After Darkness, Light!

Where's the line to see Jesus?

2011-12-09T01:00:00.000Z

There's an immensely popular youtube music video out right now called, "Where's the line to see Jesus?" [Beware: it does contain violations of the second commandment!] Its main character is a Christmas shopper, who, after seeing a line of children hoping to see Santa Claus, is approached by a young boy that asks her, "Where's the line to see Jesus?" This question causes the woman great angst as she, presumably, recognizes that had been ignoring "the true meaning of Christmas," which is about the birth of Jesus instead of gifts and Santa Claus. This tension is resolved at the end of the video, when she sings Christ's praises and speaks of His atoning death on her behalf, keeping Christ in Christmas.

While those that wrote the song are, no doubt, sincere in their desire to honor Christ (a wonderful thing that I don't wish to disregard!), I think it's worth engaging with it due to its popularity and the pervasive mindset that it represents. You see, the video assumes that the 25th of December has some sort of inherent meaning related to Christ and his birth. It does not. God never instituted the day we call "Christmas." It was originally a pagan festival on which Christians began to celebrate Christ's birth. A person may use it as an extra opportunity to reflect on Christ's birth; I'm not going to get in the way of that. It is important, however, not to confuse a man-made tradition with the only holy day instituted by God, namely, Sunday. When we make a man-made tradition "Christian" (i.e., set apart to God), the error of the Pharisees has crept in. But when Christmas is kept in its place, i.e., when we don't think it has some sort of inherent meaning that we need to fight for, we guard the significance of Sunday and avoid fighting pointless battles, e.g., "keeping Christ in Christmas." If someone wants to truly honor Christ on the 25th of December, that person should assemble with the saints to hear the word and receive the sacraments. This year, the 25th of December will truly be set apart for the celebration of Christ's birth because it will be a Sunday!

I think it's worth suggesting some answers that this poor, distraught woman could have given the young boy, though. Here are a few I think could work (remember, the question is, "Where's the line to see Jesus?"):

Dear child-who-appeared-out-of-nowhere, you cannot see Jesus. After he rose from the dead, He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Jesus foretold that we would not be able to see Him (Jn. 20:29). Peter also wrote, "Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory" (1 Pet. 1:8).
Dear child (nice hair, by the way!), you cannot see Jesus in a bodily way right now. But after you get older and make a profession of faith, you can get in the line to take the Lord's Supper. The bread and wine are pictures of Christ's body and blood.
O child, at first your question really threw me. You see, there will be a line to see Jesus one day. Presently, He sits at the right hand of the Father. After He returns, we will all be judged by Him. If you have not trusted in Him for your forgiveness and righteousness, you won't want to see Jesus!

Interpreting parables

2011-12-07T01:55:00.000Z

People I know have a "love/hate" relationship with New Testament parables. Some people find them easier to understand than others. In spite of this difference in opinion, there is still real commonality in the way most people view parables:

There is only one key point in a parable.
They are illustrations of heavenly/spiritual things with common things.
They are straightforward and unsurprising

This understanding of the nature of parables was put forward by Adolph Julicher in 1886 and is now commonly assumed to be true in many Christian churches. But is it really a helpful and accurate paradigm? Recent scholars like Craig Blomberg and Kenneth Bailey have demonstrated that it is not. Consider, for example, the parable of the Prodigal Son.

One key point? The "prodigal" tells us of our sin and the way a sinner may be freely reconciled to God. The father tells us of God's extravagant love and grace. The older brother depicts the dire situation of the legalist; they rely upon their goodness, cannot stand grace, and stand outside the loving fellowship of God. It seems that there are a number of key points to the Prodigal Son, not just one.
Are all things illustrations of heavenly things? Surely, God is being illustrated by a "father". But how far do we push this? Does the pig stye become something spiritual (e.g., the existential experience of a sinner before conversion?) or is it simply a part of the story? Does the road back home refer to the inward journey of the soul? What about the fact that the calf was fat? Does it refer to the sacrifice of Christ in the fullness of time? Caution needs to be taken in assuming that everything has a spiritual meaning. Characters in a story should be allowed to use props without us drawing massive interpretive conclusions.
Are they straightforward and unsurprising? Isn't the father's hiking up his garments and running surprising?! What about the fact that he actually gave his son his inheritance early?! The surprises are there for a reason. They inform us of what we are to read into and demand our interpretive focus instead of unsurprising elements like a road.

[I derived these insights from SM Baugh's class "Gospels and Acts" at Westminster Seminary California]

Two books on church planting

2011-05-21T19:36:00.003+01:00

I'm far from an expert on church planting, so I feel unable to give a critical review of these books. But I am able to say that they have been some great food for thought over the past couple of weeks. The thing I found to be most helpful is their commitment to working within their confessional Reformed traditions, even though there are many practical disadvantages of doing so. Working under the oversight of other churches, training elders and deacons, and prioritizing the confessions in church membership scream out "Inefficiency!" Yet, their contributors prioritize biblical principles over pragmatics, most notably in the area of ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). For that reason alone, they are worth reading if you're interested in church planting.

Click these links for more information:
Planting, Watering, Growing: Planting confessionally Reformed churches in the 21st century
Planting an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (read it free online)

What's the deal with Harold Camping?

2011-05-20T18:24:00.000+01:00

If you would like to learn more about Camping and his recent predictions, I encourage you to read the five part series by the president of my seminary, W. Robert Godfrey. You can go here to find all five posts. He gives some background to Camping and his departure from Reformed orthodoxy to his present state, wherein he denies the validity of any organized church. Stories like this are a lesson in what may happen when we put too much weight in our personal abilities and interpretations, undervalue the history of the Church's interpretation, and fail to respect church offices (e.g., ruling elder and minister).

Wise words on an upcoming tragedy

2011-05-20T17:56:00.000+01:00

If you and the people around you have missed all the apocalyptic speculations raised by Harold Camping, you're fortunate. Don't read any further. It's not worth your time. Continue with your normal life.

But if the "impending rapture" is the talk of your town (even Ohio State sports blogs are commenting on this one!), I encourage you to read the WHI article, "Cleaning up after Harold," in order to prepare yourself to serve the broken-hearted. Surely, this will be yet another reason to mock the faith, but what we may miss is the hurt and pain this will cause those that believed the predictions.

History teaches us that previous generations caught up in eschatological fervor often fell away from Christ when their deeply held beliefs about the end of the world didn’t pan out. While Camping must answer for his false teaching at the end of the age, Reformational Christians are facing a pastoral problem come Sunday morning: how can we apply the salve of the Gospel to the wounded sheep who will be wandering aimlessly, having discovered that what they thought was true (so true they were willing to upend their lives over it) was not? If this isn’t true, they might reason, then what other deeply held beliefs and convictions and doctrines and hopes might not be true?

A Reformed Dream

2011-05-05T02:37:00.000+01:00

This Saturday, the Reformed Ecclesiastical Dialogue (RED) will be hosting a very special event. Dr. W. Robert Godfrey will be giving an address called "A Reformed Dream 2.0". Dr. Godfrey is President of Westminster Seminary California, a minister in the United Reformed Churches in North America, and the author of numerous books and articles. In 1997, he published his first version of "A Reformed Dream" in Modern Reformation. In it, he set forth a vision for what a united Reformed and Presbyterian denomination in North America could look like. As the title suggests, his talk this weekend will expand upon that topic.

If you're around Escondido, please join us in the Westminster Seminary California chapel at 6:30pm Pacific time.

If you're nowhere near, you can watch Dr. Godfrey's address via a Live Stream that will be at the REDchurches website.

How to paint Christ

2011-04-27T04:10:00.001+01:00

Words of wisdom from William Perkins in his Commentary on Galatians (3:1) [I've modernized the English and spelling.]

Are images necessary in the congregations of the people of God? Answer: There are Christian images and pictures, and they are very necessary. And these images are sermons of Christ and the right administration of the sacraments. For in them Christ is described and painted out unto us. As for the painted and carved images of the Papists, we utterly detest them as idols... where the lively preaching of the word is, there is no need of them.

Why may we not paint Christ in our churches with colors as with words in sermons? Answer: There is only one painting that the Lord allows, namely, the description of Christ in speech. But the carving or painting of images in churches, and that for religion use, he condemns, Exod. 20:6.

Calvin on the Covenants, part 2

2011-04-23T17:16:00.000+01:00

John Calvin is a key figure in the development of covenant theology. The covenants function as the basic framework with which various Christian traditions view the Bible. The way one understands the nature of the Old Covenant will dramatically affect how one reads the Bible; the same is true of one's view of the New Covenant. In part 1, I listed some of the similarities Calvin saw between the Old and New Covenants (i.e., "continuity" between the two). What follows is a list of some differences (i.e., "discontinuity") between them. References are to the McNeil-Battles edition of the Institutes.

Differences:

There is a clearer manifestation of the gospel in the New Covenant. (2.9.1-2)
The Old Covenant used earthly things to prefigure spiritual promises. The earthly things were, in themselves, powerless. The New Testament speaks plainly about the heavenly blessings. (2.11.2-5)
The Old Covenant people was a “child” while the New Covenant people is an “adult”. This relates to the clarity of the gospel, not the quality of their relation to God. (2.11.2-5)
Though there is gospel within the Old Testament, it is not proper to it. In other words, the gospel properly belongs to the New Testament, but there are shadows of it throughout the Old. (2.11.7,9)
The Old Testament saints experienced the blessings of freedom and joy even though they are not proper to the Old but belong to the New. The benefits of the New Covenant work backward as well as forward. (2.11.7,9)
Properly belonging to the Old Testament are commands and prohibitions, blessings and curses for obedience and disobedience, and an inability unto spiritual change. To the New belong blessings, promises, and power for change. (2.11.7-8)

Calvin on the Covenants, part 1

2011-04-22T18:49:00.000+01:00

Before coming to grips with Reformed covenant theology, some of my biggest questions about the Bible revolved around the relationship between the Old Testament Jews and Christians. In other words, how were the OT Jews saved, by faith or by works? Were they God’s spiritual people or merely an earthly people that foreshadowed the Church?

Well, I’ve been reading through some sections of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (McNeil-Battles edition) recently and thought I’d share some of his insights, considering that they are foundational for the mature covenant theology that we find articulated in later Reformed theologians and the Westminster Standards. The book, chapter, and section number will be in parentheses so you can look it up yourself.

Broadly speaking, Calvin believed that the substance of both covenants (or “Testaments”) is the same, but the mode of their administration (or “accidents”) was different. (2.10.2) I'll note similarities in this post and the differences later.

Similarities:

They offer the same salvation and law. (2.10.1)
The Old Covenant was future-oriented and promised justification by grace through faith while the New announces its reality. (2.10.3-4)
The covenant signs (circumcision & baptism; Passover & Lord’s Supper) were similar and had the same spiritual value/efficacy. (2.10.5)
Both speak to all the world. The Old Testament actually pronounces a curse upon all of mankind, not just Israel. It accuses mankind of unrighteousness. The New announces salvation to all. (2.11.7-8)
God intended that the Jews would understand spiritual/eternal blessings through the earthly blessings that they experienced in Canaan. The Bible clearly witnesses that the Jews looked beyond the earthly blessings to heavenly ones. (2.10.10-23)
Over and over, Calvin argues against the Anabaptists that the Jews were not just seeking after fleshly pleasures like beasts (paraphrased). The Jewish nation was ultimately a spiritual people that received God’s covenant promise: “I will be your God and you will be My people.” They were on equal standing with the NT Church.

"No more fire and brimstone!"

2011-04-19T03:56:00.000+01:00

Our world is filled with pain and despair. We experience it personally through the death of loved ones, in illness, and broken families, and we experience it corporately when tsunamis and earthquakes shatter nations. From this universal experience, the liberal pastor concludes that we no longer need the "fire and brimstone" of yesterday. People need to be encouraged. They need to hear that there is real good within them; they need to hear that they are loved by God.

Regardless of how these sentiments are packaged (e.g., "We believe in sin; we just don't like to talk about it," or "We like to give people a positive message."), they are directly opposed to the teaching of the Christian faith. Our problem is not that we need more self-esteem - the conclusion of 20th century psychology - nor is it things like cancer, poverty, and oppression. Our greatest problem is that we are alienated from our Creator due to our rebellion. Our own conscience tells us that, but we continually try to suppress it. Instead of teaching that man is virtuous and that God is our cheerleader unto greater acts of love, "Christianity is the religion of the broken heart." [J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 56] This broken heart is the necessary precondition to grasping the goodness of the good news. "Without the consciousness of sin, the whole of the gospel will seem to be an idle tale." [Ibid., 57]

Machen goes on to explain the gulf that exists between the message of Liberalism and Christianity:

The fundamental fault of the modern [i.e., Liberal] Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task - she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible - especially in the life of Jesus - something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He. [Ibid., 58]

A Christianity that lacks the message that we are in sinful rebellion against God's law is not Christianity at all. No matter the sincerity and intentions of the preacher, it is diametrically opposed to Christ.

