Hymn: Christ's Baptism of the Church

Christ comes to claim his bride the church with water and the word (Eph 5:26). This hymn is an exploration of the truth of Ephesians 5:26, 1 Cor 3:11, among other texts. I chose it related to baptism for the first stansa which is Ephesians 5:25-26 in poetic form. This is by Samuel Stone, an Anglican minister in the nineteenth century.


The Church's One Foundation

1. The church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
And for her life He died.

2. Elect from every nation,
Yet one over all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

3. Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping;
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.

4. The church shall never perish,
Her dear Lord to defend
To guide, sustain and cherish,
Is with her to the end
Though there be those that hate her,
And false sons in her pale
Against a foe or traitor,
She ever shall prevail

5. Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
’Til, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blessed,
And the great church victorious
Shall be the church at rest.

6. Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee.

What Baptism is...and is not

Modern times have seen a decrease in the priority placed on the sacraments and especially baptism within Protestant churches. We have a fear of being Roman Catholic, where we perceive a faith in the sacraments as man's deeds performed before God, rather than a trust in Christ. The Lord's Supper becomes a sacrifice, performed for meritorious gain. And baptism becomes a work performed to "Christianize" someone by religious performance and ceremony.

In reaction, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have seen a de-emphasis on sacraments. Many churches only occasionally have the Lord's Supper, perhaps quarterly, perhaps only in an evening service, and without much ritual and an explanation of what the supper is NOT. Some churches do not perform baptisms anymore, or perform them outside of the church for the benefit of the person connecting their experience of conversion immediately with baptism.

Such a situation led Peter Leithart, a profoundly intelligent scholar, to write a small (and problematic) book called "The Baptized Body." So much time had been spent saying what baptism doesn't do, Leithart wanted to ask "What does Baptism do to the baptized?" What Leithart wants to know is what baptism objectively does to every single baptized individual.

Leithart's conclusion thesis is that baptism admits the baptized to the visible church, and that that visible church is the body of Christ, and therefore, every baptized individual:

1) Is united to Christ as a member of his body

2) Is married to Christ as part of his Bride

3) Is granted a share in the cross

Leithart always wants these consequences to be part of the effect of baptism. The problem is these things are not granted by ritual ceremony. This belief is called "ex opere operato" or "in the doing of the doing," or "by the very act." However, I would contend that these benefits require reception.

Calvin compared baptism and the promises given in it (the offer of the gospel) to pouring water over vessels. If the vessels have an opening of faith, the promises and grace fill the vessels. If the vessels have no opening, then the vessels are merely drowned in water. The gospel effects of baptism occur for the elect, not the non-elect.

Leithart does admit that cursing and judgment can occur after baptism, but he applies to those who are united, married and sharing in the cross by baptism. Does baptism first perform a positive work (union with Christ) then condemning (in their apostasy)?

The comparison of baptism to the word here may be appropriate. Under the preached word, does the preached word always have the desired effect of softening and conversion? Does everyone who hears become converted? Or does the same word go out, and to some it is received and to others it is rejected? The same Spirit accompanies the word to both people, one to soften, the other to harden. Yet the preached word does not first ALWAYS convert and then in some later harden. So too, baptism does not ALWAYS unite and marry the recepient then only to condemn some later.

We do well to restrict the invisible church, the true elect, as known only to God and as the recepients of the benefits of baptism as the Westminster Confession does (25:1) and assign to the visible church the status of mixed community or kingdom that encompasses both elect and non-elect in the church as Scripture also does in Matthew 13 (and the WCF does in 25:2).

So what does baptism do? It always serves as entrance into the visible church. Yet, what else it does depends on what the Spirit desires to do through it. To those who are granted faith, baptism is seen as the place where the promises of God were extended, and the laver of regeneration exhibited. To those who reject the faith, baptism is the place where they rejected the offer of substitution in the baptism that Christ spoke about:

Luke 12:49-50: "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

For the faithful, Christian baptism is their being united with Christ and His baptism, while for the unfaithful, their baptism of judgment and fire still awaits. Void of faith, their baptism did not unite them to Christ, through Whom salvation from the baptism of judgment is offered. Yet, for the faithful baptism is their salvation in Christ, since for them the baptism of judgment was already suffered by Christ on their behalf.

The Lord assures the faithful:

"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine.
When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you;
when you walk through fire you shall not be burned,
and the flame shall not consume you."

-Isaiah 43:1-2

The Ordinary Means: The Word and Baptism

There are countless definitions that have been given of baptism. We may, however, categorize them as one of two varieties. One defines baptism as something like:

"Baptism is an act of faith and a testimony that one has been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, that one has experienced spiritual circumcision. It is a public indication of one's commitment to Christ." (Millard Erickson. Christian Theology. pg 1110)

The first way is how Erikson defines baptism, as an act done by the believer, confirming the believer's experience and publicly commiting to Christ.

The second variety, however, defines baptism quite differently:

"We don’t think of baptism as something we do, but rather as something God does–at least in the ultimate sense. While the recipient physically gets wet, God washes the elect too with the Holy Spirit unto regeneration in effectual calling." (Preston Graham, pastor)

The second way is how Graham defines baptism, as something God does to the believer. But how does the Bible speak of baptism? I would like to here argue (and though it should be clear, argue I must) that Ephesians 5:26 gives us a picture of the Scriptural understanding of baptism:

Ephesians 5:25b-27: Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So how does Christ wash his Bride?

Paul gives husbands a rich object lesson for their love for their brides in Ephesians 5, saying they must love their wives as Christ loved the church. Yet, when Paul gives this picture, he includes “washing of water with the word.” What does this washing refer to?

John Gill emphatically says it is “not baptism, which is never expressed by washing” but is “the blood of Christ.” This answer has a huge problem reconciling that fact that Paul here specifically mentions “water” not blood. Images exist for washing in Christ’s blood in Heb 9 and Rev 7:14, but these will specifically mention blood and not water. To eliminate any thought of baptism is bold but unfounded. Also, Gill’s comments that baptism is “never expressed by washing” defies the way Scripture uses the word “baptism,” which is used to mean “washing,” in both Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where the disciples are reprimanded by Pharisees for not washing (baptizing) before eating.

