, which enjoys both "work and rest."

Fourthly, Christ has fulfilled the Jewish ceremonial Sabbath and we thereby have rest from the guilt and power of our sins by resting in Him and by freedom from the rigor of that ritualistic code, but there remains a Sabbath day rest for Christians because though our salvation is "already" it is "not yet" completed. Hence, Christian Sabbath (the term means “rest” not “Saturday”) observance on "one day out of seven" (Exod 20:8-11; Deut 5:13-14) in remembrance of the resurrection of Christ and in anticipation of heaven on the Lord's Day is wholly appropriate and obligatory for the NT saint. This is the apostolic example (Acts 20:7).

Fifthly, the underlying principle of the Sabbath command is permanent and thus will never be abolished, even in heaven (Rev 1:10). The principle behind the fourth command includes both work and rest. For all eternity, the redeemed of Christ will be at rest in Him, free from the toil and labor of work, which is a curse of the fall, but the redeemed in heaven will work, enjoying the tasks lovingly assigned by their Lord (Rev 22:5). Thus, those in heaven will keep the Sabbath command for all eternity.

The Gospel and God's Fatherly Discipline

2007-12-14T16:12:00.001-05:00

It's critical for Christians to recognize the difference between punishment and discipline. Punishment has to do with the law, exacting penalties for sins against the law. It is not corrective (ex: hell isn't corrective) but is punitive only. Punishment vindicates God's injured majesty and violated justice. It brings joy to God, but it does not bring joy to the sinner. Discipline, on the other hand, has to do with the gospel. It does not mete out the sanctions of divine justice but comes from the loving hand of the Father to his sons (Heb 12:3-17). God's disciplinary providences toward his children are gifts of grace because they are aimed at sanctifying believers for their own good and growth in godliness. Discipline aims at the happiness of its recipients. The Puritans used to say that when God brings discipline into our lives, we should "kiss the rod" of correction.

Often God's Fatherly discipline exposes our sin and brings it out into the open, as in the case of David, and strips us of our idols by painful force. Perhaps David's idol was his high and exalted status as king. He was of such standing in the sight of the people that he felt free to remain home while his armies were at war. David felt free to order Bathsheba to come to him and to have her for himself. He was on a power trip and he felt he had the approval rating to sustain it. But, his lofty status and widely popular approval likely plummeted when his sins were made public for all to see. David wasn't as great as many thought. David's over-blown self-image was ripped away from him by force through God's gracious discipline for David's own good.

So, how should Christians be motivated by God's corrective discipline? We should think about the fact that our sins will either be mortified and godliness vivified through willing application to Christ or our sins will be painfully ripped away from us by discipline. Either way, God will sanctify us. Which way will you grow? Will it be through faithful application to the cross of Christ, or will God expose your sins and will your idols be ripped from you by God's merciful discipline?

Legalists and the Law

2007-12-14T13:37:00.001-05:00

Some legalists love to be beaten up with the law, and they criticize any application of Christianity that doesn't beat people up as a “kissy-poo” faith, which is soft and effeminate, unwilling to face up to the hard teachings of the Bible. They beat themselves up and they like to hear preaching that beats them up as well. This used to puzzle me, since it involves the endurance of great and persistent harshness. However, I’ve come to believe that a triumphalistic legalist (as opposed to a defeated legalist) enjoys beating himself up and being beaten up by preaching because he feels that thereby he makes atonement for his own sins. If he’s beaten up sufficiently, he feels better about himself as though he has somehow paid for some of his sins, though all such beatings are utterly insufficient when one considers what we truly deserve. He does not want to hear about forgiveness. He doesn’t want to hear that Christ is wholly sufficient to atone for his sins. He doesn’t want to hear about hell (and good teaching never avoids the negative) only to have the condemnation of hell remitted by the righteousness of Jesus for those who believe because that doesn't motivate him. He is motivated by pride not by faith in Jesus Christ and his grace. The legalist would rather wallow in condemnation, feel better about himself, only to try to do better next time and to be proud of his miserably imperfect work. Christ and forgiveness are for unbelievers, he may say. He doesn’t want to be motivated and disciplined by grace; he wants to be disciplined by the law. The basic reason for this attitude is pride. The essence of pride is belief in self and unbelief in Christ. All Christians are recovering legalists, but someone who is exclusively a triumphalistic legalist is not a Christian at all.

The sanctified heart is overwhelmed and motivated by grace. The one who lives by faith in Christ is increasingly stripped of pride because he knows there is no way to pay for his own sins and there is nothing he can do to merit favor from God. He is humbled into the dust and motivated by faith in Jesus Christ and all that Christ is. All his works are like filthy rags for justification, though he knows that his works of faith and love to God are made acceptable in and through Christ. The one who is motivated by grace works to imitate Christ because Christ has won his affections! His costly love was manifested in his life, death, and resurrection, and the one who looks to Christ longs to emulate him. Christ captures the heart of the believer. All that Christ has done, is doing, and will do to shower us with love and grace proves to us that he really does love us. Scripture says that we love God (and thus obey him) because he first loved us! The Bible teaches that those who understand how much they are forgiven love (and thus obey) much! It is the kindness of God that leads us to daily repentance. God's consistent, steady and powerful love convinces us that his merciful instructions really are for our own good and for God's own glory. Our good works of evangelical obedience and worship don’t glorify God because they are in themselves glorious, worthy, or meritorious in any sense (they are too imperfect for that). Rather, they glorify God because they flow from a humble heart of faith in Christ, who is in himself glorious. They glorify God because they display the Spirit’s free and gracious work in us, which was purchased and applied by Christ’s righteousness, and they glorify God because we cannot claim that there is any merit or absolute worthiness (for justification) in them.

The Law and the Gospel

2007-12-14T12:23:00.000-05:00

Hey Ben (and all), tell me what you think of this.

There are basically three positions on the distinction bewtween the law and the gospel: (1) antinomianism, (2) legalism, and (3) law-gospel balance.

These three categories are not completely distinct, but are the main points along a continuum of beliefs. There are intermediate and overlapping views, but these three will provide us with a good sense of the issues at stake. Obviously my outlining of these categories is biased toward what I think “balanced” means; so, the reader will have to judge whether or not I’m right.

The law-gospel distinction relates both to justification and sanctification, and the errors at the extremes (antinomianism and legalism) are the result of mixing and confusing justification and sanctification.

ANTINOMIANISM: The law is bad and the gospel is good.
Antinomianism teaches that there is a radical separation between the law and the gospel in both justification and sanctification. According to Antinomianism, the gospel is that we are under no obligation whatsoever, and that it is in fact wrong, to obey the law for our sanctification. Antinomians believe that all of God’s commands are law, and the law serves only to kill us and show us our need of Christ. We must renounce the way of the law and embrace the way of the gospel. The gospel shows us that Christ's work alone pleases God and that no Christian good works are pleasing to God. Therefore, God simply requires that we believe (passively and restingly) in what Christ has already done for us. Pure antinomianism teaches that genuinely saved people can live their whole lives without doing any good works. In this way Antinomianism takes the truth about justification and wrongly applies it to sanctification, mixing two things that should not be mixed.

Historically, this position became most prominent after the Reformation and found favor among some of the extreme Lutherans and Radical Reformers. Contemporarily, old school “no Lordship” Dispensationalism held to this school of thought.

LEGALISM: The law is the gospel.
Legalism teaches that we are obligated to keep the law for both our justification and sanctification. To the degree that we are sanctified (doing good works in faith and love), God declares us “not guilty” and “righteous,” but to the degree that we are unsanctified, God views us as guilty. On this perspective, the law is not at all too hard for us to keep for justification. Faith and good works are often understood as two ways of talking about the same thing, both of which are aspects of the obedience that is necessary to be constituted legally righteous before God. Legalism often speaks of God’s "graciously" giving the law and making us able to keep it, but it doesn’t speak much of a Substitute law-keeper who keeps the law on behalf of others. Legalism takes the truth that we must do good works for sanctification and wrongly applies it to justification, thus confusing the two.

Historically, post-Trent Roman Catholicism, some deviant forms of Arminianism, and those who held to Richard Baxter’s Neonomianism have been advocates of this view. Today, legalism is gaining ground again in various academic expressions of dynamic justification through the teachings of Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and advocates of the New Perspectives on Paul.

LAW-GOSPEL BALANCE: The proper law-gospel distinction.
While antinomianism applies principles of justification to sanctification and legalism applies principles of sanctification to justification, the balanced position sees the proper distinction between justification and sanctification. The balanced view teaches that there is a sharp law-gospel distinction in justification, but a gospel-law continuum in sanctification.

Justification. The law requires perfect obedience for justification (to be declared righteous before God the judge and to have a right and title to eternal life), such that nothing short of absolute holiness can make a man “just” in God’s sight (Gal 5:3). After the fall, justification by works is impossible because we are all sinners (Rom 3:23); therefore, the law serves only to kill us and show us that we fall far short of God’s glory (Rom 7:7). Personal law-keeping is thus utterly excluded from justification. But, the Gospel teaches that Christ has kept the law in full for His people both by enduring its curse and by meriting its blessing on behalf of all who believe in Him (Rom 3:23-26; 5:12-21). The “law” shuts us up to condemnation and out of justification by works (Gal 3:10-14), but the “gospel” teaches that Christ has kept the law for us, asks us to renounce all good works for our justification, and entreats us to trust in Christ in order to be robed in His perfect law-keeping (His righteousness) for our justification (Rom 4:5-8). This is the proper law-gospel contrast in justification.