Deeds without Creeds?
"I don't want to know about God"

"I don't want to know about God"

2011-04-17T23:05:00.000+01:00

Within and without Christian circles, it's common to hear the phrase, "I don't want to know stuff about God; I want to know God." The great assumption is that knowing God and knowing things about Him are unrelated matters. Knowledge of God is sought within an experience instead of in an external revelation. Addressing this perspective in his book Christianity and Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen writes:

What makes affection for a human friend, for example, such an ennobling thing is the knowledge which we possess of the character of our friend. Human affection, apparently so simple, is really just bristling with dogma. It depends upon a host of observations treasured up in the mind with regard to the character of our friends. But if human affection is thus really dependent upon knowledge, why should it be otherwise with that supreme personal relationship which is at the basis of religion?... Certainly it does make the greatest possible difference what we think about God; the knowledge of God is the very basis of religion. [pp. 47-48]

In other words, to know someone requires knowledge about them. If I told you that I know my wife, you would expect that I would at least know some things about her, e.g., her name, her favorite foods, her birthday, etc. The same is true about our knowing God; it includes knowledge about Him.

Do you know God? What do you believe to be true about Him? Is He merely love, being unconcerned with justice and judgment? If so, you don't know the same God as me.

Is your "God" a Father toward all mankind in the same way? If so, you don't know the same God as me.

Do you believe that God is part of this creation instead of transcending it as its Almighty Creator? If so, you don't know the same God as me.

There is real content to the Christian faith; one may not depart from it and still claim to be within it. One may not claim to know the Christian God and then represent Him in a way that departs from the teaching of the Scripture that has been received by the Church for two millennia. To do so is to begin an entirely different religion.

Machen on "Deeds without Creeds"

Deeds without Creeds?

2011-04-15T01:29:00.000+01:00

I finally read "Christianity and Liberalism" by J. Gresham Machen. It was a real treat - it's clear, winsome, and concise. He wrote it from within the Presbyterian Church USA, before the split occurred that formed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Though his arguments were applicable beyond his ecclesiastical context, his focus was his denomination - something that is frequently overlooked.

In this book, Machen sets out to demonstrate that Liberalism was not an expression of the Christian faith; rather, it was an altogether different religion. In his first chapter, he argues that the Liberals were not actually advocating a doctrine-less Christianity (i.e., deeds without creeds). In fact, they were just as concerned about doctrine as he was. Different doctrines were their concern. He writes:

But is it really doctrine as such that is objected to, and not rather one particular doctrine in the interests of another? Undoubtedly, in many forms of liberalism it is the latter alternative which fits the case. There are doctrines of modern liberalism, just as tenaciously and intolerantly upheld as any doctrines that find a place in the historic creeds. Such for example are the liberal doctrines of the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. These doctrines are, as we shall see, contrary to the doctrines of the Christian religion. [p. 16 in the Eerdmans 2009 edition]

Liberalism is not something confined to the early to mid-20th century. It is alive and well within our churches today. You find it wherever the creeds of Christianity take backseat to cultural transformation, social action, and being nice. The content of your belief doesn't really matter. What matters is your sincerity and religious experience. But rather than fall into that trap, we must recognize that even downplaying Christian doctrine is to implicitly advocate a different set of doctrines.

Why do I care about the term, "Reformed"?

2011-04-13T04:28:00.000+01:00

Since starting this blog, a number of my posts have concerned the definition of Reformed theology. A number of friends have asked me why I am so concerned about it. Today, I listened to a radio show that is a perfect example of why this matters.

One of my professors of Systematic Theology, Michael Horton, was interviewed on the Doug Pagitt show about Rob Bell's controversial new book. Tony Jones, the interviewer, continually referred to "Reformed theologians, such as John Piper" and lumped all the critics of Bell's book into "the Reformed camp". It was entirely unclear to him that Horton and Piper were from different theological traditions. Think I'm overreacting? Well, Piper would not even be admitted to membership in Horton's denomination much less could he be a minister there. Jones's confusion is further exemplified in his follow-up blog post, wherein he referred to Dr. Horton as "Neo-Reformed". Horton is about as Paleo-Reformed as a person can get.

I don't blame Jones for the confusion. The present theological landscape is a mess, and when people fail to use proper nouns (like "Calvinist") and adjectives (like "Reformed") correctly, no one is benefited. If distinct theological traditions lose their identity, Christian churches will be drastically impoverished and the world will inevitably hear a watered-down gospel, if they hear one at all. The distinct riches of historic Reformed theology will be forgotten, because people will simply assume that they understand it. The same could be said for Baptists (like Piper), Lutherans, etc. They have a distinct tradition to offer, and they will be a much better conversation partner if they know their tradition and use their own titles.

Links to previous blog entries on this topic:
Who is "Reformed"?
What it means to be Reformed?
The Romanist Resurgence and Sally Ortlund Jr.

RED: Bridges are not Networks

2011-04-01T05:00:00.000+01:00

I've just posted over at REDchurches. Click this title if you'd like to go to it.

Painting the OPC RED

2011-03-28T19:40:00.000+01:00

The next RED meeting will focus on promoting ecclesiastical unity with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Go here to read more.

The Midwest is seeing RED!

2011-03-24T01:20:00.000Z

There are some reflections over at the Publican Chest on why RED is needed amongst the Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

RED churches

2011-03-23T23:11:00.000Z

An exciting grassroots movement has begun on the West Coast. Members, ministers, and ministers-in-training are becoming more committed to exercising their ecclesiastical unity. Great things have happened throughout church history when Christ's Church works together. Hopefully, this will be one such example.

The group is called RED Churches. RED stands for Reformed Ecclesiastical Dialogue. It's not a network or a coalition whose structures exist outside the government of the church (parachurch). Instead, RED Churches is a fellowship of members of Reformed and Presbyterian churches. These church members already have ecclesiastical ties through a group called NAPARC, and they are hoping to exercise those ties to their full potential - pulpit sharing, church planting, missions, and exposure to breadth of the Reformed tradition.

Predestination and Reformed theology

2011-03-14T22:04:00.007Z

If you think that believing in predestination is the definition of being "Reformed", then your version of Reformed theology could do without the Reformation, John Calvin, Guido de Bres, Ursinus, Olevianus, the Westminster Assembly, etc. You could be an Early or Medieval Christian instead, since predestination was alive (though frequently opposed) well-before the Reformation. Augustine of Hippo is one well-known proponent. A lesser-known advocate is Gottschalk of Orbais (mid-9th c.). Here is an excerpt from his Shorter Confession Concerning Double Predestination, slightly modified for readability from R. Scott Clark's translation (he also includes a short bio):

I believe and confess that God, omnipotently and unchangeably, has graciously foreknown and predestined holy angels and elect men to eternal life, and that He in like manner has, by his most just judgment, predestined [Satan], with all his apostate angels and also with reprobate men, who are his members, on account of their foreknown particular future evil deeds, to merited eternal death: this the Lord Himself affirms in His Gospel: "The prince of this world is already judged" (John 14:11).

It's better to recognize that predestination is a glorious component to "Reformed theology". It's far from being its defining doctrine, though.

Exciting news in the O.C.

2011-02-24T04:09:00.003Z

South Orange County Reformed Fellowship

Pastor Jon Moersch has been leading a monthly Bible study in South Orange County (California) for over a year. They have just found a venue to begin holding Bible studies on Sunday evenings and hope to establish a church in the area at some point in the future. Please, pray for this church plant and the spread of the gospel in this region.

Warrior Children, arise!

2011-01-13T20:01:00.003Z

It's nearly time for the Westminster Seminary California conference, "Christianity and Liberalism Revisited"! Brenden has posted a Machen-inspired reflection on contending for the faith. I encourage you to read it.

Last year, the conference was broadcast live over the internet, and this year will be the same. Though I'm not going, I'm having people over to eat some BBQ and watch it live. I encourage you to go to here and do the same if you're not fortunate enough to attend. Here's the schedule (times are Pacific Standard Time):

Friday

7:00pm - Welcome (internet viewing begins)

7:10 - Michael S. Horton "Christianity and Liberalism Today"

8:05 - Darryl G. Hart "The Perennial Machen"

Saturday

8:30am - Welcome (internet viewing begins)

8:40 - Joel E. Kim "Machen and the Bible"

9:35 - John V. Fesko "Machen and the Gospel"

10:40 - David VanDrunen "Machen and Ethics"

12:50 - W. Robert Godfrey "Machen, Christianity, and the Church"

Reformed church government

2011-01-12T21:45:00.004Z

One of the things I've been pondering lately is Reformed church government (i.e., "polity"). If you're interested in the topic (and I hope you are!), a great book to pick up is "Paradigms in Polity," edited by Hall & Hall. Here are some of my reflections and questions I'm pondering. They are not necessarily in a logical sequence:

It appears to me that the Presbyterians (Reformed tradition from Scotland) only put things in their church order that they believe are taught within Scripture. Those things in the category of wisdom are left to the local body of elders to determine, e.g., things such as catechetical preaching and the number of services on a Sunday.
The Continental Reformed (CR) include this category of wisdom within their official church order. This means that issues such as catechetical preaching and Sunday services are mandated throughout the churches for the sake of unity and Christian edification. While the Presbyterians leave wisdom to the local elders, the CR leaves it in the hands of the broader church courts.
My hunch is - and I need to do some more reading on this - that the Presbys have placed a higher priority on being a part of a larger ecclesiastical body than the CR. If the Presbys see their church order as simply expressing the teaching of God's word, then there wouldn't be room for another denomination; there could be no division over wisdom issues.
I mentioned in a previous post that our view of the relationship between the church and synagogue is going to influence (or be influenced by) our ecclesiology. I commented that covenantal-baptists (i.e., paedobaptists) are likely to be more influenced by synagogal worship in new covenant corporate worship than a credobaptist would be. I think the same trend would hold true for church courts. There was a real unity amongst the synagogues. Official courts like the Sanhedrin were in operation. There is a fair amount of similarity between them and presbyterian church courts. Congregationalists (most credobaptists) will, once again, emphasize the discontinuity between the synagogues and new covenant church: "Church government has fundamentally changed just like the nature of God's covenant administration."

The Great Commission on White Horse Inn

2011-01-10T18:55:00.003Z

This year, White Horse Inn is focusing on the Great Commission. As Dr. Horton says in our classes frequently, "We can't just get the gospel right. We also have to get the gospel out!"

If you'd like to subscribe to the WHI podcast, go here.

Here's the blurb from the recent episode, "Gospel Focused"

There is a lot of talk these days about “living the gospel” or “being the gospel,” as if we ourselves are the good news. Some even say that the church is an extension of Christ’s incarnation, as if Jesus came to provide the moral example or template for us to complete. There is only one redeemer and head of the church. To him alone all authority is given in heaven and on earth. On this program the hosts encourage us to put the focus back on Christ and his gospel as they continue their new year long series on The Great Commission.

The myth of Christian influence

2011-01-05T20:39:00.002Z

Office Hours is an excellent podcast I encourage you to check out. Each episode is about 30 minutes long and the host (Scott Clark) and guests (normally a pastor-theologian) cover a variety of topics.

In the most recent episode, Dr. Robert Godrey, president of WSC, talks about "The myth of influence." This topic is especially pertinent in light of the upcoming conference, "Christianity and Liberalism Revisited."

You can find the episode and/or subscribe to Office Hours here.

RC Sproul: Luther and Joseph's pants

2010-12-11T16:39:00.007Z

Chapter 10 of a festschrift for Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Seminary California, contains a commencement address delivered to WSC graduates by R.C. Sproul. In it, Sproul tells a story about the end of Martin Luther's life. The gospel had been preached throughout the region twice on Sundays. People had come from far off to hear it. But, Luther noted, everything had since changed. No longer were people excited to hear the gospel of God. They preferred to travel to far off lands to see indulgences as they had been doing prior to the Reformation. Sproul writes:

[Luther] wondered, why is it that people are still spending their money on indulgences and on what Luther called the Pope's second-hand junk? He said, the Pope is like a decoy duck, sitting on a pond with a great bag of tricks, seducing people with this nonsense. He wondered why it is that people ignore the Word of God and exchange it for Joseph's pants...

