Dead Theologians

The Preached Word as Means of Grace in Calvin.

2012-01-23T13:59:00.004-06:00

(This is a chapter from my master's thesis. If I had it to rework I would make some changes. Also this chapter relies heavily on some groundwork done by Glen Clary. Despite the shortcomings, I thought I would share this work, especially since this work laid the foundation for my doctrine of the Word and why I believe the Reformed Tradition has the correct emphasis on the primacy of the Word and preaching (Contra the Anglo-Catholic Anglicans or some High Church Lutherans)

THE PREACHED WORD IN CALVIN

The concept of the Word of God exercises a high prominence in John Calvin’s Theology. The sacraments have no efficacy, except by the Word of God.^¹ The church does not exist, except by the Word of God.^² Faith ordinarily is produced by the Word of God.^³ All of creation comes to being by the efficacy of the Word.^⁴ Calvin’s Ecclesiology, Sacramental theology and Soteriology depend on the concept of the Word of God, and so understanding the Biblical teaching of the Word of God is essential to understanding the Calvin’s summation of the Christian religion.

What is the Word?

Scholarly opinion holds “the primacy of the word of God was fundamental to the doctrine of the Reformation.”^⁵ Yet, the contemporary understanding of the meaning of the concept in Scripture of “the Word of God” could cause the contemporary reader to misunderstand Calvin's robust doctrine of the Word. The Westminster Larger Catechism asks “What is the Word of God?” in Question three. The answer states the Word of God is, “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.” To the student of the Westminster Catechism, the first and primary answer for “what is the Word of God?” would be the written Word in Scripture.

Calvin's theology of the Word includes, though not less than this Westminsterian affirmation of Scripture as Word of God, much more teaching on the doctrine of the Word. When Calvin defines the Word, he does not begin with the written form, but insists that “‘Word’ mean the everlasting Wisdom, residing with God, from which both all oracles and all prophecies go forth.”^⁶ Such a definition as including “Wisdom” includes Christ as the ultimate Word. “The Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God himself.”^⁷ Yet, in identifying the Word with “oracles” Calvin also conceives of the message of the Word. The content of the message is Christ, and the oracles are the communication of God of Himself. When applying the term “Word” to something other than Christ, what is meant is a medium of communication of the Word of God.

Calvin includes with his doctrine of the Word identification of what may be called modes or mediums of communication of the Word of God. Calvin certainly agrees with later theology (including the Westminster Catechism) that the Word of God is communicated in Scripture.^⁸ Yet written Scripture is not the only means by which God has communicated to man, which also includes oracles, visions, and the work and ministry of men.^⁹ When observing Calvin's use of the term “Word,” we can clearly see it is more expansive than merely “Scripture.” Specifically to the appellation of Word of God being applied to preaching, Calvin writes that God sends “the Word” to Pharaoh which hardens his heart. By Word, Calvin is referring to the message Moses delivered orally. Calvin makes the same identification of Ezekiel’s spoken message to be delivered orally.^¹⁰ Thus, for Calvin, not only are the Scriptures the Word of God, but so is preaching. Certainly, the nature of the two is different depending on the time in redemptive history,^¹¹ yet both the Scriptures are affirmed, as will be labeled “the written Word,” and preaching is affirmed, as will be labeled “the preached Word.”

Preaching as Word of God

The modern focus on the written Word to the neglect of the spoken or preached Word, has likewise led to a neglect of the preached Word in studying Calvin. Thomas Davis remarked that, “When we speak of Calvin’s preaching, we approach one of the two final frontiers…in studies of Calvin; the other is exegesis.”^¹² Any exploration of Calvin's preaching and his doctrine of preaching must deal with Calvin's conception of the Word both in Scripture and preached. Though contemporary evaluations of Calvin’s view of preaching acknowledge it as “the Word” in Calvin understating the doctrine. For instance, T.H.L. Parker asserts, “According to Calvin...preaching so to say 'borrows' its status of 'Word of God' from Scripture.”^¹³ This description becomes the often quoted maxim for the relation of Calvin’s idea of the preached Word in regards to the written word, as both Glen Clarey and J. Mark Beach quote Parker.^¹⁴ This wording of “status,” gives the wrong impression of Calvin’s estimation of status of the preaching the Word as a medium. According to Calvin, the apostles operated under a different set of rules in their preaching than do their successors and so the apostles are “scribes of the Holy Spirit.” The preaching of the apostles begins as Word of God and lends its status to Scripture. Then, their successors must follow the apostles’ preaching and teaching as recorded in Scripture.^¹⁵

Therefore, Calvin's evaluation of preaching, then, does not begin with it borrowing its status from Scripture. After quickly identifying the creed as the message of the church in book four, Calvin identifies the first Word through which this message of the church is conveyed to the congregation. This Word is the preached Word. Calvin uses Scripture to identify the message of God first coming by auditory means to the people. The teaching God wishes to convey to His people is “by the mouth of the priest.”^¹⁶ In discussing the message of God, Calvin does not begin with his own time and how his time came to have the content of the message. In his own time and ours, certainly preaching borrows its content, though not its status, from Scripture. Rather, when dealing the relationship, Calvin starts in history where the message of God begins in a form that is heard rather than read, and only after it is heard is it recorded in written form. Historically speaking, for Calvin, especially in those instances where the message begins as the oral word of the prophet, Scripture borrows its content as Word of God from the preached Word. Although in the case of the priest speaking he is likely expounding the Law in written form and the priest's spoken Word would then borrow its content from the written Word. Primacy is not always given to the written Word, but to God's message as He personally encounters His people in a particular time. Authority is derived from God in the mediums of written and spoken message, without one being primary in status, until the written Word gains priority in infallible content at the close of the canon.^¹⁷ Therefore, in addressing the concept of the preached Word in Calvin, we are speaking merely of an extension of the doctrine of the written Word.

Characteristics of Preached Word

The concept of the Word of God dominates and then serves as the foundation for a great deal of the content in book four of the Institutes which expound the concept of the means of grace. There, the means of grace are also called, “the external means or aids by which God invites us into the Society of Christ and holds us therein.” The church forms the context of these means, as the deposit of the gospel.^¹⁸ The creed of the Church serves as a summary of the message the church has received, and so also within in the Nicene Creed, Calvin understands the exhortation to be to “believe the church.”^¹⁹ Calvin here concerns himself with the Word of God as it is before the people through the church. Though Christ as Word is not present immediately before the people, the Word is present in Scripture and preaching.

We can thus conclude that for Calvin the preached Word functions as a means of grace. It does so not merely by borrowing its status from the Scriptures, but from its divinely sanctioned role in the history of redemption. Though God may not currently directly give oral instructions directly to his messengers, He does give such content through the written Word. This does not diminish the place of preaching in the delivery of the gospel to God’s people.^²⁰

We may explore in Calvin’s doctrine of the Preached Word as means of grace three main attributes. Calvin articulates the preached word as a peculiar medium, rather than one possible option for dispensing Scripture’s content. Calvin also maintains what Hugh Oliphant Old calls “a Kerygmatic real presence” of Christ in the preached Word.^²¹ Finally, Calvin declares that preaching gains its power of efficacy from the working of the Spirit, Who has bound Himself to this instrumental means.

The Peculiar Ordained Medium

Calvin viewed the medium of preaching as a divinely sanctioned medium. Again, the written Word is not lending itself to a lesser medium in preaching. God establishes preaching as a chosen medium of the message of the church.

This conception of preaching as a God-ordained medium displays itself in Calvin’s discussion of the “power of the keys.” When Jesus declares the church has the power of the keys, this refers to the privilege of proclaiming the gospel as “it is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the gospel or by the administration of the sacraments.”^²² The concept of “word and sacrament” for Calvin refers to the preached Word, Baptism and the Supper. The validation of a true church by these marks is not merely whether they have the Scriptures, but whether “the preaching of His word [is] kept pure.”^²³

Preaching is a peculiar medium for God’s Word, distinct from reading Scripture. Scripture is printed on the page and read by the eye. For Calvin, it is important that the Word of God be spoken by the mouth and heard by the ear. In hearing the message of the preacher, one does not merely hear teaching on the Word of God, the hearer hears the Word of God. Calvin explores this concept especially in his interaction with the books of the Old Testament prophets. On Isaiah 55:11, which states that God’s Word does not return void, Calvin explains, “The word goeth out of the mouth of God in such a manner that it likewise “goeth out of the mouth” of men; for God does not speak openly from heaven, but employs men as his instruments, that by their agency he may make known his will.”^²⁴ When the Word is preached rightly, the hearer hears the voice of God in the mouths of humans. Again, in John 10:4, where the sheep hear Christ’s voice, Calvin insists, “God should be heard speaking by them [ministers].”^²⁵ For this reason, Parker’s earlier stated position that for Calvin preaching borrows its status as Word of God from Scripture is insufficient.^²⁶ The status of the medium is ordained by God. The content of that message is derived from and regulated by Scripture. Yet especially in a worship context, Calvin prefers that Christ’s voice is heard, rather than Christ’s words merely being read. Scripture then has priority in authority, but preaching has priority in delivery.^²⁷

The Kerygmatic Presence

Secondly, Calvin expounds a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in preaching. Old calls this the “kerygmatic real presence” to distinguish it from the spiritual, or pneumatic, presence in Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist.^²⁸ In the preaching of the Word, Calvin declares that “God himself appears in our midst.”^²⁹

Calvin’s conception of God’s presence in the Temple supports the kerygmatic presence. “The Temple is called God’s resting place.”^³⁰ God does not merely have a preference of location, for God does not dwell in temples made by men, but rather “By his Word, God alone sanctifies temples to himself for lawful use.”^³¹ The “place of God’s name” is the place where God’s name is heard. “The Lord nowhere recognizes any temple as his save where his Word is heard.”^³² Preaching brings God’s presence among his people. As explored above, God’s voice is heard through the consecrated mouths of men, manifesting a measure of God’s presence by men hearing God’s Word.^³³

The implications of Christ’s real presence in preaching consist in union and communion with Christ. Glen Clary clarifies Calvin’s position as stating “The gospel is not merely an invitation to fellowship with Christ; it is a vehicle by which Christ is communicated to us”^³⁴ Calvin usually connects the concept of communion with God to the works of the Holy Spirit, and also does so here. The Word is a means of communion with Christ because God joins “his Spirit with it.”^³⁵ Calvin so understands the phrase from Galatians 3:2 “received the Spirit…by the hearing of faith,” with faith “here put, by a figure of speech, for the gospel.”^³⁶

Since it is by the mouth of the preacher Christ speaks, so preaching is the means by which Christ reigns over His Church. Calvin connects the concept of the kingdom of God with the preaching of the Word especially in the Commissioning passages. In Acts 1:8, Calvin does not interpret Christ to be ignoring the disciple’s question to whether Christ was bringing the kingdom at that time. Instead, Christ is answering by what means the kingdom was advanced. Christ’s “kingdom consisteth in the preaching of the gospel…Christ did then reign when as he subdueth unto himself (all the whole) world by the preaching of the gospel.”^³⁷ In Matthew 28:18, Calvin uses kingdom language in stating that Jesus “by constraining men to obey him in the preaching of the gospel, he established his throne on the earth.”^³⁸ Calvin gave no other medium or sacrament the high status of preaching by calling it the earthly throne of Christ. Ronald S. Wallace summarizes Calvin’s view of Old Testament prophecies about the “rule of the Messiah amongst the nations” as being fulfilled in the preached Word.^³⁹

The Spirit and the Preached Word

The preached Word, in being endowed by God as a divinely sanctioned medium, as an instrument of God’s presence, and as the instrument of God’s rule, carries with it a power to accomplish God’s purposes. The degree to which these three attributes truly describe the preached Word corresponds to the effecting power of preaching. When Romans 10:17 states “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ,” Calvin connects “word of Christ” with preaching as confirming “the efficacy of preaching.”^⁴⁰ In such a way, we may understand Calvin to hold preaching as a means of grace.

Preaching, in a certain sense, may effect the faith that it demands.^⁴¹ Not that the bare Word effects, for “faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit.”^⁴² The Spirit and the Word accomplish God’s purposes together. These two must not be separated, for “as soon as the Spirit is separated from the word of Christ, the door is open to all kinds of delusions and impostures” like Romanism and Islam.^⁴³ The Spirit does not normally work apart from the Word, and the Word always carries the Spirit. If the Spirit chooses to grant faith, then preaching is the means of bestowing and effecting regeneration and sanctification.^⁴⁴

The effect of the Word, however, may also be negative. The Word may be the means either of binding or of loosening,^⁴⁵ of softening or hardening,^⁴⁶ or of effecting salvation for the elect or condemnation on the wicked, depending on how the Spirit effects the recipient.^⁴⁷ In addition to being a means of grace, we might also call preaching a means of condemnation or judgment.

When conceiving of the benefits of the means, Calvin has specific metaphysical benefits in mind. Since preaching stands beside the Eucharist and Baptism, as fellow means of grace, preaching is often described as bestowing the same benefits. For Calvin, the Eucharist hosts a communion that causes the soul of the believer to “rise heavenward.”^⁴⁸ So too, does the preaching of the Word not only bestow benefits, but proceeds “to bear us up as if in chariots to his heavenly glory.”^⁴⁹ The need for this arises from Calvin’s insistence on the reality of a real union with Christ from which springs all the benefits of redemption.^⁵⁰ Thus, benefits are not merely delivered, but union between the believer and Christ is experienced in the means of grace.^⁵¹ Even when speaking of the nature of the union experienced through other means such as the Supper or baptism, that benefit “requires the Word…there is need of preaching.”^⁵² The currency of transfer, as figured in the means, is nothing other than the life of Christ, by way of experiencing union with Christ.^⁵³

Conclusion

As we have seen, the concept of the “Word” to Calvin includes much more than the doctrine of the inspiration of the written text of Scripture. Calvin’s theology, especially of God’s use of means may be said develop as working out of the implication of the presupposition that “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.”^⁵⁴ Calvin’s position can briefly be put as, “God as the author of preaching, joining his Spirit with it, promises benefits from it.”^⁵⁵ Preaching as a divinely ordained medium works as an instrument of God’s presence, and as the instrument of God’s rule in carrying out God’s purposes.

1 John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmanns, 1986), 1278. (4.14.3)

2 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1046 (4.2.4).

3 John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

4 John Calvin. Commentary on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. Trans. John King. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 75.

5 Jaroslav Pelikan. The Christian Tradition. Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984), 187

6 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 129 (1.13.7).

7 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 130 (1.13.7).

8 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 71-73 (1.6.2).

9 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 71 (1.6.2).

10 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 980 (3.24.13).

11 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

12 Thomas J. Davis, This is My Body: the Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 94.

13 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23.

14 Mark Beach, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Preaching of the Gospel: Luther and Calvin on the Nature of Preaching,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 [1999]: 100 / Glen J. Clarey. John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God. (Unpublished paper 2009), 15

15 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

16 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

17 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

18 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1011-1012 (4.1.1).

19 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1012-1013 (4.1.2).

20 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1011-1012 (4.1.1).

21 Hughes Oliphant Old. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Volume 4: The Age of the Reformation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133.

22 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1036 (4.1.22).

23 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1024 (4.1.10).

24 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Volume 4. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 172.

25 John Calvin. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 396.

26 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23.

27 One may conjecture if the lower rate of literacy and availability of printed books influenced this preference for the medium of delivery of preaching. Yet, the contrast remains that where contemporary pastors may push congregants to reading the Word in the Scriptures, Calvin placed an equal emphasis on hearing the Word.

28 Hughes Oliphant Old. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Volume 4: The Age of the Reformation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133.

29 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

30 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

31 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1019 (4.1.5).

32 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1043 (4.2.3).

33 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1018 (4.1.5).

34 Glen J. Clarey. John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God. (Unpublished paper 2009), 20.

35 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.6).

36 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 81.

37 John Calvin. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles Volume 1. Trans. Henry Beveridge. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 47.

38 John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke Volume 3. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 382.

39 Ronald S. Wallace. Calvin’s Doctrine of Word & Sacrament. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 87.

40 John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

41 “preaching…by it faith is produced.” John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

42 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1284 (4.14.8).

43 John Calvin. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 145.

44 See Mark Beach, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Preaching of the Gospel: Luther and Calvin on the Nature of Preaching,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 [1999]: 110

45 John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 293.

46 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 980 (3.24.13).

47 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Volume 4. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 172.

48 John Calvin. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Vol 1. Trans. John Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 378

49 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.5)

50 “The only way in which [Christ] communicates his blessings to us is by making himself ours.” [Calvin Treatises on the Sacraments 89]

51 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 570 (3.2.24).

52 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1416-7 (4.17.39).

53 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 540 (3.1.3).

54 Romans 1:16 ESV

55 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.5)

Christmas

2011-12-25T06:30:00.000-06:00

^{Praise be to Jesus Christ,

6} who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. ⁸ And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ⁹ Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰ so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Phil 2:6-11)

Christ and Culture

2011-12-19T11:43:00.004-06:00

Over the issue of Christians, the Church and Culture, I lean heavily in a "Two-Kingdoms" perspective. This is an area of dialogue and debate in the Reformed World. Two articles have come out from two PCA pastors on different sides of the question. Tim Keller arguing for a more Transformationalist view and Horton for the Two Kingdom view. These are not formal or deep defenses but are an interesting introduction to the topic. I believe Horton has the better position, but read for yourself and enjoy:

Tim Keller: "Coming Together on Culture"

Michael Horton: "Christ and Culture Once More"

Joy and Sorrow

2011-12-15T12:00:00.001-06:00

Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (Luke 18:15-17)

My focus lately has been so much on our coming baby, but I'm reminded of the wisdom of Solomon: "It is better to go to a funeral than a feast. For death is the destiny of every person, and the living should take this to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, because sober reflection is good for the heart. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of merrymaking." (Ecc 7:2-4)

My thoughts today are with a man I greatly admire and appreciate, my mentoring pastor, whose daughter would have been four today. He penned a sublime entry after his daughter went home.