Sanctification. The gospel not only reveals the way to be justified, it also reveals how to be sanctified, which is no less important. Christ’s redemptive work not only makes us just, it also makes us holy (Rom 6:12-14). It frees us from both the condemnation and the power of sin. Jesus Christ points all justified people to the law as a rule of walking (Rom 13:8-10) that must be obeyed out of love for Christ (Jn 14:15), gratitude for what He has done and will do (1 Jn 4:17-21), and for our own good (Deut 10:12-13). The law is good and holy and is God’s gracious gift to the believer, which should be cherished, esteemed, enjoyed, reverenced, studied, and diligently and meticulously obeyed (Rom 7:12; Ezra 7:6, 10). Justification frees the believer to obey the law and to continue in obedience even though we sin. What Christ has done wins our hearts (justification) and moves us to obedience for our own joy and for God’s glory (sanctification), but not for our justification. This is the proper gospel-law continuum in sanctification.

Historically, the sons and daughters of the Reformation embraced this balanced view. Though Luther made some extreme statements, if you read him carefully, you'll discover that he understood the balance. Calvin and the Calvinists all held a balanced perspective on the law and the gospel. Our Baptist forefathers also understood well the law-gospel distinction. Caleb Evans (1737-1791) wrote, “When I was only a youth, I beheld with admiration my father in the pulpit and was delighted with the heavenly sounds which flowed from his lips. Hearing the aweful terrors of the law and the astonishing grace of the gospel, I was brought into the very dust before the throne of a holy God, and enabled to magnify the riches of free grace.” During John Ryland Jr’s (1753-1825) funeral sermon, the preacher said, “Pelagian pride and Antinomian licentiousness; the first of which he detested as an insult on the grace of the gospel; the last on the majesty and authority of the law.” In Ryland’s last printed sermon, he wrote, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law [justification], not from the blessing of the law [sanctification]. For surely, it is a blessed thing to have a certain standard of duty, a directory to show us how we ought to walk and please God.”

BRIEF ANALYSIS
Legalism and antinomianism are both reductionistic in their approach to law and gospel. Antinomianism denies the proper role of the law in sanctification. Legalism denies the proper role of the gospel in justification.

Both antinomianism and legalism produce ungodliness, while only the proper law-gospel balance consistently yields the holiness without which none will see the Lord. Antinomianism creates a permissive attitude, while legalism creates either pride (not holiness) or defeatism (surrender to unholiness because of repeated failure).

There is a sense in which legalism is antinomian and antinomianism is legalistic. Legalism is antinomian because it invariably diminishes the absoluteness of the law and makes it easy enough to keep. Antinomianism is legalistic because though it throws off God’s law it makes every man a law unto himself and a slave to his own passions.

Classic Reading List

2007-11-24T11:33:00.000-05:00

If you're thinking about doing any recreational reading during your Christmas break, here is a list of classical Christian works that I highly recommend! They aren't in any particular order.

Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World by Jonathan Edwards

The Nature of True Virtue by Jonathan Edwards

The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards

Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards

Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

Treatise on Good Works by Martin Luther

The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill

The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation by Andrew Fuller

City of God by Augustine of Hippo

On the Predestination of the Saints by Augustine of Hippo

On the Holy Spirit by Basil of Caesarea

On the Incarnation by Athanasius

Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof

Preaching and Preachers by Martin Lloyd-Jones

The Christian Ministry by Charles Bridges

Pilgrims Progress by John Bunyan

Holy War by John Bunyan

The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded by John Bunyan

Justification by Imputed Righteousness by John Bunyan

The True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton

Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos

Redemption, Accomplished and Applied by John Murray

Principles of Conduct by John Murray

The Doctrine of Justification by James Buchanan

Covenant Theology by Nehemiah Cox

The Everlasting Covenant (sermon) by Benjamin Keach

Mortification of Sin by John Owen

Communion with God by John Owen

The Death of Death by John Owen

The Doctrine of Justification by John Owen

The Christian’s Great Interest by William Guthrie

Polity, ed, Mark Dever

God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl Henry

Christian Apologetics by Cornelius Van Til

Holiness by J.C. Ryle

The New Testament Commentary

2007-11-20T19:01:00.000-05:00

CBD currently has the best price I've ever seen on the 12 volume Hendricksen/Kistemaker commentary set at $99.99. They will be released on November 30, 2007. If you don't own these volumes, I highly recommend that you get them! This commentary is filled with sound biblical exegesis and pastoral wisdom that everyone should consult when studying, teaching, and preaching from the NT.

CBD writes: "This set is ideal for pastors and serious Bible students of the Reformed tradition. It is the only complete commentary on the New Testament written solely from a Reformed perspective. This award-winning twelve-volume hardcover set features verse-by-verse exegesis and applications, critical notes on the Greek text, chapter summaries, and extensive bibliographies and indexes."

NT Use of the OT

2007-11-12T15:51:00.000-05:00

There's a book out called Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited by GK Beale and DA Carson. Advocating a covenantal interpretation of the Old Testament, it has been reviewed over at Nine Marks Ministries by James Hamilton, who wrote:

"Many of us studied under professors who said something like this: "the authors of the New Testament made the Old Testament say whatever they wanted it to say, but they had the right to do so because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. You can’t interpret the Old Testament the way they did because you’re not inspired."

Okay, maybe they nuanced the statement more than that, but the idea was plainly communicated that the authors of the New Testament had not interpreted the Old Testament according to the Old Testament’s own meaning in its own historical context. Thus, whatever the authors of the New Testament may have been doing, we were not to read the Old Testament the way they read it. And we were taught this by evangelical scholars who signed a doctrinal statement that had the word inerrancy in it."

I just bought a copy of the commentary for myself and encourage you to get yours!!!

HT: The Road to Emmaus

Local Church Covenants

2007-11-09T12:08:00.000-05:00

There isn't a single passage teaching about the existence of church covenants; rather, the doctrine is built on a number of biblical principles, which include but are not necessarily limited to the following.

1. The Plurality of Local Churches. The term "churches" normally appears in the plural throughout the New Testament when referencing local congregations. There aren't "new covenants" in the plural, but the Bible does speak of "churches" in the plural. These local church bodies in the New Testament are composed of Christians who have voluntarily and mutually agreed to come together for the sake of the gospel, to establish a church, to appoint the New Testament officers of elders and deacons, who are not officers with authority over all the local churches of the new covenant, but only over a specific local church. Local church bodies mutually consent, agree, or covenant to sit under the teaching and ministry of specific officers, to which other local churches have not consented. The decision to appoint certain men as deacons over the Jerusalem church was a proposal that "pleased the whole group" (Acts 6:5). Therefore, the Bible teaches that the local churches are distinct assemblies (plural) composed of specific individuals in which members have mutually agreed (covenanted) to submit to the authority of specific officials.

2. Church Discipline. Each individual local church is responsible to discipline its own membership and does not have authority over the memberships of other local churches. This shows that there are bodies of believers in the New Testament that have covenanted or agreed to walk together in mutual accountability. According to Scripture, the highest court of appeal in matters of discipline is the whole local church body. "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church" (Matt 18:17). The punishment of excommunication was inflicted "by the majority" (2 Cor 2:6-8) at the local church of Corinth. Thus, local churches have mutually consented to submit to the discipline of their own memberships but are not bound to receive discipline from the membership of a sister church. The majority of the members of the church of Corinth was what was required, period. The fact that local churches have the authority to discipline those in their memberships shows that local church members are mutually submitted, or covenanted, to the terms of the new covenant.

3. Distinct from Both Outsiders and Unbelievers. Local churches are composed of a specific group that is recognized as distinct from both outsiders and unbelievers. 1 Corinthians 14:23 speaks of times when the "whole church comes together." It says, “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds” (1 Cor 14:23)? Note that the text distinguishes "outsiders" and "unbelievers" from the "whole church." It's not simply saying that unbelievers are outsiders or that outsiders are unbelievers, but it's saying first that there are those who are outside the Corinthian church, outside the bounds of its membership, which includes any and all people, believers and unbelievers, who aren't Corinthian church members, and then second the whole local church is distinct from unbelievers. Thus, a local church is a specific, known, recognized group of believers distinct from all outsiders, including non-member believers, and unbelievers.

While the words "church covenant" are never used in the Bible, Scripture represents local churches as involving an agreement or mutual consent among professing Christians to walk together as a local assembly, to walk under the ministry of specific appointed officers, and under the discipline of that local church. That mutual agreement is a covenant.

Thus, there are evidently two covenanted groups in view in the NT. First, there is the local church, which agrees, or covenants to walk together under the terms of the new covenant. And, second there is the new covenant, which includes the whole invisible people of God, believers in all places everywhere.

Baptist Covenant Theology

2007-10-16T10:02:00.000-04:00

In the comments of the last post, Ryan asked for a positive and basic biblical argument for Baptist covenant theology. Here are the basics, and we can get more thorough as necessary. Ryan, please comment!

Though there are different versions of covenant theology, all covenant theologians emphasize the unity of three strands of biblical revelation. They say, (1) there is one moral law summarized in the decalogue; (2) there is one gospel way of salvation for all men; and (3) there is one people of God (and the one people are saved by the one gospel). There is obviously more to it than this, but this is a good place to start.