What relevance does that have for us today? We don't see the evangelical church of our day rushing to depositories of sacred relics. Nobody's looking for Joseph's pants. Rather we have invested our time, our energy, and our money in more contemporary ways to improve the gospel. We look to programs, to Madison Avenue methodologies, to entertainment, to pop psychology, even to the establishment of Starbucks in the church to improve the gospel. Why do we do this? I think people in the church today are looking for exactly what they were looking for in sixteenth-century Germany. They went to Trier, they went to Aachen, they went to these relics because they believed that the relics had power. Every pastor wants to have a powerful ministry. And so we look to the latest program, to the latest method to give us a powerful ministry, forgetting where the Lord God omnipotent has put the power in the first place. [Always Reformed, 190]

Cyprian: Unity in the Catholic Church

2010-11-16T22:55:00.000Z

I've just finished Cyprian's classic work, "Unity of the catholic Church". I think this is his main idea: Christ established His Church to be a united institution. Anyone that breaks that unity is both disobedient and outside salvation, because Christ has given His Church the promises and sacraments. Rather than simply fearing persecution, we must also be watchful for heresy and schismatics that would break this unity and lead us to hell. Here are a couple great quotes:

6. The bride of Christ cannot be made an adulteress. She is undefiled and chaste. She knows but one home, she guards with virtuous chastity the sanctity of one bed-chamber. It is she who keeps us for God and seals for the kingdom the sons she has borne. If you abandon the Church and join yourself to an adulteress, you are cut off from the promises of the Church. If you leave the Church of Christ you will not come to Christ's rewards, you will be an alien, an outcast, an enemy. You cannot have God for your father unless you have the Church for your mother. If you could escape outside Noah's ark, you could escape outside the Church...

23. ...To join those who walk wickedly, to journey with them on the roads of error and crime, straying from the true path, involves you in the same crime. There is one God and one Christ and one Church and one faith and one people, fastened together into a solid corporate unity by the glue of concord. The unity cannot be rent, nor can the one body be divided by breaking up its structure; it cannot be broken into fragments by tearing and mangling the flesh. Whatever leaves the womb cannot live and breathe apart. It loses the substance of heath.

[Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church in "Early Latin Theology", 1956]

Gregory of Nazianzus: on Christ's two natures (III)

2010-11-16T22:54:00.000Z

... he needed flesh for the sake of the flesh which had incurred condemnation, and soul for the sake of our soul, so, too, he needed mind for the sake of mind, which not only fell in Adam, but was the first to be affected... For that which received the command was that which failed to keep the command, and that which failed to keep it was that also which dared to transgress; and that which transgressed was that which stood most in need of salvation; and that which needed salvation was that which also he took upon him.

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101]

To read more from Gregory, start with his letters on the Apollinarian controversy. His opponents denied the full humanity of Christ by saying that, while Jesus had a human body and soul, he did not have a human mind.

Gregory of Nazianzus: on Christ's two natures (II)

2010-11-16T22:53:00.000Z

... that which [Christ] has not assumed he has not healed; but that which is united to his Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole."

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101]

If Christ did not have a mind, your mind could not be redeemed. If He did not have a body, your body could not be redeemed. If He did not have a human will, your will could not be redeemed. And so on...

Missoula, Montana Reformed Bible Study

2010-11-01T02:32:00.002Z

Recently, the Belgrade, MT consistory has decided to oversee a church-planting endeavor into the city of Missoula. This is a very exciting development. Please, pray for a core-group to assemble quickly, and pray for Jared Beaird, who will be moving to Missoula once he finishes his studies at Westminster Seminary California.

Learn more about the Missoula Reformed Bible Study here

American and British Evangelicalism compared

2010-08-31T01:55:00.003+01:00

After being immersed in British Evangelicalism for a few years, I thought I'd put together a little chart that compares and contrasts it with American Evangelicalism. I realize that this is overly simplified; there are plenty of exceptions one could point to. And I also realize that this is coming from one person's experience rather than from a wide sample-size. I'm also presupposing that one can define "evangelicalism", which probably is not the case, at least with American Evangelicalism, as DG Hart has pointed out.

So why put this together? Well, whether or not the term is actually useful (I don't prefer it), it is still being used, and Christians from these two different countries can think that there is more similarity than there really is. I hope that this chart, imperfect as it may be, will point out some areas where significant agreement and disagreement may exist. If you read a book that refers to "Evangelicals", it's important to consider the context in which the author is writing in order to understand what is being referred to. I think this is especially pertinent to Brits that read books by American authors.

As always, I welcome your comments. Let me know if you agree/disagree or want any clarification on why I categorized (or 'categorised', if you're British) them as I did.

Gregory of Nazianzus: on Christ's two natures

2010-08-26T05:01:00.006+01:00

... we do not sever the man from the Godhead, but we lay down as a dogma the unity and identity [of person], who of old was not man but God, and the only Son before all ages, unmingled with body or anything corporeal; but who in these last days has assumed manhood also for our salvation; passible in his flesh, impassible in his Godhead; circumscript in the body, uncircumscript in the Spirit; at once earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by one and the same [Person], who was perfect man and also God, the entire humanity fallen through sin might be created anew.

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101]

"Circumscript" simply means "contained within or limited". What Gregory the Theologian is saying is that, according to His manhood, Christ was contained within a body, but according to His divinity, He was uncontainable and unlimited. More of Gregory to come...

Athanasius: Christ's omnipresence and omnipotence

2010-08-26T04:49:00.006+01:00

Athanasius is one of the key figures that helped the Church formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. While his own words may not be authoritative, the creeds that were built off of his words have carried great authority in the Church over the ages. Here's a great quote from his work, On the Incarnation:

...he was not, as might be imagined, circumscribed in the body, nor, while present in the body, was he absent elsewhere; nor, while he moved the body, was the universe left void of his working and providence; but, thing most marvelous, Word as he was, so far from being contained by anything, he rather contained all things himself; and just as while present in the whole of creation, he is at once distance in being from the universe, and present in all things by his own power - giving order to all things, and over all and in all revealing his own providence, and giving life to each thing and all things, including the whole without being included, but being in his own Father alone wholly and in every respect - thus, even while present in a human body and himself quickening it, he was, without inconsistency, quickening the universe as well, and was in every process of nature, and was outside the whole, and while known from the body by his works, he was none the less manifest from the working of the universe as well. [Athanasius, On the Incarnation, no. 17]

Athanasius on Christ's achievements

2010-08-26T04:42:00.004+01:00

And, in a word, the achievements of the Saviour, resulting from his becoming man, are of such kind and number that if one should wish to enumerate them he may be compared to men who gaze at the expanse of the sea and wish to count its waves. For as one cannot take in the whole of the waves with his eyes, for those which are coming on baffle the sense of him that attempts it, so for him that would take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, it is impossible to take in the whole, even by reckoning them up, as those which go beyond his thought are more than those he thinks he has taken in. [Athanasius, On the Incarnation, no. 54]

Living in sunny SoCal, I can definitely relate to his illustration of trying to count and comprehend the waves, which are endless.

While reading this great work, I've been struck by the way he viewed Christ's work in three offices, i.e., prophet, priest, and king. He doesn't use those words, but he organizes Christ's work into those three categories. Only the incarnate God can truly reveal the Father (prophet), powerfully recreate His image in man (king), and substitute for us in a sacrificial death (priest).

Be empowered by The Romanist Resurgence and Sally Ortlund Jr.

2010-08-25T18:19:00.003+01:00

If you're looking for some inspiration and empowerment in your life, look no further than this article at The Resurgence.

In it, Dr. Ortlund, by the sheer power of his word, has created a definition of "Reformed" which has trumped that of thousands upon thousands of Reformed Christians for about half a millenia. His creational fiat has triumphed over creeds, confessions, and catechisms. It truly is Ortlund Time!

He has inspired me to embrace postmodernism and do likewise. In the face of official documentation, I declare that Dr. Ortlund's first name is "Sally", making him Dr. Sally Ortlund Jr. Furthermore, I myself classify The Resurgence as Roman Catholic, even though they don't submit to the Pope. I'll simply refer to them as The Romanist Resurgence for short. I laugh in the face of historical definitions!

I just love being postmodern. It allows me to create definitions to suit my own tastes. You should join the fun! But watch out for bullies like Daryl Hart and R. Scott Clark. They want the Reformed Church to define what it means to be Reformed (here also).

Looking for the church to be relevant?

2010-08-25T01:44:00.002+01:00

If so, read this thought-provoking article over at Creed Code Cult.

"70% of Protestants between the ages of 18-22 stop attending church on a regular basis. The reason for this jettisoning of church, McCracken argues, stems from what he dubs “Hipster Christianity."

Belgic Confession 3 – The word of God, spoken then written

2010-08-17T07:59:00.006+01:00

Article III – The written word of God
We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter says; and that afterwards God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed word to writing; and He Himself wrote with His own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.

A few months ago, I read Louis Berkhof’s “Introduction to Systematic Theology”. I highly recommend it to you, as it lays the biblical groundwork for “doing systematics”. One part of his Intro that was especially helpful was a section where he discussed special revelation through verbal proclamation and through written script. He explained (I would quote this, but my volume is lost somewhere between Ohio and California) that God’s messengers gave inspired utterance first, and afterwards, much of what they spoke was recorded in script, making it permanent for future generations. While the speech was canonical in that it was God’s rule for His people, permanent canonicity was only achieved once it was written under God’s inspiration.

Berkhof’s basic viewpoint is expressed in this article of the Confession. Notice the temporal difference between the speaking and the writing indicated by “afterwards”. Notice also that "the revealed word” was committed to writing, which statement assumes that the word was already revealed. This viewpoint is also expressed in the Westminster Confession (1.1). Both documents, therefore, are contrary to the modern day claims to ongoing prophecy. The divine utterance was itself inspired and canonical, and it results in the formation of Scripture. The continuation of those gifts would mean that the canon of Scripture is still open, and there are various sources for our doctrine, the Scripture and God’s apostles and prophets.

Belgic Confession, Article 2 - knowing God

2010-08-11T06:08:00.002+01:00

Article 2: By what means God is made known unto us

We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Rom. 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation.

After starting with God, the One in whom we trust and the Creator of all things, the Reformed churches confess that there are two ways in which we come to know Him. The first means is the “elegant book” of the universe, which God created, preserves, and directs. It reveals God clearly to all mankind. No one can complain that they did not receive a Bible, or that there wasn’t enough evidence for God’s existence. Everything outside of man and inside of man is ‘legible text’ telling us of the living God in a way perfectly adapted to our capacities.

The second way we come to know God is greater in quality and quantity. Scripture tells us more about God, and it does so even more clearly than creation. It is perfectly sufficient to both inform us of how to obey God, we don’t need extra-biblical revelation to please Him, and tell us of how we may be saved. One need look no further than the pages of the Bible. The ‘apostolic' popes and the ‘inner light’ of the Anabaptists will lead one astray. The Reformed churches look to the Holy Scriptures as the source of all the doctrines contained within its confessions and catechisms.

Belgic Confession, Article 1 - One God

2010-08-09T05:21:00.004+01:00

Article 1: There is only one God

We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good.

The first article in the Belgic Confession concerns God Himself and is the first of 11 that concern God (the revealer) and Scripture (the revelation).

Some notes on this article:

“Simple” does not mean “simplistic”; instead, it refers to the fact that God is not composed of parts. In other words, there are no building blocks to God, making something else more ultimate than Him. Nothing is more ultimate than His being, or essence.
The God we believe in has revealed Himself in Scripture (Article 2) to be “eternal, incomprehensible, etc.”, but His simplicity means that those attributes are not different parts of Him but different facets of how we understand Him to be. In other words, using our finite language, we understand God to be “perfectly wise, just, good, etc.” in His very nature.

Belgic Confession, Article 1 - the church's confession

2010-08-09T05:02:00.006+01:00

Article 1: There is only one God

We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good.

The Belgic Confession (quoted above) was written in 1561 in the context of persecution from the Romanists and controversy with the Anabaptists and Lutherans. Its primary author, Guido de Bres, even became a martyr (pdf) for confessing the truths therein. Notice that the Confession begins with, “We all believe” rather than, “I believe”. More so, each article begins with something to the effect of “We believe”. The Confession was not one individual’s statement of faith, whether that of de Bres or Calvin. It was composed for and received by the Reformed churches and gave voice to the truths that they, both leadership and laity, confessed. This is why there is no separate confession for the laity and the leadership in the URCNA (the church I am seeking membership in). Ministers, elders, deacons, and congregants all confess these truths with one mouth.