Another possibility that has recently been posited is that Paul means an ancient form of “bridal washing.” Commentator Harold Hoehner cites an occasionally practiced rite of washing that a bride performs before a wedding in Greek culture. This, however, would be a poor metaphor, as the husband is said to do the washing in Ephesians 5:26, but the ancient marriage rite would not be done by the husband, for the bride does this to herself before the wedding. (S. Safrai “Home and Family” in The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social Cultural and Religious Life. Ed S. Safrai and M. Stern. 1987 Volume 2, pg 758)

I would submit that the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, and even credo-baptists need not react immediately against such a proposition. Indeed not all credo-baptists do, as John Piper to his credit comments on the verse saying, “The water of baptism is a representation of that spiritual washing. Notice that the cleansing from sin in verse 26 comes from the self-sacrifice of Christ in verse 25. So it is with baptism.”

The commentators Gill and Hoehner share a common prejudice they bring to the text. Hoehner explicitly states he rejects that Ephesians 5:26 refers to baptism because “the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin.” (Hoehner, Ephesians. 753) Both Gill and Hoehner bring to the text an assumption about baptism, rather than letting the Scriptures tell them whether “the rite of baptism” cleanses from sin, and in what sense it would do so. If we can recognize the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, we can learn a great truth about baptism from the text.

The word used for washing in 5:26 is “λουτρῷ”. The only other time the word λουτρῷ is used is used is in Titus 3:5, in refering to the washing of regeneration. However there is a variation used 1 Cor 6:11 and Acts 22:16, which uses the variation ἀπελούσασθε. This variation is also used in regards to baptism in Acts 22:16, where the command is given to be “baptized and wash away your sins.” The word λουτρῷ would also come to have a variant that would be used for a baptismal fount, letting us know how the church received Paul’s use of that word (if the explicit connection by early church writers Cyprian and Marius Victorinus aren’t enough.). But just thinking logically, where is the one place where water would be associated with any member of the church? The only time a church member would come in contact with water in a religious context would be in baptism.

How are we to understand Baptism as washing then? Does the physical act of baptism cleanse the church of sin? This is where careful attention to Paul’s wording of “washing of water with the word” becomes very important. The sacrament is only effective by means of the word. No word = no sacrament. This is not because the words become an incantation where a magic act occurs, but because the outward sign points to and teaches with the word the inward reality that accompanies the sign.

Scripture makes a distinction between the inward reality and the outward sign. Paul had already mentioned the inward reality of “sanctification” in 5:26, so the outward reality of washing with water is natural. As Calvin says: “Having mentioned the inward and hidden sanctification, he now adds the outward symbol…that pledge of that sanctification is held out to us by baptism.” (John Calvin on Ephesians 5:26 in Commentaries, on Galatians and Ephesians. pg 319)

If one were to ask Peter what baptism does, we see his answer in 1 Peter 3:21, that yes “Baptism saves,” but, “not as a removal of dirt from the body.” It is not the waters that cleanse, but the spirit through the word. In other words, the mere act of water touching skin does nothing of itself, but baptism is effectual “as an appeal to God.” The appeal is to the promises of God made in baptism that create a good conscience, not an appeal to God in a self-created good conscience. The washing is something God in Christ through the Spirit does, God is the Effecter, baptism is Christ washing the bride, not the bride washing herself.

Paul so richly tells us the relationship between sign and reality in Romans 2:28-29, when speaking about circumcision, the sign under the old covenant: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” There were many times when the Israelites confused sign and reality, yet, throughout the Old Testament, never was the physical act of circumcision resended. The physical was important, necessary and commanded, yet the inward that accompanies the outward was the reality.

In Ephesians 5:26, the image of washing points to baptism. The wording of washing and the use of water as a symbol that points to the reality, as well as sealing that reality by action. To divorce the two completely tells more of an attempted reading of one’s own theology into the passage than what the passage actually means. The reference is not an acknowledgment of some magical power in the water of baptism, but a testament to the sanctifying nature of the love of a husband for a wife, and of Christ for his church which is figured, exhibited, and conferred when accepted by faith in baptism. Baptism ultimately is something God does for the benefit of the baptized, not something the baptized does for the benefit of other people.

In such a way, baptism is a means of grace for the church. In it, the word is made visible, and the act that the word promises is displayed. Baptism is the place of washing, where Christ washes His bride, those receiving (and not giving something) in faith, in the word of His promise.

[But this may still leave questions as to specifically what Baptism does...]

Hymn: Gospel in the Word

There are actually few hymns that specifically mention the Word, especially written. Isaac Watt's "Laden with Guilt and Full of Fears" is an exception. The hymn also includes what what is sought in Scripture: "Here I behold my Savior's face, in every page."


1. Laden with guilt and full of fears,
I fly to Thee, my Lord,
And not a glimpse of hope appears,
But in Thy written Word
The volumes of my Father’s grace
Does all my griefs assuage
Here I behold my Savior’s face
In every page.

2. This is the field where, hidden, lies
The pearl of price unknown
That merchant is divinely wise
Who makes the pearl his own
Here consecrated water flows
To quench my thirst of sin
Here the fair tree of knowledge grows,
No danger dwells within.

3. This is the judge that ends the strife,
Where wit and reason fail
My guide to everlasting life
Through all this gloomy vale
Oh may Thy counsels, mighty God,
My roving feet command,
Nor I forsake the happy road
That leads to Thy right hand.

