The Reformed Parishioner

Machen's Zombie Halloween

2011-11-08T20:13:00.000-06:00

"This is the great thing that even a bit of knowledge of history gives to anyone looking at the Emerg* crowd and all the wannabes and spin-offs and penumbrae. They present themselves as deep, nuanced, cutting-edge pioneers, when all they are for all the world are Machen's zombies. Machen (and his fellows) killed those errors dead eighty years ago; but here they are again, shambling about in search of fresh brains to devour."

Dan Phillips

Either Mormons are Christians or Osteen is Not

2011-10-29T23:05:00.000-05:00

Mohler here Osteen goes again.

Logical Conclusions

2011-04-12T17:18:00.000-05:00

HT: Salvo Magazine

Collateral Damage

2011-04-12T17:14:00.000-05:00

Collateral Damage

From John Dewey to the Ivory Tower of Babel in Two Easy Steps:

By and by, Dr. Dwyer was able to relate the photos to each other by identifying abortion as a form of "ageism"—discrimination against the very young—and she said, with apparent difficulty, that she thought it "morally impermissible to kill fetuses." But she couldn't give a reason why. "I haven't got a clue what makes killing human beings wrong," she said in all sincerity. To her credit, she didn't suggest that we "get over" the question but that "we need to think more deeply" about it.

HT: Salvo Magazine

The Gospel

2011-04-06T20:25:00.000-05:00

"A Substitute has appeared in space and time, appointed by God Himself, to bear the weight and the burden of our transgressions, to make expiation for our guilt, and to propitiate the wrath of God on our behalf. This is the gospel."

R.C. Sproul

H.T. Of First Importance

The Sweet Taste of Syrup

2011-04-06T20:16:00.001-05:00

“They enjoy breakfast more than the testimony of their salvation.”

John Calvin on the sometimes worldliness of his congregation on Sunday morning.

H.T. Kevin DeYoung

The Gospel in 5 Minutes

2011-04-04T18:10:00.001-05:00

G.O.S.P.E.L. from Humble Beast Records on Vimeo.

H.T. Triablogue

Plaster Over That Zit Pastor

2011-04-04T17:56:00.000-05:00

Robbed Hell - C.A.S.T. Pearls Presents from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

H.T. Blog and Mablog

God's Story vs. other gods' stories

2011-04-04T17:46:00.000-05:00

H.T.: Take Your Vitamin Z

Martin Bashir Interviews Rob Bell

2011-03-17T23:16:00.000-05:00

Paul Edward's subsequent interview of Bashir

Good Journalism

Mohler Speaking the Truth Regarding Homosexuality

2011-02-22T19:54:00.000-06:00

What is the Great Commision?

2011-01-31T17:12:00.000-06:00

Keller Generous Justice Interview

2011-01-20T20:58:00.000-06:00

DG Interview with Tim Keller regarding his new book Generous Justice.

In Christ Alone!

2011-01-20T20:49:00.000-06:00

We Are a Murderous People

2011-01-18T20:45:00.000-06:00

"Americans generally know that abortions happen, but the reality of abortion is kept out of sight and, for most, largely out of mind. To acknowledge that abortions do occur does not require any actual knowledge of the numbers of abortions performed and the scale of the catastrophe. News reports that emerged in recent days will make that evasion harder to justify.

The New York Times reported January 6, 2011 that the abortion rate in New York City is about 40 percent of all pregnancies. That means that no less than four out of every ten pregnancies in that city are terminated by abortion. That statistic is horrific, leading a group of New York religious leaders to describe the abortion rate as “chilling.”

Of even greater magnitude is the abortion rate among African-Americans in New York City — a rate of almost 60 percent. This means, of course, that far more black babies are aborted than are born. How is it that black church leaders are so silent on this murderous assault on unborn African-American babies?

The Guttmacher Institute recently reported that the national abortion rate is 22 percent. Two out of every ten pregnancies in America end in abortion.

The enormity of the abortion rate in America underlines the fact that abortion is anything but rare. Over 1.2 million abortions were performed in the United States in 2008, the last year with full numbers reported.

This means that abortion is taking place in your neighborhood, and in mine. The abortion rate in New York City staggers the moral imagination, but the abortion rate nationwide is itself “chilling.”