Today, it’s common for a church to simply hold the doctrine that its newest pastor holds, which truths may not even be publicly expressed in a statement of faith or have an historical pedigree that goes back more than a few generations. The opposite extreme is also common, a situation in which each Christian drafts their own private, personal confession, ignoring God's appointed leadership and the reflection of Christians throughout history. The Reformed tradition, however, has sought to do theology corporately (reflecting on the teaching from previous generations and through dialogue amongst its present-day church leaders) and then confess Scripture’s teaching publicly in its Confessions and Catechisms (e.g., the Three Forms of Unity (pdf) and the Westminster Standards). If you want to know what defines Reformed theology, look to the theology of the Reformed churches. If you want to know what knits its members together, look to the doctrines articulated in its Confessions and Catechisms, which give voice to the truths that “We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth”.

Reflections from WSC, Aug. 4, 2010

2010-08-05T05:14:00.007+01:00

Presently, I’m about a week and a half into Summer Greek. If I were taking the class for a grade (I'm so glad I tested out and can simply audit it), I honestly wouldn’t have time to write this; they call it “Greek Boot Camp” for a reason – wow it’s intense!

I’m already loving my time here. At the beginning of our first class, Professor Kim put this quote up for us to read:

"The widening breach between the minister and his Greek Testament may be traced to two principle causes. The modern minister objects to his Greek New Testament or is indifferent to it, first, because he is becoming less interested in his Greek and, second, because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament." [J. Gresham Machen]

Before coming here, I heard people say, “The spirit of Machen lives on at Westminster Seminary California”. My experience in these short two weeks definitely confirms that.

NT Greek is not just a class that we try to “get through”; rather, the biblical languages are actually the foundation of everything we will do in the future. As a matter of fact, we won’t even be allowed to take our English Bibles into our lectures during our second and third years! And the fact that we have a professor (not a TA) teaching Greek demonstrates the priority the seminary places upon it.

I’ve also been overjoyed by the number of conversations about the Reformed confessions and Reformed worship that I’ve heard taking place. The students that I’ve met so far (even the incoming ones) are concerned with much more than predestination. Liturgy, psalms, the Three Forms (pdf), and the Westminster Standards are key concerns.

My last reflection is that I’m amazed by how few have actually been raised in a Reformed church. Most are coming from Evangelical backgrounds, many of which were Fundamentalist, so it’s an exciting time for all of us to plumb the depths of this rich tradition and, consequently, grow in our love for God.

Calvin and the Worship of God

2010-06-14T09:58:00.004+01:00

One of the things I discovered after reading John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, is that he was not all about '5 points', as many of the people that claim the name 'Calvinist' would lead you to believe. It was striking to me that the longest book in the Institutes was not about salvation but on the Church and its worship, something that is rarely discussed in our age (unless we're talking about the style of instrumental music). It seems to me that the church's worship is being eclipsed by the Great Commission; in other words, the means to the end is becoming the end itself. Our Lord's Day gatherings are structured for what we think will aid our evangelism rather than what will please God, being acceptable worship to Him.

Calvin offers a challenge to our preoccupation with worship style and presupposed "freedom in new covenant worship". He was bold in his commitment that worship be regulated by Scripture alone. I found the following audio to be very helpful in synthesizing what I read in the Institutes.

Dr. Robert Godfrey - Calvin and the Worship of God

(HT: Heidelblog)

Christ’s resurrection and the new creation

2010-06-09T13:19:00.005+01:00

Today, it seems to be generally accepted that Christ’s resurrection provides the pattern for both our resurrection and the new creation. Christians recognize continuity between Christ’s pre- and post-resurrection body and, rightly, recognize that there will be some sort of physical continuity in the new creation.

One problem I’ve observed, though, is that we frequently forget that Christ’s resurrection and ascension in glory were separated in time. Therefore, when we look to Christ’s resurrection appearances in the Gospels as our pattern, we end up forgetting that His glorification was not yet complete. His being crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2) was not finished until He was exalted to the right hand of the Father in heaven. There, Christ dwells in splendour and majesty. His appearance would cause us to cry out “Woe is me! I am a man of unclean lips!” (cf. Isa. 6). This glory was even foreshadowed in the Gospels in the transfiguration event.

Donald MacLeod writes this about Christ’s glory in the transfiguration:

The resurrection did not, by itself, lead directly to such a transformation of Jesus’ body as is indicated here. The risen Christ could be mistaken for a gardener (Jn. 20:15) or for an ordinary traveller (Lk. 24:16ff.). It is better to say that the transfiguration is proleptic of the entire exaltation of Jesus, including resurrection, ascension and heavenly session; and including also the parousia. [The Person of Christ, 105]

One implication of this is that, if we recognize the true height Christ’s glorification, we will also recognize that there is also a significant degree of discontinuity between this creation and the new creation. Life will not be exactly the same as it is right now.

Again, Dr. MacLeod:

The transfiguration showed not only what he would become but what we would become. The New Testament makes this connection explicitly. We are to be where he is (Jn. 17:24). Our bodies are to be conformed exactly to his (Phil. 3:21). We, in him, are to become sharers in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). For Jesus on the Mount, this vision of what lay beyond the cross, not only for himself but for his people, would have been an immeasurable encouragement. [The Person of Christ, 107]

Recognizing that there will be both significant continuity and significant discontinuity should guard us from over-speculation about exactly what the new creation will be like, something I find to be problematic in the neo-Calvinist camp, which says that all of our cultural products will be present in the new creation. The important thing is that we will have communion with our Triune God and will enjoy and glorify Him completely.

Warfield on Union, Justification, and Sanctification

2010-06-04T15:55:00.004+01:00

For those who are unaware of the debate on union with Christ, there's a lot of controversy on whether justification and sanctification are received simultaneously through union with Christ (Gaffin & folk at WTS) or whether there's a logical order in our reception of the two graces while we are in union with Christ (Horton & folk at WSC).

Dr. Daryl Hart has just posted an excerpt from Warfield that is incredibly clear. In fact, I don't think I've ever read anything that so clearly explains the issue.

Heidelberg Catechism Audio

2010-06-04T00:39:00.003+01:00

The Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) has just posted audio files of the Heidelberg Catechism on their website. It looks like a great tool if you're looking to commit it to memory.

Hermeneutics, preaching, and covenant theology

2010-05-12T21:07:00.003+01:00

Check out some great stuff over at Green Baggins, where the blogger is reviewing Hughes Oliphant Old's series of books on preaching. This post is a must read. Here's a taste:

...the very nature of a covenant required the reading and the explanation of the covenant. In the ancient Near East, when a covenant was made between suzerain and vassal, the vassal was required to read the treaty regularly to his people, lest the people forget the nature of that covenant. Ancient Near Eastern treaties were always written down. The main reason for this was so that they would be read at solemn assembly to the people (p. 29). Old makes the point even more sharply when he says “Of the very essence of these treaties or covenants is that they are written down and regularly read and taught to the people in a public assembly” (p. 29, emphasis added).

Christ's descent to hell

2010-05-09T22:17:00.011+01:00

At the Anglican church I attend, we confess the Apostle's Creed frequently. I love the way it summarizes the faith, but I'm saddened by the way the leaders have adopted the popular alteration of "descended to hell" to "descended to the dead". If we simply confess that, "He was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead," we have hardly touched Christ's wrath-bearing sacrifice. Our penalty is far greater than physical death - it is spiritual death. In a day when penal substitution is being called into question, it seems like confessing Christ's descent to hell (and teaching the congregation what it means!) would be a great way to protect the flock from heresy.

Here are Calvin's responses to those that want to remove the phrase

Question: Should we remove the phrase?

If any persons have scruples about admitting this article into the Creed, it will soon be made plain how important it is to the sum of our redemption: if it is left out, much of the benefit of Christ's death will be lost. [II.16.8]

Objection: But the phrase isn't original!

...in setting forth a summary of doctrine a place must be given to it, as it contains the useful and not-to-be-despised mystery of a most important matter. At least some of the old writers do not leave it out. From this we may conjecture that it was inserted after a time, and did not become customary in the churches at once, but gradually. This much is certain: that it reflected the common belief of all the godly; for there is no one of the fathers who does not mention in his writings Christ's descent into hell, through their interpretations vary. But it matters little by whom or at what time this clause was inserted. Rather, the noteworthy point about the Creed is this: we have in it a summary of our faith, full and complete in all details; and containing nothing in it except what has been derived from the pure Word of God. [II.16.8]

Objection: It's unimportant, because it just repeats the idea of burial.

I grant that what they put forward concerning the meaning of the word is true: "hell" is frequently to be understood as "grave." But two reasons militate against their opinion, and readily persuade me to disagree with them. How careless it would have been, when something not at all difficult in itself has been stated with clear and easy words, to indicate it again in words that obscure rather than clarify it! ...Secondly, it is not likely that a useless repetition of this sort could have crept into this summary, in which the chief points of our faith are aptly noted in the fewest possible words. [II.16.8]

Question: OK, so what does "descended to hell" mean?

The explanation given to us in God's Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation. If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No - it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of Gods' vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death. [II.16.10]

Calvin's biblical justification for this phrase is simply the fact that Christ bore God's wrath. Christ's death was not a merely physical thing ['crucified, died, and was buried"] but included the anger of God, which is His descent into hell.

Objection: But why is "descended to hell" recorded after "burial" if it actually preceded it?

Those who - on the ground that it is absurd to put after his burial what preceded it - say that the order is reversed in this way are making a very trifling and ridiculous objection. The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ's body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.

If you're interested in thinking about this further, then pick up a copy of Daniel Hyde's "In Defense of the Descent". It was just released and looks like a brilliant book. I've read the manuscript that he wrote prior to the book and found it to be very helpful. I can't wait to pick it up myself.

Calvin on two natures, part 2

2010-05-09T13:49:00.003+01:00

Part 1

Another clear quote from Calvin explaining the Incarnation:

...we ought not to understand the statement that "the Word was made flesh" [John 1:14] in the sense that the Word was turned into flesh or confusedly mingled with flesh. Rather, it means that, because he chose for himself the virgin's womb as a temple in which to dwell, he who was the Son of God became the Son of man - not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For we affirm his divinity so joined and united with his humanity that each retains its distinctive nature unimpaired, and yet these two natures constitute on Christ. [Institutes, II.14.1]

Machen on tobacco

2010-05-08T19:45:00.009+01:00

Toward the end of his time at Princeton Seminary, Machen wrote:

"The fellows are in my room now on the last Sunday night, smoking the cigars and eating the oranges which it has been the greatest delight I ever had to provide whenever possible. My idea of delight is a Princeton room full of fellows smoking. When I think what an aid tobacco is to friendship and Christian patience, I have sometimes regretted that I never began to smoke." [Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir, 1987, p. 506.]

Thanks to Mike for sending me this quote! I can't believe I've never seen it before!

Calvin and the covenant of works

2010-05-02T17:40:00.002+01:00

There may be a few Calvin quotes in the next few weeks, because I'm spending some time investigating his understanding of union with Christ. I have appreciated the McNeil/Battles translation. In the past, I used the old Beveridge edition.

The following quotes were particularly interesting to me, as they are compatible with the covenant of works (aka 'covenant of creation') doctrine, which was developed a bit later in the Reformed Church. I'm hoping to dig into his Genesis commentary soon, in order to see if there's anything like this there. The substance of the "covenant of works" doctrine appears to have been in Calvin's thinking, even if the doctrine was not explicitly articulated.

“Man in his first condition excelled in these pre-eminent endowments, so that his reason, understanding, prudence, and judgment not only sufficed for the direction of his earthly life, but by them men mounted up even to God and eternal bliss. Then was choice added, to direct the appetites and control all the organic motions, and thus make the will completely amenable to the guidance of the reason. In this integrity man by free will had the power, if he so willed, to attain eternal life… Therefore Adam could have stood if he wished, seeing that he fell solely by his own will… in destroying himself he corrupted his own blessings.” [1.15.8]

"In the beginning God fashioned us after his image [Gen. 1:27] that he might arouse our minds both to zeal for virtue and to meditation upon eternal life. Thus, in order that the great nobility of our race (which distinguishes us from brute beasts) may not be buried beneath our own dullness of wit, it behooves us to recognize that we have been endowed with reason and understanding so that, by leading a holy and upright life, we may press on to the appointed goal of blessed immortality." [2.1.1]

"Adam was denied the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to test his obedience and prove that he was willingly under God's command. The very name of the tree shows the sole purpose of the precept was to keep him content with his lot and to prevent him from becoming puffed up with wicked lust. But the promise by which he was bidden to hope for eternal life so long as he ate from the tree of life, and, conversely, the terrible threat of death once he tasted of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, served to prove and exercise his faith." [2.1.4]

I think it's fair to summarize Calvin's teaching on this as follows:
He sees Adam as pursuing, not in possession of, eternal life. And the way of obtaining this eternal life was not through trusting a mediator (i.e., not sola fide), but through believing the commands and promises and living accordingly (i.e., faith and obedience). To Calvin, Adam's eternal life would be that, "he could have remained in his original state." [2.1.4] In other words, Adam would have been confirmed in righteousness.