Presbyterian Worship

2011-11-30T17:24:00.003-06:00

Even the Muppets know when someone is violating the regulative principle:

Pleasing and Satisfying God

2011-11-17T16:08:00.005-06:00

A Question arises when speaking about conduct and God’s attitude towards a believer. Can God be satisfied by my actions? Can I please or displease God by my actions? To some the answer to both is an obvious yes, to others the answer is an obvious no. Those who say yes say there are actions that are more pleasing to God and actions that are less pleasing to God. Those who say no point to the work of Christ, and that his work standing for ours means that God at no point loves us more or less than with the love of His Son and so is always perfectly pleased with us.

If you noticed the two questions, you may have noticed there is a change of language from inquiring of God’s “satisfaction” to wondering about God’s being “pleased.” Such a difference in language is intentional. I wish to show why my answer to those questions is different:

1) Can God be satisfied by my actions?

My answer: No. Our actions cannot satisfy God.

Lewis S. Chaffer was known for saying to his students in class over and over again: “God is fully satisfied.” He wanted to ingrain to them that they were not in seminary or going into the ministry to satisfy God, and if they were, they were there for the wrong reason.

Satisfaction has a particular meaning referring to the justice of God. By that standard, we required the substitution of the work of Christ, Such as Described in Romans 5:17-19. Our Catechism describes the blessing of justification in such a way that “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,”

Christ has fully satisfied the justice of God. The only righteousness that causes us to be just in the sight of God is the righteousness of Christ and our actions cannot satisfy God more or less than the work of Christ.

But to the second question:

2) Can I please or displease God by my actions?

Yes. We are specifically told that our actions and our walk relate to God’s being pleased:

1 Thess 4:1 Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more.

Other places contain instructions encouraging us to “try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.” (Eph 5:10) So this leaves us wondering, do these things contradict? To say God cannot be more satisfied, but that I ought to work towards pleasing the Lord?

These do not contradict, but sweetly comply. Satisfaction refers to the legal judgment of God. Thus, in justification we are taught that Christ’s satisfaction stands for us, that God is perfectly satisfied in his divine justice in the work of His Son taking our place and penalty. However, pleasing in the sense of the believer acting towards God does not refer to that legal aspect. We do not add to or take away from our justification. In justification, God related to us as a Judge. Now that justice has been satisfied before that Judge, we are told that we have been adopted (Gal 4:6-7). Notice, for instance, that in Galatians that while Paul lays our justification by faith (Galatians 2), that before Paul gets to our Christian walk he must pass through our Adoption at the end of Galatians 3 and beginning of Galatians 4. This is reproduced in our Catechisms where we are told that we walk through the benefits of salvation first in justification, then in adoption and finally in sanctification. That particular order is very important. Sanctification, the Christian Life, Walking in the Spirit is a process done in light of Adoption. We no longer relate to God as a Judge, but as a Father.

How does that relate to satisfy and pleasing? One must satisfy justice before a judge. One works to please a Father.

Some may object, saying that our status as sons of the Father means that God only looks on us in love and pride and would never be either angry or displeased. This formulation, however, is not the treatment we see in Scripture. God is very angry with his people, many of them true regenerates, over the sin of Achan in Joshua 7. God was angry with the generation of the Exodus, though they were his children. [Deut 1:34-37] God as a Father can be displeased with the acts of his children. We do not have a senile grandfather in Heaven, but a good Father. A good Father does not merely send his children out to live however they want without discipline:

Hebrews 12:5-11: And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

We forget this passage. We forget that a Father disciplines his children. We forget that God can be displeased in the acts of his sons, even when he loves them and his justice is satisfied. The regeneration of a believer, and indeed the union of the believer to Christ is not the end of God’s rod and staff. This rod and staff continue to discipline his children but in love. He disciplines for it teaches us righteousness. He disciplines us to do what pleases Him. And when we worship God we do not worship a neutered God, but one for whom we have reverence and awe, and for whom we do fear to displease, for we fear to displease our Father, though when we do we remember his acceptance and the satisfaction of Christ, not to placate our passivity, but to spur us on to actively pursue God’s character and face as given in his commands, for if we love God, we will endeavor to follow his commands.

Hymn: Come, O Come Thou Quick'ning Spirit

2011-10-18T16:41:00.004-05:00

Well, there is no Indelible Grace version, or Red Mountain Music version, or other modernized version I know about - yet, that doesn't impair my appreciation for this hymn, "Come, O Come Thou Quick'ning Spirit." It is a great Hymn of Preparation, either for confession or reading the Word. It focuses on the necessity of the Spirit to do any good thing before God. You can see a couple of OPC ministers singing it here. Seems those OPC guys still use hymnals. Hmmm...

Come, O Come Thou Quick'ning Spirit.

Come, O come, thou quick'ning Spirit,
God from all eternity!
May thy power never fail us;
Dwell within us constantly.
Then shall truth and life and light
Banish all the gloom of night.

Grant our hearts in fullest measure
Wisdom, counsel, purity,
That we ever may be seeking
Only that which pleaseth thee.
Let thy knowledge spread and grow,
Working error's overthrow.

Show us, Lord, the path of blessing;
When we trespass on our way,
Cast, O Lord, our sins behind thee
And be with us day by day.
Should we stray, O Lord, recall;
Work repentance when we fall.

Holy Spirit, strong and mighty,
Thou who makest all things new,
Make thy work within us perfect
And the evil foe subdue.
Grant us weapons for the strife
And with vict'ry crown our life.

Justice and Mercy

2011-10-06T20:00:00.001-05:00

There have been a lot of replies to Rob Bell's video "asking questions" leading towards Universalism. I really like this one though. Instead of hitting on "love" vaguely defined, it hits on justice, defined and satisfied:

The Gospel Assumed...

2011-08-30T16:24:00.002-05:00

Often as Christians will admit that we live life assuming the gospel. By that, we mean we "move past" the gospel to other things. Gospel becomes those things that are elementary and then we stop declaring them to "move on" to other things. Then when we assume the gospel, we confuse the gospel (because we never talk about it and forget it). Then after we confuse the gospel we deny the gospel. I came across this selection recently and think it is appropriate to share:

Assuming the Gospel is the height of arrogance. It is as if we were saying, “We all know what God has done for us in Jesus, so we can go on to teach and learn other things today.” St. Paul gave much apostolic direction for living the Christian life – “bearing with one another” (Colossians 3:13), “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), “walking by the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16), and seeing the “more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31). Yet Paul always put such admonition in the context of Christ’s saving work for us. In fact, Paul was adamant about the priority of the cross: “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2: 2)… No matter what else Paul had to say, the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our salvation are the center, the essence, the focal point of all Christian preaching. Whether the subject is justification or sanctification, it all comes back to the cross. No preaching, no Christian teaching is complete unless it brings us back to what God has done for us in Jesus Christ on the cross. Indeed, anything else the preacher might proclaim is meaningless, unless it flows into or out of the message that Jesus died and rose for us. Every doctrine of Scripture is designed by God ultimately to bring the comfort of sins forgiven and eternal life in Christ to the penitent sinner.

Herbert C. Mueller, Jr., “The Gospel Assumed is the Gospel Denied” in Concordia Pulpit Resources 15, no. 3

A Minister's Prayer

2011-08-26T14:07:00.000-05:00

O my Lord,

Let not my ministry be approved only by men,

or merely win the esteem and affections of people;

But do the work of grace in their hearts,

Call in thy elect,

Seal and edify the regenerate ones,

And command eternal blessings on their souls

Save me from self-opinion and self-seeking;

Water the hearts of those who hear thy Word,

That seed sown in weakness may be raised in power

Cause me and those that hear me

To behold thee in the light of special faith,

And hereafter in the blaze of endless glory;

Make my every sermon a means of grace to myself,

And help me to experience the power of dying love,

For thy lood is balm,

Thy presence bliss,

Thy Smile heaven

Thy cross the place where truth and mercy meet

Look upon the doubts and discouragements of my ministry

And keep me from self-importance;

I beg pardon for my many sins, omissions, infirmities

As a man, as a minister;

Command thy blessing on my weak, unworthy labors

And on the message of salvation given;

Stay with thy people

And may thy presence be their portion and mine

When I preach to others let not my words be merely elegant and masterly,

My reasoning polished and refined,

My performance powerless and tasteless,

But may I exalt thee and humble sinners.

O Lord of power and grace,

All hearts are in thy hands

All events at thy disposal,

Set the seal of thy almighty will upon my ministry.

-from Valley of Vision (A Minister's Prayer) pg 338

Who Am I?

2011-07-18T17:03:00.004-05:00

I was cleaning out my desk at the Hospital and looked up again at the poem I have over my desk. This past year of my life as a Chaplain has been one of considering anew my calling and role as a pastor. Bonhoeffer, when in his cell imprisoned by the Nazis, asked himself the question "Who am I?" Times of transition, of which I am in one, are often times of self-evaluation, self-doubt and reorientation. The poem particularly speaks to me now, both in the uncertainty and anxiety of change as well as the certainty within changes in life.

“Who am I?”
By Dietrich Bonhoeffer (March 4, 1945)

Who am I? They often tell me
I would step from my cell’s confinement
calmly, cheerfully, firmly,
like a squire from his country-house.

Who am I? They often tell me
I would talk to my warden
freely and friendly and clearly,
as though they were mine to command.

Who am I? They also tell me
I would bear the days of misfortune
equably, smilingly, proudly,
like one accustomed to win.

Am I then really all that which other men tell of?
Or am I only what I know of myself?
restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage,
struggling for breath, as though hands were
compressing my throat,
yearning for colors, for flowers, for the voices of birds,
thirsting for words of kindness, for neighborliness,
trembling in expectation of great events,
powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance,
weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making,
faint, and ready to say farewell to it all?

Who am I? This or the other?
Am I one person today, and tomorrow another?
Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,
and before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling?
Or is something within me still like a beaten army,
fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?

Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.
Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God, I am Thine.

On Grief

2011-07-08T20:19:00.004-05:00

I've worked as a Chaplain in a Hospital for about a year and have been present for, by my count, about 50 deaths. In processing and attempting to glean some spiritual fruits from the contemplation of death and the finitude of life I have not found very many good resources. I do have a new appreciation for the book of Job, Psalms 13, 22 and 88 and Ecclesiastes. The one exception of a good book outside of the Bible is "Facing Grief." This book was originally titled "A Token for Mourners," written by John Flavel. This English minister experienced the death of a child and his first wife, second wife and third wife. Flavel is one of the few to capture what I have seen with parents: "To bury a child, any child, rends the heart of a tender parent; for what are children, but the parent multiplied? A child is a part of the parent made up in another skin."

Flavel was a man acquainted with grief and so a man whom those in grief can expect not only a true and faithful voice, but one that is appropriately gentle. "Facing Grief" both affirms the necessary place for grief in the lives of believers as well as warning against excessively entertaining grief. As a person experiences the death of a loved one, Flavel gives comfort to the believer and warning to the unbeliever. It took me a while to find something, but if one is looking personally or has been asked for a book on grief, Flavel's book is a great one, especially after the shock has passed and the heavy-hearted reflections begin.

The first paragraph:

"To be above the stroke of passions is a condition equal to angels; to be in a state of sorrow without the sense of sorrow is a disposition beneath beasts; but duly to regulate our sorrows and bound our passions under the rod is the wisdom, duty, and excellency of a Christian. He who is without natural affections is deservedly ranked among the worst heathens; and he who is able rightly to manage them deserves to be numbered with the best of Christians. Though when we are sanctified we put on the divine nature, yet, till we are glorified, we put not off the infirmities of our human nature."

Facing Grief - John Flavel - wtsbooks.com

Facing Grief - John Flavel - Amazon.com

What I learned from DTS (and what I didn't learn)

2011-05-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

Dallas Theological Seminary has a reputation. Most Protestants in the United States have heard of it and have some opinions about it. Many positive, many negative. Of course, in this world little is either all good or all bad. A year after graduating from seminary as I labor within the church and in hospital life as a Chaplain, and I have had a little time to reflect back on what I believe I was given in seminary that was helpful, what I was given that was not helpful, and what was noticeably absent. I have changed since I entered, entering as a "non-denominational" Christian looking to teach in a school, and exiting as Presbyterian, recently licensed and serving as a Chaplain, looking to pastor in the church.

This is not an advertisement for, nor a tearing down of the seminary, but rather a personal reflection on what was useful about the seminary experience as it related to being thrown into the ministry experience.

First, the positive:

1) Language and Exegetical tools

No one leaves DTS with a Th.M. without knowing Greek and Hebrew grammar and why making a case for the meaning of a text only in the English is unacceptable in the academic world (or sometimes, even in the world of the pulpit, for right or wrong). Although this was a struggle and certainly not the most fun part of seminary, it is a necessary cross for every minister to bear. DTS certainly offered me this in spades.

2) Theological Framework

Six courses in Theology (101-Introduction, 102-Trinitarianism, 103-Anthropology, 104-Soteriology, 105-Sanctification/Ecclesiology, 106-Eschatology) made sure we at least received an introduction to many of the topics we will encounter in Scripture and Theology. I was surprised, when interacting with those in an ecumenical environment, that a solid theological language was not a priority at many other seminaries (with the local exception of Westminster Dallas/Redeemer).

3) General Biblical Knowledge

Although I complained that some of the Bible courses seemed like Bible Trivia prep, the characters and important events and geography of the Bible were seared on my mind. This often helps connect stories of personal experience to the Scriptures. It set the stage for the life-long study of Biblical Theology.

Second What I Learned that was not helpful

4) Value for the Facts over the Pastoral. (A false Facts vs Pastoral dichotomy)

I had professors that I otherwise adored who seemed to revel in giving the "hard answer" over the comfortable answer. This isn't necessarily bad. Sometimes this was a needed way to shock us into telling the truth rather than just what people want to hear, to be prophetic and not just therapeutic. However, sometimes this was the equivalent to giving a snake when our congregation asked for bread. Pastors should be able to speak the truth in love, not merely smack people with truth. The Truth is pastoral, there is not a balance or a choice, but a marriage, and divorce on either side is not helpful.

Finally, what I wish I learned (what was absent and I have had to learn on my own):

5) Worship.

Anything about Worship. The nature, the order, theories about worship. A definition even. Something other than a value of the "experience" of worship. Also what would have been helpful is how to put together a worship service, what are the elements (heck, what "elements" are in worship would have been helpful). The exception to this would be the Spiritual Formation department's classes (which are not required) that did focus on the formative aspect of worship.

6) Pastoral Care.

Not basics in Pastoral Counseling. Counseling classes almost exclusively focused on pre-martial counseling, with some attention to getting sinners to stop sinning. Pastoral Ministry classes were focused on preaching and evangelism. Not much required on suffering, how to listen, how to analyze both theologically and psychologically, nothing on the value of "shutting up," or even being there/present.

7) a coherent theology of sanctification -

I took 3 or 4 courses where sanctification was a major component. When you get 3 evangelicals together, it seems you will have 4 models of sanctification. None of the models seemed to have as much in common with Scripture as it did with revivalistic American evangelicalism. It seemed like those who drank in the classroom sanctification material ended up with a higher life or even semi-charismatic spirituality. Unfortunately, little seemed to be said about the role of the community or the church in spiritual formation. (again, exception with the Spiritual Formation Department, whose classes -again- are not required. Most of my practical views on sanctification have come from John Owen.)

Finally) a focus on the Gospel

The organizing construct seemed to be getting as much info on theology and the bible as possible. The shining exception would be classes I took with Dr. Svigel, where he consistently made Christ the center of all theology, whether Eschatology, Ecclessiology or Bibliology. I loved once hearing him take exception to Piper's title of his book: "God is the Gospel." No, Christ his person and work are the Gospel. [I think Piper believes that, but the book title doesn't flesh that all out] I was thankful for this, but wish it was the consistent focus of the seminary and course structure.

Conclusion

Currently, I am in an environment where other ministers have gone to various other seminaries. What I note in comparison is I believe I was given a wonderful preparation in exegesis, knowledge of biblical material, and an ability to engage theology critically and deeply (I would judge that preparation as superior to most of the seminary backgrounds I encounter). However, I was given very little preparation for pastoral care, engaging humbly and humanly with another person (rather than a book), or preparation to talk to suffering people with a mind towards spiritual care. Some professors took an interest in integrating the pastoral into the theoretical (I would cite Dr. John Hannah and Dr. Barry Jones as shining examples) but the course direction itself did not have these things in mind.

I appreciate the cultivating of the mind and languages I received, but have realized I have entered a new classroom of the real world. In this classroom, knowing the reality of the Greek text is important, but so is knowing the reality of the fallen world, the human soul, and the joys and griefs of this world, and the Glory of God as revealed in the face of Jesus Christ. In this course of study, however, I don't think anyone will hand me a paper at any point, while I am still alive, that claims that I have graduated.