Preaching Christ in Law and Gospel

The component parts of declaring what God has done in Christ are found in two concepts: Law and Gospel. Lutherans are known for this distinction, but is it just Luther that says things like:

"The law must be laid upon those that are to be justified, that they may shut up in the prison thereof until the righteousness of faith come-that, when they are cast down and humbled by the law, they should fly to Christ. The Lord humbles them, not to their destruction, but to their salvation. For God wounds, that he may heal again. He kills, that he may quicken again."
-Martin Luther

Nay, Consider:

"By the trumpet of the law he proclaims war with sinners; by the jubilee-trumpet of the gospel he publishes peace...The law condemns a sinner for his first offence; but the gospel offers him the forgiveness of all his offences...Both combine to 'bring the sinner to Christ, the law indirectly as a schoolmaster, showing his need of him: the Gospel directly, exhibiting him to all points suitable to his need."
- Charles Bridges (Anglican priest)


"By the term Law, Paul frequently understands that rule of holy living in which God exacts what is his due, giving no hope of life unless we obey in every respect; and, on the other hand, denouncing a curse for the slightest failure. This Paul does when showing that we are freely accepted of God, and accounted righteous by being pardoned, because that obedience of the Law to which the reward is promised is nowhere to be found. Hence he appropriately represents the righteousness of the Law and the Gospel as opposed to each other...Consequently, this Gospel does not impose any commands, but rather reveals God's goodness, his mercy and his benefits."
-John Calvin (Genevian Reformer)

"There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel; others put gospel instead of the law. A certain class maintains that the law and the gospel are mixed...These men understand not the truth and are false teachers."
-Charles Spurgeon (Particular Baptist)

"We must know that the law is but one part of God’s word, and the gospel another, revealing another part of God’s will, besides that which the law made known; for it adds a qualification to the law, moderating the rigor thereof, after this manner: He is accursed (saith the law) that faileth in any commandment, except (saith the gospel) he be reconciled again in Christ, and in him have the pardon of his transgressions. And yet the law remains forever a rule of obedience to every child of God, though he be not bound to bring the same obedience for his justification before God.”
-William Perkins (English Puritan)


Christ is not preach'd in truth, but in disguise,
If his bright glory half absconded lies.
When gospel-soldiers, that divide the word,
Scarce brandish any but the legal sword.
Shaping the gospel to an easy law,
They build their tott'ring house with hay and straw;
With legal spade the gospel-field he delves,
Who thus drives sinners in unto themselves;
Halving the truth that should be all reveal'd,
The sweetest part of Christ is oft conceal'd

-Ralph Erskine (Scottish Presbyterian theologian)

The Preached Word: What is required for a sermon?

Robert L. Dabney wrote a book in the 1800s that many accepted across denominational lines as presenting what was required of all sermons preached to the church, every time a sermon was to be preached. These qualities included unity, textual fidelity, Instructiveness, Movement, Point, and Order as well as:

"The next property of the good sermon I have named evangelical tone. This is a gracious character, appropriate to the proclamation of that gospel where 'mercy and truth meet together, and righteousness and peace kiss each other.' ... We cannot better describe it than in the words of the apostles, when they so frequently speak of their work as 'preaching Christ,' or 'preaching Christ crucified.' We do not conceive that they mean to declare, the only facts they ever recited were those enacted on Calvary, or that they limited themselves exclusively to the one doctrine of vicarious satisfaction for sin. The abstracts of their sermons, recorded in the New Testament, show that this was not true. But we find that these facts and this doctrine were central to their teachings. They recurred perpetually with a prominence suitable to their importance. More than this, they were ever near at hand, as the focus to which every beam of divine truth must converge. The whole revealed system, with its doctrines and duties, was ever presented in gospel aspects. The law, when preached as a rule of conviction, led to the cross. The law, as a rule of obedience, drew its noblest sanctions from the cross. Such being the method of the inspired men, I would willingly define evangelical preaching by the term scriptural. Let the preacher present all doctrines and duties, not in the lights of philosophy or of human ethics, but of the New Testament. And for enforcement of this quality I cannot do better than refer you to the apostle's declaration, that when he came to preach among the Corinthians (1 Cor 2:2) he 'determined not to know anything among them, save Jesus Christ and him crucified.'"

-Robert Dabney. Sacred Rhetoric (renamed in reissue: Evangelical Eloquence) pg 114-115.

The Ordinary Means: The Word

What do we mean by "the Word"?

We may mean various things by the "word." John calls Christ the Word of God. (John 1:1-17) Jonah is given a word to preach to Ninevah (Jonah 1:1). The message of Paul's gospel is called the word. In the church we call the Bible the Word of God. Do these all mean the same thing?

To some degree yes, to some degree no. There are typically three categories of the word, written, preached and incarnate. Yet, these three are all related in meaning.

Looking first at Jonah, we can see the basic meaning. Jonah is given a "word" to proclaim to Ninevah. Here, we can see that Jonah is not told to proclaim the Torah or Scriptures to Ninevah, but to relay God's message. The word, or message, is God's, but God uses Jonah to deliver the message. God speaks to Ninevah mediately, not immediately. God could merely speak Himself audably to Ninevah, He had no need of Jonah. Yet, God chose to include Jonah, not for Ninevah's sake, but for Jonah's sake and Jonah's privledge (even if he didn't see it as such).

The principle we derive from Jonah's story is that the ministry of the word, the way that God has chosen to relay his message, is mediately, not immediately. God does not ordinarily speak directly to a person, with Jonah, Moses and a few others being the exceptional cases, not the ordinary cases. This is why there is a division in the way we speak between the extraordinary means and the ordinary means. In the ordinary means, there is a mediator.

This is different from what we mean by Christ being mediator, for Christ mediates from us to God in prayer and sacrifice, but the ordinary means mediate the word of God to us, now that Christ is absent. Yet do we not have the Spirit as the mediator? Does the Spirit speak directly to us immediately?

No. Today, the Spirit is found accompanying the Word. Even throughout the events of the Spirit we might find strange in Acts, the Spirit was accompanying the Word in the mouths of the Apostles. Look at Acts 4:31 or Acts 10:44:

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. "

Conversion was never immediate, meaning: conversion happened by the Spirit accompanying the Word. There is never a wordless Spirit. People do not convert apart from the Word. The Spirit accompanies the Word.

This is why Paul writes in Romans 10:14:

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? "

Paul teaches that faith is created in the event of the preaching of the word. God condescends to use the word through human agents to communicate faith to the people. Without human agents, Paul sees no faith being cultivated by the Spirit. The Spirit does not work immediately (directly, without an intermediate means), but mediately through the word, especially preached.

This is the first form of the word: The Preached Word. The other two forms are the Word written (The Scriptures) and the Word Incarnate (The Lord Jesus Christ).

They are all different, yet all work together. The guidance of the preached word is the Word written, for the messager must have the form of the Word given to him in order to faithfully communicate the Word. And the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ, is the object, end and content of that message.