Voting as a Christian

2010-04-29T16:27:00.004+01:00

This video has just been released by the Christian Institute (UK). Have a watch and tell me what you think. Normally, Christians that talk about political involvement make me cringe, because they want to baptize the culture in order to make it a "part of God's kingdom" and (prematurely!) end our pilgrimage (1 Pet. 2:11) through this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). I was surprised by how much I liked this.

Thoughts?

Christian Jargon, part 2

2010-04-21T22:34:00.006+01:00

"All of life is worship"

This was on my list of popular Evangelical slogans to blog about at some point in the future. Dr. R. Scott Clark has just posted an excellent article on the topic which will be better than anything I could come up with. I commend it to you.

Calvin on two natures and Christ's omnipresence

2010-04-19T12:12:00.007+01:00

Why are the two natures of Christ so important? Calvin wrote:

...since neither as God alone could he feel death, nor as man alone could he overcome it, he coupled human nature with divine that to atone for sin he might submit the weakness of the one to death; and that, wrestling with death by the power of the other nature, he might win victory for us. Those who despoil Christ of either his divinity or his humanity diminish his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness. [II.12.3]

Did the Son of God lose His omnipresence during the Incarnation? The Anabaptists argued that the historic understanding of the Incarnation implied such a thing. Calvin responded:

They thrust upon us as something absurd the fact that if the Word of God became flesh, then he was confined within the narrow prison of an earthly body. This is mere impudence! For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin's womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning. [II.13.4]

Galatians Overview, Part 3 (ch's 5-6)

2010-04-15T14:47:00.004+01:00

Part 1 can be found here

Part 2 can be found here

5:2-15 Don’t subject yourselves to the Mosaic Law

Receiving circumcision stood for receiving the Mosaic covenant. For a Galatian to do that would be to state that Christ was not enough for justification, so one must keep the entirety of the Law for one’s justification. The messengers of circumcision are not coming from God, and their message is incompatible with Paul’s.

5:16-26 Walk according to the gospel

“The Spirit” has been shorthand for “the blessing of Abraham” (i.e., the eschatological blessing of the gospel). For one to walk according to the Spirit means to live according to faith/promise/grace, while walking according to the flesh means to live, as fallen creation, according to law/works. The fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of the new creation invading the present age, while the flesh bears fruit of the fallen creation.

6:1-10 Encourage your brothers and sisters

The proper way for the Galatians to respond is to gently and humbly correct those in error. They must share with one another and serve one another, not supposing that they are beyond sin and temptation.

6:11-18 Final Exhortation

Paul is emphatic that they must hold fast to Christ crucified, even in the face of persecution.

Galatians Overview, Part 2 (ch's 3-4)

2010-04-15T14:44:00.004+01:00

Part 1 of this overview can be found here

3:1-6 The Galatian heresy

The Galatians are, in essence, trying to "complete their justification" through works of the Law when they had begun the Christian life, received the Spirit, and witnessed miracles by hearing with faith.

3:7-14 Abraham’s blessing comes through faith, not the Law

The Scripture has always taught justification through faith. The promise to Abraham brings the blessing by faith while the Law brings a curse because it is of works. Christ, in fact, came to redeem us from that Law, because we could not fulfil it.

3:15-22 God’s promise to Abraham and the purpose of the Law

God promised to bless Abraham. The entrance of the Law did not nullify that promise by making it depend upon works (note the antithesis between promise/faith and law/works); rather, the Law prepared the way for Jesus Christ, Abraham’s promised seed.

3:23-4:7 Freed from slavery under the law to receive the adoption

At one time, the Galatians were captives under the law (i.e., the Jews were under Sinai, while the Gentiles were under the covenant of creation/works). But Christ brought freedom to the offspring of Abraham. No longer would Abraham’s children be enslaved under the tutelage of the law. Now, they have received the adoption of sons.

4:8-20 If you’ve received the adoption, why turn to the Law?

If you’ve been freed from slavery and received the adoption of sons, why are you running to the Mosaic Law? There’s nothing more to gain apart from what is yours in Christ. Imitate Paul and remember the gospel that he taught.

4:21-5:1 Illustrating slavery and freedom through Hagar and Sarah

The covenant God made at Mount Sinai brings slavery; it’s like being a child of Hagar. The covenant God made with Abraham brings freedom and blessing; it’s like being a child of Sarah. The former was a law of works while the latter was a promise of grace. The “present Jerusalem” trusted in the covenant from Sinai; therefore, it was enslaved and in opposition to the children of the promise. The children of the promise belong to the heavenly Jerusalem. They are free and must live like it. They must not submit to the Judaizers’ yoke of slavery (Sinai).

Galatians Overview, Part 1 (ch's 1-2)

2010-04-15T13:30:00.004+01:00

I've been working on a talk I'll be giving at the C.U. at the University of Central Lancashire. They gave me a passage from Galatians, so I've spent the morning creating an overview. It's an important book for understanding the massive areas of discontinuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. It's also important for recognizing the continuity between the new covenant and the Abrahamic covenant. Below is part 1 of my overview.

Overview of the Epistle to the Galatians

Main Idea:

Don’t return to the Mosaic Covenant to complete your justification. If you do, you have fallen from grace! The Law brings slavery and death, because it is of works. In Christ, however, you are redeemed from the Law and its curse and receive the promised Spirit and sonship through faith. That Abrahamic blessing does not come to the people whose trust is in Sinai. Therefore, don’t serve God as if you needed to complete your justification; rather, serve one another in love.

1:1-5 Greeting

Paul, the divinely appointed apostle, and all the Christians that were with him address the churches in Galatia. In the name of God and their Savior, they wish them well.

1:6-9 Admonishment

Unlike all his other letters, Paul moves straight into his purpose; he neglects thanksgiving and prayers. The letter has a great sense of urgency and a very clear priority: namely, to vindicate the true gospel in the midst of the Galatians.

1:10-24 Paul’s ministry of the gospel

Paul received the gospel from Christ Himself. This revelation caused him to leave his life of Judaism and preach the gospel he once opposed.

2:1-10 Paul’s gospel vindicated in its truth

The gospel was so important that Paul went to the Jerusalem council to make sure he was preaching it accurately. None of the apostles required service to the Law of Moses. There was freedom from the Law in Christ.

2:11-21 Paul’s defense of the gospel

Paul even stood up to Peter when he stopped living according to the gospel. The gospel brings Jew and Gentile both freedom from the Law and new life in Christ; therefore, we must not return to the Law to find our justification before God.

Gaffin: Perspectives on Pentecost

2010-03-31T14:15:00.003+01:00

Christ the Center is a great podcast that I subscribe to. Recently, the panel interviewed Dr. Richard Gaffin on his book, Perspectives on Pentecost. If you'd like to hear an introduction to the most common defense of "cessationism", then check out this episode.

I was also pleased to hear them reference V os's essay on the Holy Spirit. Dr. Gaffin and the whole panel encouraged all of us to study it.

Two more reasons to be Presbyterian

2010-03-25T18:34:00.004Z

#1. J. Gresham Machen was a Presbyterian! If you don't know who he is, and why he's so important, start listening to the series Darryl Hart, church historian for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is giving at Calvary OPC. The first lecture is out. I listened to it today, while I enjoyed...

#2. Presbyterian Mixture! Do Baptists have a pipe tobacco? No way!!!! Do Anglicans? NO! How bout those Independents? Nope. But Presbyterians do, and it's really nice. There's not a lot of latakia (a strong tobacco leaf) in it, so it's a great start into English blends.

So there ya go, as if you needed any more reasons to be a Presbyterian!

Berkhof: the forensic foundation of faith

2010-03-17T10:45:00.003Z

If God still considers us to be sinful and under His wrath, how can He grant us the new birth and the gift of faith? Before God makes that grant, His judgment concerning us must change. These gifts presuppose that God's judgment of us has already changed! Berkhof writes in his Systematic Theology (IV, 9, E):

It is customary to distinguish between an active and a passive, also called an objective and a subjective, justification, each having its own sphere.

1. Active or objective justification. This is justification in the most fundamental sense of the word. It is basic to what is called subjective justification, and consists in a declaration which God makes respecting the sinner, and this declaration is made in the tribunal of God... This active justification logically precedes faith and passive justification. We believe the forgiveness of sins.

2. Passive or subjective justification. Passive or subjective justification takes place in the heart or conscience of the sinner. A purely objective justification that is not brought home to the sinner would not answer the purpose. The granting of a pardon would mean nothing to a prisoner, unless the glad tidings were communicated to him and the doors of the prison were opened... When the Bible speaks of justification, it usually refers to what is known as passive justification. It should be borne in mind, however, that the two cannot be separated. The one is based on the other. The distinction is simply made to facilitate the proper understanding of the act of justification. Logically, passive justification follows faith; we are justified by faith.

Creeds & Confessions app for iPhone & iPod

2010-03-05T08:31:00.002Z

Westminster Seminary California has just released an app for iPods and iPhones. It contains the Christian Creeds and the most commonly used Reformed Confessions & Catechisms. Go here to find it. HT to Dr. R. Scott Clark, who gives a few more details here.

Follow the "Yellow Brick Road"

2010-02-24T08:22:00.002Z

I rarely listen to sermons during the middle of the week. I hear plenty of talks at Christian Union meetings and find that I'm, generally, overloaded with information that I don't properly process. This sermon by Lee Irons really intrigued me, though, and I'm so glad that I listened to it. In an effort to encourage his church family to read the Gospels, he gave a sermon on the purpose of Christ's miracles. He says, "The miracles of Jesus are a 'yellow brick road' that leads us to the fulfillment of salvation via the atoning death and resurrection of the Christ."

If you're unfamiliar with Lee's work, I recommend taking a look at his papers. I've especially benefited from his work on covenant theology, law & gospel, and eschatology. If you're interested in understanding the thought of Meredith Kline, he is a great resource to look to, as Kline is tough-sledding.

Just Love? A day conference with Dr. Garry Williams

2010-02-03T18:53:00.003Z

On Tuesday 2nd March at the Bryn-y-Groes Conference Centre in Bala, North Wales, Dr. Garry Williams will be speaking on the atoning work of Christ and the attributes of God. It looks like a great conference, which I'd love to go to. Click the title of this post for more details.

Christian jargon

2010-01-30T12:53:00.005Z

All of us like to simplify difficult concepts into catchy slogans. Most of the time, it's with good intention, i.e., we want to communicate something quickly and simply. At other times, it's because we're lazy. This sort of "bumper sticker theology" needs to be questioned and tested, because it can frequently begin to drive our theology rather than stem from it. We can build our lives and churches on them while never thinking them through and holding them up to scrutiny. I'm sure I do this just as much as anyone. Here is one that I've been coming across, followed with my concerns.

"We need to live the gospel"
What people intend to communicate is positive, i.e., the gospel must inform all of our lives, not just be an outward profession for Sundays. This slogan is dangerous, though. You see, Jesus lived the gospel! The good news is not about us; it comes to us. If the news is all about Zac and his life, then it's a pretty crummy gospel. But isn't that what we hear so frequently, i.e., "the good news is that my life is changed!"? I fear that this jargon puts the next generation on the track toward the social gospel. While this generation assumes that the meaning is clear, the next generation will follow it to its logical conclusion, i.e.,our acts of love and justice in history is the gospel. Real personal transformation will happen, but it will only take place if we keep the true gospel in its rightful place. Jesus lived the gospel - God the Son was incarnate, lived a righteous life, died a sacrificial death, was raised from the dead to begin the new creation, and He reigns at the right hand of God the Father, offering forgiveness & justification to sinners through grace alone until the Day in which He returns.