Will Jesus come back tomorrow?

2011-05-20T14:00:00.000-05:00

So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" [Jesus] said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." -Acts 1:6-8

Tomorrow, May 21, 2011, is the date predicted by Harold Camping, an extreme dispensationalist, as when Christ will return (or at least the rapture will occur). He reportedly has predicted the end of the world 10 times since 1978, so this is not new behavior.

The case of those looking for the exact date of Christ's return, the date for the novel concept of the rapture, or the date of judgment day, is a sad case. Christ gave us a privilege, a wonderful responsibility. Not to know the seasons or times, but to receive the power of the Holy Spirit, who John tells us testifies to Christ, and then enables us to be witnesses to the world, of the great work Christ accomplished by his death and resurrection.

Thinking about that, I can tell you that I am happy to be Reformed. Not because it is a source of pride or because all Reformed people are the most pious Christians or the most efficient Christians, but because of what the best of that tradition is about.

I look around and there are many Christians and many Christian traditions, often they are defined by what they focus on and unite around. Some obsess about the end times. Some obsess about the best life now. Some obsess about spiritual gifts and spiritual experience. Some obsess over the church or sacraments. I read the Puritans and Reformed and they obsess about the Gospel. What a wonderful thing to obsess over. To obsess about the Christ and His Gospel and taking it to the end of the world, even if we are very aware of our shortcomings in doing so.

So the case of Harold Camping is a sad one. What if we were known for obsessing over the gospel and Christ?

Bell and Bin Laden

2011-05-10T07:47:00.002-05:00

I couldn't resist reposting this cartoon.
HT: Tiablogue

Irenaeus on Error

2011-05-02T08:56:00.000-05:00

"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself."

-Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book I

Repost: 10 Non-arguments

2011-04-27T13:04:00.003-05:00

One of my biggest pet peeves is when I am talking about theology with someone and the discussion becomes stuck because the rules of logic are not being used to dispassionately decide the merits of each position. In that light, I thought I would again explore why certain responses do not advance a discussion

[Original post October 2009]

When discussing a topic and trying to come to a conclusion on the meaning of Scripture, there need to be certain implicit (maybe now explicit) understandings. One would be the place of Scripture as the basis of theological discussion. The other would be the rules of logic in making conclusions based on Scripture. It seems, however, that the rules of logic and knowledge of what constitutes a logical fallacy is not common knowledge anymore. Thus, Scripture is merely thrown back and forth without coming to any conclusion.

From my interaction in the blogosphere and in person, I have found these to be my top 10 pet peeves in theological discussion that need to be abandoned if real dialog is to follow:

1) "My position is Biblical."

This is both a "bare assertion fallacy" (saying it is true is assumed to make it true) and "begging the question." If we are two rational Christians, this is the question we are trying to answer, not merely a self evident assertion. If one is going to say something is “biblical” then one needs to go to the biblical text to argue something.

2) "I'm just not convinced"

This is fallacy is a combination of an "Argument from ignorance" and "Burden of proof." This assumes something is false because it has not been proven true. Actually, the person is unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, then, it places assumption on falsehood without considering evidence.

There are agreed upon laws of logic and if one has committed a fallacy, then one should be called on it. But if the other person does not understand or like the implications of the argument, that is not a grounds for denying it.

3) "But that's the Old Testament"

This violates the terms of the agreement in the beginning of the discussion. If the Old Testament is not considered authoritative in an argument of itself, then discussion is impossible. If a principle as been abrogated by fulfillment, that is different. However, believing that earlier revelation can be nullified by later revelation is a tenant of Islam, not Christianity. If you wish to be Christian, this is not a proper argument. I've said more here.

4) "That's mean." or "you are mean" or "You Pharisee!" or "You Traditionalist!"

This is "Ad Hominem." or also called an argument "to the man." It could be true that the other person is not nice in their language. But feelings do not determine the validity of an argument, nor does it invalidate an argument.

5) Aren't both sides right?

This likely is a violation of the "law of non-contradiction." "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive, meaning that both cannot be true statements. If A is B and A is not B, then it is in different ways, or at different times. They cannot both be right in the same way and time or the law of non-contradiction is violated.

6) "That's what Catholics/Nazis/Hitler believe"

This is all sorts of wrong. It is a "guilt by association." This is associating a an idea by a disapproved of person or group thinking that such an association makes the position wrong in itself. Catholics believe in the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture, that does not make it wrong. Nazis believed in mathmatics, that does not make math evil.

It may also be a case of "proof by example." This tries to build a case based on anecdotes. Or a "package deal fallacy," believing that you must accept all of something because one accepts something the other person usually packages together.

7) "Oh yeah, well this verse says something different."

Again, we must abide by the "principle of contradiction." The Scriptures are either coherent and one and true, or they contradict and we should go do something more meaningful than talk theology. If one verse is used against another without answering what the first verse means, then no progress is made and we are undermining the authority of Scripture by misrepresenting it.

8) C.S. Lewis / C.H. Spurgeon / John Calvin / Peter Kreeft / G.K. Chesterton / L.S. Chafer says...

This fallacy is an "appeal to authority." A quote may help state something better than one can say it oneself, but these people are not authorities to be exegeted like Scripture. Now, experts in a field are different, especially if neither party discussing an issue knows that field. But pithy words from a smart guy are not argument stoppers.

9) "Augustine/Calvin/Thomas Aquinas/John Menno can't be right because he lived when people thought the earth was the center of the universe..."

This is called "Chronological Snobbery." It falsely states that since you are using an argument that was used in a time when another unrelated but clearly false thing was believed.

10) "If you believe my position, then (these good things) will happen..." or "If you believe your position (these bad things) will happen..."

This is an argument from consequences. It says that something is true because believing or doing it will lead to a desirable consequence, therefore it must be true. This is often used to justify pragmatic measures that cannot be proved otherwise. Or to say, because something would make me happier, it must be true.

A few others:

*) "That's not what it means to me"

Unless you are God, ultimate meaning is not determined by you. This is not an argument.

*) "It is obvious/clear that this is true."

Another "Bare assertion."

*) "I'm more ______(insert virtuous quality) than you... "

This is a personal form of "Appeal to authority." It is an appeal to superior virtue as a determining the validity of an argument. Declarations of virtue are not helpful to discussion.

*) "That's too dogmatic"

Christianity is coherent and thus dogmatic. To suggest Scripture yields dogmatic truth means saying Scripture is systematic, true and sure and this is not a bad thing.

New Book on the Pastor-Theologian

2011-04-19T18:00:00.004-05:00

"The Pastor as Scholar and The Scholar as Pastor"

I haven't read a word of this book beyond the cover, but from the looks of it, the book addresses one of my big soap box issues, namely, that every Pastor must be a Theologian, and every Theologian must be a Pastor. Theologians who do not realize their responsibility to the church merely play with theology as a toy and point of arrogant jewelry to show off their inflated sense of importance. Every Pastor who does not realize their responsibility to careful and accurate theology endanger the souls and growth of their congregation from their own laziness or dangerous disregard for the skill to use their scalpel in being a physician of souls. This title, by two men I have some measure of respect for, is going on my wish list.

Twin Lakes

2011-04-09T09:58:00.004-05:00

I just returned from Twin Lakes Fellowship, a fellowship of pastors dedicated to the ordinary means of grace for the accomplishment of the mission of the church, believing that "the gospel is the power unto salvation." (Romans 1:16) Some highlights:

Derek Thomas - Sermon on Adoption

Ligon Duncan - Case for the Ordinary Means

It also reminded me of my wrestling with the Ordinary Means that I blogged about two years ago here: "The Ordinary Means"

And if you don't know what the ordinary means are, they refer to the way our confession speaks of the work of the church:

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.

A Religion of Rescue

2011-03-26T20:06:00.005-05:00

For centuries now, there has been a move to understand Christianity more by the religious experience it provides than by its doctrines. We want to feel God, or at least feel better. We want to see our commitment or sobriety or intimacy with God. We want to see our lives here and now improve. The crucifixion of Christ seems like an important, even necessary, event historically, but not anything that needs to be highlighted today. It may be a moving story, but how will it help my work on Tuesday or my marriage tonight?
Yet the neglect of the cross in our churches is the result of more than our growing fascination with the subjective and self-improvement. There is also a growing hostility to the whole notion that Christ suffered as a substitute, that God would desire such a thing, or that God is at all wrathful. Theologians and biblical scholars have reread parts of the Bible - or set it aside - in order to fashion a seemingly more humane religion, a religion of improvement rather than rescue. In such a domesticated version of Christianity, there is no place for a bloody cross.

IT IS WELL - Mark Dever

Law and Gospel - Thesis IV

2011-03-21T21:45:00.003-05:00

LAW AND GOSPEL

Thesis IV

Understanding how to distinguish Law and Gospel provides wonderful insight for understanding all of Holy Scripture correctly. In fact, without this knowledge Scripture is and remains a sealed book.

Walther in this rather short lecture on Thesis IV explains that the Bible is indeed a book of great and many contradictions unless you are able to distinguish between its two great doctrines of Law and Gospel.

Example:

In fact, all of Scripture seems to be full of contradictions, worse than the Qur’an of the Turks. Here Scripture pronounces you blessed; there it condemns you. When the rich young ruler asked the Lord, “What good deed must I do to have eternal life?” the Lord replied, “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” When the jailer at Philippi addressed the same question to Paul and Silas, he received this answer:” Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your household will be saved.” P.69

The Key to Scripture:

“Do not think that the Old Testament reveals a wrathful and the New Testament a gracious God, or that the Old Testament teaches salvation by a person’s own works and the New Testament salvation by faith. No. We find both teachings in the Old as well as in the New Testament. But the moment we understand how to distinguish between Law and Gospel, it is as if the sun were rising upon the Scriptures, and we behold all the contents of the Scriptures in the most beautiful harmony. We see that the Law was not revealed to us to put a notion into our heads that we could become righteous by it, but to teach us that we are completely unable to fulfill the Law. Then we will know what a sweet message – what a glorious doctrine – the Gospel is and will receive it with exuberant joy. P.70

Eschatology

2011-03-17T18:52:00.004-05:00

New Poll on eschatology shows that 65% of Evangelical leaders are premillenial, 14% are amillenial and 4% are postmillenial (with the rest confused about what eschatology means).

So, I guess that is not about me since I'm not an Evangelical leader (or self-described as Evangelical even) but it is interesting to think that I am a minority (since I am amillenial). I wonder if I am a protected minority group?

Hat Tip: Riddleblog

What is Worship?

2011-03-12T21:38:00.005-06:00

Do we come in worship of God to give or to receive? I think the answer would surprise many filling our churches to discover that true humility lies in the receiving.

Psalm 50:10-15 (emphases mine)
I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds.
For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.
I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.
"If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine.
Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?
Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and perform your vows to the Most High,
and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

So yes, come to Church this Sunday to receive the gifts of Christ from his word and sacraments. Come to GET something out of it, and then return the sacrifice of thanksgiving because you were needy and he clothed you in his own righteousness. It's ok to come and drink.

For more check out this great broadcast of Issue Etc.
http://issuesetc.org/2011/03/09/11348/

Valley of Vision: Prayer on Confession

2011-03-09T14:45:00.003-06:00

"Holy Lord, I have sinned times without number, and been guilty of pride and unbelief, of failure to find Thy mind in Thy Word, of neglect to seek Thee in my daily life. My transgressions and short-comings present me with a list of accusations, but I bless Thee that they will not stand against me, for all have been laid on Christ. Go on to subdue my corruptions, and grant me grace to live above them. Let not the passions of the flesh nor lustings of the mind bring my spirit into subjection, but do Thou rule over me in liberty and power.

I thank Thee that many of my prayers have been refused. I have asked amiss and do not have, I have prayed from lusts and been rejected, I have longed for Egypt and been given a wilderness. Go on with Thy patient work, answering 'no' to my wrongful prayers, and fitting me to accept it. Purge me from every false desire, every base aspiration, everything contrary to Thy rule. I thank Thee for Thy wisdom and Thy love, for all the acts of discipline to which I am subject, for sometimes putting me into the furnace to refine my gold and remove my dross.

No trial is so hard to bear as a sense of sin. If Thou shouldst give me choice to live in pleasure and keep my sins, or to have them burnt away with trial, give me sanctified affliction. Deliver me from every evil habit, every accretion of former sins, everything that dims the brightness of Thy grace in me, everything that prevents me taking delight in Thee. Then I shall bless Thee, God of jeshurun, for helping me to be upright."

-From Valley of Vision

Horton: What is the Gospel?

2011-02-16T07:00:00.001-06:00

Michael Horton does a great job defining a word that has been so broadly used as to confuse its true meaning:

What is the Gospel?

Law and Gospel - Thesis III

2011-02-14T20:58:00.005-06:00

Thesis III
To rightly distinguish Law and Gospel is the most difficult and highest Christian art - and for the theologians in particular. It is taught only by the Holy Spirit in combination with experience.

Well Walther makes the difference between Law and Gospel seem easy. Yet in reality it is hard. In the third thesis he lays out many examples. First example? Everyone:

"But in the end, when Christians have learned to apply the proper distinction between Law and Gospel in the real world, they join St John in saying, 'God is greater than my heart. He has rendered a different verdict on people who sin, and that applies to me as well'. Yet how difficult this is to do! Blessed are you if you have learned this difficult art. But even if you have learned it, do not think you are experts at it. You will always be no more than beginners at this art. There will be days when you will not be able to distinguish Law and Gospel. When the Law condemns you, you must immediately grab hold of the Gospel." Walther - P52

Law and Gospel - Thesis II

2011-02-11T20:24:00.006-06:00

Thesis II
"If you wish to be an orthodox teacher, you must present all the articles of faith in accordance with Scripture, yet you must also distinguish Law and Gospel."

"Note this well. When you hear some enthusiast preach, you may say, 'Well, he did preach the truth...' and yet you did not feel satisfied. Here is the key for unlocking this mystery: that particular preacher did not rightly distinguish Law and Gospel, and thus everything went wrong. He preached the truth of the Law where he should have preached the truth of the Gospel, and he offered Gospel truth where he should have presented the Law. Now, anyone following such a preacher will go astray; they will not arrive at the sure foundation of the divine truth; they will not attain the assurance of grace and salvation. This frequently happens when students give sermons. You will hear comforting remarks such as 'It is all by grace,' only to be followed by 'We must do good works,' which are then followed by statements such as 'With our works we cannot gain salvation.' There is no order in such sermons. Nobody understands them - least of all the person who needs one of these two doctrines most."

C.F.W. Walther
(Law and Gospel P38-39)

The Need of Preaching the Law

2011-02-09T08:00:00.003-06:00

Ever hear the Gospel in a sermon and think (though you would never admit it): So what?

What preceded it in the sermon? Was it historical detail? Was it Greek Grammar 101? Was it a story? Was it practical things we need to do, and perhaps are not doing (watch less tv, give to the church, give to the poor, give to the church, pitch Christianity to your co-workers, did I mention giving to the church) ?

Perhaps we did not hear and savor the Gospel, because the Law was not properly preached. Here's a section from Charles Bridges' work: The Christian Ministry

“We cannot have too much of the Gospel; but we may have too little of the Law. And a defect in the Evangelical preaching of the Law is as clear a cause of inefficient ministration, as a legal preaching of the Gospel. In such a Ministry there must be a want of spiritual conviction of sin generally – of spiritual sins most particularly -and- flowing directly from hence – a low standard of spiritual obedience. Indeed, all the prevalent errors in the Church may be traced to this source. We should never have heard of Methodist perfection – Mystic dependence upon the inward light – Antinomian delusion – inconsistent profession of orthodoxy – Pharisaical self-righteousness – or Pelagian and Socinian rectitude of nature – if the spiritual standard of the law had been clearly displayed, and its convincing power truly left. In the want of this conviction, the fullest perception of Evangelical view must fail in experimental and practical effect.

But there are Antinomian errors on the opposite side. If Antinomianism be the relaxation of obedience from the perfect standard of the law of God, is not mere moral preaching a refined species of this unhallowed leaven? Equally with the professed Antinomian, the standard of the law of God is exchanged for some indefinite and every-varying standard of inclination or caprice. The notions of mercy and salvation, as in the other case, are here used as the palliation of sin. All hope, and no fear – is the character of this preaching. How frightful to think of deluded souls sliding into eternity in this golden dream! And of what vast importance is it for the resistance of error, and for an effective exhibition of divine truth – that our Ministry should be distinguished by a full display of the spiritual character, and unalterable obligations, of the law of God!”

-Charles Bridges - The Christian Ministry. pg. 228-229

Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love...

2011-02-06T07:00:00.000-06:00

Genesis 22:1-2 - After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

I am teaching a Sunday School lesson on Genesis 22 and thought I would offer a few thoughts here.

We read this narrative and think:

“How can it be that God would require Abraham to sacrifice his all, his prosperity, his full love of his heart, his treasure, his son?!”

We see Abraham’s detailed meticulous preparation, over a long period of time, readying the sacrifice, preparing for the place and time of the sacrifice of his son for the sin’s of Adam’s race.

Yet, at the last moment, God stays Abraham’s arm and provides a substitute. A male sheep, a ram, a lamb of God.

But the Lamb was not the final substitute. The sacrifices continue throughout the story of the Old Testament.