1. Prove there is one moral law. A good place to start is the book of Hebrews, specifically the new covenant revealed in Hebrews. Hebrews 8:10 records that in the new covenant, God says, "I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts." The only law written immediately by the finger of God was the decalogue. This is the same law that is written on the hearts of new covenant believers. 2 Corinthians 3 shows that in the "new covenant" (1 Cor 3:6), the law of God is not written on "tablets of stone," (1 Cor 3:3), but that it is written "on tablets of human hearts" (1 Cor 3:3). The reference to "tablets" indicates the decalogue. Therefore, the one moral law of the Old Testament, summarily revealed in the decalogue, is the moral law of the new covenant. The difference between the two covenants is not a change in moral law, but the fact that in the new covenant, the law is written on the heart. This one law is what covenant theologians see as the moral precept under all the covenant administrations of the Bible.

2. Prove there is one gospel. Hebrews 9:15 says, "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." The death of Christ is the way men were saved under the old covenant and under the new covenant. Hebrews 9:26 says, "But as it is, he has appeared once for all [time!], at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Hebrews 10:4 says, "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." So, men under both testaments were saved by grace through faith in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:7-9). There is no other way of salvation. This one gospel is what covenant theologians call the covenant of redemption and/or grace.

3. Prove there is one people. This is where Baptist covenant theology is distinct from both paedobaptist covenant theology and dispensationalism. The "one people of God" have always been the believing elect and have never included unbelieving infants. Dispensationalists and paedobaptists agree that the true Israel of the Old Testament to whom the promises were made included all physical/generational Israelites. But, Romans 9:6 says, "Not all Israel is Israel." That is, the whole nation of Israel is not actually Israel. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that those who inherit the promises of the Old Testament are believers and that only believers in all ages are God's people. Isaiah 45:25 says that "in the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory." The book of Deuteronomy makes it clear that only those who repent of their sins and believe to the end will inherit the promises of the old covenant (Deut chs. 27, 28, 29, 30). Philippians 3:3 says, "For we are the real circumcision who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus." The new covenant is made with Israel and only with Israel, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel" (Heb 8:10). We who are in the new covenant are "Israel" along with the believing Israelites.

But, you may say, "God chose the nation of Israel." Yes, and he chose Assyria and Babylon to perform certain functions as well. National Israel was chosen as a nation, but not to inherit all of the promises God made to it. Those promises were conditioned upon the faith of individual Israelites and on the faith of the nation as a whole. Those national Israelites who failed to believe forfeited their right to the promises, and we Gentiles who believe will one day inherit all the land, health, and wealth God promised to Israel when our King comes to deliver us out of exile (we are strangers and aliens in a foreign land) and to restore us to the full blessing God promises to all who believe. We will enjoy the land of Canaan on the new earth with all its prosperity for all eternity! So, why did God choose to deal with the physical nation? Israel was chosen for a specific service and now that her service is complete, God isn't dealing with that nation as a unit any longer. God dealt with the nation of Israel as a nation to perserve the physical offspring of Abraham until Christ would come from them (Gal 3:23-27). Christ was the only reason God ever dealt with the whole physical nation. His coming was the reason for Israel's election.

Now that Christ has come, there is no need to preserve the physical nation. In fact, Israel no longer exists as a nation. The 10 tribes of Israel (north Canaan) were taken off to Assyria and have never been heard from since. Those who inhabit Canaan today are Jews, or Judeans, from the tribe of Judah who dwelt in southern Canaan. The rest of the Israelites are forever lost. But, Judah was preserved because Christ, the lion of Judah, had to come from that tribe. God allowed the rest the tribes to die off, but he preserved Judah to keep his promise to bring the messiah through that tribe. The result is that since national Israel no longer exists, the promises God made to the 12 tribes of Israel cannot be given to the group as a whole.

Furthermore, the difference between the Baptists and the paedobaptists is that unlike the old covenants, the new covenant does not include a "purely legal aspect," which can be broken. The old covenants were breakable because God did not write his law on the hearts of all covenant members. But the new covenant is different! Hebrews 8:9 says that the new covenant is "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers . . . for they did not continue in my covenant." The word "for" is critical. The new covenant is not like the old covenant for, or because, the old covenant was breakable. Everyone in the new covenant has God's laws written on his heart (Heb 8:10), knows God savingly (Heb 8:11) and has his sins forgiven (Heb 8:12). Thus, there is no room for unbelievers or reprobates in the new covenant. God unilaterally provides faith to all who are in it. Therefore, the paedobaptists are wrong to insist that infants are included. Infants were only included in the OC because there was a need to demonstrate that God was keeping his promise to bless the nations through Abraham's seed, and his seed was Christ.

Thoughts?

My Statement of Faith

2007-10-15T15:53:00.003-04:00

Here is a statement of faith I prepared awhile back. Any and all comments or questions are welcome!

I. Scripture

The 66 books of the Bible are the complete inscripturated special revelation of God. The Bible is necessary for, wholly sufficient to, and clear in all matters of faith and practice. It is the breath of God, verbally inspired in all its parts, and inerrant in the autographs. A faithful exegete arrives at the correct meaning of Scripture by studying the words, grammar, syntax, and genre of the biblical text in its original language in light of its historical background and with reference to the theology of the whole Bible, such that Scripture is its own interpreter. Higher critical methods of interpretation do not yield additional authorial meaning, and are therefore not useful in the study of Scripture. Both the Old and New Testaments are authoritative and applicable in the life of the believer and the church, but the New Testament has hermeneutical priority over the Old.

II. God

The Lord our God is one God, and there is no other. He is infinite, eternal, and immutable Spirit, limitless in knowledge, power, goodness, righteousness, love, and holiness, and He is absolute in justice and truth. God is the self-existent, self-sufficient, uncreated Creator who made all things out of nothing by the word of His power, both material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual), in order to manifest the glory of the full range of His own character. Since God created each distinct kind of life from the beginning, macroevolution is a false and confused theory of the origin of the species. God absolutely and sovereignly rules and governs whatsoever comes to pass for His own glory by the wise intention of His unconditional, effectual, and eternal decree, which cannot be thwarted or changed. God’s decree is the foundation of His exhaustive and definite foreknowledge of the future, including His foreknowledge of the future choices of free moral agents. God sustains, determines, and governs all things by His meticulous providence, from the roll of dice, to the appointment of rulers, to the wicked activities of Satan, and the sins of men, yet God remains blameless in all He does, perfectly upright and holy, and is neither the author nor approver of sin.

III. The Trinity

God's one nature eternally subsists in three persons: the Father who is of none, the Son who is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit who eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. Each person of the Godhead is co-equal and co-eternal, possessing the whole divine essence. The three persons of the Trinity love one another infinitely, and God’s creation of the universe is an expression of that love. The church of God is the gift of the Father to the Son, and after her purification by the Holy Spirit, of the Son back to the Father to the glory of the Trinity.

IV. Predestination

God, out of the kind intention of His will, graciously and unconditionally elected some individuals to salvation from sin for the display of the glory of God’s grace and unconditionally chose the rest to leave in their sins unto their destruction in order to display the glory of God’s retributive justice. The number of the elect is so certain and fixed that it cannot be increased or diminished. All who were chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world are most certainly and efficaciously brought to salvation at the appointed times and will be raised to glory on the last day.

V. The Covenant of Works

God created Adam upright, established a covenant of works with him, and made him the federal head of all his posterity, promising life for the fulfilling of the covenant and threatening death for its violation. Adam rebelled against God, ate of the forbidden tree, and fell from the original righteousness in which he was created. As a result, all men descending from Adam by natural generation have his first sin imputed to them, and on that legal ground, they are cursed with a corrupt nature incapable of desiring or doing any true good whatsoever. The fallen nature increases in wickedness throughout life, growing in the knowledge and practice of evil. As a result of their totally depraved and fallen natures, unregenerate human beings are unwilling and unable to incline themselves to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the gospel.

VI. The Covenant of Grace

In eternity past, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit entered into a covenant of grace to redeem the elect from their sins. In that eternal covenant, Jesus Christ acts as the mediator, surety, and substitute for the elect, both enduring the curse of the law and meriting its blessing on their behalf to save them from the guilt and power of their sins. Though formed and established in eternity, the covenant of grace was executed in time through the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension and intercession of Christ. In the covenant of grace, Jesus Christ, the only and eternally begotten Son of God was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He is true God and true man and was tempted in all things as we are and yet was without sin. Out of obedience to the Father’s commands and in the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ lived a life of perfect obedience to the law of God, died a penal substitutionary death, and thereby fully satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the elect, whose sins alone were imputed to Him on the cross. Christ rose again in His physical body on the third day accomplishing the total redemption of those for whom He died. He then ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, ruling with Him and making intercession for the saints. Jesus is the Christ. He is the only Mediator between God and men. As prophet, He reveals the will of God by His Word and Spirit. As priest, He offered Himself as a sacrifice for the elect and prays for them. As king, He gives His people commands for their own good and subdues all their enemies.