We are a murderous people, and the blood of the innocent cries out for justice."

Dr. Albert Mohler

H.T. The Z Man

Saved From Who

2010-08-07T20:40:00.000-05:00

"That we are shocked by the idea that we are saved from God reveals two crucial shortcomings in our understanding. We fail to understand who God is, and we fail to understand who we are. Our view of God is too low, and our view of mankind is too high".

- R.C. Sproul, Saved From What?, p. 27.

H.T. Take Your Vitamin Z

Saving Leonardo

2010-07-29T20:09:00.001-05:00

I am really excited about Nancy Pearcey's new book You can learn more about her at The Pearcey Report. Tim Challies posted:

"In Saving Leonardo, best-selling award-winning author Nancy Pearcey (Total Truth, coauthor How Now Shall We Live?) makes a compelling case that secularism is destructive and dehumanizing."

Looks like a good resource.

Is she right?

2010-07-28T17:12:00.000-05:00

"The column by Kathleen Parker is yet another signpost of the current age and the worldview of the secularized classes. In their view, what evangelicals believe about the Gospel of Jesus Christ is just out of bounds and embarrassing.

But, she tells her readers, don’t worry — younger evangelicals are going to put that belief far behind them.

Is she right?"

Dr. Mohler commenting on an article by Kathleen Parker entitled 'The quest to sort out competing and comparable religions.'

Is she right?

Who Needs Doctrine?

2010-07-27T22:42:00.000-05:00

“When you say, ‘I don’t care about doctrine, it’s how you live that matters,’ you are ironically promoting the doctrine of justification by works. You are proposing that what God really wants is a good life. The response can be similar when someone claims that it doesn’t matter which religion you belong to, because all religions are alike and no one should be held to a particular doctrine of God. Yet that assumes that God is not holy, and that He does not hold people responsible for how they live. In other words, to say, ‘no one should be held to a particular view of God’ is to assume and promote a particular view of God. To say, ‘doctrine about God doesn’t matter’ is itself a statement of doctrine about God – and therefore it does matter! So Martyn Lloyd-Jones concludes: “It is no use your saying, ‘We are not interested in doctrine; we are concerned about life’; if your doctrine is wrong, your life will be wrong.“

... Tim Keller

H.T. Renewing Thoughts

Grace - Non Flammable

2010-04-30T21:03:00.001-05:00

[Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace?, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 45.]

During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating possibilities. Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods' appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room. "What's the rumpus about?" he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity's unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, "Oh, that's easy. It's grace.

After some discussion, the conferees had to agree. The notion of God's love coming to us free of charge, no strings attached, seems to go against every instinct of humanity. The Buddhist eight-fold path, the Hindu doctrine of karma, the Jewish covenant, and the Muslim code of law -- each of these offers a way to earn approval. Only Christianity dares to make God's love unconditional.