Finally, when we reach the New Testament, we have a repetition of the themes of Genesis 22:

Genesis 22:2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love…

Matthew 3:17 And behold! A voice out of the heaven saying, “This is My Son, my Beloved, in whom I have been delighting.”
_________________________
Genesis 22:6 “And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went up both of them together.”

John 19:17 and [Jesus] went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
____________________________
Genesis 22:8 Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

John 1:29 The next day [John] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

____________________________________________

Genesis 22:12b – “for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

John 3:16-17 "For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
_________________________________________
As Tim Keller put it: “And when God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me,” now we can look at God taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing him and say, “Now we know that you love us because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from us.”

We began asking:

“How can it be that God would require Abraham to sacrifice his all, his prosperity, his full love of his heart, his treasure, his son?!”

Now we are wondering:

“How can it be that God would supply what he required of Abraham, to sacrifice His all, His prosperity, His full love of His heart, His treasure, His Son?!”

The story of the Old Testament is God’s detailed meticulous preparation, over a long period of time, readying the sacrifice, preparing for the place and time of the sacrifice of His Son for the sins of Adam’s race.

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior's blood!
Died he for me? who caused his pain!
For me? who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

What makes a Defective Sermon

2011-02-04T09:11:00.003-06:00

Andrew Webb has a great article on the different ways preaching goes wrong:

1. No Law, No Gospel. 2. Law, No Gospel. 3. Gospel, No Law

Three Basic Forms of Defective Preaching

Law and Gospel - Thesis 1

2011-01-30T21:05:00.006-06:00

Thesis I
The doctrinal contents of all Holy Scripture, both of the Old and the New Testament, consist of two doctrines that differ fundamentally from each other. These two doctrines are Law and Gospel.

In his first thesis Walther covers six differences between law and gospel to help the Christian and Christian teachers identify the difference when they read the scripture.
1. They differ as to how they were revealed to humans.
2. They differ regarding their contents.
3. The differ regarding the promises held out by each doctrine.
4. They differ regarding their threats. (Gospel has no threats whatsoever - only words for consolation.)
5. They differ regarding the function and the effect of either doctrine.
6. They differ regarding the persons to whom each of them is to be preached.

This doctrine is important not to skip over in our Christian Churches. As Walther states:
...you can gather how foolish it is-in fact, how terribly deceived so many people obviously are - when they ridicule pure doctrine and say to us, "Enough already with your 'Pure doctrine, pure doctrine'! That can lead only to dead orthodoxy. Focus on pure living instead. That way you will plant the seeds of righteous Christianity." That would be like saying to a farmer, "Stop fretting about good seed! Be concerned about good fruit instead."

So how does pure doctrine of law and gospel together lead to true Christian experience and understanding?
Again Walther:
"The Law tells us what to do and charges us with not having done it, no matter how holy we are. Thus the Law makes us uncertain; it chases us about and thus makes us thirsty. Now when Christ invites those who thirst, He means those who have been crushed under the hammer blows of the Law. These persons Christ invites directly to come to Him; of course, indirectly he invites all people. A person who is thirsting like this only needs to drink-and receive the consolation of the Gospel. When a person is really thirsty and is handed even a small glass of water, how greatly refreshed he feels! But when a person is not thirsty, you can hand him one glass of water after another - it will do him no good; it will not refresh him."

O Heart Bereaved and Lonely

2011-01-27T17:09:00.003-06:00

So Fanny Crosby wasn't always the best in theology. But when she's good, she's great. A hymn I've enjoyed lately, O Heart Bereaved and Lonely. One may enjoy how it incorporates the Incarnation and our Savior's sympathy into our every sorrow. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. " (Hebrews 4:15-16)

1. O heart bereaved and lonely,
Whose brightest dreams have fled
Whose hopes like summer roses,
Are withered crushed and dead
Though link by link be broken,
And tears unseen may fall
Look up amid thy sorrow,
To Him who knows it all

2. O cling to thy Redeemer,
Thy Savior, Brother, Friend
Believe and trust His promise,
To keep you till the end
O watch and wait with patience,
And question all you will
His arms of love and mercy,
Are round about thee still

3. Look up, the clouds are breaking,
The storm will soon be o'er
And thou shall reach the haven,
Where sorrows are no more
Look up, be not discouraged;
Trust on, whate'er befall
Remember, O remember,
Thy Savior knows it all

The Bible in a Sentence

2011-01-14T07:00:00.001-06:00

This was an interesting exercise in summarizing the Bible in one sentence. My favorite was:

Mark Dever:

God has made promises to bring His people to Himself and He is fulfilling them all through Christ.

With honorable mention to

Kevin DeYoung:

A holy God sends his righteous Son to die for unrighteous sinners so we can be holy and live happily with God forever.

And if I might say this, Doug Wilson's answer was the most ridiculous, making the Bible sound like a bad medieval fairy-tale. However, it does illustrate the wackyness of FV guys who seem to want to show off their poetic or symbolic language wrapped in obscure theology:

Doug Wilson:

Scripture tells us the story of how a Garden is transformed into a Garden City, but only after a dragon had turned that Garden into a howling wilderness, a haunt of owls and jackals, which lasted until an appointed warrior came to slay the dragon, giving up his life in the process, but with his blood effecting the transformation of the wilderness into the Garden City.

Original Sin, Pastoral Care, and the Courage to Speak Truth

2011-01-12T07:00:00.005-06:00

I've met a similar scene multiple times: I enter a room where a mother is holding a small, blanket-wrapped package. The room is thick with grief; the mother crying and the husband with a look of stress on his face. I am there to talk about what they want to do with the remains of their miscarried child. It was in those moments that some of the discussions I had earlier in some seminary classrooms came back to mind, much to my displeasure and a bit to my anger.

In two theology classes, two different professors brought up the subject of infant death and salvation. In both professors, the doctrine of Original Sin loomed large, sufficient to damn from the moment of birth. When asked about infants that die, one replied, “I know you won't like it, but you have to have the courage to say that they are sinful, without faith, and therefore, under any criteria we can measure, condemned.” The argument was that if you allow for one instance of salvation without faith, you are soon on the road to universalism, then atheism, all over the question of if infants that die are damned.

The question I asked then was about 2 Samuel 12, where David's son dies at seven days old (a day before circumcision). When informed of the death, David replies “Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:23) I was then informed that was a bad text to use, partly because the son died for David's sin and David was merely talking about the place of the dead, and judgment occurs later, where we would assume they will be parted again with David heading heavenward and the infant, towards damnation. The answer seemed at the time a poor one, for it seemed to dismiss rather than explain the reaction of David. Who would be happy to briefly see their child again before they are ushered off to hell? Was that David's relief?

Here, I stood before a woman and father who had just lost a child, even before seven days. They did not care to hear about my former professor's “courage” in declaring the probable damnation of their child or dismissal of David's source of hope. The pastoral comment I often told believers was, with that most inappropriate text rolling around my mind, was something along the lines of: "though he won't return to be with you, know you will go to meet him someday."

My first professor may not be happy that I used the very text he warned us not to use, but he wasn't in the room. I do remember the same discussion in another class with a bit of a different answer from my other professor. He said faith seems to be what the Scripture always tells us we ought to have to be assured of salvation. Yet, salvation also involves God's election/choice and his grace. This other professor ended the question by saying he wouldn't answer the question definitively, because it wasn't his decision to make. Original Sin is sufficient to damn, God's grace is sufficient to save.

The question seems not to be between “courage” and "weakness" but between presumption and humility. The second seems much more appropriate for pastoral care. It is also where the Westminster Confession comes out where in Ch 10.3 it states: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:” No observable faith is mentioned and I don't think the Westminster Confession is an inclusivist document or on the road to universalism because it allows for salvation without observable faith. God needs no permission or logical justification from us to save whom he will, whether we see faith, or give the child the sign of the covenant.

Indeed, Jesus often seems to welcome children and especially the children of believers well before they have an observable faith by which to respond. Mothers bring, carry even, babies to Jesus to touch/bless (Luke 18:15-17). Fascinating to me is that Jesus did not reject these little heathens. He did not ask the mothers to delay until they had faith and could be proven disciples, but just blessed the babies as these mothers wanted. Would we wish to say that Jesus lacked the courage to correct these mothers in their ignorant theology which valued the children of believers as blessable and valuable, and as belonging to the kingdom of heaven?

David's words about going to his son were spoken before his son was circumcised, before his son had observable faith, and with a hope that was unexplainable if he thought his son to be damned. The same man who declared his culpability from conception (Psalm 51) also declares his hope for his son (2 Samuel 12). And when walking into a room of grieving parents, when being a pastor to those parents that lose children, I can't say that God saves all children. But I can't say God damns them either. I can say: David had a hope, Christ welcomed the children of believers and we are called to trust God's goodness and election. These together give me a strong inclination to share David's hope for the reunion of believers and their departed infant children.

Interrupting these deep thoughts…

2011-01-10T21:07:00.003-06:00

…for a really cool picture of C.F.W. Walther.

Machen on historical Christianity

2011-01-08T12:21:00.004-06:00

"If the saving work of Christ were confined to what He does now for every Christian, there would be no such thing as a Christian gospel...It is the connection of the present experience of the believer with an actual historic appearance of Jesus in the world which prevents our religion from being mysticism and causes it to be Christianity.

It must certainly must be admitted, then, that Christianity does depend upon something that happened; our religion must be abandoned altogether unless at a definite point in history Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of men. Christianity is certainly dependent upon history."

-J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. pg. 120-121

Augustine on Psalm 59 (sounding like Luther)

2011-01-05T20:17:00.006-06:00

It tickles me that sometimes when reading Augustine, I have to look at the book cover again to remind myself I am not reading Luther. Here is Augustine commenting on Psalm 59:3 "For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul: the mighty are gathered against me"

"There are also other men strong, not because of riches, not because of the powers of the body, not because of any temporally pre-eminent power of station, but relying on their righteousness. This sort of strong men must be guarded against, feared, repulsed, not imitated: of men relying, I say, not on body, not on means, not on descent, not on honour; for all such things who would not see to be temporal, fleeting, falling, flying? but relying on their own righteousness.…“Wherefore,” say they, doth your Master eat with publicans and sinners? (Matt 9:11) O ye strong men, to whom a Physician is not needful! This strength to soundness belongeth not, but to insanity. For even than men frenzied nothing can be stronger, more mighty they are than whole men: but by how much greater their powers are, by so much nearer is their death. May God therefore turn away from our imitation these strong men.…The same are therefore the strong men, that assailed Christ, commending their own justice. Hear ye these strong men: when certain men of Jerusalem were speaking, having been sent by them to take Christ, and not daring to take Him (because when he would, then was He taken, that truly was strong): Why therefore, say they, “could ye not take Him?” And they made answer, “No one of men did ever so speak as He.” And these strong men, “Hath by any means any one of the Pharisees believed on Him, or any one of the Scribes, but this people knowing not the Law?” (John 7:45-49). They preferred themselves to the sick multitude, that was running to the Physician: whence but because they were themselves strong? and what is worse, by their strength, all the multitude also they brought over unto themselves, and slew the Physician of all.…"

And on Verse 10: Behold what is, “My strength, to Thee I will keep:” on myself I will in no ways at all rely. For what good thing have I brought, that thou shouldest have mercy on me, and shouldest justify me? What in me hast Thou found, save sins alone? Of Thine there is nothing else but the nature which Thou hast created: the other things are mine own evil things which Thou hast blotted out. I have not first risen up to Thee, but to awake me Thou hast come: for “His mercy shall come before me.” Before that anything of good I shall do, “His mercy shall come before me.”

Christmas thought from Athanasius

2010-12-25T00:01:00.000-06:00

"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.

Better is it, then, not to aim at speaking of the whole, where one cannot do justice even to a part, but, after mentioning one more, to leave the whole for you to marvel at. For all alike are marvellous, and wherever a man turns his glance, he may behold on that side the divinity of the Word, and be struck with exceeding great awe."

Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word. ch 54, 4-5 (free version here, buy here)

We're All Judaizers Now (?)

2010-12-14T14:07:00.007-06:00

"So the error of the Judaizers is a very modern error indeed, as well as a very ancient error. It is found in the modern Church wherever men seek salvation by "surrender" instead of by faith, or by their own character instead of by the imputed righteousness of Christ, or by "making Christ master in the life" instead of by trusting in His redeeming blood. In particular, it is found wherever men say "the real essentials" of Christianity are love, justice, mercy and other virtues, as contrasted with the great doctrines of God's Word. These are all just different ways of exalting the merit of man over against the Cross of Christ, they are all of them attacks upon the very heart and core of the Christian religion. And against all of them the mighty polemic of this Epistle to the Galatians is turned."

-J. Gresham Machen (Commentary on Galatians)

[Hat Tip: Nick Batzig]

Pompous Theological Talk

2010-12-05T18:00:00.003-06:00

This is an imagined dialogue on theology that is so much like many conversations that I've overheard and been in throughout seminary that ended with me wanting to bang my head against a wall. Thus, seminarians will find it hilarious, and others will wonder what the heck could possibly be so funny about it. (by the way, Sufjan Stevens rocks!) :

HT: D.G. Hart

Athanasius on Sola Scriptura

2010-11-29T07:00:00.000-06:00

[The Scriptures] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me .'

...But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Thankful for the Righteousness of Christ

2010-11-25T07:00:00.001-06:00

Isaac Watts penned a line that I believe summarizes the gospel in one verse: "The best obedience of my hands / Dares not appear before thy throne; But faith can answer thy demands / By pleading what my Lord has done." This Hymn by Isaac Watts is simply headed: "The value of Christ, and his righteousness.

Phil. 3:7-9."

No more, my God, I boast no more
Of all the duties I have done;
I quit the hopes I held before,
To trust the merits of thy Son.

Now, for the love I bear his name,
What was my gain I count my loss;
My former pride I call my shame,
And nail my glory to his cross.

Yes, and I must and will esteem
All things but loss for Jesus' sake:
O may my soul be found in him,
And of his righteousness partake!

The best obedience of my hands
Dares not appear before thy throne;
But faith can answer thy demands
By pleading what my Lord has done.

Great Prayer

2010-11-23T12:12:00.002-06:00

At the end of Morning Prayer, Rite Two, of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is this prayer which I think is a great opening to a day of ministry:

Almighty God, Father of all mercies,
we your unworthy servants give you humble thanks
for all your goodness and loving-kindness
to us and to all whom you have made.
We bless you for our creation, preservation,
and all the blessings of this life;
but above all for your immeasurable love
in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ;
for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory.
And, we pray, give us such an awareness of your mercies,
that with truly thankful hearts we may show forth your praise,
not only with our lips, but in our lives,
by giving up our selves to your service,
and by walking before you
in holiness and righteousness all our days;
through Jesus Christ our Lord,
to whom, with you and the Holy Spirit,
be honor and glory throughout all ages. Amen.

Death is not your Friend

2010-11-13T13:28:00.002-06:00

Over the past 6 months, I have seen a lot of death. I've seen people seem to drift off quietly, like into a deep sleep. I've seen seemly endless chest compressions on someone drifting in and out of consciousness, scared and begging not to die. I've seen a man gag as the last breaths will not come into his lungs.

I've also seen many reactions to death. Seeming acceptance, perhaps hiding a denial. I've seen a raging at the world, God, or the random forces of nature. I've seen cheerful demeanor that accompanies words of celebration.

And in these times, I've heard many words about death. And of all the words I've heard, a certain class always makes me cringe. It is not the despair over death. It is not the anger over death. It is the belittling and minimizing of death. “He looks so peaceful.” or “death can be healing.”

Death is not your friend. Death is never good. Death is not peaceful, but the most violent thing that befalls man. Death is the ultimate curse (Gen 2:17). Death is last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). Death is what we look forward to ending (Rev 21:4).

When we see tears in the eyes of a mourner, my desire is that we will not belittle the reality of death. We ought not try to say that death is good. (inverse of Rom 14:16) We ought not call what is our curse and enemy good. But we can look forward to the end of death. Good may follow, but will never be death. Mourning and anger are not to be corrected when facing death, but truly expressed and addressed with a hope that is not death, but life.

Death is never good.

Death is not your friend.

A Robe, not a Cape.

2010-10-22T12:13:00.002-05:00

D.G. Hart has a quick bit of logic in favor of ministers donning a plain, simple robe in corporate worship. I think he is right on about ministers:

"Isn’t the nature of their work to get out of the way and let the word and Spirit do the work? And wouldn’t a robe that hid personal idiosyncrasies of sartorial preference and cultural breeding be a good way to remind the pastor that his work is not finally about him, his taste, or his social standing? "

http://oldlife.org/2010/10/22/why-should-chaplains-have-all-the-good-uniforms/

On Christian Civil Discourse

2010-10-17T09:17:00.003-05:00

Professor Carl Trueman has a thought provoking article on civil discourse in America for Christians. If we understand the injunction to "honor your father and mother" as being about honoring those placed in power above us as Larger Catechism Question 128 states:

Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.

If that is our understanding, we should be careful with the names we throw around like "fascist" and "marxist." I'd probably want to dialogue about the application of such a reflection with Trueman, but I think he gets an interesting conversation started:

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3173:confessional-subscription-and-political-discourse&catid=49:people&Itemid=132

Current Reading: Marrow of Modern Divinity

2010-10-03T21:25:00.003-05:00

I've started to read this book for fun in my few free moments. (Yes, I read theology for fun in my free time.) The Marrow of Modern Divinity is a classic book by an unknown author that sparked a controversy in Scotland in the 1700's. in this work, a gospel minister talks to a legalist and an antinomian and explains (in question and answer form) why true faith is neither legalistic and merely moralistic, nor is it libertine and unconcerned with right living. so far the chapter on Adam has been very profitable. Buy this book and read it to your spiritual betterment.