But what comes first, is there a primary Word? Temporally the question winds in circles. Christ came before the message of the church preached or written, but preaching existed before Christ came in the OT, yet also pointed to Christ. Our sake, it may be helpful to think of the order in this way. Christ is the eternal word of God, the word of creation and of redemption. From this reality, the word is given to be preached, to prophets and to apostles. From this received message, the word receives written form in Scripture.

The Word is given first to the apostles, then communicated by the preaching of the church and the book of the church. The word is found in and proclaimed in the church. The primary ground of the communication of God's word is the community of the church. This is different from what we as Americans usually think. We think firstly of an individual, having an immediate encounter with God, then freely associating with other Christians in a church body, in as much as that person can bring forward their assistance to other individuals. Conversion and spiritual growth are envisioned as individual tasks, with communal consequences. The pattern of the Christian life, however, is communal first. The message is proclaimed in the community in the church, from the church's book, of the church's Lord, and these are the means by which the word is communicated to us, that the Spirit uses to cause us to grow in grace and understanding.

The Spiritual Life is Churchly Life. It does not end in the church, and personal, private growth is essential. Yet this personal growth is feed by the corporate feeding. The Christian first encounters God in the church and then takes the Word into the world. That is why it is true that "there is no salvation apart from the church" for the church is the arena of the Word and salvation is both initial and growing, both justification and sanctification. They are indivisible, and where we go for one, we go for the other. We learn by the Church who Christ is and God's revelation from the church's book. For otherwise, "how then will they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of Whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? " (Romans 10:14)


[Next: so why are the sacraments talked about with the word? Why is the church not just the ministry of the word rather than word and sacrament?]

Hymn: The Church

[adapted from earlier post, preparing for a series of posts on the word in the church]

Jesus, with Thy Church abide


If the church is body of Christ, we cannot have Christ without the Church. This moving hymn by Thomas Pollock (pictured right) is a prayer for the Church, to bring others into her for their salvation. Pollock ministered to the poor of London as a minister in the Church of England. Here are the better verses:

Jesus, with Thy Church abide,

Be her Savior, Lord, and Guide,

While on earth her faith is tried:

We beseech Thee, hear us.



Keep her life and doctrine pure,

Help her, patient, to endure,

Trusting in Thy promise sure:

We beseech Thee, hear us.



All her fettered powers release

Bid our strife and envy cease,

Grant the heav'nly gift of peace:

We beseech Thee, hear us.




May she guide the poor and blind,

Seek the lost until she find,

And the broken hearted bind:

We beseech Thee, hear us.



All that she has lost, restore,

May her strength and zeal be more

Than in brightest days of yore:

We beseech Thee, hear us.




May she holy triumphs win,

Overthrow the hosts of sin,

Gather all the nations in,

We beseech Thee, hear us.

Reformed Spirituality: The Community of Faith

The process of sanctification is inseparable from the context of the church community. Early Church Father Ignatius, on his way to martyrdom, recognized this reality. He would often speak of a desire that “my spirit be sanctified by yours”1 or “I require to be sanctified by your church of Ephesus.”2

I say this because I wish to submit that the christian life "happens" through the church, and I wish to explore those avenues. The means by which one is exposed to the word is by ministry of the word given to the church, in the preached word and the sacraments. The word cannot properly be applied outside of the church, for it was to those in the church that God through Paul commissioned those who equip the saints for service.3 The ministry of the word is not found outside of the church, therefore the church is a necessary vehicle by which Christians are sanctified, where salvation is realized.

In fact, Cyprian once wrote "there is no salvation out[side] of the Church." Catholics like to cite this quote, and with some consternation find a Protestant accepting of the concept:

"Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), ...[is] the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

That wording is from the Westminster Confession on the Church. But how can Protestants say this? Do they mean it? They mean it because the church is the arena of the means of grace in the ministry of the word, and the means of grace do not only convert, but sanctify.

The ministry of the word can be expressed alternatively as the ministry of word and sacrament. Primary in this formulation is the word. Paul expressly teaches that God condescends to use preaching as the means by which the message is conveyed in Romans 10:13-15. In using the term “word” we mean primarily what Paul means in telling Timothy to “preach the word.”4 This is how Paul sees Timothy fulfilling his ministry to the church.5 The “word” to Paul stands in for his other phrases he uses, such as gospel, or preaching Christ crucified.6 Paul means by “word” the message of Christ, his Person and work. This gospel message is not merely for unbelievers, but as Christ said, the means by which God sanctifies his people.7

So looking at the sanctifying mission of the church, we look to word and sacrament. To look at the means of spirituality and growth, we look at the means of grace. As the Larger Catechism puts it:

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 .

Thus, I wish to take a look at the Word, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, tackling some thoughts on the main doctrine on Monday at the beginning of the week for each, then moving on to some reflections, implications and perhaps just worship thoughts through the rest of the week. This is for myself, mostly, in simply organizing doctrine in way that can be communicated for others to understand.

1 Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians. Chapter 13. (as translated in A.Cleveland Coxe. Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1, The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.
2 Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians. Chapter 8 (as translated Ibid.)
3 Ephesians 4:11-13
4 2 Tim 4:2 ESV
5 2 Tim 4:5
6 cf. Romans 1:15, 1 Cor 1:23
7 cf. John 17:17

Why Hymns and Psalms?

Why bother with dusty hymns and psalms? What's the difference between hymns, gospel tunes and praise choruses? Why does it matter?

Kevin Twit, the pastor behind the "Indelible Grace" CDs that put many old hymns to new music, gave these two talks below at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville KY, asking: Why Hymns? And why are young people connecting with hymns?

These are great talks on why we should sing more psalms and hymns, not because they are old, but because of what they teach us:

Part 1 audio mp3

Part 2 audio mp3

Christ in Job

A friend of mine, after completing a degree in Theology, found an element missing from his education in reading the Bible. Certainly the degree he received had a course in Bible Study Methods, and several classes where Biblical historical and language skills were cultivated. Yet, as he explained, it was outside of those classes where he learned the most important aspect of Bible Study that he was missing: the point. The point or end or goal of all Scripture was the story of Redemption as accomplished in Christ. Post-graduation, he started personal study to see this in particular books in the Old Testament, such as Jonah and Habakkuk.

I have had a similar feeling of something missing, especially heightened over the past semester, if a previous post was not enough of a clue. I spent 3 and a half hours listening to lectures on the book of Job and at the end, Christ had not been mentioned once.