Baptism and the form of corporate worship

2010-01-26T13:17:00.004Z

Lately, I've been pondering the new church trend that seems to be sweeping across the West, i.e., getting rid of formality and tradition in order to emphasize that the local church is a small community. This manifests itself in "house churches" and in church networks that consist of very small congregations. I'm sure that "returning to the forms of the early Church" is not the only reason people are doing this, as many also see it as a way of engaging with culture, but I think it must contribute to it.

It's nothing more than a hunch, so I'm merely throwing this out there to see what you think. But do you think this will be more common within credobaptist circles?

Here's my reason for suspecting this: when I, as a paedobaptist, think about the early Church, I don't think about Pentecost. I go back to the people of Israel, who assembled under the same covenant of grace that I do, except under a different administration. My understanding of the covenants forces me to do this. Obviously, the patterns and forms of temple worship are entirely inappropriate to the people of God under the new covenant. Therefore, I think of the synagogue worship that characterized the post-exilic community. Due to my doctrine of the church, the forms that the post-Pentecost people of God used are not the earliest model to learn from; they were building off the synagogue traditions that preceded them. Meeting in homes as small groups was, therefore, a temporary necessity, rather than something that was ideal.
I expect that a credobaptist will approach the synagogal worship of the pre-Pentecost people of God much differently than me, though, as they believe that there is much greater discontinuity between the new covenant and the covenant given to Abraham.

Circumcision and Baptism

2010-01-25T00:15:00.002Z

Scott Clark has a really helpful post over at the Heidelblog, which discusses the link between circumcision and baptism from Colossians 2. It's really worth a read.

Reformission Scotland

2010-01-11T09:49:00.005Z

"Reformission Scotland is a Scottish church planting partnership. Our aim is to plant gospel churches that will replicate themselves." (from their website)
The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (from the States) is giving oversight and support, while a number of pastors from different Presby denominations are joining in. This looks like a really encouraging development up North.

My two questions are:
- What is the nature of their commitment to the Westminster Standards?
- What denomination will these new church plants be part of in the long-term? On their website, they talk about the way the ARP is giving oversight to the church planting. Is this with a view to another denomination?! Will this lead to a number of churches that are Presbyterian in name and congregational in practice? A quote that raised my eyebrows is, "Neither side is concerned about denominations or ecclesiastical empires."

(HT: Sean Clokey)

Is it time to shoot a sacred cow?

2010-01-11T00:05:00.003Z

Do Christians have the right to institute holy days? That is, do men have the right to determine what days are set apart for the purposes of God?

It’s an important question to consider, seeing that we’ve just finished one “holy day” (i.e., Christmas) and are moving toward “holy week” (i.e., Good Friday and Easter). The idea that Christmas and Easter are illegitimate holidays is not something I had ever considered until recently, because of the unanimous approval that 21st century Christians give them. I’m sure that questioning their validity is equivalent to pointing a shotgun at the proverbial sacred cow, but I’m convinced that it’s time to do so. The only question I have is whether to pull the trigger…

Year after year, battles are fought to keep nativity scenes in public squares, society attends church en-masse, and little figures of baby Jesus are sold. At Easter, crosses are seen, ashes mark foreheads, and people avoid chocolate. Churches largely buy into these traditions, arguing that it provides evangelistic opportunities. Stars are hung from church ceilings, manger scenes abound, Easter egg hunts are organized… you know the drill. I really wonder if this serves to inoculate a culture against Christianity rather than confront it with the gospel. Much of the population in the West surely considers itself to be ‘Christian’ due to the celebration of these “holy days” and resultant sporadic church attendance. It seems like Christianity, as a result, is trivialized.

But I have yet to answer the initial question I asked, i.e., do we have the right to institute a holy day? I must agree with the Westminster Assembly and answer with a resounding “NO!” The Directory for the Public Worship of God states in its Appendix:

There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.

Throughout Scripture, God is the one that sets something apart as holy. It is nonsense to think that we can determine what pleases Him. He determines what tools and instruments would be set apart for temple service. He declared that the tribe of Levi would be His priests and Aaron’s descendents His high priests. His decree made Jesus a priest after the order of Melchizedek. He determined the holy days in the Jewish calendar. He still sets His people apart from the nations, calling them holy. He sets apart the bread, wine, and water for His own special purposes. His Holy Scripture proceeded from Him. He doesn’t give us the right to declare things “holy”. If that were the case, why not create some more sacraments, a conclusion that the Roman Catholics have come to?

I can’t help but wonder if this is a modern day example of Mark 7:7 - "'in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”

It’s interesting that we’ve embraced these man-made holy days and have largely rejected God’s holy day, the Sabbath, which had its beginnings at creation, not with the old covenant. Mark 7:8 – "You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." Mark 2:27 – “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Trueman on snow, Pascal, and entertainment

2010-01-09T17:55:00.003Z

I'm just finishing up an excellent book by Carl Trueman, called The Wages of Spin. It's a collection of essays he wrote on historic and contemporary evangelicalism, which I highly commend to you. Seeing that Manchester (where I live) is in the midst of the largest snowfall in recent years, I was immediately drawn to one of the essays Dr. Trueman wrote in the middle of a snowstorm, called Boring ourselves to life. I hope you find this part as thought-provoking as I did:

[The snowstorm] has been instructive to me in more than just the area of my winter sport skills. One of the most amusing sights on the television in recent days ahs been that of the queues of people in the shops stocking up on winter essentials in case they are trapped in their homes for any length of time. Now by 'essentials,' I do not mean fod, milk and other necessities. Hey, this is America after all; gargantuan consumption is virtually compulsory; and the average American refrigerator routinely carries enough supplies to feed the whole of Africa for a month, or the typical Western family for at least a week. No, I'm referring to American essenetials, and the queues I am speaking of are the lines of people at the local video stores who, the TV reporter informs me, are stocking up on movies lest they get trapped in their homes and become bored.
My initial response to this gem of information was to burst out laughing. Perish the thought that any of these people should be so deprived of prepackaged entertainment that they might have to read a book, or (horror of horrors!) actually talk to other members of their families. Yet, on serious reflection, I realize the phenomenon is a very telling one, underlining once again that we in the West have become a decidedly entertainment-based culture. With no problems regarding supplies of essentials, the greatest fear that we have at any time of potential crisis is that we might be deprived of being amused for a whole forty-eight hours. (p. 175)

Then, Trueman goes on to speak of the perspective of Pascal in his Pensees.

Pascal lived in a world which was marked both by its incredible busy-ness and by its appetite, at least among the social elite, for pleasure and entertainment. Pascal categorized this phenomenon as distraction. Distraction is the production of entertainment for the purpose of taking one's mind off the deeper realities of life. In a famous paragraph in the Pensees, he asks why even kings have trivial entertainments organized for their amusement. He can understand, he says, why poor people might enjoy the odd dance to distract them from the miserable drudge of their daily lives, but why should a king, glorious, powerful, surrounded by proofs of his own greatness, need trivial entertainment? The answer is that, left to himself with nothing to distract him, he will think about himself and the reality of the death that awaits him.

He finishes his essay with this exhortation:

Let us take time, then, to be bored, to strip away from ourselves the screens we have created to hide the real truths of life and death from our eyes. Let us spend less time trying to appropriate culture for Christianity and more time deconstructing culture in the light of Christ's claims on us and the world around us. Only then, I think, will we truly grasp the urgency of the human predicament. If it snows again, don't rent a video; read a copy of Pascal's Pensees.

Two nails into the Millennial coffin

2009-12-14T11:37:00.005Z

I think the strongest argument for an amillennial approach to the New Testament (your eschatology does affect your approach!) is the way Paul and Jesus speak of the "two ages". In short, "this age" is characterized by things that are temporal and fallen. The "age to come" is characterized by things that are eternal. This, as a result, leaves no room for an earthly millennium (whether post-mill or pre-mill), because it would necessarily be a "third age".

G. Vos - Two Age Chart (pdf)

Kim Riddlebarger - Two Age biblical texts (pdf)

A monumental work in eschatology

2009-12-14T11:09:00.005Z

I've just finished the Bible overview class I was teaching at church and, through a conversation I had, was reminded of the brilliance of Geerhardus Vos's work, titled The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit. This essay is absolutely phenomenal! In it, Vos argues that the Person of the Holy Spirit is the eschatological blessing. We receive the firstfruits of the Spirit in 'this present evil age' and the fullness thereof in 'the age to come'. Give it a few hours, and you'll see the forerunner to his famous work The Pauline Eschatology and where Anthony Hoekema gets much of his understanding of eschatology in The Bible and the Future. If you're new to Reformed theology, this is a great essay to understand how Reformed theologians that follow Vos (a very large crowd!) understand the way that eschatology pervades the entirety of the Christian life.

Download the pdf here!

More "Christian politics"...

2009-12-11T19:31:00.006Z

Regardless of whether or not I support the Evangelical Alliance Ireland's stance toward the civil partnership bill, this sort of thing is one of the reasons I have difficulty referring to myself as an Evangelical. Identifying "Christian policies" in the civil sphere (aka - "kingdom/city of man") has become part and parcel of the "movement" known as Evangelicalism. (My local church even advertises that they are a "fair trade church"!) Due to their perturbation with being an alien and sojourner in this age, the rally cry has become "Let's unite in order to become a political force for social change!" Many hope that the social order will be 'baptized', bringing the Christ's kingdom to earth, experiencing 'the age to come' during 'this present evil age'. Many others simply hope to preserve a vestige of the "Christian past".

Although there are some that will not be happy about it, the fact remains that Evangelicalism, as a whole, has drawn the doctrinal dividing line in relation to political action (something that the New Testament authors spoke about with such great frequency). This is yet another instance where I'm left out in the cold...

A new psalter is out!

2009-11-24T16:16:00.004Z

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) has just released a new psalter, called "The Book of Psalms for Worship". It will replace "The Book of Psalms for Singing", which is their previous psalter. You can go here to find out more about it. The site includes some videos (one of which is posted above), detailing their purpose and hopes for this new psalter, and a "library" of the tunes that they have used for each psalm. It looks brilliant!

Above is a video they have put out about 'psalm singing'.

Psalm 102 a capella

2009-11-20T13:01:00.001Z

The Reformed Presbyterian psalm-singing conference

Answering objections to "Two Kingdoms theology"

2009-11-11T13:43:00.004Z

Here's a pdf from the White Horse Inn blog, in which Mike Horton answers a lot of questions/objections that are commonly presented to proponents of 2 Kingdoms theology. The American blogosphere was erupting a few months ago on this topic.

Jason Stellman recently wrote a book (called "Dual Citizens") on the topic and was interviewed on Covenant Radio about it. Here's the mp3

David Strain also interviewed Darryl Hart. He presented it in four blog-posts. The fourth is linked here. In it, you will find links to the previous three.

Federal Theology, chocolate, and a stampede...

2009-10-09T14:49:00.006+01:00

Today, I had the opportunity to speak at a school assembly in Manchester. When I've given talks before, they've always been to either churches or university-level Christian Unions.
I've realized that eleven to eighteen year-olds are different in a few ways. Going into it, I expected a shorter attention span (not that uni students have a long one) and that I would need to simplify with one or two points. What I didn't expect was the affect that the sight of chocolate has upon young boys...
I divided the boys into three groups and asked for two boys to 'represent' their team in a competition. The competition was about 'representatives' (catching the theme?). I held up pics of various, famous people and the contestants needed to name the people group or institution that the famous person represented. Things went smoothly until I instructed the winning team to "divide the spoils" with their team. Boys were tackling boys and others were falling off benches. One young boy even left the gymnasium with tears in his eyes b/c there wasn't enough chocolate for him (he was on the winning team).
The rest of the meeting went pretty well. With all the drama, it seemed like they actually were paying attention. Now, I'm praying that the students will remember that Christ is able to represent us before His Father.

The NPP, an opportunity to rediscover Reformed covenant theology

2009-10-01T18:34:00.008+01:00

It is commonly recognized that theological error provides the Church with an opportunity to reflect upon and refine its beliefs. It is at these times that the Church actually wakes up to take a passionate stand upon truth that has been collecting dust for far too long. The present-day controversies concerning the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul are two such examples. Due to their various errors, these movements have brought Law & Gospel, justification, the covenant of works, and the sacraments to the forefront of discussion. Although it is lamentable that error is within the Church, it is also a time for God's people to vigorously confess the truth.