And if you don't want to bother with all that reading, you can get a good introduction to the controversy by Sinclair Ferguson in audio form: here

Reflection on Luke 12:32-40

2010-09-18T08:00:00.001-05:00

Luke 12:32 “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
You Must Be Ready

35 “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! 39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

Of Thieves and Treasure

Today's text offers enough metaphors and images that a passive listener will become easily lost in the quick flow of flocks, purses, thieves, treasure, weddings, masters, servants, banquets, houses and unexpected hours. Within this small section, however, there are a few phrases or images that unsettle us, and will certainly wake us up if we drifted off in the hearing.

“Sell your possessions.”
A master serving servants.
A thief, coming in the night.

There is much that is valuable to us that sends our lives into chaos if they are taken from us. Money, important documents, our reputations, our health, the lives of loved ones. We fear the loss of those things we value, those things we treasure, those things we love.

And Jesus says, “Fear not little flock”

Have you ever noticed how it doesn't seem to work to tell someone to not feel or think something? If I were to say to you “Don't think about purple elephants” what are you thinking about? Probably purple elephants. Merely saying “Don't fear” doesn't stop fear.

But Jesus does not merely tell us “Don't fear” like we say “no worries” and think that answers it. No, Instead our first verse in 32 says “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

But what are the riches that Jesus promises the faithful?

How do you measure the riches of God? Do you look around and say, I know I ought not to fear because I can look around at how God has blessed me with my house, bank statement, car, and even friends and family. Certainly these are things we might be thankful for, but if that is how we know God is good, what happens when those things become unstable? What happens when like in the past two years, many of our houses have been pulled out from under us, our retirement accounts are looking weak or two years has left us in poorer health? Some think that God's treasure and lavish riches are the abundance of tangible things and if that is true if they falter and when the rug comes out from underneath of us, we will turn to God and cry, “thief!”

A fellow chaplain friend of mine commented on interacting with someone years ago that had a shirt on that read “He who dies with the most stuff wins.” The obvious question is: Wins what? You can't take toys with you. The problem of our treasure that fades and rots is not to get more temporary treasure.

And “faith” can be used improperly as a way to attempt to avoid pain or suffering or loss. I cringe whenever I hear someone is going through a rough time or poor health or pain and someone says its because of their faith. That's Bull. Jesus had that question multiple times (with a building that collapsed, with a man born blind) and rejected that answer each time.

Faith here frames pain, suffering and loss. Faith brings us through pain, it does NOT exempt us from pain. Through real loss, faith is valuing the valuable, counting the temporary with its true limited worth, and the eternal with infinite worth. It as not as though we can do without the temporary. Food is here today and rots tomorrow, yet we still need food. Man cannot live on bread alone, but man needs bread. In verse 30, Jesus referring to food and clothing affirms “The Father knows you need them.” What we are challenged with here is: what do we think we gain by valuing the temporary as if were permanent?

The kingdom of God that is talked of here is not merely more perishable stuff. Christ points us towards “treasure in heaven” and “purses that do not grow old.”

You see, it is not just “Don't fear” but Christ replaces our treasure with something different.
“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

Thomas Chalmers, a Scottish minister, once preached a sermon whose content has mostly been forgotten except the title. “The Expulsive Power of a New Affection.” We are not merely told to sell our possessions but to replace them with this new treasure. We spoke of this treasure in our confession of faith, Colossians 1: The riches of the mystery which is Christ (given even to us). Christ GIVES and even more than that, IS the treasure of the kingdom.

How great are the riches, the treasure, we have in Christ? That we were once under the burden of the Law, and Christ fulfilled the Law in our place. That we once were owing the penalty of everlasting death, and Christ paid our penalty. That we were once at war with God, and now Christ has given us peace with God. That Christ was the one, according to Paul, “through whom God created the world” so that we have the riches of creation but especially of creation's renewal in Christ, that is the hope of resurrection. That once we were far off strangers and enemies and now we are the children of God. That we have the benefits of community in the family of God, however dysfunctional that family of God may seem at times.

Does it strike you that we have in Christ: the master sitting us down. Look at verse 37. It is meant to be a shocking image, as if the CEO of your company came and shined your shoes and served you lunch at your table. Christ is taking the posture of a servant, and serving us with this feast of benefits. That is the treasure and the riches we have by faith, which is Christ in us.

So an WE end, we must ask: Is that your treasure? Or do we have our heart and values set on things that will one day vanish. Do we value the temporary with everlasting hope. Then when they fade, it is as if Christ is a thief come in the middle of the night to steal what we value most.

Our selection of Scripture ends in verse 40 with the exhortation “Be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” It is a promise of end. It is the obvious reality that the temporary has an end. “End” is reality.

So why? Why do we put all our eternal hope in things temporal and temporary? Why do we become despondent when we see those temporary things do what temporary things do? When they disappear, when we get to the end, will Christ be our treasure we are reunited with - the odd master coming and serving and giving what is most valuable to us, his servants? or will he be the thief stealing what we really value most? You don't change what He does, but your faith and hope do change who He is to you in that moment.

So Who will Christ be? The thief of your fading treasure? Or will He be your everlasting treasure?

O Lord,
enable us to sell our possessions and the idols of our hearts
Enter in our resulting void and reveal to us the riches of salvation
And the glory of God shining in the face of Christ.
Amen.

White Horse Inn: On Justification

2010-09-15T11:31:00.003-05:00

The latest episode of White Horse Inn was on justification. One of the best I've heard from them, they focus on the most important ignored doctrine in churches today:

On Justification and Imputation

Torrance on Suffering and Incarnation

2010-09-14T08:00:00.000-05:00

Lately I've been thinking about the problem of pain, suffering, and evil as related to God. In pastoral matters, it seems that God's sovereignty has a component, but left alone is insufficient when dealing with the topic. Ultimately, the answer to the problem of pain, suffering and evil is the Incarnation (and the Atonement). That lead me back again to Torrance's masterful work on the Incarnation which (despite its few errors) is so wonderful on the Incarnation:

"The agony of Jesus - and how he was constrained until it was accomplished - was that he was the judging God and the judged man at the same time, the electing God and the elected man at the same time, and in this unspeakable tension he remained absolutely faithful as the Son of God and Son of Man." (113)

"[Christ] stooped to shoulder our weakness, astheneia, and to bear it as our high priest, as our shepherd priest before God, so that by his stripes we are healed. The term astheneia on the pages of the New Testament is a profound term speaking of the disease of the body and of the soul, and so his compassion met the double need of the sick and the sinful." (134)

"'From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence'...How does the kingdom of God press in, how does it storm into the hearts of men and women? By the cross. But the cross is the kingdom of God suffering violence, and there we that the weakness of God is stronger than man, so that the preaching of this cross, where the kingdom suffers violence, is the power of God...like Elijah, John had misunderstood the violence of God and was offended at the weakness of Jesus, but in Jesus the still small voice of God has become flesh, and that was more powerful than all the imaginable forces of nature put together and unleashed in their fury" (149-150)

T.F. Torrance. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ

The Gospel of Divine Grace the Only Means of Converting Sinners

2010-09-11T08:00:00.000-05:00

The Gospel of Divine Grace the Only Means of Converting Sinners; and Should be Preached Therefore Most Clearly, Fully, and Freely.

a Poem by Ralph Erkine

They ought, who royal grace's heralds be,
To trumpet loud salvation, full and free;
Nor safely can, to humour mortal pride,
In silence evangelic myst'ries hide.

What heav'n is pleas'd to give, dare we refuse;
Or under ground conceal, least men abuse?
Suppress the gospel-flow'r, upon pretence
That some vile spiders may suck poison thence?

Christ is a stumbling-block, shall we neglect
To preach him, lest the blind should break their neck?
That high he's for the fall of many set
As well as for the rise, must prove no let.

No grain of precious truth must be suppress'd,
Though reprobates should to their ruin wrest.
Shall heaven's corruscant lamb be dimm'd, that pays
Its daily tribute down in golden rays?

Because some, blinded with the blazing gleams,
Share not the pleasure of the lightning beams.
Let those be hardned, petrify'd, and harm'd,
The rest are mollify'd and kindly warm'd.

A various favour, flowers in grace's field,
Of life to some, of deat to others yield.
Must then the rose be vail'd, the lily hid,
The fragrant favour stifled? God forbid.

The revelation of the gospel-flow'r,
Is still the organ fram'd of saving pow'r
Most justly then are legal minds condemn'd,
That of the glorious gospel are asham'd:

For this the divine arm, and only this,
The pow'r of God unto salvation is.
For therein is reveal'd, to screen from wrath,
The righteousness of God, from faith to faith!

The happy change in guilty sinners case
They owe to free displays of sov'reign grace;
Whose joyful tidings of amazing love
The ministration of the Spirit prove.

The glorious vent of the gospel-news express,
Of God's free grace, thro' Christ's full righteousness,
Is Heaven's gay chariot, where the Spirit bides,
And in his conqu'ring pow'r triumphant rides.

The gospel-field is still the Spirit's soil,
The golden pipe that bears the holy oil;
The orb where he outshines the radiant sun,
The silver channel where his graces run.

Within the gospel-banks his flowing tide
Of lightning, quickning motions sweetly glide.
Received ye the Spirit, scripture saith,
By legal works, or by the word of faith?
If by the gospel only then let none
Dare to be wiser than the wisest one.

We must, who freely get, as freely give
The vital word that makes the dead to live.
For ev'n to sinners dead within our reach
We in his living name may most successful preach.

The Spirit and the scripture both agree
Jointly (says Christ) to testify of me.
The preacher then will from his text decline,
That scorns to harmonize with this design.

Press moral duties to the last degree;
Why not? but mind, lest we successless be,
No light, no hope, no strength for duties spring,
Where Jesus is not Prophet, Priest, and King.

No light to see the way, unless he teach;
No joyful hope, save in his blood we reach;
No strength, unless his royal arm he stretch
Then from our leading scope how gross we fall,
If, like his name, in ev'ry gospel-call,
We make not him the First, the Last, the All!

Our office is to bear the radiant torch,
Of gospel-light, into the darkened porch
Of human understandings, and display
The joyful dawn of everlasting day;

To draw the golden chariot of free grace,
The darkned shades with shining rays to chase,
'Till Heaven's bright lamp on circling wheels be hurl'd,
With spark'ling grandeur round the dusky world;

And thus to bring, in dying mortals sight,
New life and immortality to light.
We're charg'd to preach the gospel, unconfin'd,
To ev'ry creature of the human kind;

To call, with tenders of salvation free,
All corners of the earth to come and see:
And ev'ry sinner must excuseless make,
By urging rich and poor to come and take:

Ho, ev'ry one that thirsts, is grace's call
Direct to needy sinners great and small;
Not meaning those alone, whose holy thirst
Denominates their souls already blest.

If only those were call'd, then none but saints;
Nor would the gospel suit the sinner's wants.
But here the call does signally import
Sinners and thirsty souls of every sort;

And mainly to their door the message brings,
Who yet are thirsting after empty things;
Who spend their means no living bread to buy,
And pains for that which cannot satisfy.

Such thirsty sinners here invited are,
Who vainly spend their money, thought, and care,
On passing shades, vile lusts and trash, so base
As yeilds the immortal souls no true solace.

The call directs them, as they would be blest,
To choose a purer object of their thirst.
All are invited by the joyful sound
To drink who need, as does the parched ground,
Whose wide-mouth'd clefts speak to the brazen sky
Its passive thirst, without an active cry.

The gospel-preacher then with holy skill
Must offer Christ to whosoever will,
To sinners of all sorts that can be nam'd;
The blind, the lame, the poor, the halt, the maim'd,

Not daring to restrict th' extensive call,
But op'ning wide the net to catch 'em all
No soul must be excluded that will come,
Nor right of access be confined to some,

Though none will come till conscious of their want,
Yet right to come they have by sov'reign grant;
Such right to Christ, his promise, and his grace,
That all are damn'd who hear and don't embrace:

So freely is th' unbounded call dispen'd,
We therein find ev'n sinners unconvinc'd;
Who know not they are naked, blind, and poor,
Counsell'd to by, or beg at Jesus door,
And take the glorious robe, eye-salve, and golden store.

This prize they are oblig'd by faith to win,
Else unbelief would never be their sin.
Yes, gospel-offers but a sham we make,
If ev'ry sinner has not right to take.

Be gospel-heralds fortify'd from this
To trumpet grace, howe'er the serpent hiss.
Did hell's malicious mouth in dreadful shape
'Gainst innocence itself malignant gape;

Then sacred truth's devoted vouchers may
For dire reproach their measures constant lay.
With cruel calumny of old commence'd,
This sect will ev'ry where be spoke against.

While to and fro he runs the earth across
Whose name is ADELPHON KATEGOROS.*
In spite of hell be then our constant strife
To win the glorious Lamb a virgin wife.

* The Accuser of the Brethren (Rev. 12:10)

A Reflection: The Pastor and the Theologian

2010-09-10T08:00:00.000-05:00

Problem: An Academic Theologian chaffing under the requirement to be confessionally, theologically orthodox at a Christian Seminary when studying academic subjects.

Problem: A pastor that sentimentalizes his sermons with no regard to theological content.

Attempted Answer in Axiom: Every theologian must be a pastor, and every pastor must be a theologian.

Both of these problems are weeds from the same rotten soil: The loss of the concept of the pastor-theologian. Today, seminaries and Christians will divorce the academy and the church. One can argue that one is academically focused, and therefore should be free from the limits of orthodoxy. Another can argue they are going into ministry and thus are not as concerned with theology as they are with people.

Both of these people have divorced what should not be divorced. Every theologian should be a pastor, and every pastor should be a theologian. The theologian has a responsibility to orthodoxy, not mere learning. The pastor has a responsibility to right teaching, not merely people.

The theologian who is not a pastor is often arrogant, self-directed, and enamored with novelty and notoriety. The pastor who is not a theologian is often intellectually lazy, a poor shepherd of the mind and injurious as often as nurturing to his flock. The academic-only has no regard for the spiritual life of the flock, and kicks at all authority put over them, be it the confines of orthodoxy or the severe judgment that awaits them from God. The pastor-only chaffs at real authority that is given to them, rejecting their authority over the flock and thrives on sentimentality, taking offense at any challenge to the rightness of their feelings.

However, the academic theologian will always be too proud to submit to the authority of Scripture and the church, and the pastor-only will always be too proud to admit their deficiencies in feeding the flock. Both can only be changed by the humiliation and convicting work of the Spirit. May they both be brought to repentance that we might worship God truly with our mind. May we be brought to repentance when we reject correction of our hubris against the limits of orthodoxy and the high call to the office of pastor-elder.

In Our Own Image

2010-09-07T08:00:00.000-05:00

Can we make images of God? Many (heck, most) Christians do. We make images of God for art, worship and teaching. But are we supposed to? The Second Commandment is:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God"

Wes White has a thought-provoking reflection on this problem:

"God cannot be pictured. Such an attempt is a breaking of the second commandment. It is not only wrong to worship images of God, we need to understand that we are forbidden from making images of God."

I think he makes a pretty good case from Scripture. I would be interested in a conversation that engaged this interpretation from Scripture. Most interaction and objection I have seen and I tend to have come from personal preference and feeling, which is not a good objection. And if it is true, I think we need to rethink our piety:

http://johannesweslianus.blogspot.com/2010/09/can-and-may-we-make-pictures-of-god.html

The Hurtfulness of Not Preaching Christ

2010-09-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

The Hurtfulness of Not Preaching Christ, and Distinguishing Duly Between Law and Gospel

a Poem by Ralph Erkine

Hell cares not how crude holiness be preach'd,
If sinner's match with Christ be never reach'd;
Knowing their holiness is but a sham,
Who ne'er are marry'd to the holy Lamb.

Let words have never such a pious shew,
And blaze aloft in rude professor's view,
With sacred aromatics richly spic'd,
If they but drown in silence glorious Christ;

Or, if he may some vacant room supply,
Make him a subject only by the by;
They mar true holiness with tickling chat,
To breed a bastard Pharisaic brat.

They wofully the gospel message-broke,
Make fearful havock of their Master's flock;
Yet please themselves and the blind multitude,
By whom the gospel's little understood.

Rude souls, perhaps, imagine little odds
Between the legal and the gospel roads:
But vainly men attempt to blend the two;
They differ more than Christ and Moses do.

Moses, evangelizing in a shade,
By types the news of light approaching spread;
But from the law of works, by him proclaim'd,
No ray of gospel-grace or mercy gleam'd.

By nature's light the law to all is known,
But lightsome news of gospel-grace to none.
The doing cov'nant now, in part or whole,
Is strong to damn, but weak to save a soul.

It hurts, and cannot help, but as it tends
Through mercy to subserve some gospel-ends.
Law-thunder roughly to the gospel tames,
The gospel mildly to the law reclaims.

The fiery law, as 'tis a covenant,
Schools men to see the gospel-aid they want;
Then gospel-aid does sweetly them incline
Back to the law, as 'tis a rule divine.