When I came to a more Reformation understanding of salvation years ago, besides Ephesians, one of my favorite books became Job. Such a statement seems strange, I have heard few say that Job is a favorite Biblical book. I had read the book before and not loved it, yet after understanding salvation, I now loved it. Why?

Job is a story of suffering and conversation. After Job's possessions are taken away, his children are dead and his health goes bad, Job has three friends that come to comfort him. Job opens his mouth and airs his complaint. He did not deserve this. He was righteous and worshiped God, so why does he get this in repayment? But not only that. Job has lived long enough to see that life is not fair. Justice seems thwarted when evil men succeed in life and honest men are robbed and die young.

Job's friends have horrible answers. They basically deny that anything bad does happen to righteous men. They are like the friend that, when something bad happens to you, asks you how you sinned to cause it. Or like the disciples in John 9:2 that ask whose sin caused the blind man to lose his sight. Their words are met with perhaps the best rebuke from Job in the book: "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you." (Job 12:2) Sarcasm must be Job's spiritual gift. The answer deserves a punch in the eye, it has no grip on reality. Righteous people do suffer, evil men do prosper.

Elihu, starting in chapter 32, begins his response. Elihu gives several possible answers to why suffering might occur. But Elihu himself does not have an answer for why Job personally suffers. In chapters 38-41, God Himself questions Job, asking Job if he has done what God has done or knows what God knows. Then Job shuts his mouth, and has some degree of restoration.

What was the book of Job's answer? When Job asks why good men suffer and bad men prosper, why death reigns and pain affects all men, what is the answer to Job's question?

There are two main possibilities:

1. Elihu - This view says Job has sinned in his reaction to his pain. And so Elihu is the mediator that Job was longing for (Job 9:32-33). Elihu thus gives many possibilities for why suffering occurs:

Suffering can be for the purpose of education, preventing something else, corrective, for God's glory, to change one's priorities, a stimulus to prayer, or it can be judgment.

So while Job was righteous before the pain, Job is seen to have sinned in his response to pain. Elihu is seen as the rebuker of Job's sin in pain and introduces God who then continues the rebuke of Job's unrighteousness in pain. Job's fault is that he didn't take it like a man.

I do not take this view for a few reasons. One, it shows Satan was right. In the beginning of the book the whole point of the trials of Job was for God to demonstrate to Satan that indeed Job trusted God, and not merely because God had given Job much. If Job was sinning in offering his complaints (though obviously in some of the hyperbolic ways he says it), then Satan was right.

Two, it would make Job 42:7 a very odd verse indeed:

Job 42:7 - After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

How has Job spoken rightly? Let's look at the second possibility:


2. The book of Job gives no final answer.

This answer seems to be wrong on its face. I will, however, try to explain why I think it is the right answer. Certainly, Elihu does give many good possibilities for what God may be doing in the midst of suffering. Elihu's answers are certainly possibilities. Yet, they are not sufficient.

To merely look for fault in Job, and say that Job sinned and the point of the book is to shut up when you experience pain, ignores the seriousness of Job's case and why this book would bother with 30 chapters exploring Job's complaint. Job states his problems directly and with a true resonating force:

The evil prosper:

Job 21:29-34: "Have you not asked those who travel the roads, and do you not accept their testimony that the evil man is spared in the day of calamity, that he is rescued in the day of wrath? Who declares his way to His face, and who repays him for what he has done? When he is carried to the grave, watch is kept over his tomb. The clods of the valley are sweet to him; all mankind follows after him, and those who go before him are innumerable. How then will you comfort me with empty nothings? There is nothing left of your answers but falsehood."


The problem of death

Job 14:10-12: "But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep."

The problem of cleansing

Job 14:4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one."


The problem of a distant God.

Job 23:3 "Oh, that I knew where I might find Him, that I might come even to His seat!"


The problems of the people of God

Job 16:2 "I have heard many such things; miserable comforters are you all."

Job 12:4 - "I am one mocked by his friends."

The problem of Revelation

Job 28:12 "But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?


The problem of mediation

Job 9:32-33 "For He is not a man, as I am, that I might answer Him, that we should come to trial together. There is no arbiter between us, who might lay his hand on us both."


The problem of wisdom not answering the problem of pain

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

But how has Job spoken rightly? (Job 42:7) Was it merely the repentance? No, God is evaluating the conversation between Job and his friends. Thus, what Job's friends said on whole is not what was true, but what Job said on whole was. Job's friends had looked at Job as having to have done something particularly wrong himself that now Job was getting his due punishment for. It is much like the disciples in John 9:2 asking who sinned to make the man be blind. Instead, Job says the way the world works right now has something deeply wrong with it.

Certainly, we can all share this observation. G.K. Chesterton compared the human condition to a man ship wrecked on an island, yet with him has washed up artifacts from his civilized world. We are in a primitive and harsh world, yet we have things that tell us this is not how it was supposed to be. We have moments of beauty and love that make pain, suffering and injustice a problem. They are evidences that something is deeply wrong.

Job speaks rightly because Job diagnoses the problem of the fallen world. All the things Job cites ARE problems, not things to be ignored or said don't really affect the righteous. They do affect the righteous. They are problems in this world begging for an answer.

In the midst of Job's suffering, even though he cites all these real problems, Job also declares,

Job 19:25-27 - "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!"

Job doesn't know exactly how, but Job knows in his frustrations that the problems he cites will be addressed, and not just spiritually, but "in the flesh."

We know more fully now how that problem is addressed, and Who Job's Redeemer is. To the problem of death, Christ brings resurrection. To the problem of injustice, Christ will bring final judgment with the sword. To the problem of the poor comforts of the people of God, Christ is born under the Law, into the people of God, bringing perfect comfort and bringing the Comforter, the Spirit. To the problem of mediation between God and man, Christ, the God-man, brings Himself. To the problem of the defects of wisdom in answering the problem of pain, Christ Himself is the wisdom of God revealed and vindicated. To the problem of a distant God, Christ Himself is Immanuel, God with us. And to the problem of cleansing, Christ Himself comes to "wash us in water with the word."