VII. The One Way of Salvation under all of the Historical Covenants

At the times appointed by God’s decree, the elect are saved by the Holy Spirit's effectual application of Christ’s accomplished redemption through the biblical-historical covenants (Post-Lapse, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New). The Spirit’s saving work is to unite all of the elect, and them only, to Jesus Christ, their federal/covenantal head, and to His righteousness, which includes both Christ’s positive and negative obedience to the terms of the covenant of grace. Christ’s historical righteousness is the legal basis and cause of the double blessing of justification and sanctification. Without the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, God would not be justified in saving hell-deserving sinners. At the moment God sovereignly applies the righteousness of Christ to the elect through federal union with Christ on God’s part, they are necessarily effectually called, regenerated, converted, justified, and adopted as sons of God. The unbeliever is passive at the time of regeneration and does not "cooperate" with the work of the Spirit, but is moved upon such that his responses of faith and repentance are worked in him by God, yet he comes to Christ most freely and apart from any compulsion.

In justification, God declares elect sinners to be “not guilty” and “righteous,” and thereby grants them the right and title to eternal life. The only naturally fit qualification for justification is faith, which rests in Christ alone for right standing before God. Justifying faith grasps Christ as an “empty hand,” and so receives Him and His righteousness as the only meritorious and moral ground of the possession of eternal life. The believer’s good works, which are the inevitable fruits and accompaniments of faith, are in no way an instrument, means, qualification, or cause of justification because justification is by faith only, and not by the love, repentance, and good works that are present with faith.

In sanctification, faith works itself out in loving and joyful obedience to the law of God as the believer looks to the cross of Christ, is moved to love Christ more, and is thereby increasingly conformed to His likeness. As the Holy Spirit makes the believer more and more like Christ, sinful habits of mind and life are mortified and godly habits of holiness are vivified through the believer’s faithful loving obedience to God’s law. This progressive sanctification is gradual, taking place over the course of the believer’s whole life, and is never entire or perfect, since believers can never be free from sin on this side of heaven. Believers are never perfect but they want to be.

True believers may stumble into grievous sins, but always rebound and persevere in the knowledge of truth, love to God, joy in Christ, and obedience to His law. No one who has been regenerated by the Spirit can fall finally away from the grace of salvation; therefore, all who are born again are eternally secure in God’s saving mercies. As a result of union with Christ all the rewards and blessings that belong to Jesus also belong to the believer, and those blessings bring about regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification.

VIII. The Moral Law

The moral law of God is the same in both Testaments, the summary of which is found in the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. Though the New Testament abrogates the Jewish Sabbath, together with the whole Jewish expression of the moral law, it does not do away with the moral law itself, or the moral Sabbath, which requires us to rest and worship one day out of every seven, and which in the New Testament is observed on the first day of the week. There are three uses of the moral law. First, the moral law restrains sin by its threatenings, and encourages obedience by its temporal blessings. Second, it crushes pride, reveals sin, teaches of the need of redemption, and drives human beings to trust Christ to save them from the condemnation it promises those who fail to obey it perfectly. Third, Jesus points the believing sinner back to the law as a rule of walking and enables the believer to love the law and to keep it by the power of the Holy Spirit, such that the believer may reflect the character of Christ more and more. All Christian obedience on this side of heaven is imperfect and falls far short of what the naked law requires. Therefore, all Christian obedience is non meritorious. God’s moral law is a gracious law of love to believers, intended by God to be kept out of a heart of faith and joy in Christ for our own good, and was never given to sinners as a law of works to earn salvation. In Christ, the rigor of the law is extinguished inasmuch as God is pleased with our efforts to keep the law perfectly since perfect performance of it is impossible due to remaining sin.

IX. The Exclusivity of Christ

There is no other name given among men by which we may be saved but the name of Jesus Christ. Apart from specific knowledge of the historical Christ revealed in Scripture there is no salvation. The light of nature in creation is sufficient to condemn those ignorant of the gospel of Christ but is not sufficient to lead to salvation. Atheists and members of pagan religions and cults do not worship the true God, but are false worshippers, who are members of man made religions, and are therefore condemned to hell forever if they do not trust Jesus Christ revealed in Scripture.

X. Universal Responsibility to the Gospel

Because all human beings are made in the image of God and because they have the natural capacity and power to obey the imperatives of the gospel, every human being who hears the gospel is obligated to obey all that the gospel commands. The lack of moral ability in the unregenerate in no way diminishes their responsibility to trust and obey Christ who calls all men everywhere, without exception or distinction, to come to Him for salvation. Therefore, the gospel of Jesus Christ must be preached promiscuously to every man, and preachers are obligated to make direct appeals to the lost, pressing upon them and their consciences their responsibility to submit themselves to Christ. God ordains not only the end that the elect will be saved, but also the means to that end, which is that salvation comes through the proclamation of the Word of Christ, the faithful witness and testimony of Christians, and the saving operations of the Holy Spirit.

XI. The Church

The universal Church of Christ is composed of all believers everywhere, both in heaven and on earth, but is specifically manifested in individual local churches, which are new covenant institutions revealed in the New Testament. Their members are under the instructions and conditional promises of the new covenant. Local churches are established, not by the authority of any form of successionism (apostolic, baptismal, or churchly) but solely by the authority of Scripture (sola Scriptura). Therefore, local churches are formed when credibly professing disciples of Christ voluntarily covenant with one another to believe and obey the gospel of Christ on the basis of a common confessional statement. A local church’s confession of faith is a summary of Scriptural doctrine in small compass, and is to be used both for the instruction and discipline of church members.

The local church is autonomous, free from any hierarchy of organization. Its governing officials include elders (or bishops, overseers, pastors) and deacons. Both officers must meet the qualifications set forth in the Bible. Local church government is congregational, which means that under the authority of Jesus Christ and His Word, the highest authority and court of appeal is the church membership.

A true church consists of any group of disciples covenanted together and centered upon the true gospel of Jesus Christ. But, a healthy local church is one in which the preached Word of God is central in the corporate worship service, the ordinances of professing believers baptism by immersion and communion are rightly administered according to the prescription of Scripture, and the pattern of church discipline revealed in the Bible is faithfully practiced.

Corporate worship is central in the life of the church, involving the preaching of God’s Word, the reading of Scripture, the giving of financial resources, the offering of prayers, and the singing of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, as well as any other elements revealed in the Bible alone. We are required to worship God in the corporate worship service only according to what He has prescribed in sacred Scripture or by what may be deduced from Scripture and not by our own wisdom or innovation. Circumstances of worship should be ordered according to the light of nature so that they facilitate and support the elements prescribed by Scripture. The proper effects of corporate worship are the mutual edification of believers and evangelism of the lost.

While every gospel church has the same biblical charge and end, God gives churches members of varying spiritual gifts, such that the particular ministries of every local church will differ according to the gifts given.

XII. New Covenant Ordinances

The only two ordinances of the new covenant are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is a sign of union with Christ, of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection for the salvation of His people, and of the putting off of the old nature and putting on of the new in the party baptized. It depicts cleansing, and its only proper mode is immersion. Baptism is to be administered to credibly professing believers only. It is prerequisite to local church membership and to admission to the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a sign of union with Christ and with one another in Christ, which functions to strengthen the faith of believers and the life of the community. Eating the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine in faith is symbolic of faithful feeding on the body and blood of Christ as the only way to eternal life. Only baptized members in good standing with a local church may partake of the Supper. Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper signify (1) the promise of God to save those who believe and (2) the participant’s promise of genuine enduring faith. The ordinances of the new covenant are a means of grace insofar as the believer contemplates and is strengthened by the gospel they preach in visible form.

XIII. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts

Because the Bible is sufficient special revelation of God to men, the revelatory gifts mentioned in the Scripture, including apostle, prophesy, knowledge, and tongues, have ceased, and are no longer necessary now that the biblical canon is complete. Christ is the final word and there is no other mediator (prophet, priest, theocratic king) between God and men. Furthermore, Christians should make their decisions by wise and prayerful application of the written Word of God, not a subjective sense of direction, since the heart of man is desperately wicked, unknowable and deceitful. In cases where a number of right choices might be made consistently with the Bible, the believer is free to do as he pleases, trusting that God's sovereign providence will effectually lead him in what is best.

XIV. The Individual Christian

Individual Christians ought to seek constant communion with God the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit by setting their minds on the gospel of Jesus Christ revealed in Scripture. We are motivated to live by faith every day as we consider the greatness of our sins and the boundlessness of God’s grace lavished upon us in Jesus Christ, as we meditate on the loveliness of the humility and grandeur of Jesus Christ, as we remember that God disciplines those He loves, and as we consider that He blesses obedience to His law with unspeakable joys of fellowship. In order to make progress in faith, individual Christians must seek to live disciplined lives of regular Bible reading, study, and meditation, exercises of prayer, and church attendance. They must endeavor to live their lives in a balanced and Christlike way at home, at church, and in the world.

XV. The Home

The home is a covenantal arrangement in which the husband is the servant head, married to one woman for life. Divorce in the cases of sexual immorality and desertion (which dissolves the marriage covenant) is only permissible because of the hardness of the human heart, but what God has joined together, let not man tear asunder. A husband is responsible to lead the home in godliness by setting an example of faith in Christ, love, and holiness in word and deed. The husband and wife together are obligated and privileged to rear their children in the love and instruction of the Lord, teaching them the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ revealed in it, praying with them, applying corporal discipline when necessary, and fulfilling their duties to act consistently in all they do in order to shepherd the hearts of their children to be worshippers of the one true God. Family worship should be a regular occurrence in a Christian home in which the Word of God is opened and prayers are offered that the family might be well equipped to enter the world as witnesses of His name.