Lee Irons has recently posted two excellent pieces, called "The story that frames the atonement", which demonstrate one of the fundamental errors of NT Wright. It's different than most critiques b/c he is approaching it from Genesis 1-3. Irons points out that, in Wright's theology, "the story that frames the atonement" is merely Israel and exile. Wright removes Israel from its context, though! The narrative of Israel and exile is itself framed by the narrative of Adam and the curse of death. The latter is ultimate while the former is a (typological) reenactment. Here's a taste:

So there are actually two narrative frameworks (Adam and Israel) with the Israel narrative nesting within the broader Adam narrative (creation, fall, redemption, consummation). The mission and work of Jesus must be seen through the mutually interpreting lens of both narratives. In the order of understanding, we start with the Israel narrative since that forms the most immediate historical context for the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah. But since the Israel narrative is itself a reproduction in type and shadow of the broader Adam narrative, the interpretive framework provided by the Israel narrative was intended by God to point beyond its own particularity to the universalism of the Adam narrative. In Israel's covenant breaking and exile, we see the covenant breaking and expulsion of Adam from the garden. And since we are all in Adam, we see ourselves in Israel's story too. Yet, just as Jesus takes Israel's story to the cross and beyond to the resurrection, so he completes Adam's story at the same time, so that through his accursed death we have passed through judgment and have emerged on the other side having won, by his merit, the right to eat of the tree of life and live forever with him in the heavenly inheritance.

read part 1 here
part 2

Map of NAPARC Churches in Ohio

2009-09-18T22:16:00.003+01:00

View Ohio NAPARC Churches in a larger map

A map of the California NAPARC Churches was just posted on the net (view it here) I thought that creating it was a great idea, so I made one for my home state, Ohio. I think the Californians need to come help us out!

Abraham and Sinai Contrasted, T. David Gordon

2009-09-18T12:00:00.003+01:00

In a previous post, I recommended a book called "The Law is not of Faith". I also spoke of a few of the chapters I found to be especially good. One of those can be found here for free (pdf). It's T. David Gordon's "Abraham and Sinai Contrasted, Gal. 3:6-14". He effectively counters the viewpoint that Paul was engaging with a Jewish distortion of the Mosaic law, i.e., the Mosaic Law was not really a covenant of law/works - the Jews wrongly treated it as such.

Trueman & Horton on the White Horse Inn

2009-09-15T00:27:00.004+01:00

Carl Trueman, church historian at Westminster Philadelphia, was just interviewed on the White Horse Inn. He discusses topics such as John Owen, church tradition, American Evangelicalism, British Evangelicalism, the New Calvinism, and the Emergent Church. It's a great interview in just 35 minutes.

Click here to go to the download page.

Trueman on celebrity & the YRR movement

2009-09-05T01:00:00.004+01:00

Carl Trueman, commenting on the Young, Restless, (and not really) Reformed movement and the celebrity culture within:

"...Finally, I worry that a movement built on megachurches, megaconferences, and megaleaders, does the church a disservice in one very important way that is often missed amid all the pizzazz and excitement: it creates the idea that church life is always going to be big, loud, and exhilarating and thus gives church members and ministerial candidates unrealistic expectations of the normal Christian life. In the real world, many, perhaps most, of us worship and work in churches of 100 people or less; life is not loud and exciting; big things do not happen every Sunday; budgets are incredibly tight and barely provide enough for a pastor's modest salary; each Lord's Day we go through the same routines of worship services, of hearing the gospel proclaimed, of taking the Lord's Supper, of teaching Sunday School; perhaps several times a year we do leaflet drops in the neighbourhood with very few results; at Christmas time we carol sing in the high street and hand out invitations to church and maybe two or three people actually come along as a result; but no matter -- we keep going, giving, and praying as we can; we try to be faithful in the little entrusted to us. It's boring, it's routine, and it's the same, year in, year out. Therefore, in a world where excitement, celebrity, and cultural power are the ideal, it is tempting amidst the circumstances of ordinary church life to forget that this, the routine of the ordinary, the boring, the plodding, is actually the norm for church life and has been so throughout most places for most of the history of the church; that mega-whatevers are the exception, not the rule; and that the church has survived throughout the ages not just - or even primarily - because of the high profile firework displays of the great and the good, but because of the day to day faithfulness of the mundane, anonymous, non-descript people who constitute most of the church, and who do the grunt work and the tedious jobs that need to be done. History does not generally record their names; but the likelihood is that you worship in a church which owes everything, humanly speaking, to such people..."

Find the rest of his post over at Ref21 (here)

Burial or cremation

2009-08-14T13:24:00.003+01:00

A thought-provoking post over at the Heidelblog.

There’s no question whether God can and shall re-constitute bodies at the resurrection, the question is what message are we sending by our acts?

New REC on Ephesians is out

2009-08-14T13:17:00.004+01:00

If you haven't come across the Reformed Expository Commentary Series, they'd be worth checking out. Here's the description of the series:

The Reformed Expository Commentary is biblical (committed to comprehensive exposition of the text), doctrinal (committed to the Westminster Standards), redemptive-historical (committed to a Christ-centered view of the Old Testament), and practical (committed to applying the text to people today). Coeditors are Philip Ryken and Richard Phillips; biblical editors are Iain Duguid and Dan Doriani.

I've heard of people using them for both sermon preparation and also daily devotions. The new volume on Ephesians is written by Bryan Chapell. For the next day or so, you can buy it from WTS books for 67% off ($10).

Deuteronomy overview

2009-08-11T12:49:00.006+01:00

Here's a link to an overview of Deuteronomy, written by MG Kline. I've been preparing a Bible overview course for church and have found it to be extremely helpful. An excerpt:

It is only within the framework of the administration of God's redemptive covenant that Deuteronomy can be adequately interpreted. The promises given to the patriarchs and finally and truly fulfilled in Christ had a provisional and typical fulfillment in the covenants mediated to Israel through Moses. In the Sinaitic Covenant the theocracy was established, with Moses as earthly representative of the Lord's kingship over Israel. Then, when the rebellious exodus generation had perished in the wilderness and Moses' own death was imminent, it was necessary to renew the covenant to the second generation. The central, decisive act of the ceremony was the consecration of the servant people by an oath to their divine Lord. In particular, God's reign as symbolically represented in the earthly, mediatorial dynasty must be confirmed by securing from Israel a commitment to obey Joshua as the successor to Moses in that dynasty.

Part of the standard procedure followed in the ancient Near East when great kings thus gave covenants to vassal peoples was the preparation of a text of the ceremony as the treaty document and witness. The book of Deuteronomy is the document prepared by Moses as a witness to the dynastic covenant which the Lord gave to Israel in the plains of Moab (cf. Deut 31:26).

(In case you care, it was written before his understanding of the covenants fully matured. If you're looking for an explanation of his mature thoughts on covenant theology, read Kingdom Prologue or God, Heaven, and Har Mageddon.)

The White Horse Inn has a blog!

2009-08-06T11:40:00.003+01:00

The White Horse Inn is a weekly broadcast out of the States. Four hosts discuss current issues within the Church and attempt to address them from a Reformation perspective. The hosts are Ken Jones (Baptist), Rod Rosenbladt (Lutheran), Kim Riddlebarger (Reformed), and Michael Horton (Reformed).

I've been reading quite a bit on the relationship between the Church and culture lately. Here's an excerpt from their blog (by the editor, Eric Landry), who advocates a "Two Kingdoms" approach to Christ and culture:

The challenge for Christians in any age or location is to live as pilgrims, strangers, and exiles with feet planted firmly both in the kingdoms of the world and in the kingdom of God. Our hope isnt in nationalism (either of the American or Middle Eastern kind) or influence peddling. Instead, our confidence is that no matter in what circumstances we live, the Lord still expands his kingdom through the worship and witness of the church.

Despite our circumstances of ease and affluence or persecution and want, all Christians live under the cross in this present age. And whether we are lauded or hounded, we must constantly endeavor to resist conformation to this world (Rom 12:2). Failing to engage our culture with transformed minds that discern the will of God means that we will too-often mistake social success for divine effectiveness or social ostracism for divine disfavor. Can we have confidence in our calling even if the kingdom of man fails to give us the keys to the city?

Calvin on Faith

2009-08-02T18:12:00.003+01:00

It is true, indeed, that faith has respect to God only; but to this we should add, that it acknowledges Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. God would remain far off, concealed from us, were we not irradiated by the brightness of Christ. (Institutes, III.2.i)

Is it faith to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church? Faith consists not in ignorance, but in knowledge - knowledge not of God merely, but of the divine will. We do not obtain salvation either because we are prepared to embrace every dictate of the Church as true, or leave to teh Church the province of inquiring and determining; but when we recognise God as a propitious Father through the reconciliation made by Christ, and Christ as given to us for righteousness, sanctification, and life. By this knowledge, I say, not by the submission of our understanding, we obtain a entrance into the kingdom of heaven. (Institutes, III.2.ii)

... we must remember, that there is an inseparable relation between faith and the word, and that these can no more be disconnected from each other than rays of light from the sun. (Institutes, III.2.vi)

Calvin on Union with Christ

2009-08-02T18:09:00.001+01:00

... so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. (Institutes, III.1.i)

To this union alone it is owing that, in regard to us, the Saviour has not come in vain. To this is to be referred that sacred marriage, by which we become bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, and so one with him (Eph. 5:30), for it is by the Spirit alone that he unites himself to us. By the same grace and energy of the Spirit we become his members, so that he keeps us under him, and we in our turn possess him. (Institutes, III.1.iii)

Do you know of helpful articles on neo-calvinism?

2009-07-29T14:53:00.004+01:00

Abraham Kuyper: founder of "Neo-Calvinism"

I just finished reading an introductory book on "Neo-Calvinism". The author helpfully articulated their approach to the Scripture and argument for "redeeming culture". I'd really like to get a better idea of the way they approach some specific issues (below). If you know of any good books or articles, could you please let me know in a comment?

I'd love to read a Neo-Calvinist perspective on (there will obviously be some overlap):
• What would a perfectly redeemed political system (before Christ's return) look like?
• the consummation & millennialism
• covenant theology
• theocracy (Eden & Israel)

Great book on the Mosaic covenant

2009-07-22T01:14:00.004+01:00

I just finished reading "The Law is not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant". The authors are arguing that there is, in some sense, a republication of the Edenic covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant while still being an administration of the covenant of grace. They argue this from historical, exegetical, and systematic studies. Although they don't necessarily agree with one another (especially Guy Waters, whose understanding of "the law" seems to be primarily "the ten commandments", an extract from the Mosaic covenant, rather than "the Mosaic covenant" itself), there is great harmony in this book.

Here are the chapters I found to be exceptionally good:

JV Fesko starts the book off by reviewing the covenant theology of Calvin and Witsius. The developments and the influence of Cocceius and Calvin upon Witsius was very helpful. (His chapter is free online)

Brenton Ferry's chapter, cataloguing the different perspectives on the Mosaic covenant by the major covenant theologians, was incredibly helpful. If anyone is serious about digging into the Mosaic covenant, this chapter is required reading!

Richard Belcher wrote about the king, the law, and righteousness in the psalms. He places a great deal of value upon the ordering of the psalms in the psalter, treating it like a well-structured book rather than a random assortment of songs. After reading that, I'm definitely going to purchase his book on the Psalms.

T. David Gordon's chapter on Galatians 3:6-14 was brilliant. It engages with the monocovenantal approach of John Murray and with those who believe that Paul is addressing a Jewish misinterpretation of the Mosaic covenant.

David Van Drunen wrote an excellent chapter on his specialty, natural law. He argues that it isn't simply moral commands that are written upon man's consciences but the curse of death for disobedience and the reward of life for obedience, as well (Rom. 1:32 & the universal ability of man to execute judgment). I'm looking forward to reading his book on this topic.

"The Law is not of Faith" would be a great companion to Horton's "God of Promise" and Fisher's "Marrow of Modern Divinity" (which will be back in print soon!).

Breaking News! Rapture Meter hits high for 2009!

2009-06-02T15:22:00.003+01:00

The index has hit its height for 2009, resting at 166. And since Obama is encouraging the Iranians to pursue nuclear energy, will it go higher? Keep your eyes on that index!!!!

The makers of the index warn people that, if the meter goes above 160 we ought to "fasten our seatbelts". I can't help but wonder, though... why would we want to do that?! What if Jesus came back and we had our seatbelt on?! Wouldn't we miss the rapture and be "left behind"?! Why would we do anything that could potentially keep us on the ground when that "thief in the night" comes to "snatch us up". (I'm just interpretting them literally!!)

Please, join the Free Church!