Ultimately, the book of Job is unsatisfactory unless Christ is applied. To merely say that suffering is corrective or educational does not suffice. The world is not as it should be, and the existence of love and beauty and truth in the world point beyond themselves to restoration, not to become satisfactory in the present. Job is discontent with the world as it is, his friends try to justify it rather than look to its redemption. Job is truer in that Job's words beg for the Redeemer, while his friends words are false because they fail to recognize the need of a Redeemer.

Job's friends stand condemned. Elihu may offer helpful rebuke to the over-reaction of Job, yet we cannot look to him as the ultimate mediator between God and man. And God's dialogue does not just tell Job to shut up, but tells Job that He is the God of Creation, and so to trust Him that he can be the God of re-creation. In this way, the book of Job gives no final answer to the problem of pain. The book of Job and Job himself speaks truly because he asks the right questions. Job's questions wait for a further revelation. Job speaks rightly to identify the problems of a fallen world, and speaks even more rightly to identify the only thing he can hold onto, "I know that my Redeemer lives."

What strikes you about Christ?

I value objectivity. I dislike Christianity being turned into mere emotion and personal opinion and subjectivity. Yet, when objectivity is present, there is an element of subjectivity that is necessary for Christian life. That said, I have a simple question to any readers who might feel like commenting, with no specific answer being looked for:

What moves you about Christ?

By that I mean, what makes Him important and emotionally moving to you? Why do you love Him? Not a full confessional exhaustive list, but an aspect. What part of who Christ is or what He has done hits you in the affections? (at least currently, usually, or lately)

Please share in the comments.

Three signs

Explaning what a "sign of the covenant" is can be difficult and confusing. After a storm in Dallas, I saw a rainbow and began to think about the similarity of the rainbow as a sign along with circumcision and baptism. The similarities may help us understand what a sign is.

The Rainbow: In Genesis 9, God makes a covenant with Noah. God promises never to destroy the earth by water again, and gives Noah a sign. This sign points to God' promises, (Gen 9:14-16) not anything in Noah. The purpose of the sing for Noah is as a reminder of God's promises.

Circumcision: In Genesis 17, after God has promised many things to Abraham. To assure Abraham of His promises, God gives him the sign of circumcision. Paul tells us that circumcision is a "sign of the righteousness that comes by faith" (Rom 4:11). The sign is not of what Abraham does, but of God's righteousness to keep his word and promises to Abraham. Not Abraham's righteousness, for "the Lord is our righeousness" (Jer 23:6). Not Abraham's faith, but the righteousness that comes by means of faith.

Baptism: The image of Baptism is throughout the Bible. God promises many things to His people, including: his ingrafting into Christ (Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27), of regeneration (Tit 3:5), of remission of sins (Mar 1:4), and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3, Rom 6:4). Like circumcision, baptism points to the promises of God, a righteousness that comes by faith, it does not point to faith but the righteousness.

What do these three signs together tell us of signs in God's covenant? The Rainbow points to the promises of God. Circumcision points to the promises of God. Baptism points to the promises of God. So the next time we reflect on our baptism, see the baptism of another, or think of what to say to someone about their baptism, let us remember that baptism is not about the person or what they can or did or do, but about God, what He did in Christ for them and does by the Spirit in them and the promises He makes to the believer, promises of His righteousness to be received by faith.

The heart journey of worship

I was asked not too long ago, "Did you feel like you worshiped today?" I think if these verses can be my words, then I have:

“Woe is me! for I am undone! because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.” (Isaiah 6:5)

"Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, (Psalms 51:1-4)

"Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:28-29)

Our Schizophrenic Response to Christ

How quickly we change in a chapter:

Matt 7:28-29 : "And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes."


Matt 8:34 : "And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region."

Learning to pray the Lord's Prayer

Someone once made a satire of fundamentalist eccentricities in Catechism form. Among the questions was included this:


25. Q: What doth the Lord's Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord's Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

Though many Christians may see the Lord's Prayer as a "vain repetition" it was originally given as an "anti-vain repetition" prayer. It is the example prayer given by Jesus when asked for a way to pray. Study of it, therefore, should not be ridiculed as silly, but studied as instructive and edifying. An impediment to that, however, is that we often recite the KJV wording, which is fine for corporate knowledge and worship, but a new wording and translation can be helpful for seeing what is being communicated and petitioned. For my Sunday School class, I offered my own translation to accompany a study of the seven petitions of the Lord’s prayer. What we may not realize, due to the archaic wording, is that the Lord’s prayer contains seven imperatives directed towards God the Father. Imperatives are used not because God is commanded to do something, but are used as seven requests it is appropriate to ask God for. Here is a my translation to help:

Our Father, Who is in the heavens

Cause your name to be treated as Holy
Bring your Kingdom
Make it come to pass that Your will is done on earth, like it is in heaven
Give us bread for today
Forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven those in debt to us
Do not bring us into temptation
But Rescue us from the evil one

As we now see the seven requests, we may be aided further in reading Questions 100-106 on the Lord’s Prayer in the Smaller Catechism (the SC combines the sixth and seventh due to their similarity):

Q. 100. What doth the preface of the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
A. The preface of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, Our Father which art in heaven, teacheth us to draw near to God with all holy reverence and confidence, as children to a father, able and ready to help us; and that we should pray with and for others.

Q. 101. What do we pray for in the first petition?
A. In the first petition, which is, Hallowed be thy name, we pray that God would enable us, and others, to glorify him in all that whereby he maketh himself known; and that he would dispose all things to his own glory.

Q. 102. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, which is, Thy kingdom come, we pray that Satan’s kingdom may be destroyed; and that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it; and that the kingdom of glory may be hastened.

Q. 103. What do we pray for in the third petition?
A. In the third petition, which is, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven, we pray that God, by his grace, would make us able and willing to know, obey, and submit to his will in all things, as the angels do in heaven.

Q. 104. What do we pray for in the fourth petition?
A. In the fourth petition, which is, Give us this day our daily bread, we pray that of God’s free gift we may receive a competent portion of the good things of this life, and enjoy his blessing with them.

Q. 105. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?
A. In the fifth petition, which is, And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors, we pray that God, for Christ’s sake, would freely pardon all our sins; which we are the rather encouraged to ask, because by his grace we are enabled from the heart to forgive others.