And Another Thing

2010-04-30T19:51:00.000-05:00

* Be at peace with one another. Mk. 9:50

* Wash one another's feet. Jn. 13:14

* Love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Jn. 13:34

* Love one another with brotherly affection. Rom. 12:10

* Outdo one another in showing honor. Rom. 12:10

* Live in harmony with one another. Rom. 12:16

* Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you. Rom. 15:7

* Greet one another with a holy kiss. Rom 16:16, 2 Cor. 13:12

* Wait for one another. 1 Cor. 11:33

* Comfort one another, agree with one another. 2 Co. 13:11

* Through love serve one another. Gal. 5:13

* Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Gal. 6:2

* Bear with one another in love. Eph. 4:2

* Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another. Eph. 4:32

* Address one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Eph. 5:19

* Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Eph. 5:21

* Do not lie to one another. Col. 3:9

* Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other. Col. 3:13

* Teach and admonish one another in all wisdom. Col. 3:16

* Encourage one another. 1 Th. 4:18 , Heb. 10:25

* Encourage one another and build one another up. 1 Th. 5:11

* Always seek to do good to one another. 1 Th. 5:15

* Exhort one another every day. Heb. 3:13

* Stir up one another to love and good works. Heb. 10:24

* Do not speak evil against one another. Jas. 4:11

* Do not grumble against one another. Jas. 5:9

* Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another. Jas. 5:16

* Love one another earnestly from a pure heart. 1 Pe. 1:22

* Keep loving one another earnestly. 1 Pe. 4:8

* Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. 1 Pe. 4:9

* Serve one another. 1 Pe. 4:10

* Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another. 1 Pe. 5:5

* Greet one another with the kiss of love. 1 Pe. 5:14

* Love one another. 1 Jn. 3:11, 1 Jn. 3:23, 1 Jn. 4:7, 1 Jn. 4:12, 2 Jn. 1:5

H.T. The Z Man

Preaching and Teaching

2010-04-28T18:33:00.000-05:00

Team Pyro first turned me on to the preaching and teaching of S. Lewis Johnson. You should give it a look. It is quite edifying.

Kinda Christianity

2010-04-28T16:56:00.001-05:00

Frank Turk of the Pyromaniacs wants you to purchase the new book 'Kinda Christianity.'

"I bring it up because I wrote the forward, and because we get more readers here at TeamPyro on Wednesday than Zach gets at his blog in any given year, and because Ted and Zach need your help. They want this thing to go completely viral, completely "The Shack". Except in a wholly-orthodox and Gospel-centered way. And maybe as Oprah's book of the month."

NOT WHAT MY HANDS HAVE DONE

2010-04-28T16:41:00.000-05:00

"By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2: 8-9

Not what my hands have done can save my guilty soul;
Not what my toiling flesh has borne can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God;
Not all my prayers and sighs and tears can bear my awful load.

Your voice alone, O Lord, can speak to me of grace;
Your power alone, O Son of God, can all my sin erase.
No other work but Yours, no other blood will do;
No strength but that which is divine can bear me safely through.

I praise the Christ of God; I rest on love divine;
And with unfaltering lip and heart I call this Savior mine.
My Lord has saved my life and freely pardon gives;
I love because He first loved me, I live because He lives.

Horatius Bonar, 1861

H.T. Reformation Ink

Human Pesticide

2010-04-27T16:39:00.001-05:00

"The Pill turned pregnancy — and thus children — into elective choices, rather than natural gifts of the marital union. But then again, the marital union was itself weakened by the Pill, because the avoidance of pregnancy facilitated adultery and other forms of non-marital sex. In some hands, the Pill became a human pesticide." Dr. Mohler

Dr. Mohler's Article

Take Heed Theological Student

2010-04-22T22:11:00.001-05:00

"The very greatness of the subject matter (The Study of Theology) will intoxicate us, and we shall come to think of ourselves as a cut above the other Christians because of our interest in it and grasp of it; and we shall look down on those whose theological ideas seem to us crude and inadequate and dismiss them as very poor specimens."

J.I. Packer in the preface to 'Knowing God'

Packer warns students of theology to take heed lest they become conceited like the Corinthians.

Wired for Intimacy - A Book Review by Dr. Mohler

2010-02-02T17:04:00.004-06:00

William M. Struthers of Wheaton College explains, "Men seem to be wired in such a way that pornography hijacks the proper functioning of their brains and has a long-lasting effect on their thoughts and lives."

Dr. Mohler's review.

2009-12-19T10:45:00.002-06:00

Matthew 1:1-17 (English Standard Version)

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, 4 and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king.

And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to(T) the Christ fourteen generations.

The Same Mouth

2009-09-12T00:34:00.000-05:00

James 3:10
From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

Fellowship and Solitude

2009-09-01T18:21:00.004-05:00

This quote from a sermon by Mike Bullmore is worth meditating upon:

We need fellowship with others to be alone safely.
We need solitude to be with others meaningfully.

HT: Between Two Worlds

No Sin Too Small

2009-09-01T16:37:00.005-05:00

"Your misdeeds and mine are nonetheless repellent because our opportunities for doing damage are less spectacular than those of some other people. Do you suggest that your doings and mine are too trivial for God to bother about? That cuts both ways; for, in that case, it would make precious little difference to His creation if he wiped us both out tomorrow."

Dorothy L. Sayers in 'Creed or Chaos'

God’s grace comes from the outside

2009-08-29T13:53:00.002-05:00

“The point I am making is quite offensive to us today. It is that God hides himself from us, that he cannot be had on our terms, and that he cannot be accessed from “below” through natural revelation. In the malls, and in much of life, we encounter nothing like this. We expect access. We expect to be able to get what we want, when we want it, and on our terms.