2009-05-27T08:58:00.002+01:00

I'm pretty much a newbie to the Reformed and Presbyterian world, so I'm just beginning to learn about the state of the Church in various countries around the world. I had known for a while that there were two main Presbyterian Churches in Scotland - the Free Church and the Church of Scotland - but I didn't really understand much of the history.

The Church of Scotland's General Assembly (the highest court in the presbyterian system) recently approved the ordination of a practicing homosexual minister, which has meant that I've learned a lot about the state of 'the Kirk', as it's called, in a short space of time.

A few quick thoughts:

Why are confessional presbyterian congregations still in this denomination? How far does a denomination have to go before you leave it? How can you still have churchly fellowship within this denomination? A common denominational membership means that you consider them to be brothers and sisters in a particular way, and you have fellowship (financial) with them, too.
Why is the homosexual issue the big one? Why not the inerrancy of Scripture? Why not the disregard of the Westminster Confession? (HT: Carl Trueman)
Why don't the confessional presbyterians join the Free Church?!?! (This absolutely boggles my mind!) The C of S is gone - Everyone can tell - Give it up! Join your brothers and sisters that subscribe to the Westminster documents that your "brothers and sisters" have rejected. Please, don't just form a denomination within your denomination. Don't stay in for the sake of a church building.

A great post by Trueman concerning the recent moves by "the Tron"

Worship: a man-directed production

2009-05-21T18:43:00.005+01:00

Historically, the Reformed have viewed corporate worship as a time when God condescended to serve His people by Word and Sacrament. Corporate worship was viewed as a God-directed and God-centered time. Components of worship (elements) were according to God's revealed will and those things that were incidental (e.g., what time do we meet?) were determined by the light of nature with a desire for simplicity.

Contrast the Reformed approach with a congregation-centered and man-directed "worship service" (one wonders who's being worshiped) that characterizes many of the churches in this project called "Mega Churches" by a photographer named Joe Johnson. I found it to be both eye-opening and disturbing.

Please, give me some of your thoughts below...

[A Better Way - A great book on the God-directed nature of worship]

"Angels and Demons" Apologetics

2009-05-21T17:35:00.003+01:00

The Truth about Angels and Demons

Here's a site that may be of use to you. It's a site run by Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) that seeks to answer the specific questions raised by this new film.

A helpful blog post by Sean Michael Lucas on responding to the movie

Lordship does not mean Kingship

2009-05-15T13:34:00.003+01:00

Abraham Kuyper once wrote, "Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'"

Kuyper's statement is correct. It doesn't mean what many take it to mean, though, i.e., that everything is part of Christ's kingdom. Christ's Lordship over all creation doesn't mean that all of creation is part of His kingdom. An easy example of this is hell. Christ will eternally be Lord over hell, Satan, and the reprobate; however, they are not part of His kingdom. Another key example can be seen in Israel during the Old Testament. God was Lord over the entire earth (nothing has changed!), but His kingdom was administered by the Old Covenant in Canaan. He was not King over Egypt or Assyria, yet, providentially speaking, He was Lord over them.

Christ's kingdom is not of the world (Jn. 18:36). We are in the world, but not of the world (Jn. 15:19). He raises us up with Him and seats us in the heavenly places with Him (Eph. 1:20, 2:6).

Therefore, let us not think that His Lordship over all things means that all things are part of (or becoming part of) His kingdom. He doesn't raise culture up and seat it in the heavenly places. He doesn't raise the government up and seat it in the heavenly places. Truly, culture may be affected by Christians, but that doesn't mean it's "redeemed" or has become part of Christ's kingdom. (Surely, people within society and government officials will be raised up.) Under the New Covenant, His kingdom is administered through the Word and Sacraments. These are the means through which Christ comes to us, subdues our stubborn hearts, and rules over us.

Iain Campbell on Christ & the Song of Solomon

2009-05-01T14:53:00.005+01:00

It's become popular for Christians to view the Song of Solomon as merely a book about building a better marriage and having a better sex-life. But if the word of God (Scripture) is all about the Word of God (Jesus), shouldn't the Song of Solomon also be about Christ?!

On the Reformed Forum, Iain Campbell, minister in the Free Church of Scotland, discusses an approach to the Songs that both avoids allegory and magnifies Christ. Go here to listen to it.

The Late Great Planet Church

2009-04-30T15:25:00.003+01:00

A new DVD has just been released by the Apologetics Group, a division of NiceneCouncil.com. This group also produced a DVD series called Amazing Grace: the History and Theology of Calvinism, which I found to be quite helpful. The aim of this first volume is to explain the beginnings and beliefs of Dispensationalism, while the series hopes to demonstrate the errors of this system of doctrine. For those unfamiliar with the term, one of the most clear marks of Dispensationalism is the belief in the Rapture and most proponents of this system view the New Testament Church as a sort of parenthesis in God's primary plan, which is to save ethnic Israel. For articles that both explain Dispensationalism and offer a critique, go here.

Here's a great quote that they're using as a sort of tagline:

"Dispensationalism has thrown down the gauntlet; and it is high time that covenant theologians take up the challenge and respond to them Biblically."
--Dr. Robert L. Reymond, author, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

Ligon Duncan quote

2009-04-27T11:03:00.003+01:00

Martin & Tim Challies post a sobering, yet true, quote from Ligon Duncan's book "Fear Not"

Hell is eternity in the presence of God without a mediator.
Heaven is eternity in the presence of God with a mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ.

a previous post of mine related to this topic

A new Dan Brown book is coming out

2009-04-20T21:38:00.003+01:00

and, with it, a new evangelistic opportunity arises. I might as well start working on the Lunchbar (apologetic talk) now and encourage the Christian Unions to begin planning some evangelistic events to engage with this... In fact, it may be as simple as repackaging all the old Da Vinci Code materials!

Read the article here.

H. Upmann, Maduro Robusto (D.R.)

2009-04-19T00:22:00.003+01:00

At only $4.50, this is a brilliant cigar. Probably the nicest one this newbie has had. A bit of a cedar taste. I found that it pairs well with Meredith Kline's "By Oath Consigned: A reinterpretation of the covenant signs of circumcision and baptism".

For anyone else that enjoys a nice cigar with their theology, check out the Nicotine Theological Journal.

Review of Recovering the Reformed Confession, Part I

2009-04-15T20:38:00.006+01:00

I just finished reading this book, which I had been eagerly anticipating. It was everything I had hoped for. At 384 pages and written in an accessible and engaging way, this is a book you can't miss if you're at all interested in Reformed & Presbyterian theology and have a basic understanding of it.

Rather than pointing the guns outside the ranks, Dr. Clark calls the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of North America out, demonstrating that much of what has become commonplace and is assumed to be "Reformed" is not actually consistent with what they confess (the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity). Concurring with notable church historian Phillip Schaff, Clark states:

What Schaff called rationalism we will call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty or QIRC, that is, the quest to know what God knows, the way he knows it. This quest often manifests itself in the attempt to find certainty on issues that are not of the esse (being) or even of the bene esse (well-being) of the Reformed confession. For those on this quest, what matters more than finding the truth or getting it right is being right. According to QIRC, there is no distinction between essential and nonessential doctrines or practices, since QIRC renders them all equally important. What Schaff called "sectarism" may also be described as the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience or QIRE. This is the pursuit of the immediate experience of God without the means of grace (i.e., the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments). It is the attempt to experience him in a way that he has not ordained, and more specifically, to experience him in a way that we do not confess. [5]

The Reformed have rejected QIRC. In fact, Calvin famously explained special revelation as God's stooping down and speaking "baby-talk" to us. Three examples of this problem, which Clark notes, are 6/24 creation, the theonomy/reconstruction movements, and the covenant moralists. The first example adds to the confessions and catechisms while the latter two simply contradict them.

If you think that Clark would ruffle some feathers with QIRC, just wait for QIRE, where he takes on the revivalistic tendences of Jonathan Edwards and Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the places where the Reformed church have slowly taken on the pietistic practice of Evangelicals, both of which are contrary to their confession, which states that believers do not experience "God in the nude" but as mediated through the means of grace (i.e., the Word and Sacraments). Clark writes:

In North America, beginning in the early eighteenth century, Reformed theology, piety, and practice were profoundly and adversely affected by synthesis of the Reformed confession with pietism. The result of this synthesis was a turn away from the objective to the subjective... this turn to the subjective is described as the quest for illegitimate religious experience, the desire for an unmediated encounter with God apart from the ordinary means. Gradually, through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as the restraint of confessional orthodoxy was eroded, pietism came to dominate Reformed piety. [115]

These are the problems that plague the Reformed & Presbyterian churches. In the next review, I'll attempt to summarize Clark's proposed solutions.

'Religulous'

2009-03-27T23:28:00.002Z

I just finished watching the Bill Maher movie, 'Religulous'. It was a mixture of pain, heresy, and humor...

A few reflections that aren't very original:

American Christians rely on the apologetic method of 'personal experience' and a 'blind leap of faith'. When push comes to shove, they have no clue as to how to defend the faith.
For the entirety of the movie, Bill Maher operates with presuppositions that he steals from the Christian worldview, e.g., morality & universal laws of nature
The sentiment that 'religion is evil, and we'd be better without it' is increasing. The future of religion in the States is going to get a lot more 'European' soon.

Did the Westminster Assembly teach the active and passive obedience of Christ?

2009-03-26T20:31:00.004Z

Before you see the answer, here's a quick definition of the terms from our friend Louis Berkhof:

The active obedience of Christ. Christ as Mediator entered the federal relation in which Adam stood in the state of integrity, in order to merit eternal life for the sinner. This constitutes the active obedience of Christ, consisting in all that Christ did to observe the law in its federal aspect, as the condition for obtaining eternal life.

The passive obedience of Christ. Christ as Mediator also entered the penal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty in our stead. His passive obedience consisted in His paying the penalty of sin by His sufferings and death, and thus discharging the debt of all His people. [Syst. Theol. Part 3.IV.3.a-b]

Now for the answer...

Thomas Boston, around 1718, says "absolutely"!

... the Westminster divines teach both [active and passive obedience] as sound and orthodox principles, affirming Christs' righteousness, obedience, and satisfaction, themselves to be imputed to believers, or reckoned their righteousness, obedience, and satisfaction. [Marrow, II.iii.1]

He then quotes all 3 Westminster documents:

Westminster Shorter Catechism 33
"Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone."
Larger Catechism 70
"Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone."
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 11, article 1
'Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth... by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them..."

That the Westminster divines taught the active and passive obedience of Christ has come under fire as of late. Christ's obedience to the law and His curse-bearing on our behalf are too important to let go of.

Do we neglect the Psalms because we neglect our Semitic roots?

2009-03-26T19:13:00.006Z

Here are some of the main points from a short article written by J.G. Vos (Geerhardus' son) concerning what he perceives to be a cause for the neglect of Psalm-singing in Christianity.

“The prophecy uttered by Noah was that God would enlarge Japheth, and Japheth would dwell in the tents of Shem. In the Hebrew idiom, to dwell in the tents of someone means to be the inheritor of that person’s wealth and estate… Christians of Europe and America dwell in the tents of Shem. Our religious heritage has come to us from the children of Israel, the children of Shem. Our very Christ was a Jew. Our Bible was written almost entirely by Israelites. Our religious thought-forms, vocabulary, sacraments, worship, church-government, all have come to us, humanly speaking, from Israel.”

These are some of the reasons Vos cites for the neglect of Psalm-singing:

“Some are tired of singing the Psalms because they are not willing to bear the cross of being different from the big, popular churches. The other churches sing popular hymns, and the Psalms seem to be not only different, but peculiar and old-fashioned.”

“Some object to the Psalms because they do not like the theology of the Psalms, with its emphasis on the righteousness and justice of God, and His destruction of His enemies.”

“Some object to the Psalms because they do not like the Jewish flavor and coloring of the Psalms…”

“These objections to the Psalms all have one thing in common. No matter what the objection, it arises from a lack of real sympathy with and appreciation of the religion of the Bible. Those who object to the Psalms do not want to dwell in the tents of Shem. They do not like the form and pattern and structure of the religion that God has given to the world; they prefer something new and different, made by themselves.”

In this short article, Vos also engages with the tendencies to “Christianize” the Psalms, avoid the “imprecatory” Psalms, and sing only the subjective parts. He concludes by saying,

The Psalms are balanced, they are free from all one-sided emphases. They have stood the test of time. Let us hold on to them, love them, glory in them, sing them heartily, and never, never apologize for them or be ashamed of them. They are our heritage, a part of the tents of Shem that God has planned and prepared for us to dwell in to His glory and our own good.

If you'd like to read the entire article, click here (pdf)

(HT: HB)