Q. 106. What do we pray for in the sixth petition?
A. In the sixth petition, which is, And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, we pray that God would either keep us from being tempted to sin, or support and deliver us when we are tempted.

The purpose of preaching

“All our sermons are made to set forth and magnify Christ the Lord...Some men think that they preach Christ gloriously, because they name him every ten minutes in their sermons. But this is not necessarily preaching Christ...We must not therefore force unnatural interpretations on Holy Writ for the purpose of constantly introducing the name of Christ...Only let us be careful, that his name throws life and glory upon all our Ministrations, and that every sermon tends to draw sinners to him...But let not this exclusive scheme be supposed to cramp our system within the narrow range of a few points in theology. We might as well speak of a village that has no road to the metropolis, as of a point of Christian doctrine, privilege or practice, that has no reference to Christ crucified.”

-Charles Bridges, an Anglican priest in the 1800s in The Christian Ministry. Pg 240-241

The cult of "historical-gramatical"

A presumption today is that an historical-grammatical approach to Biblical interpretation translates into solid, healthy, orthodox Christianity. Such is the assumption in evaluating sermons, constructing small group Bible studies and teaching college and seminary level courses on the Bible. In all these venues, one's exegesis is deemed "conservative" and orthodox if it relies on the grammatical structure (looking at how the words function in a particular Biblical passage) and the historical context (looking at the historical background and original understanding of a text when the Biblical book was written). These are the two elements of interpretation, and no others, for many exegetes.


I would, however, like to suggest that the historical-grammatical-only approach is not only not the only valid approach to interpretation, but when used by itself is anemic to Christian growth and a truly Christian and biblical reading of Scripture. But before you label me a liberal, let me explain:


Problems:

The historical-grammatical-only approach to Scripture has problems which mitigate against it.

1) It is wholly modern and novel

Though many respected teachers argue that an exegetical approach to the text of Scripture derived from historical-grammatical principles alone are the basis of correct interpretation, such an approach is very new in Christian Biblical interpretation. Even those seen as reading “close to the text” like Chrysostom did not employ this method alone. Old puritans, who one would think would teach the Scripture this way, teach the Song of Solomon as ultimately about Christ, something teachers ranging from Mark Driscoll to Tommy Nelson mock.

Yet, it is not merely because my beloved "Dead Theologians" don't use historical-grammatical alone, therefore I won't do it. There are even bigger reasons.


2) Historical-grammatical-only is a method not draw from Scripture

"Biblical Preaching" should at some point have a claim to "biblical" justification. Yet, our search of the Scriptures find no such thing. When Paul instructs Timothy, though Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is "God-breathed" and useful in all sorts of ways, no instruction is given to be careful only to teach Scripture as it was historically understood when it was written and how it is grammatically constructed. Paul's specific instructions, though lacking this, DO have instructions for Christian preachers.

Paul repeatedly gives the criteria for judging a Christian, biblical message: Christ is preached (1 Cor 1:23, Eph 3:8, Php 1:15, Rom 15:20, etc). This is the consistent content of the message of bible teachers for Paul.

But are these two things (historical-grammatical-only, and preaching Christ) opposed? Yes, for


3) Historical-Grammatical-only argues against a Christotelic reading of Scripture

Since reading it in several sources (Peter Enns, and G.K. Beale) my favorite example to display the unscriptural nature of an historical-grammatical-only approach is Matthew 2:15, where Matthew says that Christ fulfilled what is written in Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt, I have called my son."

Here's my challenge. Read Hosea 11. Show me how this can be read in an historical-grammatical-only way to see Christ. The passage actually speaks of Israel, not Christ. Historically, no Jew had read this passage as being about Christ. Grammatically, it makes no sense to see Christ in Hosea 11:1. We now have two possibilities: We can say that Matthew is a poor exegete of Scripture. Or, we can say that we have a flawed method of interpretation.

[I have shown elsewhere how we understand this passage if this problem just gave you an ulser]

Even if we say Matthew can do things differently than us, because he was inspired and had the Holy Spirit there to give him permission to do something we can never do (violate Historical-Grammatical-only interpretation) then we have done something else serious:


4) Historical-Grammatical-only undermines plenary inspiration

The Historical-Grammatical interperation is largely a modernist method for Bible study which assumes the authors of Scripture are human, ignoring divine inspiration. If we truly believe that Scripture is divinely guided, inspired beyond the knowledge of capability of human authors, then the original author and audience is not sufficient to understand all that Scripture is saying. Hosea 11:1 is understood by Hosea and Israel at the time to be refering to Israel. As Enns points out, after the Christ-event, Matthew would have to instruct Hosea on the full meaning of his words. Hosea and historical Israel are not the authority of final appeal on the meaning of Scripture. If they were the only authors and audience, then we could say so, but they are not.


Alternative?


Is there an alternative to reading Scripture only within a modernist Historical-Grammatical method? First we must say that, for as much as I have maligned it, the Historical-Grammatical method of inquiring into the original meaning of the text with historical and linguistic methods is not bad, and is in fact necessary to understanding Scripture. It is NOT, however, the end of our quest for the meaning of a text. Two passages come to mind on the final meaning of any major passage of Scripture.


First, Jesus appeared to two men after his resurrection:

Luke 24:44-45 - Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Second, Jesus also had some direct teaching for the Pharisees in John 5:

John 5:39-40 - "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

Christ gives us the biblical approach to reading and preaching Scripture: it points to Christ. How is this done without doing violence to a text? Here are a few quick suggestions in reading:


1) Pointed reading

Christ said that he came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17). Therefore, the Law has a particular assignment in Scripture to point to Christ in some way. If a Law is ceremonial about the sacrificial system, the sacrifice ultimately points to the need for a perfect sacrifice that did not need repeating, but is fulfilled in Christ. If the Law is civil dealing with governing or the kingdom, then the Law points to Christ as King, in His role as governing and his authority to rule. If the Law is moral, then it points to the character of Christ, a perfect moral Person, exercising justice and mercy perfectly in his Person and work.

And if it is prophetic...then hey, it's easy!


2) Typographical reading

Sometimes the Scripture will contain a narrative. There, the characters in the story will in some way point to Christ, either as type or anti-type. Even in direct typography, such as Christ as the New Adam (Romans 5) or the new David, the imperfections of the first are perfected in Christ, just as the command to Israel in Hosea 11:1 was to a disobedient son, while the command to Matthew was to an obedient son.