Heaven's healing work is oft commenc'd with wounds,
Terror begins what loving-kindness crowns.
Preachers may therefore press the fiery law,
To strike the Christless men with dreadful awe.

Law-threats which for his sins to hell depress.
Yea, damn him for his rotten righteousness;
That while he views the law exceeding broad,
He fain may wed the righteousness of God.

But, ah! to press the law-works as terms of life,
was ne'er the way to court the Lamb a wife.
To urge conditions in the legal frame,
Is to renew the vain old cov'nant game.

The law is good, when lawfully 'tis used,
But most destructive, when it is abused.
They set not duties in the proper sphere,
Who duly law and gospel don't sever;

But under many chains let sinners lie,
As tributaries, or to DO or DIE.
Nor make the law a squaring rule of life,
But in the gospel-throat a bloody knife.

Why I am not Psalms-only acapella

2010-09-02T08:00:00.001-05:00

I have been in a few churches that are Psalms-only or acapella (no instruments). While I think the Psalms-only churches may have a leg up on other churches in that their learned worship music is all Scriptural and an aid to learning large chunks of Scripture, I don't believe you can demand from Scripture that everyone conform to that in worship. If I did, I would have to:

1. Ignore Paul's adoption (and implicit support) of early hymns

Any New Testament Greek scholar will tell you the form of Phil 2:5-11 and Col 1:15-20 are in the form of early hymns in the early church, most likely that Paul quotes to affirm their accuracy and help him remind his readers of their truth. The NA27 text arranges it that way. So I would have to get an older Greek text that doesn't do that.

2. Change Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19

These seem to suggest the psalms are in the corpus, rather than the exclusive corpus, of the songs of the church. It has been suggested that these refer to three types of psalms, so to have it make more sense, I would have to change them like so:

Col 3:16- Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and ~~hymns~~ psalms and ~~spiritual songs~~ more psalms, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

3. Edit the Psalms

Now that you are singing the Psalms, you will run into a little problem in that they tell you to use instruments and to sing new songs. So to be super true to the word of God, as it seems David was not, I would have to edit these to:

Psalm 150:3-6 -Praise him with ~~trumpet sound;~~ your voice
praise him with ~~lute and harp!~~ your voice
4 Praise him with ~~tambourine and dance;~~ your voice
praise him with ~~strings and pipe!~~ your voice
5 Praise him with ~~sounding cymbals;~~ your voice
praise him with ~~loud clashing cymbals!~~ your voice
6 Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord!

Psalm 149:1-4- Praise the Lord!
Sing to the Lord a ~~new song,~~ psalm
his praise in the assembly of the godly!
2 Let Israel be glad in his Maker;
let the children of Zion rejoice in their King!
3 Let them praise his name with ~~dancing,~~ standing still,
making melody to him with ~~tambourine and lyre!~~ your voice
4 For the Lord takes pleasure in his people;
he adorns the humble with salvation.

Thus, I cannot be of the camp that submits that all worship music is to be sung without instruments and only from the Psalms. That said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to sing a Psalm every now and again in worship, especially the whole psalm (not just the praise section) and all the types of psalms (praise, lament, etc).

The Law is not of Faith

2010-08-29T16:36:00.002-05:00

My friend, pastor Jay Bennett, recently preached a sermon on the text "Gal. 3:11-12, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, ‘For the righteous shall live by faith.’ But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’" Which, according to his own summary includes the themes and thesis:
Themes: Law and Gospel, liberty of conscience, justification
Thesis: Confusing the principles of Law and Gospel (Works and Faith) undermines the truth of the gospel.

Take a listen here.

Richard Sibbes on Union

2010-08-28T08:00:00.000-05:00

I was reading Richard Sibbes and this section jumped out at me. Sibbes almost completely parrots Calvin on this point, but it is interesting how Sibbes frames the importance of Union. The Spirit in uniting us to Christ is spoken of as granting faith, assurance and making the purchased benefits of Christ's ours. For Sibbes, Union seems like another way of speaking of imputation and how imputation is a reality and not merely a legal fiction. I'm not quite sure about Sibbes' full thoughts on imputation and union, comments are welcome:

"But you will say, the liberty of justification is wrought by Christ; we are justified by the obedience of Christ; and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.

Answer: It is true that Christ is our righteousness. But what is that to us unless we have something to put it on? Unless we are united to Christ, what good do we have by Christ, if Christ is not ours? If there is not a spiritual marriage, what benefit do we have by him if we do not have him to pay our debt? For his riches to be ours and our debt to be his, there must first be a union.

Now this union is wrought by the Spirit. It is begun in effectual calling. From this union there comes a change: his righteousness is mine, as if I had obeyed and done it myself; and my debts and sins are his. This is by the Spirit, because the union between Christ and me is by the Spirit. For whatever Christ has done, it is nothing to me till there is a union.

And likewise, freedom is by the Spirit, because the Spirit of God works faith in me not only to unite and knit me to Christ, but to persuade me that Christ is mine, that all his is mine, and that my debts are his...so with this reflexive action [faith], the Spirit brings liberty in justification; just as it is a means of union by which all that is Christ's becomes mine, and mine becomes Christ's."

-Richard Sibbes. Glorious Freedom: The Excellency of the Gospel above the Law. pg 34-35

What is the Bible About?

2010-08-26T09:34:00.003-05:00

Justin Taylor posted a Youtube video that takes a clip from a talk by Tim Keller (pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian PCA in New York) to answer that question. [I like the content even if I'm not a fan of all the iconography the compiler used, and thought I would largely repost it because the content is so good]:

Jesus is the true and better Adam who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us.

Jesus is the true and better Abel who, though innocently slain, has blood now that cries out, not for our condemnation, but for acquittal.

Jesus is the true and better Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go out into the void not knowing wither he went to create a new people of God.

Jesus is the true and better Isaac who was not just offered up by his father on the mount but was truly sacrificed for us. And when God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me,” now we can look at God taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing him and say, “Now we know that you love us because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from us.”

Jesus is the true and better Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved, so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us.

Jesus is the true and better Joseph who, at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold him and uses his new power to save them.

Jesus is the true and better Moses who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant.

Jesus is the true and better Rock of Moses who, struck with the rod of God’s justice, now gives us water in the desert.

Jesus is the true and better Job, the truly innocent sufferer, who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends.

Jesus is the true and better David whose victory becomes his people’s victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.

Jesus is the true and better Esther who didn’t just risk leaving an earthly palace but lost the ultimate and heavenly one, who didn’t just risk his life, but gave his life to save his people.

Jesus is the true and better Jonah who was cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.

Jesus is the real Rock of Moses, the real Passover Lamb, innocent, perfect, helpless, slain so the angel of death will pass over us. He’s the true temple, the true prophet, the true priest, the true king, the true sacrifice, the true lamb, the true light, the true bread.

The Bible’s really not about you—it’s about him.

HT: Justin Taylor

New Old Hymns

2010-08-24T11:06:00.005-05:00

When my wife's grandfather's church started using guitars in their service, he complained that all they sang was 7-11 songs: seven words, sung eleven times. Issac Watts, Gadsby, Wesley and Luther had been replaced by Chris Tomlin, Third Day and Matt Redman. The exchange left a dearth of theological content to the songs the congregation was to sing as worship. Lately, some artists and churches have recognized they have been robbed by contemporary artists that have more musical passion than theological knowledge. Without chucking the guitar, many have begun to bring back the meaningful lyrics of the old hymns to new musical arrangements for guitars and a folksy style. Here are a few of the groups if you tire of being told to "sing to the Lord" without being told why:

Indelible Grace: Based in Nashville Tennessee, Reformed University Fellowship PCA pastor Kevin Twit enlists the few Reformed leaning artists in the Christian Music scene (Derek Webb, Andrew Osenga, Sandra McCracken, Dan Haseltine - of Jars of Clay, etc) to put old hymns to new music. I think this is the best produced of those engaged in this project of new old hymns.

Red Mountain Music: a Church in Alabama started their own goal of putting old hymns to new music. They have especially focused on Gadsby's hymnal and William Cowper's hymns and poems, returning the lament to our hymn catalog.

Sandra McCracken - new old hymns: Two of Sandra's hymns have focused on new old hymns, many of which have ended up on the Indelible Grace albums. (BTW - this is Derek Webb's wife)

Soujourn Music : a community church influenced by Indelible Grace, I am less familiar with their works.

Matthew Smith: one of the artists involved with Indelible Grace, his solo projects pick up on the theme and include many great selections not on Indelible Grace's albums.

Who Said it?

2010-08-22T21:15:00.004-05:00

Guess, without Googling: Which Dead Theologian wrote these comments from Psalm 59 on 1) The uselessness of our own righteousness, 2) the lack of anything good in ourselves to bring to God 3) the role of preaching the law in bringing us to terror?

Commenting on Psalm 53:3 "For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul: the mighty are gathered against me"

"There are also other men strong, not because of riches, not because of the powers of the body, not because of any temporally pre-eminent power of station, but relying on their righteousness. This sort of strong men must be guarded against, feared, repulsed, not imitated: of men relying, I say, not on body, not on means, not on descent, not on honour; for all such things who would not see to be temporal, fleeting, falling, flying? but relying on their own righteousness.…“Wherefore,” say they, doth your Master eat with publicans and sinners? (Matt 9:11) O ye strong men, to whom a Physician is not needful! This strength to soundness belongeth not, but to insanity. For even than men frenzied nothing can be stronger, more mighty they are than whole men: but by how much greater their powers are, by so much nearer is their death. May God therefore turn away from our imitation these strong men.…The same are therefore the strong men, that assailed Christ, commending their own justice. Hear ye these strong men: when certain men of Jerusalem were speaking, having been sent by them to take Christ, and not daring to take Him (because when he would, then was He taken, that truly was strong): Why therefore, say they, “could ye not take Him?” And they made answer, “No one of men did ever so speak as He.” And these strong men, “Hath by any means any one of the Pharisees believed on Him, or any one of the Scribes, but this people knowing not the Law?” (John 7:45-49). They preferred themselves to the sick multitude, that was running to the Physician: whence but because they were themselves strong? and what is worse, by their strength, all the multitude also they brought over unto themselves, and slew the Physician of all.…"

And on Verse 10: Behold what is, “My strength, to Thee I will keep:” on myself I will in no ways at all rely. For what good thing have I brought, that thou shouldest have mercy on me, and shouldest justify me? What in me hast Thou found, save sins alone? Of Thine there is nothing else but the nature which Thou hast created: the other things are mine own evil things which Thou hast blotted out. I have not first risen up to Thee, but to awake me Thou hast come: for “His mercy shall come before me.” Before that anything of good I shall do, “His mercy shall come before me.”

And on the Law: "The Conscience is not to be healed, if it be not wounded. Thou preachest and pressest the law, comminations the judgment to come, with much earnestness and importunity. He Which hears, if he be not terrified, if he be not troubled, is not to be comforted."

John Owen on the Law

2010-08-17T14:30:00.002-05:00

One of my favorite works by John Owen is "The Dominion of Sin and Grace." (Buy book here) Here, Owen deftly expounds on the Biblical teaching of the dominion of sin, and the dominion of grace (and also issues of Law and Gospel) that helps Christians understand both the failure and victory in sin we have as believers. I've highlighted my favorite parts.

The ground of this assurance is, that believers are “not under the law, but under grace.” And the force of this reason we may manifest in some few instances:—

First, The law giveth no strength against sin unto them that are under it, but grace doth. Sin will neither be cast nor kept out of its throne, but by a spiritual power and strength in the soul to oppose, conquer, and dethrone it. Where it is not conquered it will reign; and conquered it will not be without a mighty prevailing power: this the law will not, cannot give.

The law is taken two ways:— 1. For the whole revelation of the mind and will of God in the Old Testament. In this sense it had grace in it, and so did give both life, and light, and strength against sin, as the psalmist declares, Ps. xix. 7–9. In this sense it contained not only the law of precepts, but the promise also and the covenant, which was the means of conveying spiritual life and strength unto the church. In this sense it is not here spoken of, nor is anywhere opposed unto grace. 2. For the covenant rule of perfect obedience: “Do this, and live.” In this sense men are said to be “under it,” in opposition unto being “under grace.” They are under its power, rule, conditions, and authority, as a covenant. And in this sense all men are under it who are not instated in the new covenant through faith in Christ Jesus, who sets up in them and over them the rule of grace; for all men must be one way or other under the rule of God, and he rules only by the law or by grace, and none can be under both at the same time.

In this sense the law was never ordained of God to convey grace or spiritual strength unto the souls of men; had it been so, the promise and the gospel had been needless: “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law,” Gal. iii. 21. If it could have given life or strength, it would have produced righteousness, we should have been justified by it. It discovers sin and condemns it, but gives no strength to oppose it. It is not God’s ordinance for the dethroning of sin, nor for the destruction of its dominion.

This law falls under a double consideration, but in neither of them was designed to give power or strength against sin:—

1. As it was given unto mankind in the state of innocency; and it did then absolutely and exactly declare the whole duty of man, whatever God in his wisdom and holiness did require of us. It was God’s ruling of man according to the principle of the righteousness wherein he was created. But it gave no new aids against sin; nor was there any need that so it should do. It was not the ordinance of God to administer new or more grace unto man, but to rule and govern him according to what he had received; and this it continueth to do forever. It claims and continues a rule over all men, according to what they had and what they have; but it never had power to bar the entrance of sin, nor to cast it out when it is once enthroned.

2. As it was renewed and enjoined unto the church of Israel on Mount Sinai, and with them unto all that would join themselves unto the Lord out of the nations of the world. Yet neither was it then, nor as such, designed unto any such end as to destroy or dethrone sin by an administration of spiritual strength and grace. It had some new ends given then unto it, which it had not in its original constitution, the principal whereof was to drive men to the promise, and Christ therein; and this it doth by all the acts and powers of it on the souls of men. As it discovers sin, as it irritates and provokes it by its severity, as it judgeth and condemneth it, as it denounceth a curse on sinners, it drives unto this end; for this was added of grace in the renovation of it, this new end was given unto it. In itself it hath nothing to do with sinners, but to judge, curse, and condemn them.

There is, therefore, no help to be expected against the dominion of sin from the law. It was never ordained of God unto that end; nor doth it contain, nor is it communicative of, the grace necessary unto that end, Rom. viii. 3.

Wherefore, those who are “under the law” are under the dominion of sin. “The law is holy,” but it cannot make them holy who have made themselves unholy; it is “just,” but it cannot make them so, — it cannot justify them whom it doth condemn; it is “good,” but can do them no good, as unto their deliverance from the power of sin. God hath not appointed it unto that end. Sin will never be dethroned by it; it will not give place unto the law, neither in its title nor its power.

...

Men under the law will attend unto their convictions, and endeavour for a while to shake off the yoke of sin. They will attend unto what the law saith, under whose power they are, and endeavour a compliance therewith; many duties shall be performed, and many evils abstained from, in order to the quitting themselves of sin’s dominion. But, alas! the law cannot enable them hereunto, — it cannot give them life and strength to go through with what their convictions press them unto; therefore, after a while they begin to faint and wax weary in their progress, and at length give quite over. It may be they may break off from some great sins in particular, but shake off the whole dominion of sin they cannot.

It is otherwise with them that are “under grace.” Sin shall not have dominion over them; strength shall be administered unto them to dethrone it.

“Grace” is a word of various acceptations in the Scripture. As we are here said to be under it, and as it is opposed unto the law, it is used or taken for the gospel, as it is the instrument of God for the communication of himself and his grace by Jesus Christ unto those that do believe, with that state of acceptation with himself which they are brought into thereby, Rom. v. 1, 2. Wherefore, to be “under grace” is to have an interest in the gospel covenant and state, with a right unto all the privileges and benefits thereof, to be brought under the administration of grace by Jesus Christ, — to be a true believer.

But the inquiry hereon is, how it follows from hence that sin shall not have dominion over us, that sin cannot extend its territories and rule into that state, and in what sense this is affirmed.

1. Is it that there shall be no sin in them any more? Even this is true in some sense. Sin as unto its condemning power hath no place in this state, Rom. viii. 1. All the sins of them that believe are expiated or done away, as to the guilt of them, in the blood of Christ, Heb. i. 3, 1 John i. 7. This branch of the dominion of sin, which consists in its condemning power, is utterly cast out of this state. But sin as unto its being and operation doth still continue in believers whilst they are in this world; they are all sensible of it. Those who deceive themselves with a contrary apprehension are most of all under the power of it, 1 John i. 8. Wherefore, to be freed from the dominion of sin is not to be freed absolutely from all sin, so as that it should in no sense abide in us any more. This is not to be under grace, but to be in glory.

2. Is it that sin, though it abides, yet it shall not fight or contend for dominion in us? That this is otherwise we have before declared. Scripture and the universal experience of all that believe do testify the contrary; so doth the assurance here given us that it shall not obtain that dominion: for if it did not contend for it, there could be no grace in this promise, — there is none in deliverance from that whereof we are in no danger.

But the assurance here given is built on other considerations; whereof the first is, that the gospel is the means ordained and instrument used by God for the communication of spiritual strength unto them that believe, for the dethroning of sin. It is the “power of God unto salvation,” Rom. i. 16, that whereby and wherein he puts forth his power unto that end. And sin must be really dethroned by the powerful acting of grace in us, and that in a way of duty in ourselves. We are absolved, quitted, freed from the rule of sin, as unto its pretended right and title, by the promise of the gospel; for thereby are we freed and discharged from the rule of the law, wherein all the title of sin unto dominion is founded, for “the strength of sin is the law:” but we are freed from it, as unto its internal power and exercise of its dominion, by internal spiritual grace and strength in its due exercise. Now, this is communicated by the gospel; it gives life and power, with such continual supplies of grace as are able to dethrone sin, and forever to prohibit its return.