XVI. Vocational Labor

God calls believers to various kinds of labor, usually termed “vocations,” as a means of ruling and subduing the earth. There is a threefold labor: work in the home, work in the church, and work in the world, all of which are honoring to God. Work is a gift of God’s grace, and it includes both intellectual and manual labor, which God provided for our enjoyment and His glory. Work was instituted in the garden, and will continue in heaven, when believers will rule with Christ and work for Him throughout all eternity. Pain in work is the result of the fall, but work can be partially redeemed and enjoyed prior to heaven, as the believer works from faith in Christ and love to Him. Work must always be balanced with sufficient rest and recreation in accordance with the Sabbath principle. Scripture commands believers to submit to their superiors at work, laboring for the Lord and not in the way of “eye service” or as “people pleasers.” God positions and equips human beings with specific gifts that are well suited for specific kinds of work in this world; so, believers should take care to discern the gifts of God within them and to listen to the wise counsel of others when choosing to labor in a particular vocation.

XVII. Civil Government

Believers must submit to the rule of civil government except where the law of men comes into conflict with the law of God, in which cases the Christian is required to engage in civil disobedience for the sake of the gospel. Governments are obliged to rule justly in a manner consistent with the moral law of God, guarding the rights of men to worship according to the first table of the law and enforcing the outward aspect of the second table of the law pertaining to the proper relationships of men to one another. Governments may never obligate or coerce men in matters of faith or conscience since God alone is the Lord of conscience.

XVIII. Death

At death, the souls of men do not sleep in the grave, but either go to have fellowship with Christ in heaven or are sent to sheol where they are kept under punishment until the day of judgment. All these souls await the general resurrection at which time they will be reunited to their bodies.

XIX. The Return of Christ and General Judgment

At a time known only to the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ will return physically in power and glory after the kingdom/millennial period, which is present, spanning from Christ’s first coming to His second coming. After Christ’s return, He will judge every man at the great white throne according to his deeds. The love and good deeds of believers are proof and evidence of genuine belief, without which none may enter into heaven. Though Christ’s objective work infallibly secures the ownership of heaven for the elect, good works are an evidential means of entering into the experience and enjoyment of heaven, but God graciously provides all the good works He requires through the Spirit’s application of the work of Christ. Therefore, when God blesses those who have good works with the experience of heaven, He is merely “crowing His own graces.” God will condemn the unbelieving and disobedient mass of humanity to eternal conscious torment in hell, which was prepared for Satan and the demons, and He will welcome believers to heaven where they will enjoy God forever, worshipping Him in perfect bliss.

Who is "Israel" in the OT?

2007-09-25T10:56:00.000-04:00

Isaiah 45:25 says, "In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory."

According to the OT, the "offspring of Israel" are not all physical descendants of national Israel, but only those who will be justified in the LORD and glory. So, who are they? In Isaiah 45:22, just a couple of verses earlier, we read, "Turn to me and be saved all the ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other." Anyone who turns to the LORD for salvation will be saved, justified, and inherit glory. And, that group is the offspring of Israel.

Evidently, only those who believe, even in the OT, were truly the "offspring of Israel" and all Israelites, on a biblical definition, will be justified and shall glory.

Commentaries on Matthew

2007-09-22T13:18:00.000-04:00

Over at the Road to Emmaus, Chad Knudson provides a good list of helpful commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew.

My personal favorite Matthew commentaries include:
Matthew, by J.C. Ryle.
Matthew, by John A. Broadus.
Matthew, by William Hendricksen.
Matthew: A Commentary, by Frederick Dale Bruner.
The Gospel According to Matthew, by Leon Morris.

Dr. Mohler Affirms Confessionalism

2007-09-22T13:10:00.000-04:00

In his annual fall convocation address at Southern Seminary on August 28, Dr. Mohler reaffirmed the importance of confessional subscription just after 4 more Southern Seminary professors signed the Abstract of Principles, Southern's doctrinal statement.

BP writer Jeff Robinson wrote:
Confessions of faith, Mohler said, have been crucial throughout church history because they have helped Christians to distinguish orthodox doctrine from heresy. He pointed to examples such as the Nicene Creed that arose out of the Council of Nicaea in 325. The creed affirmed the orthodox expression of the deity of Christ against the threat of Arianism -- a heresy that argued Christ was merely a created being, that there was a time when He did not exist. The orthodox belief in Christ's deity as set forth in the Nicene Creed is central to the Gospel and the proclamation of it, Mohler said.

Baptists have been a confessional people throughout their history, Mohler said. Southern Baptists did not adopt a confession until 1925 because the denomination's churches and associations had their own statements of faith. The SBC first adopted the Baptist Faith & Message in 1925 because denials of God's truth were rampant in the culture and were threatening churches, Mohler said.

Some argue that the Bible is their only creed, but Mohler note that cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons also claim the Bible as their source of doctrine. Thus, it is important for Christians to know, in summary form, what the Bible teaches. While Scripture is the sole authority for Christians, confessions serve as concise expressions of its most important doctrines, Mohler said.

He concluded with nine reasons why confessions are important. Confessions, he said: define the truth, correct error, operate as standards for God's people, assist in worship, connect modern Christians to the faith of their fathers, are useful as a teaching mechanism, protect the teaching, summarize the teaching of Scripture and define Christian unity.

HT: Excogitating Engineer

Good Reading

2007-09-22T11:18:00.000-04:00

Tullian Tchividjian provides a list of good reading for young believers. Justin Taylor points out that this list is good for old believers too!

Spiritual Disciplines
E.M. Bounds, “Power Through Prayer”
John Piper, “A Hunger for God”
Donald Whitney, “Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life”
T.M. Moore, “The Disciplines of Grace”
Matthew Henry, “A Method for Prayer”

Devotional
J.I. Packer, “Knowing and Doing the Will of God”
Arthur Bennett, “The Valley of Vision”
Charles Spurgeon, “Morning and Evening”
John Piper, “A Godward Life” (Book 1 and Book 2)
J.C. Ryle, “Expository Thoughts on the Gospels” (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

Church History
Earle E. Cairns, “Christianity Through the Centuries”
S.M. Houghton, “Sketches From Church History”
Bruce L. Shelley, “Church History in Plain Language”
James Eckman, “Exploring Church History”
Kenneth Scott Latourette, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1 and 2)
Justo L. Gonzalez, “The Story of Christianity”

Introduction to Theology
J.I. Packer, “Concise Theology”
J.I. Packer, “Knowing God”
Thomas Watson, “A Body of Divinity”
Bruce Milne, “Know the Truth”
Sinclair Ferguson, “Christian Life: A Doctrinal Introduction”
R.C. Sproul, “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith”
R.C. Sproul, “Chosen by God”
James Montgomery Boice, “Foundations of the Christian Faith”
Michael Scott Horton, “Putting Amazing Back Into Grace”
John Piper, “The Pleasures of God”
D. James Kennedy, “Truths that Transform”

Christian Living
J.C. Ryle, “Practical Religion”
J.C. Ryle, “Holiness”
John Piper, “Desiring God”
J.I. Packer, “God’s Plans for You”
J.I. Packer, “Rediscovering Holiness”
Jerry Bridges, “The Pursuit of Holiness”
Jerry Bridges, “Discipline of Grace”
Jerry Bridges, “The Gospel for Real Life”
C.J. Mahaney, “Living The Cross Centered Life”
Joshua Harris, “Stop Dating the Church”

Basic Bible Study Helps
Tremper Longman, “Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind”
Tremper Longman, “Making Sense of the Old Testament”
Alec Motyer, “The Story of the Old Testament”
John Stott, “The Story of the New Testament”
R.C. Sproul, “Knowing Scripture”
Philip Comfort, Ed., “The Origin of the Bible”

Evangelism and Missions
J.I. Packer, “Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God”
John Piper, “Let the Nations Be Glad”
Will Metzger, “Tell the Truth”
John Stott, “Christian Mission in the Modern World”
Joseph Alleine, “An Alarm to the Unconverted”

I've italicized my favorites.

Federal Vision Soter-Ecclesiology

2007-09-22T10:51:00.000-04:00

In the Federal Vision discussion at De Regno Christi, Peter Leithart made the following succinct comment about Federal Vision teaching:

The FV claim is: If the visible church is the body and kingdom of Christ, and baptism is the entry rite into the visible church, then baptism joins the baptized to the body of Christ and makes him or her a subject of His kingdom. Baptism makes the baptized a member of the more-than-human community of the church; baptism makes the baptized a member of the body of Christ, which really is the body of Christ, that is to say, the human community joined to the Incarnate Son through the Spirit.

This is consistent with the Federal Vision's emphasis on the objective character of the church and with its program to cast nearly every aspect of salvation in objective terms. My fear in such an approach is that it will create Christian nominalism, a people who "honors Me with their lips" (objective) but whose "hearts are far from Me" (subjective).

Dispensationalism and Modernism

2007-09-21T17:49:00.000-04:00

Marsden's book, Fundamentalism and American Culture, made an interesting point about dispensationalism, which was the standard theology of most strands of Fundamentalism. In my post below, I argued that Fundamentalism, like liberalism, was based on modernist presuppositions. In this post, I'll summarize Marsden's argument that dispensationalism's hermeneutic is based on modernism as well.

Dispensationalism itself claims to have a "literal" hermeneutic, but that doesn't simply mean the Bible should be treated as "literature" composed of a number of literary genres; rather, it means that the Bible should be interpreted to be "scientifically" precise in all its statements and details. Dispensationalists are known for their scientific interpretation of passages in every literary genre and for their meticulous classification and division of texts into various categories based on that interpretation.