Here this is not the case. Here we have to be admitted to God’s presence, on his terms, in his way … or not at all. We cannot simply walk into his presence. Here nature does not itself yield grace. God’s grace comes from the outside, not the inside, from above and not from within. It is not natural to fallen human life. We enter the presence of God as those who have been estranged, not as those who have been in continuity with the sacred simply because we are human. We are brought into a saving relationship through Christ; we do not put this together from within ourselves.”

—David F. Wells, The Courage to be Protestant (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Eerdmans, 2008), 190

HT: Of First Importance

Choosing Life before Death - Choosing Thomas

2009-08-29T13:42:00.002-05:00

Watch this for so many reasons, but be prepared to cry.

Denny Burk:

" Twenty weeks into their pregnancy, T. K. and Deidrea Laux found out that their son had Trisomy 13—a rare DNA abnormality. After being counseled that “terminating the pregnancy” would be an option, they chose life. In Deidrea’s own words:

“We didn’t not terminate because we were hanging on to some sort of hope that there was a medical mistake or there was gonna be some sort of medical miracle. We didn’t terminate because he’s our son.”

The Dallas Morning News has produced this video chronicling the birth and home-going of Thomas. The Laux’s are members of Paul Lindquist’s church (one of my former Criswell College students), and Paul is the one who alerted me to “Choosing Thomas.” This is an amazing story of love and life, and you need to watch it."

HT: Take Your Vitamin Z

Shepherd or Hireling

2009-08-27T23:08:00.003-05:00

The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?

Steve Hays

Spiritual Helps a Prayer from The Valley of Vision

2009-08-27T22:37:00.003-05:00

Eternal Father, it is amazing love, that Thou hast sent Thy Son to suffer in my stead, that Thou hast added the Spirit to teach, comfort, guide, that Thou hast allowed the ministry of angels to wall me round; all heaven subserves the welfare of a poor worm. Permit Thy unseen servants to be ever active on my behalf, and to rejoice when grace expands in me. Suffer them never to rest until my conflict is over, and I stand victorious on salvation's shore.

Grant that my proneness to evil, deadness to good, resistance to Thy Spirit's motions, may never provoke Thee to abandon me. May my hard heart awake Thy pity, not Thy wrath, And if the enemy gets an advantage through my corruption, let it be seen that heaven is mightier than hell, that those for me are greater than those against me. Arise to my help in richness of covenant blessings, keep me feeding in the pastures of Thy strengthening Word, searching Scripture to find Thee there.

If my waywardness is visited with a scourge, enable me to receive correction meekly, to bless the reproving hand, to discern the motive of rebuke, to respond promptly, and do the first work. Let all Thy fatherly dealings make me a partaker of Thy holiness. Grant that in every fall I may sink lower on my knees, and that when I rise it may be to loftier heights of devotion. May my every cross be sanctified, every loss be gain, every denial a spiritual advantage, every dark day a light of the Holy Spirit, every night of trial a song.

Ignatius the Ultimate Youth Pastor: A Parody

2009-08-27T22:09:00.001-05:00

HT: Between Two Worlds

Vessels of glory

2009-08-26T19:56:00.002-05:00

“Let us stand still, and admire and wonder at the love of Jesus Christ to poor sinners; that Christ should rather die for us, than for the angels. They were creatures of a more noble extract, and in all probability might have brought greater revenues of glory to God: yet that Christ should pass by those golden vessels, and make us vessels of glory, Oh, what amazing and astonishing love is this! This is the envy of devils, and the admiration of angels and saints.”

- Thomas Brooks, Christ’s Love for us

H.T.: Of First Importance

A Life of Thankful Discontentment

2009-08-25T20:29:00.002-05:00

“The Christian life should be a state of thankful discontentment or joyful dissatisfaction! We live every day thankful for the amazing grace that fundamentally changes our lives, but we should not be satisfied. Why not? Because, when we look at ourselves honestly, we have to admit that there is still need for personal growth and change. We are not yet all that we could be in Christ. We are thankful for the many things in our lives that would not be there without His grace, but we should not settle for partial inheritance. We should want nothing less than all that is ours in Christ! In this sense, God does not want us to be content with less than what He wants for us. He calls us to continue to wrestle, meditate, look, consider, resist, submit, follow, and pray until we have been completely transformed into His likeness.”