Podcasts

2010-08-12T14:30:00.002-05:00

I thought I would update my list of Podcasts I listen to on iTunes

My Main Listening diet:

The White Horse Inn (Michael Horton and Friends discuss practical theology)

The Reformed Forum (a group of Reformed pastors interview theologians and talk books/theology)

Morning Prayer. A daily podcast with prayer and Scripture readings based on the Book of Common Prayer Morning Prayer service. Great for a 15 minute ride to work.

Other programs I will listen to on occasion:

Office Hours

(Westminster Seminary California)

Ordinary Means.
(Reformed pastors calling the church back to the Biblical Ordinary means of grace)

Issues etc. (Talk show produced by pastors associated with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod)

Ask Pastor John. A very short podcast series of reader questions that John Piper answers off the cuff.

9 Marks Interviews (Mark Dever)

NPR – Religion
(Stories on Religion from NPR from the week)

Covenant Radio

(Reformed discussion of theology)

Vos on Legalism

2010-08-11T07:00:00.000-05:00

"There are still abroad forms of a Christless gospel. There prevails still a subtle form of legalism which would rob the Savior of his crown of glory, earned by the cross, and would make of him a second Moses, offering us the stones of the law instead of the life bread of the gospel."

-Geerhardus Vos. Anthology. pg 181

(Matthew 7:9 - "which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?")

God without Christ?

2010-08-10T07:00:00.003-05:00

Came across this great quote on Reverand Paul McCain's Website:

He who wants to know God, love God, worship God, and serve God should learn to know Christ aright, should love Christ, should worship Christ, and serve Him. To know, love, worship, or serve God without Christ is impossible.

-Martin Luther

Valley of Vision editor

2010-08-09T07:00:00.000-05:00

I had wondered a few times about the compiler of "Valley of Vision," a book of Puritan prayers that has been personally rewarding and our church sometimes uses for worship. Justin Taylor has posted a short biography of the man, Arthur Bennett, that was an evangelist to the homeless and greatly ministered to by the early puritan movement, especially in the piety of prayer.

"Who is Arthur Bennett?"

Sinclair Ferguson on Holiness

2010-08-06T16:30:00.001-05:00

I've been trying to listen to more of Sinclair Ferguson's sermons lately, as they have been recommended to me by several people. These I found particularly helpful. Doctrinal, serious in their call to holiness (the topic addressed in these sessions) but also gospel-filled. Take a listen to these from a Ligonier Conference:

Titus 2:11-14 - Our Holiness: The Father's Purpose and the Son's Purchase

John 15 - Our Holiness: Abiding in Christ's Love

Evangelicals and Catholics Together...in Error.

2010-07-23T15:00:00.003-05:00

I've been interested lately by the fact that many Modern Evangelicals and Catholics have a similar theology in some regards. I'm not talking about the catholic elements that all Christians share: doctrine of the Trinity, deity of Christ, etc. I have my own idea of it, but I thought I might ask here first:

What doctrine do many/most evangelicals (read: influenced by charismatics and anabaptists) and Catholics hold that Reformed/Lutherans do not hold?

or

What doctrine do both Evangelicals and Catholics deny that Reformed/Lutherans affirm?

Watching the Lutherans, and Violating the 10th Commandment

2010-07-18T19:59:00.007-05:00

Something happened last week that few people in the PCA noticed (at least judging from the blogging world). Everyone, of course, noticed the passing of the Strategic Plan by a slim majority in the PCA. In doing so, it seemed to signal the slight majority looking to cultural cues and has moved away from her sister denomination the OPC, seeing her has a little too confessional and “truly reformed” but still does not embrace the mainline PCUSA. They're the evangelicals, not the liberals, not the fundamentalists (which many wrongly equate with confessionalism). In other words, the PCUSA tried to be culturally relevant and failed, but we can do it and we won't fail, because we're smarter or something.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, however, had a much different Synod. They have theirs less often (once every three years), and so their business is serious when they do. There are two groups, much like the PCA, vying for control. One is the confessionalists (to the Book of Concord) who are largely younger, and the other more relevant people (mostly older) who don't want to be like the Wisconsin Synod that seems too narrow in its confessionalism, and they think they can do the culturally relevant thing but not be like the ELCA, because they're smarter or something.

At the LCMS Synod, something interesting happened. The Confessionalists won. They elected their Synodical President Matt Harrison, they filled the mission agencies with confessionalists, all young ministers, and the party the young people found relevant was the confessionalists and not the culturally relevant guys.

It's just interesting. I hope the Strategic plan is not indicating the the “culturally relevant crowd” is winning in the PCA, but if it does, it will be interesting if a different Reformation denomination becomes more relevant to the emerging generation because they didn't try to be...

"High-Church" Preaching?

2010-07-17T13:00:00.001-05:00

“You have a high-church approach to preaching, which is fine, but we're more used to practical preaching.”

This was what I was told after outlining my plan to preach that the story of Jacob and Esau was about gracious election in Christ. In this class on preaching, I was told that contrasting the merit-based love of Isaac to the gracious love of God was not wrong, just high minded. It was fine, but depended on the forum. It was a thing of higher thinking, more complex with abstract connections.

I wondered: is that true? Is being theological or Christocentric/Christotelic (preaching with the end biblical theme of Christ) “high-church”? The person knew I was Presbyterian, and so perhaps that is where the comment came from. Most Presbyterians, however, would be quite surprised to hear they were high-church, having descended from non-conformists that thought the Anglican church was too high church. Still, Presbyterianism seems high church compared to typical non-denominational/charismatic worship.

Still, I truly wondered if it was true. Could people other than the highly educated 'get' a theological sermon? Depending on the audience, did one need to keep it simple, give some pithy imperatives and walk the congregation through some super specific hypothetical applications and wrap up with a fun story?

If this is true, Protestantism is false. Theology makes up a good portion of the Scriptures - all of it in some sense, but a good portion in a proper sense. Are Paul's letters to be neglected in preaching? Are they to be translated into fun stories? Is Hebrews a book of shadows for the typical congregant? Protestantism believes in the intelligibility/perspicuity of Scripture. If it is not, we ought to be Gnostics or Catholics, but I repeat myself.

I preached my sermon on election, without ever even saying the word (we allow God to 'choose to love' even if we don't allow him to “elect”). It wasn't the best sermon in world. It wasn't my favorite of the ones I preached. It probably wasn't even the best delivered that day of three. But I was encouraged when one person caught me afterward and asked if I have opportunities to preach somewhere.

“Occasionally,” I replied.

“You should use that one, I needed it.”

Maybe doctrine and the Gospel are practical. Even with the flaws my sermon had, I do believe God rewards preaching the word of Christ, for “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17) If that's high church preaching, I think I'm in good company with Paul.

Bruised Reed

2010-07-12T17:57:00.003-05:00

a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
-Matthew 12:20/Isaiah 42:3

"After conversion we need bruising so that reeds may know themselves to be reeds, and not oaks...hence we learn that we must not pass too harsh judgment upon ourselves or others when God exercises us with bruising upon bruising. There must be a conformity to our head, Christ, who 'was bruised for us' that we may know how much we are bound unto him. Ungodly spirits, ignorant of God's ways in bringing his children to heaven, censure broken-hearted Christians as miserable persons, whereas God is doing a gracious good work with them. It is no easy matter to bring a man from nature to grace, and from grace to glory, so unyielfing and intractable are our hearts.

-Richard Sibbs. The Bruised Reed.

Prayers for the Sick

2010-07-06T22:21:00.003-05:00

Throughout my time as a Chaplain this summer, I have prayed, multiple times a day, with the sick. Although I do not read my prayers from a prayer book or the Bible, I also don't think my own words are so grand as not to be helped by Scripture and wise holy men's prayers. Here are a few that I read occasionally and use to form my own prayers with patients:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.

-2 Corinthians 1:3-5

O Father of mercies and God of all comfort, our only help in
time of need: We humbly beseech thee to behold, visit, and
relieve thy sick servant N. for whom our prayers are desired.
Look upon him with the eyes of thy mercy; comfort him with
a sense of thy goodness; preserve him from the temptations
of the enemy; and give him patience under his affliction. In
thy good time, restore him to health, and enable him to lead
the residue of his life in thy fear, and to thy glory; and grant
that finally he may dwell with thee in life everlasting; through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

- Prayer for a sick person, Book of Common Prayer.

Strengthen your servant N., O God, to do what he has to doand bear what he has to bear; that, accepting your healing
gifts through the skill of surgeons and nurses, he may be
restored to usefulness in your world with a thankful heart;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

-Prayer before Operation. Book of Common Prayer.

Depart, O Christian soul, out of this world;
In the Name of God the Father Almighty who created you;
In the Name of Jesus Christ who redeemed you;
In the Name of the Holy Spirit who sanctifies you.
May your rest be this day in peace,
and your dwelling place in the Paradise of God.

or

Into your hands, O merciful Savior, we commend your
servant N. Acknowledge, we humbly beseech you, a sheep of
your own fold, a lamb of your own flock, a sinner of your
own redeeming. Receive him into the arms of your mercy,
into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the
glorious company of the saints in light. Amen.

May his soul and the souls of all the departed, through the
mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

-A Commendation at the Time of Death. Book of Common Prayer

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
forever.
- Psalm 23

Proverbs of Ashes

2010-07-03T12:00:00.005-05:00

I recently re-read Richard John Neuhaus' little book "As I Lay Dying," a book written in reflection over a period of time where, struggling with cancer, Neuhaus thought he was going to die. We all think a lot about life, and the "good life." Few think, however, about death or a "good death." Such a thing seems contradictory. Death is bad. This world seems very indifferent to death:

Psalm 103:15-16 - As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more.

Neuhaus states:

"Our little story is one of unrequited love for a world that moves on."

The Poet Stephen Crane put it so well:

A man said to the universe:
 "Sir I exist!"
 "However," replied the universe,
 "The fact has not created in me
 A sense of obligation."

I find a strange comfort that Scripture does not ignore these feelings. Job's horrible comforters who merely offered religious sounding cliches left him saying:

"Your maxims are proverbs of ashes;
your defenses are defenses of clay." (Job 13:12)

Faith doesn't shut us up in asking why. It doesn't even shut us up from confronting God:

"Though he slay me, I will hope in him;
yet I will argue my case to His face." (Job 13:15)

Neuhaus has made me re-explore these sentiments. I appreciate his take because he too worked as a chaplain, among those journeying through the shadow of death. Sometimes people shout, sometimes they parrot proverbs of ashes, and sometimes they hope in God, even as they argue their case to his face. I don't think it is the role of the counselor to shut the Jobs of the world up with proverbs of ashes, but to be there to listen to it. If we are, as believers, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) then our conduct should be like the great high priest, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses." (Heb 4:15) Rather, we "rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep," (Rom 12:15) just as Christ wept (John 11:35). He was present and He sympathized. Our observations about the crookedness and perversity of the world are valid, they are the reason we need Someone to hope in, and sit next to, while we are slayed.

Chaplain Resources

2010-06-24T18:00:00.000-05:00

As you have probably noticed, I have been quite busy and unable to post much lately. The reason I have been busy is that I am participating in a Summer Chaplaincy program at a Hospital. The experience has been very ecumenical, for good or ill, working at a Methodist Hospital with Baptist and Presbyterian supervisors, serving alongside others of all backgrounds.

I'm a confessional Presbyterian and love the homiletical and theological resources of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. However, so far, most of resources that I actually find useful on a daily basis are Anglican. I thought I might offer what I find helpful to others who may be doing hospital visits or chaplaincy work.

I began caring with me a Book of Common Prayer (BCP) into rooms. Yes, this is the 1979 version that everyone thinks is liberal, but it is actually very helpful, filled with prayers largely based on the services of Thomas Cranmer, the martyred Archbishop of Canterbury that nearly made the Church of England Reformed. It contains a large number of prayers for the sick. If one is nervous about what to pray for, reading these prayers before entering the room can help the pastor know what might be good to pray for (healing, skill in nurses and doctors, comfort, salvation, etc.) The BCP also has a service/prayers for the family upon death, which helps if one is struggling for good words at this time. One of the best parts is the Psalter. Many who are sick wish to hear their favorite Psalms (23, 40, 46, etc) and this has a modern language version based on the NRSV, which is 98% the same as the ESV.

I recently picked up a combination Book of Common Prayer and NRSV Bible. If a patient, instead of a Psalm wishes to hear Romans 8 (or Romans 9 if they're Presbyterian), John 10, or something different, you are not scrambling for the Gideon or leaving and coming back with a Bible, or carrying multiple books awkwardly into the room. Again, yes this is the NRSV, but it is largely similar to the ESV except for some gender neutral language that is easy to change back while reading. This is better than lugging around the 1928 and trying to change all the "eths" and "thous" in reading which sounds overly formal and detached at a time that needs to be intimate.

Finally, driving to work can be intimidating each morning. So to help on the drive in, I have started listening to Morning Prayer put out by an Anglican Church in podcast form. It is mostly a reading of an Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel passage with prayer. The Scripture passages help form my prayer language throughout the day.

Reformed Pastor: Sermons must first be preached to one's self

2010-05-25T15:42:00.005-05:00

Richard Baxter gave a series of talks to pastors in England from Independent, Presbyterian and Anglican Churches. They were intended to address the manner in which a pastor should be reformed by the Scriptures and God in order to form his congregation. Here is a selection of one imperative for pastors:

"Content not yourselves with being in a state of grace, but be also careful that your graces are kept in vigorous and lively exercise, and that you preach to yourselves the sermons which you study, before you preaching them to others. If you did this for your own sakes, it would not be lost labour; but I am speaking to you upon the public account, that you would do it for the sake of the Church, When you minds are in a holy, heavenly frame, your people are likely to partake of the fruits of it. Your prayers, and praises, and doctrine will be sweet and heavenly to them. They will likely feel when you have been much with God: that which is most on your hearts, is like to be most in their ears. I confess I must speak it by lamentable experience, that I publish to my flock the distempers of my own soul. When I let my heart grow cold, my preaching is cold; and when it is confused, my preaching is confused; and so I can oft observe also in the best of my hearers, that when I have grown cold in preaching, they have grown cold too; and the next prayers which I have heard from them have been too like my preaching. We are the nurses of Christ's little ones. If we forbear taking food ourselves, we shall famish them; it will soon be visible in their leanness and dull discharge of their several duties. If we let our love decline, we are not like to raise up theirs. If we abate our holy care and fear, it will appear in our preaching; if the matter show it not, the manner will. If we feed on unwholesome food, either errors or fruitless controversies, our hearers are like to fare the worse for it. Whereas, if we abound in faith and love and zeal, how would it overflow to the refreshing of the congregations, and how would it appear in the increase of the same graces in them! O brethren, watch therefore over your own hearts: keep out lusts and passions, and worldly inclinations; keep up the life of faith, and love and zeal: be much at home and be much with God. If it be not your daily business to study your own hearts, and to subdue corruption, and to walk with God – if you make not this a work to which you constantly attend, all will go wrong, and you will starve your hearers; or, if you have an affected fervency, you cannot expect a blessing to attend it from on high. Above all, be much in secret prayer and meditation. Thence you must fetch the heavenly firethat must kindle your sacrifices: remember, you cannot decline and neglect your duty, to your own hurt alone; many will be losers by it as well as you. For your people's sakes, therefore, look to your hearts. If a pand of spiritual pride should overtake you, and you should fall into any dangerous error, and vent your own inventions to draw away disciples after you, what a wound may this prove to the Church, of which you have the oversight; and you may become a plague to them instead of a blessing, and they may wish they had never seen your faces. Oh, therefore, take heed to your own judgments and affections. Vanity and error will shyly insinuate, and seldom come without fair pretences: great distempers and apostasies have usually small beginnings. The prince of darkness doth frequently personate an angel of light, to draw the children of light again into darkness. How easily also will distempers creep in upon our affections and our first love, and fear and care abate! Watch, therefore, for the sake of yourselves and others.

But, besides this general course of watchfulness, methinks a minister should take some special pains with his heart, before he is to go to the congregation: if it be then cold, how is he likely to warm the hearts of his hearers? Therefore, go then specially to God for life: read some rousing, awakening book, or meditate on the weight of the subject of which you are to speak, and on the great necessity of your people's souls, that you may go in the zeal od the Lord into his house. Maintain in this manner, the life of grace in yourselves, that it may appear in all your sermons from the pulpit, - that every one who comes cold to the assembly, may have some warmth imparted to him before he depart."

-Richard Baxter. The Reformed Pastor. Pg 61-63

Prayer of Calvin

2010-05-20T07:00:00.000-05:00

Grant, Almighty God, that as thou hast been pleased to set before us an example of every perfection in thine only-begotten Son, we may study to form ourselves in imitation of him, and so to follow not only what he has prescribed, but also what he really performed, that we may prove ourselves to be really his members, and thus confirm our adoption; and may we so proceed in the whole course of our life, that we may at length be gathered into that blessed rest which the same, thine only-begotten Son, hath obtained for us by his own blood. Amen.