Interestingly, dispensationalism's "scientific" hermeneutic led to its insistence on a radical discontinuity between the Old and the New Testaments. Dispensationalism interprets prophecy the way a scientist interprets data; therefore, dispensationalists admit only one kind of prophetic fulfillment - precisely the one meaning that the human author had in mind when he wrote it in history. The scientific hermeneutic cannot allow for OT promises to be fulfilled in the church because those promises were made to the geo-political nation of ethnic Israel.

The great problem with the dispensationalist's hermeneutic is that it is based on rationalist, modernist, scientific assumptions about interpretation and language and it fails to recognize the various biblical genres, especially the unique biblical genre of prophecy. Moreover, it refuses to accept as paradigmatic and normative the NT's own hermeneutic of the OT. To sum up, the problem with dispensationalism is that its hermeneutic is derived from modernist presuppositions rather than from the Bible itself.

Fundamentalism and American Culture

2007-09-21T17:05:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading George Marsden's book, Fundamentalism and American Culture. The thesis of the book is that Fundamentalism was a conservative reaction to modernism.

Modernism
Modernism claimed that it had destroyed Christianity by introducing the higher critical study of Scripture and the theory of evolution. Modernism captured the universities with evolution as a modern alternative to creation, and challenged the seminaries and churches with higher criticism, which undermined the unity and integrity of the Bible. Christianity, according to modernists, was no longer a viable worldview; therefore, it must be abandoned in favor of philosophical naturalism, or Atheism. Liberalism and Fundamentalism were the two responses to modernism within the "Christian" camp, both of which tried to salvage Christianity from total destruction.

Liberalism
Liberalism sought to save Christianity by changing its essential character. Liberals accepted the rationalistic presuppositions of modernism and agreed with its conclusions, but it defined the Christian faith in such a way that modernist conclusions could not undermine it. Schleiermacher was the first to argue in complete form that religion is the "feeling of absolute dependence," which is a purely subjective experience of faith and not based on anything objective. Defined this way, Christianity need not have any basis in objective facts, such as the resurrection of Christ, Nicean Christology, and the historical fall of Adam. The historicity of all such stories could be rejected and the Christian faith would remain in tact, since Christianity was the experience of dependence not objective facts.

Fundamentalism
While liberalism sought to save Christianity from modernism by agreeing with modernism and re-defining Christianity, Fundamentalism tried to save Christianity by agreeing with the modernist rationalistic presuppositions, while denying its conclusions. Fundamentalism had no problem with the notion that the human mind is the starting point of knowledge. They approved of scientific inquiry and discovery, but they disagreed modernist conclusions. So, Fundamentalists set out to beat the modernists and liberals at their own game, to argue against higher criticism, and to try to undermine evolutionary theory with science. The Fundamentalists often were put to shame when they tried to fight the liberals and modernists on their own terms both because they accepted modernist presuppositions and because they often didn't study sufficiently.

J. Gresham Machen
Machen, a conservative "Fundamentalist" Presbyterian, argued against liberalism on two fronts. First, he claimed that liberalism is not Christian and that while it tended to use historic Christian terminology, it filled those terms with new and foreign meaning, such that it changed virtually every historic doctrine of the faith. Second, he claimed that liberalism is not scientific because it divorced the faith from science, grounding religion in pure experience, cutting it off from science.

Shailer Matthews
Matthews, a liberal Protestant, argued that liberalism is both historical and scientific, contra Machen. First, it is historical. He argued that what liberalism has in common with historic Christianity is the "feeling of absolute dependence" which is the religious experience of historic Christians. Doctrines have always changed. The Bible itself shows doctrinal progression. Liberalism simply moves along that continuum, while retaining the kernel of the ancient subjective faith. He also argued that though religion and the religious experience is not based on science, it nonetheless provides science with data to study. Theology, then, is the emperical study of human experience in the Bible, in church history, and in the individual consciousness. Liberalism is therefore scientific.

My Conclusion
The problem with both liberalism and Fundamentalism is that both begin with modernist starting points. The proper foundation of epistemology is not the independent mind of man as the Enlightenment and modernism suggests but the Word of God, which must be presupposed for any knowledge to be possible at all.

Federal Vision Discussion

2007-09-16T08:14:00.000-04:00

De Regno Christi will be hosting a discussion of the Federal Vision beginning Monday September 17, 2007. Questions to be addressed include: "First, What is the problem in Reformed Christianity that Federal Vision is trying to fix? Second, is it a real problem, and, if so, did/does the FV address it adequately? Finally, if FV is inadequate, what alternative plan for addressing the problem do FV critics propose." Doug Wilson, Richard Gamble, Peter Leithart, D.G. Hart, John Muether, and Richard Lints will be among the participants.

HT: James Grant

The Anatomy of Cowardice

2007-09-15T13:07:00.001-04:00

In reflecting on Tom Ascol's posts on cowardly anonymity and ministerial courage, I started to mull over the nature of cowardice. Cowardice is essentially the fruit of idolatry, fear of men, and legalism. Cowards believe that by doing something wrong or by not doing what is right, other men will approve of them and they will have greater happiness in their lives. It is a form of legalism, which says if I "do" or "work hard for" what other men "approve," then I will be "acceptable" (justified) in their eyes, and they will make my life happier for it. Conversely, cowards fear that if they do what is right and in accordance with God's laws, men will disapprove of them and make their lives miserable. These are actually the terms of the covenant of sin, the Satanic covenant, that promises acceptablity in the sight of others and happiness on the basis of sin. Cowards believe those Satanic promises and sin accordingly.

The antidote to cowardice is a clear understanding of the gospel covenant, particularly of justification and sanctification. God's people are acceptable in God's sight only for what Christ has done in their place. Thus, they do not have to work for the approval of anyone and should not try to win the approval of men. God approves of them, and God is for them. So, why should they try to work for anyone else's approval? Furthermore, if God's people obey God's laws, God will bless them and protect them. Obedience is certainly sometimes costly in physical terms, but it always brings about happy fellowship with the Father through Christ in the Spirit. How do we know? God has already given us His Son. How will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Cowards don't believe the promises of God. They work for the approval of men. The solution is to trust Christ and to believe His promises that He will perserve, sanctify, and reward His own who obey Him, even though that obedience may cost them their very lives.

Anonymity and Cowardice

2007-09-15T12:13:00.000-04:00

Tom Ascol over at the Founder's blog has an excellent post about the cowardice of anonymity. The Bible never makes room for us to make accusations of others without putting our names to our accusations. Every biblical example of any man who ever stood for the truth was known for his stand and had to be willing to take the heat for it.

In Revelation 21:8, cowardice is the first in a list of sins that will send you to hell: "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the destestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Politely Tolerating Heresy?

2007-09-01T14:18:00.000-04:00

The following Spurgeon quotation is from "Fathers in Christ," a sermon he preached Sunday Morning, 18 November 1883, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. I include it here because it seems most applicable to the spirit of our age, which is terribly afraid of condemning even the most destructive and damning errors as "heresy."

"There used to be a company in the north of Scotland called "The Men." Why, if heresy had been preached before them, they would have been as provoked as Janet Geddes when she threw her cutty stool at the head of the preacher. They would not have endured these modern heresies as the present effeminate generation is enduring them.

Let the new theologians have liberty to preach what they like on their own ground, but not in our pulpits. Alas! the leading members in many churches are Christians without backbones, molluscous, spongy; snails I would call them, only they have not the consistency of a snail’s shell. They are ready to swallow any mortal thing if the preacher seems clever and eloquent.

Cleverness and eloquence—away with them forever! If it is not the truth of God, the more cleverly and eloquently it is preached the more damnable it is. We must have the truth and nothing but the truth, and I charge the fathers in Christ all over England and America to see to this. Get ye to your watchtower and guard the flock, lest the sheep be destroyed while they are asleep." ~ Charles H. Spurgeon

HT: Pyromaniacs

The Central Over-Arching Themes of Scripture

2007-08-31T16:21:00.000-04:00

There are three main over-arching themes stretching across Scripture’s story line.

1. God’s Sovereign Rule. God is the omnipotent creator, sustainer, director, and governor of all things in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. As King, God’s domain involves, but is in no way limited to, both the law (covenant of works) and the gospel (covenant of redemption/grace). His sovereign rule extends from eternity to eternity.

2. The Law. The law as a reflection of God’s own inflexible and perfect purity requires perfect obedience for life and promises death to any moral agent who sins against it. There is “grace” in the law inasmuch as God (1) created human image bearers in the first place, (2) established the law covenant in the garden, and (3) revealed its requirements to Adam. But, there is no redemptive grace because there is no provision or promise of redemption for sinners in the law covenant.

3. The Gospel. The good news of Scripture always involves redemption from sin and misery. Thus, there was no “gospel” to Adam before the fall. The gospel is that the Father sent Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit to take on a human nature, to live, to die, and to rise again in order to redeem the elect and to restore creation to its pre-fall state such that it would become nothing but blessing to the elect once again. This gospel is not merely an announcement or revelation of such facts and unconditional promises, but it is also a conditional promise and command, declaring that whoever believes in Christ for redemption from sin and misery is by that faith alone joined to Christ and thereby justified (given the ownership/right to eternal life by faith alone) and sanctified (given the experience/enjoyment of eternal life through faithful good works) for the glory of God alone.