3) Theological reading

Sometimes a Scripture may just speak of the condition of man or the world. Such is the case with large portions of Job or Ecclesiates, where the state of man and the world are lamented. Here we see the result of Genesis 3 on everything, and we feel the angst that ultimately is resolved in Christ. We see concepts in Scripture that ultimately resolve theologically in Christ


4) Historical Redemptive Reading

The story of Scripture is one of redemption. From start to end, it is a story of sin, fall, calamity, and redemption and restoration. No matter where you are in the text of Scripture, one can find where one is in that story.

There's certainly more, but I am still a student of Scripture. I have not come to the end of how Scripture reveals Christ to the church, though I do know it is through more than a modernist historical-grammatical method.

Evangelical Liberalism

The broader I read, the more the idea crystalizes that much of American evangelicalism today is closer to liberalism than orthodoxy. I don't mean that about everyone who uses the term. To some evangelicalism means an adherence to the gospel. But more and more evangelicalism now means an emotional experience. But then evangelicalism in this instance really has no differenciation from what, in the 1920's, they called Liberalism. I'm slowly making my way through Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism," wherein Machen contrasts Christianity and Liberalism as two different religions.

There are times, however, where I wonder if Machen is talking about some forms of American evangelicalism. Today, one might just as well distinguish this "Americanity" and Christianity. Americanity is a personal emotive experience with God that is true for the person because its their personal experience, no other basis is necessary. But, as Machen tells us:

"Salvation then, according to the Bible, is not something that was discovered, but something that happened...Christianity depends, not upon a complex of ideas, but upon the narration of an event.

...

Christian experience, we have just said, is useful as confirming the gospel message. But because it is necessary, many men have jumped to the conclusion that it is all that is necessary. Having a present experience of Christ in the heart, may we not, it is said, hold that experience not matter what history may tell us as to the events of the first Easter morning?...Religious experience [that] may be, but Christian experience it certainly is not.

...

Christian experience is rightly used when it helps to convince us that the event narrated in the New Testament actually did occur; but it can never enable us to be Christians whether the events occured or not."

-Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. pg 70-71

To Miss Ainslie

Epigram to Miss Ainslie in Church


Fair maid, you need not take the hint,
Nor idle texts pursue;
'Twas guilty sinners that he meant,
Not angels such as you


- Robert Burns

Deeds, not creeds?

"the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine...Paul was not interested merely in the ethical principles of Jesus; he was not interested merely in general principles of religion or of ethics. On the contrary, he was interested in the redeeming work of Christ and its effect upon us."

-J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. pg 21, 25

Reformed Spirituality

I've covered the introduction to Reformed Spirituality, but have yet to get to the meat of the actual Spiritual approach. I will be doing so in the next month or so, contingent on my schedule. So far, the subject and problem of Spirituality have been discussed as well as the answer given in Scripture. Still to be covered is the means through which one encounters God. But as a review, here is how the series has proceeded so far:

The class: Reformed Spirituality

1. Introduction: What is Reformed Spirituality?

2. Theology of the Heart: Man and Sin
(Reflection on Job 14 and a Fallen world)

3. Our Mystical Salvation: Union with Christ
Part 1: Answering the Problem of Sin
Part 2: Salvation in Christ
(Reflection: Justification, Sanctification and Adoption)

4. Overcoming Sin


Coming up:

5. The Community of Faith

Mark: The Resurrection

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?"

And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back--it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Good Friday

He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned--every one--to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off
out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring;
he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

-Isaiah 53:3-11

Resource: Keller and Clowney on Preaching

Tim Keller has become a minor celebrity lately in the evangelical world with his book "Reason for God." What some people do not know is that he used to be a seminary professor. Among his courses was one on preaching. If one has ever heard Keller preach, one knows Keller knows his stuff on how to preach. RTS on itunes Univerity has recently posted the whole course that Keller taught with the late Edmund Clowney, free for download.

Link here (you need itunes first)

Augustine on Merits

"Now there was, no doubt, a decided merit in the Apostle Paul, but it was an evil one...For his call, however, from heaven and his conversion by that great and most effectual call, God's grace was alone, because his merits, though great, were yet evil...God's grace is not given according to our merits...wherefore no man ought, even when he begins to possess good merits, to attribute them to himself, but to God."

-Augustine. On Grace and Free Will. ch 12-13

Augustine on the effectual grace of the Cross

“God, therefore, heals us not only that He may blot out the sin which we have committed, but, furthermore, that He may enable us even to avoid sinning.”

-Augustine Nature and Grace. Ch 29

Thirsting for God

I hope the suggestions under my last post yields me some new poetry reading. Until then, I picked up my volume of William Cowper. I don't know the relative virtue of his talent, but I know I enjoy and envy his honesty in composition.

"Thirsting for God" visits a heart as it is, and longs to be. It mixes hope and lament. It also makes no pretense before its reader:

THIRSTING FOR GOD

I thirst, but not as once I did,
The vain delights of earth to share;
Thy words, Immanuel, all forbid
That I should seek my pleasure there.

It was the sight of thy dear cross
First weaned my soul from earthly thing
And taught me to esteem as dross
The mirth of fools and pomp of kings

I want that grace that springs from thee,
That quickens all things where it flows,
And makes a wretched thorn like me,
Bloom as the myrtle or the rose.

Dear fountain of delight unknown,
No longer sink below the brim:
But overflow and pour me down
A living and life-giving stream.

For sure, of all the plants that share
The notice of thy Father's eye,
None proves less grateful to his care,
Or yields him meaner fruit than I.

Tell me: Who are your favorite poets?

In reading Gordon's "Why Johnny Can't Preach," I have found his recommendations helpful, from writing theological articles (yea for blogging!) to getting together with other preachers to compare how one organizes a sermon.

One of his recommendations I need some help with. Gordon recommends that those who wish to preach should read poetry. So, I invite comments:

1) Do you read poetry?

(and if so...)

2) Who do you recommend? (religious or otherwise)

I have done a little (very little) religious poetical reading (Donne, Cowper, etc), but are there poets that are good, for their shear skill in saying a thing well, that I should read?