- John Calvin. Prayer in reflection on Jeremiah 23:11

God and Guinness

2010-05-18T07:00:00.000-05:00

Many evangelicals know the name Os Guinness, author of "The Call." Many also know there is some dark, ominous liquid substance by the same last name. Many also may not know the connection. The Guinness family is an Irish Protestant family that has been known for promoting two things: God and Beer. Perhaps an interesting combination (in America at least, not Ireland). But coming across this video peaked my interest. This is the same author of a book on the faith of George W. Bush, writing "The Search for God and Guinness." Perhaps worth a read...

HT: Justin Taylor

Scripture in mind right now

2010-05-17T07:00:00.000-05:00

Hosea 6:1

"Come, let us return to the LORD.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds."

Now you tell me

2010-05-12T07:00:00.000-05:00

It seems that Theology is the third worst paying degree. Now I find out, after I graduate with a Masters of Theology! They do admit:

"This is the perfect example of a degree earned by someone who's "not in it for the money": people who choose to study theology often feel they're pursuing a higher calling (and often feel a strong desire to do good in the world, no matter the cost)"

Seems they don't know about Ed Young Jr...

Learning to read the book of Revelation: Wedding Feast

2010-05-10T07:00:00.001-05:00

This will seem like I am talking about the marriage feast in Isaiah, but what I am actually talking about is how to read the book of Revelation. Is the book of Revelation a chronological account of the events at the end of time, or is it a series of visions that give account of the events at the end of time from different perspectives, and not necessarily chronological (but a recapitulation)?

Throughout the book of Isaiah are many promises of judgment. Chapters 1-39, especially, include much distress with little relief. The one major exception to this litany of judgments is the promise of relief and deliverance in Isaiah 25. Here Isaiah delivers the oracle that:

Isaiah 25:6-8 - On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.

Here, Isaiah promises a reversal of the pain of the fall, sin and the exile. Full restoration is pictured as a feast on a mountain with rich food and aged wine. This is the time of comfort, where the Lord “will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth.” (Isaiah 25:8)

This feast is again considered near the end of Isaiah's prophecies. Again, the picture is of restoration:

Isaiah 65:13-17 - Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame; behold, my servants shall sing for gladness of heart, but you shall cry out for pain of heart and shall wail for breaking of spirit. You shall leave your name to my chosen for a curse, and the Lord GOD will put you to death, but his servants he will call by another name. So that he who blesses himself in the land shall bless himself by the God of truth, and he who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten and are hidden from my eyes. "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

Isaiah here connects the feast with the act of new creation, when the new heavens and the new earth are created/renewed. The feast is the time of realization of the promises of creation. Taking the passages together, Isaiah 25 and 65 picture the feast at the end of the age as the time of 1) wiping tears from the eyes of God's people 2) the realization of the time of the new heavens and new earth.

John picks up this image in the book of Revelation, with his vision of the wedding feast of the lamb that Isaiah predicted:

Rev 19:6-9 - Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure"-- for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."

However, the re-creative act that Isaiah located at the time of the feast is not described until Revelation 21:

Rev 21:1-5 - Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

Thus, the one event of Isaiah 25 and 65 are described in two places: Revelation 19 and 21. However, we have been told this is one event, one time.

This, of course, makes it difficult because between Revelation 19 and 21 is Revelation 20. Revelation 20 is the passage that speaks of a period called the millenium, a period of time before the judgment of the wicked.

Revelation 19: wedding feast of God's people, while battle of judgment occurs.

Revelation 20: period called the millenium followed by judgment

Revelation 21: Comfort (wiping every tear) and New Creation

One view (chronological) sees these as presented in chronological order: feast, then judgment battle, then millenium, then judgment, then new creation.

This view has a few problems, however, in that the book of Revelation would then present a series of similar looking battles (Revelation 16:14-16, 19:19-21, 20:7-10), which would be odd. However, it would make empty the picture of the marriage feast that would not be the time of new creation, but separated by 1000 years and more death, rather than the end of death and the end of death.

The choice is one of two views of the book of Revelation:

1) Insist that Revelation is to be read chronologically and so to divorce New Creation and the Marriage Feast, leaving the feast, if we can say it this way, a meal of empty calories, no longer signifying the great reality that Isaiah promised.

2) Allow that Revelation contains visions of recapitulation and so see the visions as parallel accounts of the same reality. Then, New Creation and the marriage feast are still wedded, and the marriage feast retains its intended picture of hope.

Machen on Doctrinal Accuracy

2010-05-07T07:00:00.006-05:00

"Clearcut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from 'controversial' matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life."

-J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. pg 1

[somehow, I don't think Machen would like 'safe places' and the assumption that we have our doctrine good enough and it is time to move on to more important matters]

Pictures of the Supper: The Marriage Feast

2010-05-05T07:00:00.004-05:00

The final picture of the Supper is the substance of the anticipation of the Supper: The Marriage Feast of the Lamb

The Lord's Supper occurs in light of eschatological expectation. We have seen the principle of fellowship meal over bread and wine with Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14. We have seen the institution of the Passover meal, that looked back to redemption from Egypt and grew to look forward to the coming of Messiah and final sacrifice. In both Passover and the Exodus 24:11 covenant meal we have seen the principle of a celebratory meal in light of sacrifice. Since the Supper happens in light of this eschatological expectation, we naturally ask if it is the full realization of eschatological expectation or if the Lord's Supper also looks forward to another reality.

The first example we might cite that the Supper is looking forward to a future time is Paul's instructions on the celebration of the Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:26. There, Paul states that “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. ” The final clause “until he comes” indicates the Supper is an instituted ritual that will continue until such time as Christ returns. They question arises, why would the celebration of the Lord's Supper cease at that time?

Jesus hints at a future aspect to the Supper at the institution of the Supper. In the Luke account, eschatological references are made when Jesus tells the disciples that “I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 22:16) Similarly, Jesus reflects on the cup that “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” (Luke 22:18) This selection indicates that there will be a continuation of eating and drinking in the eschaton. Since Paul has indicated that feast is not equivalent to the Lord's Supper, we must inquire as to what is that meal.

Of significance to note in our study is the treatment of another meal in the Scriptures. Isaiah 25:6-8 gives some relief to the oracles of judgment against Israel by foretelling the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. Full restoration is pictured as a feast on a mountain with rich food and aged wine. This is the time of comfort, where the Lord “will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth.” (Isaiah 25:8) The same themes are repeated in Isaiah 65:13-17, where new creation is also added to the picture of the wedding feast.

The first coming, and so the Lord's Supper, must be seen as corresponding to the promise of Isaiah 25 and 65. The promise of the Supper was a communion with Christ's blood and body. (1 Cor 10:16) In commenting on this passage, John Calvin suggests that “from the physical things set forth in the Sacrament we are led by a sort of analogy to spiritual things.” Scripture describes the purpose of both bread and wine in Psalm 104:15, where it is written God gives “bread to strengthen man's heart” and “ wine to gladden the heart of man.” Scripture seems to understand that this can, to some degree be experienced in the Lord's Supper, with the first fruits of comfort and new creation. The first coming inaugurated the blessings promised in the imagery of Isaiah 25 and 65. John 2 describes the wedding feast at Cana, where Jesus turns the water into wine when the wine had run out. This was a "sign" because the Old Testament promised an age of abundant wine, and Jesus was beginning to fulfill that promised age.

Although there is already an aspect of the eschatological hope of the Passover and covenant meal in the Lord's Supper, that hope is not yet fully realized. Isaiah 25 functions within a broader deliverance section that includes chapter 26, where the resurrection of the dead is promised. (Isaiah 26:19) Although Jesus is the first fruits of that, final fulfillment awaits the resurrection of believers. If Isaiah 26:19 awaits Jesus' second coming for fulfillment, it is not a stretch to say Isaiah 25:6-8 also has not been realized in fulfillment. Although God in Christ is present at the Lord's Supper when we celebrate it, it is not in such a way that there are no more tears and a new incorruptible creation as Isaiah 25 and 65 promise, respectively. This promise of comfort comes in the context of the previous chapter where commentator Alec Motyer notes the reference to the elders in Isaiah 24:23 looks back to Exodus 24:11.* Isaiah 25 connects Exodus 24 with this eschatological hope as well. Since Exodus 24 also looked forward to the Lord's Supper, we must say that since the promises of Isaiah 25 have not been realized, and the Lord's Supper too still looks forward to this eschatological feast.

The unrealized aspect of the eschatological hope in the Lord's Supper and the marriage feast of the lamb is confirmed by the re-occurrence of the imagery of the marriage feast in Revelation 19:6-10. This passage in Revelation has obvious parallels to Isaiah 25:6-8 and Isaiah 65:13-17. Since Isaiah 25:6-8 pictures the feast as the place of God “wiping away tears” and Isaiah 65:13-17 pictures the feast as the place of new creation, we see the bridal picture of Revelation 21:1-6 also reflects this wedding feast. The Wedding Feast in Isaiah 25:6-8, 65:13-17 and Revelation 19:6-10, 21:1-6 all are pictures of this one feast, the culmination of the eschatological hopes of the end of suffering, new creation, and the unencumbered reign of Christ, where sin no longer not only has no rights, but no influence over the creation and the believer.

In this way, we see the Lord's Supper looks towards the Second Coming of Christ. Russell Moore described the eschatology of the Supper as “The meal Jesus feeds us then is a sign of an eschatological banquet, with the church acknowledging the 'already' and pining for the 'not yet.'” The not yet would be the consummation of the marriage. Figuratively, this would indicate the enjoyment of the full benefits of union with Christ. These benefits, then, will not be “through a mirror darkly” inhibited and encumbered by sin, but in a state of sinless enjoyment. The sustenance of bread would no longer be spiritual and in hope, but actual and perpetual. The joy of the wine would never decline, but ever increase. Since both of these point to their reality in the person of Christ, the reality of the blessings are apprehending, depending, and delighting in the person of Jesus Christ, the Lord God and Savior of His church in the marriage feast of the Lamb at the end of the age.

*[Alec Motyer. Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 171.]

Pictures of the Supper: Covenant Meal - Exodus 24

2010-05-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

Exodus Meals

The narrative of Exodus includes two prominent community meals. Exodus 18:12 records a meal of Jethro and the people of God. First an offering was offered, and then the community came together to eat “before God.” In Exodus 24:11, within the context of covenant renewal and after the sprinkling of the blood of atonement over the people, the Israelites share a meal. Here too, God is said to be present, for “they saw God.”

Neither of the meals recorded in Exodus are recorded as Passover observances. Even though they are not in the direct line from the Passover to the Lord's Supper, they have relevance and Eucharistic significance. They have similarities to the Passover in that a sacrifice or atonement precedes the meal. Commentator Peter Enns notes, “An element essential to both the Passover and the Lord's Supper, and one that is also prominent in Exodus 24, is the shedding of blood...the sprinkling of blood...is an integral element in a covenant celebration.”* The meal, then, is enjoyed in celebration of a reconciliation of the people and God through sacrifice. Both Exodus 18:12 and 24:11, also, record the meal as being in the presence of God. This apparently is enabled by the preceding sacrifice before the meal can be enjoyed.

The Exodus 24:11 meal also happens in the context of a covenant. In Exodus 24:11 covenant meal is the product of the Exodus redemption. The people had been redeemed by the blood of the lamb. Here, the people are sprinkled against with blood after the giving of the law in Exodus 20. Exodus 20 begins with the affirmation that “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exodus 20:2) The imperatives of the law were given in light of the indicative of redemption. In Exodus 24, the people are reminded of the covenant (Exodus 24:7) and reminded of their redemption by blood (Exodus 24:8). In light of covenant redemption, the people eat and drink.

Although the Exodus meals are not a direct celebration of Passover, they share a covenantal nature with Passover. When Christ takes the cup and declares it to be “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20) although we typically think of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 34 with the language of new covenant, we also must think of Exodus 24 with the connection of blood and covenant. Passover, the Exodus 24:11 covenant meal, and the Lord's Supper, are all celebratory meals in light of the redeeming blood of the covenant. The Passover and covenant meal sacrifices required repetition, but the Lord's Supper happens in light of the “once for all” sacrifice of Christ. (Heb 10:10)

*[Peter Enns. Exodus: The NIV Application Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2000), 496. And no this is not a full endorcement of all things Enns. However, his Exodus commentary is very helpful]

Pictures of the Supper: Passover

2010-04-30T07:00:00.000-05:00

The second major picture of the Lord's Supper is the Passover:

Passover

Exodus chapter 11 records the Tenth plague against the Egyptians. This plague was a destruction of the first-born of all those who did not put the blood of a lamb over the door of their house. This final plague convinced the Pharaoh to release the Israelites from Egypt in order for them to return to the land God had promised them.

In the original observance of passover, the passover lamb was killed and the blood smeared with a hyssop branch on the doorposts of the family's home. (Exodus 12:21-22) These instructions for the observance of the passover must have a future orientation, since the original Passover was one night and this instruction for observance is to be practiced over seven days. (Ex 12:15) The flesh of the lamb is eaten along with unleavened bread. (Ex 12:8) It appears that only later was wine added to this ritual. Eventually four communal cups were used and passed around for the family to drink. Eventually, a dispute arose over whether to have four or five cups. A compromise came that four cups were used, and a fifth was set for Elijah. This is sometimes thought to be a proxy for Moses or that Elijah is prophesized to come before the Messiah, adding an element of eschatological hope of a future redemption to the meal. Each Passover, the Jews were reminded that though they celebrated a past deliverance, they also looked forward to a greater future hope in the Messiah.

The Gospel writers all seem to present the Lord's Supper as happening during the time of Passover. Luke 22:8 records Jesus giving the instructions to his disciples to “prepare for us the passover that we may eat it.” Most commentators assume that if the four cup ritual was in use at the time of Jesus, that his words relating the Passover elements to himself come with the third cup, a thanksgiving to God for bringing forth the fruit of the vine.

Supper in the time of the Passover: The Hallel passages of the Psalter were typically sung in the passover season (pss 113-118). Hence, since these songs were in the minds of the Jews, Christ was greeted by these words (Ps. 118:25) when he entered Jerusalem. (Matt 21:9) Although we can not be certain as to the significance of this selection from a Passover psalm in the minds of the children, the author of the gospel of Matthew certainly expected the connection to be made with his Jewish audience that this was a song sung during the celebration of passover and it anticipates Christ.

Paul most clearly makes the connection, when in 1 Corinthians 5:7 he refers to Christ as “our passover, sacrificed for us.” Christ is anticipated in the lamb, for only after atonement would the celebratory section of the meal begin. In taking the elements of the meal, Christ also infuses meaning into these portions of the meal as well. Christ associates the bread with his body (Luke 22:19) and the wine with his blood. (Luke 22:20) Although we did not see the wine or bread as anticipating directly Christ's coming before Christ, after the institution of the Supper in the Gospels, we now do.

The Passover can be seen to anticipate Christ in two important ways. First, the lamb whose blood redeems the covenant family points to Christ's sacrifice. Second, the meal looks towards a celebratory event. The celebratory nature of the meal in light of reconciliation should be instructive. Jewish practice was not a solemn mournful meal, but a celebration of the reality of what comes after atonement, forgiveness and resurrection.

Pictures of the Supper: Abraham and Melchizedek

2010-04-28T07:00:00.000-05:00

The Lord's Supper is not the only instance of a meal of significance. Throughout Scripture there are pictures of meals of fellowship, covenant renewal and worship. Here, I would merely like to display a few of those pictures as they inform how we look at the Lord's Supper in a Biblical Theological manner.

Picture 1: Abraham and Melchizedek

The first instance in recorded Scripture of a shared meal of bread and wine is Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18. Here, Abraham (then Abram) and the king of Sodom share a meal in celebration of a victory and Abraham gives a tenth of his wealth to Melchizedek. This precipitates a remembering of an oath,* perhaps a covenant oath, to God, and the praise of God for Abraham's provision.

Melchizedek is associated with Christ in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, in chapter 7, cites this encounter (Heb 7:1-2; Gen 14:17-20), as a proof of the superiority of the order of Melchizedek, one whom Abraham paid tithes to as an inferior. Hebrew 7:22 then makes the connection to Christ, a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the guarantor of a better covenant. The parallels between Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7, as the relation between Abraham and Melchizedek in covenant, blessing and paying honor relate to Christ and the church. So also it would imply the communion enjoyed between Abraham and Melchizedek in the meal of wine and bread may also point forward to the communion enjoyed between Christ and the Church in the Supper of bread and wine.

[See Meredith Kline. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. (Eugene OR, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 312.)

Bavinck on the Church and the means of grace

2010-04-24T07:00:00.003-05:00

In light of my recent post on the strategic plan, I thought I would let Herman Bavinck argue my case, since he does a better job than I in explaining how God intends to accomplish His mission:

"The means of grace, after all, do not stand by themselves but are closely connected with the church and the offices of the church, with Christ's person and work. One might as well ask whether God could not regenerate and save sinners apart from Christ and forgive sins aside from satisfaction. But such questions lead nowhere: we have rest in God's good pleasure, which distributes salvation in no way other than in and through Christ. He is the mediator between God and humanity, the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved [Acts 4:12]. Furthermore, it was equally God's good pleasure to distribute salvation in no other way than through and in the church of Christ...The rule is that God freely binds the distribution of his grace to the church of Christ."

-Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 4. pg 446-447