Classic Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology

2007-08-10T11:48:00.000-04:00

I used Walton’s Charts of Church History as a base material for this comparison.

DT = Dispensational Theology
CT = Covenant Theology

The Pattern of History:
DT – Divided into dispensations. Eg., Innocence, Conscience, human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom. Not all dispesationalists affirm the same number of dispensations.
CT – Divided by covenants. Covenant of works; Covenant of redemption/grace; Biblical-historical covenants of promise.

View of the Biblical Covenants:
DT – They mark off periods of time during which God’s specific demands of human beings differ. The emphasis is more on the different specific demands than exact periods of time.
CT – They are substantively the same in their instructions and promises, though they differ in specific content because of the progress of redemptive history.

God’s Purpose in History (both affirm that the chief end is God’s glory):
DT – There are two distinct purposes: one earthly (Israel), one heavenly (church).
CT – There is one unified redemptive/saving purpose.

Relationship between Israel and the Church:
DT – Israel is the physical/earthly people of God. The church is the spiritual/heavenly people of God.
CT – There is only one people of God: The true Israel of the OT was the church, and the church of the NT is true Israel.

Relationship between the Old and New Testaments (OT/NT hermeneutic):
DT – OT commands and promises are not binding for the church unless repeated by the NT.
CT – OT commands and promises are binding for the church, unless abrogated by the NT, though all OT commands and promises are brought to redemptive historical maturity in Christ.

Old Testament Prophecy:
DT – Makes promises to ethnic Israel.
CT – Makes promises to spiritual Israel (which was and is the church).

The Post-Pentecost Period of History:
DT – Called the church age, which is a parenthesis or inter-calculation between past and future manifestations of the kingdom for God’s glory.
CT – Just another stage of the continuous unfolding of God’s one redemptive purpose for God’s glory.

Role of the Holy Spirit:
DT – The Holy Spirit only indwells God’s spiritual people (the church) from Pentecost to the Rapture. However, not all dispensationalist agree on this question.
CT – The Holy Spirit indwells God’s one people throughout history.

Eschatology:
DT – Premillennial, usually pretribulational.
CT – May be amillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial.

The Preaching of the Puritans

2007-07-27T14:27:00.000-04:00

The English and American Puritans heavily emphasized preaching. They believed that preaching drives all of the other ministries and activities of the church and argued that preaching is primary because God's Word is primary. Puritan preaching was characterized by a number of qualities.

1. Godliness in the preacher. Above all else, preachers must know the God they proclaim. Puritan preachers knew the paths of sin as they ran in their own hearts and they sought to overcome it with the grace of the gospel of Christ. They understood the law-gospel contrast in justification and the gospel-law continuum in sanctification and the significance of that distinction to their own souls.

2. Sincere and personal. Puritan preaching was often characterized by an intense and sincere personalism. It was direct, conversational, naturally impassioned, and sincere. The preacher did not put on a preaching brogue, eliminated rhetorical flourish, spoke in plain vernacular English, and sought to communicate as a whole person. Puritan preachers wanted to preach the whole gospel to whole men, addressing the minds, hearts, and wills of their hearers.

3. Aims for the conscience. Puritan preachers were not lecturers. They moved easily from doctrine to experience, seeking to engage both the head and the heart, to expose sinful habits and patterns of thought and to exhort with the gospel of free grace.

4. Teases Christ out of every text. The Puritans were intensely Christ-centered. That is, they preached the whole counsel of God in every sermon, and did not rip any pericope from its whole Bible context. Every sermon at some level included the grand themes of divine sovereignty, creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.

5. Aims at replacing counseling. Puritan preachers wanted to teach men to pastor their own souls, to learn how to apply the gospel to their own hearts and to deal with whatever sin or situation might present itself. They believed that if they faithfully expounded the whole counsel of God and really aimed at the lives of those in the congregation, then the need for extra counseling would largely subside.

6. Considers all sorts in the congregation. They were always aware that a great diversity of people sat under their preaching, which is why they addressed unbelievers, doubters, atheists, the downcast, the sluggish, the proud, and maturing believers in their preaching applications. They sought never to ignore any category of hearer.

True or False: People can make the Bible say whatever they want.

2007-07-26T16:14:00.000-04:00

I remember having a discussion with someone and presenting that person with biblical evidence for a biblical doctrine. The person’s objection to my argument was, “You can’t use the Bible to prove your point of view because people can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.” Now, at the time, I didn’t actually say all of this, but here is what I might have said.

1. So, what you really mean is the opposite of what you just said. “NO ONE can make the Bible say anything other than what it says." Why do I say that? Because the presupposition underlying the notion that a person can make the Bible say whatever he wants it to say is that language can be legitimately interpreted in any way the interpreter (reader/hearer) wants to interpret it – i.e., that language does not have a definite meaning. If that is a true presupposition, then I should be allowed to interpret the objector’s words in a manner that directly contradicts what the objector intended by his words. I should be able to say, "NO ONE can make the Bible say anything other than what it actually says," and the objector should have no objection. But, of course the person making the objection would have an objection to my contradicting his statement and therefore the objector doesn’t really believe that language can be legitimately interpreted however the interpreter wishes. Therefore, the objection itself is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

2. Don't you believe the Bible is clear? The Bible declares that it is clear. Scripture makes wise the simple minded (Psa 119:130). Not everything in the Bible is equally clear to the “ignorant and unstable” (2 Pet 3:16), but careful and faithful study of the Scripture yields the mind of God (2 Cor 1:13; 2 Tim 2:15).

3. Either you don’t believe that the Bible is God’s Word or you don’t believe that God is good. If the Bible is basically unclear, then it must not be God’s Word, since our good God would never speak in a confusing or unclear way to his children. Or, if the Bible is unclear, and if the Bible is God’s Word, then God himself must not be good, since he speaks in such a way as to confuse his very own children, causing strife and division among them about what he himself has declared to be true. Only a cruel God would speak confusing words (or choose an inadequate vehicle to communicate himself) and then hold people accountable to believe and obey what is impossible to understand.

4. Are you willing to study the Bible for yourself? It is possible that our objector notices that apparently sincere and studious Christians disagree on some important matters of doctrine and that this objector is unwilling to roll up his sleeves and study the Scriptures for himself to see what it says. Some people have remarkable trust in the notion that Bible students who disagree on various important doctrines have all actually studied equally and faithfully. But that would be a mistake. Even Bible scholars sometimes believe what they want the Bible to say rather than what the Bible actually says.

The Covenant of Works

2007-07-13T13:56:00.000-04:00

Over at the Thomas Goodwin blog, Mark has an entry arguing that the covenant of works is essential to confessional Reformed orthodoxy and to a fully orbed covenant theology. I couldn't agree more. There are several reasons that the covenant of works is important.

1. It clarifies that the most basic relationship between God and his created image bearers is one of works and strict justice. Perfect holiness was legally necessary for Adam to continue in fellowship with God and for Adam to receive the future blessing of eschatological life. Without the requirement of perfect holiness for life, it would not be clear why Adam's sin (de)merited divine judgment and death. The fact that God delights only in perfect holiness and abhors any and all impurity upholds divine justice and is the basis of the gospel.

2. Without the covenant of works in its classical formulation, both Christ's negative and positive obedience in the covenant of redemption become unnecessary. If the strict justice of the covenant of works didn't require Adam to be perfectly holy for eschatological life and make the death penalty legally necessary for sin, then Christ would not have had to fulfill all righteousness or die on the cross to redeem his people. The redemptive work of Christ would not be a legal/judicial necessity at all, but something like a Grotian governmental/rectoral expedient designed to show that God takes sin seriously.

3. Without the work-for-life/sin-for-death principle in the covenant of works, all imputation is unnecessary for our justification. If Adam's single sin didn't necessarily demerit his condemnation, then there is no need for our sins to be literally imputed to Christ on the cross for our justification. And, if Adam didn't have to work for life in the covenant of works, then why should Christ's righteous works in the covenant of redemption have to be imputed to us for our eschatological life in justification? Put differently, if death isn't the legally necessary penalty for sin and if life isn't the legally necessary reward for perfect obedience, then we don't actually need any of Christ's substitutionary work to be justified. God may justly choose to forgive our sins and declare us righteous, to justify us, without a substitute at all.

The covenant of works, legal substitution in the covenant of redemption, and justification on the ground of Christ's righteousness alone by faith alone all stand or fall together.

Suffering is a Gift

2007-07-11T11:51:00.000-04:00

Many folks in our churches who consider suffering in the life of a Christian to be God's punishment of sin. Then, there are some who think of all suffering as a form of divine discipline by which God chastises Christians for specific sins in their lives. I've also heard it said that suffering is just part of the order/structure/system of the universe so that it has no specific meaning: bad things just happen. So, how should we think about suffering as Christians?

1. Suffering cannot be punishment because Christians cannot be punished. This is true if we define "punishment" in terms of penal justice. Christ was punished in the place of Christians and fully satisified divine justice. "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died" (Rom 8:33-34). There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1). Christ has become a curse for us (Gal 3:13). Suffering cannot be punishment in the life of the believer.

2. Suffering isn't necessarily "discipline." Now, if we define "discipline" in the broadest terms, then everything that happens to a believer is discipline. Everything works for our good and serves to rid us of sin and make us more like Christ in the end. However, if we define discipline as chastisement for specific sins, then there is no reason to conclude that all suffering is discipline. Job is a great example of this principle. His sufferings were not a disciplinary response to specific sins. Certainly, sometimes specific sins have specific consequences, and that is discipline, but so much of suffering is not the direct result of a Christian's particular sins.

3. Suffering isn't just a part of the mechanics of the universe. God said, "Who has made a man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord" (Exod 4:11)? He says, "I kill and I make alive; wound and I heal" (Deut 32:30). Scripture says, "The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts" (1 Sam 2:7). "If a disaster occurs in a city, has not the Lord done it" (Amos 3:6)? God brings about suffering for his own good purposes. While suffering is the result of specific sin and sin in general, suffering itself is always good, because it punishes evil in unbelievers, disciplines sin in believers, and/or allows believers to trust in the midst of hardship, making them more like Christ.

So, what is suffering in the life of the Christian? It is a gift. Philippians 1:29 says, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake." From the perspective of the Christian, suffering is a blessing. It is divine grace, which is intended for our good. "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Rom 8:28).

Now, in saying this, I'm not suggesting that we go into the hospital rooms of suffering Christians with party hats on rejoicing in their suffering, thanking God for the blessing of suffering. While suffering is good, it is the result of sin at some level, and it is painful. Suffering in the life of the believer is God's tough love, and while God brings it into the lives of believers for thier own good, he does not delight in their suffering for its own sake (Lam 3:31-33). I admit that I haven't suffered in the way that many people have suffered. But, I have known people who have suffered very severely. The only hope and encouragement I know to give Christians who suffer is to remind them that Christ is no stranger to suffering. He understands the pain of terrible suffering. And, in bringing suffering into the lives of Christians, he is giving his people the opportunity to walk in the way of the cross, to be like their Savior, to be a present display of Christ's sufferings, and to trust the Lord in the midst of it all for his glory. God nevers asks his people to suffer beyond what he has suffered himself in the person of Jesus Christ. And, Christ suffered so that ultimately, we won't have to suffer what we really deserve, and he suffered so that one day all suffering will be eradicated. In heaven, there will be no more pain and no more sorrow. It will be a world of infinite delight. Maranatha!

Problems with Paedobaptism

2007-07-10T11:50:00.000-04:00

Many in the church today think of baptism as relatively unimportant or as a tertiary matter of conviction. Others understand baptism's importance but urge that we respect all of the historic traditions regarding baptism because Christians have been unable to reach any unified consensus on this question. Let me say that I love and respect many paedobaptists and that some of my greatest heroes of the faith have been paedobaptists. They are beloved brothers in the faith. But, I believe baptism is important and that the Bible is clear about how we should practice it. Here are some of the problems with paedobaptism.

1. The practice is never mentioned in the Bible. Paeodobaptism is neither commanded nor exampled in either the Old or the New Testaments. Some might respond to this by saying, "Of course it doesn't exist as an explicit command. Paedobaptism was an obvious implication to first century Christians." But, if that's the case, then the Acts 15 Jerusalem council would have been the perfect opportunity for the Apostles to explain the implication to those who evidently didn't get it. They could have ended the conflict over circumcision by saying, "Don't be so upset that circumcision is no longer necessary. Circumcision is changed to baptism! And, with baptism you may include your girl babies too!" The fact is that the exclusion of children from the covenant by the removal of the requirement of circumcision was very controversial, which is exactly what we would expect.

Some argue that the household baptisms in Acts are proof of infant baptism. But that's an argument of silence. The Bible never says there were infants in those households. In fact, the evidence seems to support credobaptism. Acts 16:31-33 says, "And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." Paul required faith from the jailer and his household (v. 31), and he preached to the whole household (v. 32). Only then, after requiring faith of the whole household and teaching the whole household, was the whole household baptized.

2. The Bible only explicitly requires the baptism of disciples. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19). By "make disciples" did Christ actually mean "procreate," or did he mean "go and make conscious followers of Me?" According to Scripture, if a person cannot "bear his own cross," and "come after" Christ, he "cannot be a disciple" (Luke 14:27). Jesus says, "Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33). And, "if you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine" (John 8:31). And, "You are My disciples if you have love for one another" (John 13:22). And, "By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples" (John 15:8). Can a child do these things? Do all the children of believers believe? Many paedobaptists see these things and realize that according to Scripture, the only people who really have a right to baptism are genuine believers. This leads to the next problem with paedobaptism.

3. Paedobaptism tends to baptismal regeneration. Or, at least it tends to the view that says the infants of believers are automatically regenerate. As soon as a paedobaptist actually crosses this line, he's very quickly moving away from the biblical gospel. Faith is often re-defined in moral terms such that it has no necessary intellectual content and does not consciously grasp Christ. Being a Christian is reduced to being a church member, no matter whether one consciously trusts in him personally. Because so many who are baptized as infants fall finally away from the faith, paedobaptists who believe in baptismal regeneration typically affirm that infants can be genuinely saved, united to Christ, and justified with a right and title to heaven, but then fall finally away from Christ and go to hell, thus denying the perseverance of the saints.

4. Paeobaptism tends toward the conflation of church and state. Some paedobaptists tend toward the view that sees Christianity as a religion of family, generation, and history, from below, rather than a religion of doctrine, faith, and personal conversion, from above. Paedobaptism is a religion of generational roots rather than of personal ideals, beliefs, and affections. You're a Christian if you're born into the family, no matter what you believe and no matter whether you delight in the God of Scripture for yourself. Thus, paedobaptism fits nicely with all theonomic visions of the union of church and state. As long as you're a good citizen, in good standing with the church-state or state-church, attending public worship, practicing the right forms of religion, obeying the laws externally, you're a Christian and have no reason to doubt your salvation. It is a "form religion" more than a "heart religion."

5. Paedobaptism is not supported by history. Paedobaptism was not standardized among Christian churches until the early 400's when Augustine defended the practice and normalized it. Prior to that, the majority practice was to delay baptism. A firm assurance of personal faith and final salvation was seen as the prerequisite of baptism, which is why many (wrongly) waited until they were on their deathbeds to receive the ordinance. The earliest clear didactic reference to baptism is found in the didache, and the reference affirms credobaptism, not paedobaptism.

6. Paedobaptism tends to undermine evangelism. Rather than encouraging children to come to Christ and to embrace him personally for salvation, some paedobaptists teach their children that they are already Christians and they already belong savingly to God and that God belongs to them. Paedobaptist parents sometimes give their children an identity of faith, teaching them that they already believe and encouraging them to continue in the faith to which they already belong. But, "continuing in the faith" sadly often only means "not doing anything that warrants church discipline." The consciences of these little ones are never pressed, and they are never warned that their souls may this very moment be in danger of judgment, if they do not believe personally in Christ for salvation. Such an orientation toward the faith can produce a cold, Pharisaical externalism in which these people "honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me."

7. Paedobaptism undermines "sola Scriptura." The formal cause of the Reformation was that "Scripture alone" determines our faith and practice. In the formal corporate worship service, this means that neither the pastor nor the church can require the congregation to participate in any form or element of worship not prescribed by Scripture. The ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper are defined and prescribed by Scripture, and they are vital parts of the corporate worship service, but the Bible never even hints that infants should receive the sign of baptism. Therefore, paedobaptists are not operating on a consistent "sola Scriptura" theology because they do what the Bible never requires them to do: they baptize their infants.

8. Paedobaptism fails to come to grips with biblical covenant theology. In the OT covenants, God was dealing with the geopolitical, theocratic, ethnic nation of Israel, but in the new covenant, believers are the children of Abraham (Gal 3:7), the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the true circumcision (Phil 3:3), the royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9), the holy nation (1 Pet 2:9), and the chosen people of God (Eph 1-2). In the new covenant, circumcision is a matter of the heart, rather than the flesh (Rom 2:28-29). The new covenant promises to forgive the sins of all its members (Heb 8:12), to write the law on all of their hearts (Heb 8:10), and to make them all know God, from the least of them to the greatest (Heb 8:11). And, according to Hebrews 8:9, unlike the old covenant, the new covenant is an unbreakable covenant. Just as circumcision was a sign of the old covenant, baptism is an ordinance of the new covenant, but since the new covenant is a believers only covenant, only believers have a right to the sign.

9. Paedobaptism tends to be internally inconsistent. Many paedobaptists apply the covenant sign of baptism to their children but deny the covenant sign of the Lord's supper to their children, until they actually profess personal faith in Christ. If their children are truly in the covenant, then why deny them the Lord's table? Surely all those who could ingest food in the old covenant, children and adults alike, took the passover meal. Paedobaptists exclude unbelieving adult spouses from the covenant, but in the old covenant, every household, including both husbands and wives, was in the covenant. Paedobaptists exclude their unbelieving household gardeners from the waters of baptism. But, in the old covenant, every male among you was to be circumcised, and that included servants. Paedobaptists require a profession of faith prior to baptism among adults, but no such profession was required in the old covenant. In the old covenant, the Israelites were known to circumcise an entire household/tribe by force. Paedobaptists require a profession of faith from parents before baptizing their children. But, that requirement is not revealed in either the old or the new testaments. Paedobaptists often refuse to baptize the children of baptized church members, if those baptized church members themselves have not professed faith in Christ. There is no revealed reason to do this.

10. Paedobaptism pretends "mode" is a legitimate category distinction. From a credobaptist perspective, mode isn't an issue at all. Biblical baptism means "immersion in water." Surely there are no "modes" of circumcision! Why should there be modes of baptism?