- Paul David Tripp & Timothy S. Lane, “How Christ Changes Us By His Grace” in The Journal of Biblical Counseling (Spring 2005), 20.

H.T.: Of First Importance

C.S. Lewis explains what is Life

2009-08-23T17:23:00.002-05:00

"The great thing, if one can, is to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as interruptions of one’s “own,” or “real” life. The truth is of course that what one calls the interruptions are precisely one’s real life—the life God is sending one ...day by day; what one calls one’s “real life” is a phantom of one’s own imagination."

CS Lewis

The Battlefield

2009-07-29T22:02:00.002-05:00

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

Attributed to Martin Luther

Rapping About Limited Atonement

2009-05-17T20:29:00.001-05:00

And they said Rap had no redeeming value.

HT: The Contemporary Calvinist

Love Constrained to Obedience

2009-05-16T21:34:00.007-05:00

No strength of nature can suffice
To serve the Lord aright:
And what she has she misapplies,
For want of clearer light.

How long beneath the law I lay
In bondage and distress;
I toll'd the precept to obey,
But toil'd without success.

Then, to abstain from outward sin
Was more than I could do;
Now, if I feel its power within,
I feel I hate it too.

Then all my servile works were done
A righteousness to raise;
Now, freely chosen in the Son,
I freely choose His ways.

"What shall I do," was then the word,
"That I may worthier grow?"
"What shall I render to the Lord?"
Is my inquiry now.

To see the law by Christ fulfilled
And hear His pardoning voice,
Changes a slave into a child,
And duty into choice.

-William Cowper-

HT: Renewing Thoughts

Take Heed To Yourselves

2009-05-16T20:55:00.004-05:00

"See that the work of saving grace be thoroughly wrought in your own souls. Take heed to yourselves, lest you be void of that saving grace of God which you offer to others, and be strangers to the effectual working of that gospel which you preach; and lest, while you proclaim to the world the necessity of a Savior, your own hearts should neglect him, and you should miss of an interest in him and his saving benefits. Take heed to yourselves, lest you perish, while you call upon others to take heed of perishing; and lest you famish yourselves while you prepare food for them."

Richard Baxter from 'The Reformed Pastor' courtesy of Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

"Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life"

The Fray's chorus from 'How to Save a Life.'

We must take heed to ourselves. We must be sure that we do not lose our lives while we warn others of the impending doom. The friend we lose must not be ourselves.

It May Be For Fools, But This Job Is Not For Cowards

2009-05-16T20:26:00.001-05:00

HT: The Lighthearted Calvinist

Joel Osteen Preaches About the Lives of the Martyrs

2009-05-16T20:04:00.003-05:00

Joel Osteen Preaches About the Lives of the Martyrs?

HT: The Lighthearted Calvinist

Satire Saturdays / 5-16-09

2009-05-16T15:04:00.003-05:00

Emerjeans

From The Sacred Sandwich.

Emergent Postmodern Church Motivational Video

From the Pyromaniacs.

You might be Emerging if...
From Purgatorio.

Friday Fanfare

2009-05-15T20:05:00.005-05:00

Each Friday I will bring you a rundown of some of the best items on the web.

Be sure to stop by Tim Challies blog for a chance to win free items each Friday. He calls it 'Free Stuff Fridays.'

Check out the 'Take Your Vitamin Z' blog. Not just one post, but the whole blog.

Tullian Tchividjian uses Tim Keller sermon quotes to show:
The Differences Between Religion And The Gospel

Humanitas Remedium blog brings us 'Another Lesson From Foxe's Book Of Martyrs.'

Finally it is not too late to download a free audio copy of 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs from Christian Audio.

I will have to admit that I borrowed this idea from the Contemporary Calvinist. He does a 'This Week in Calvinism' post which is always entertaining and informative.

This-Week-in-Calvinism-may-15-2009

I will post a link to his list along with my list each week for a double dose of Calvinistic goodness.

Christianity and Liberalism - Enemy at the Gates

2009-05-14T18:30:00.004-05:00

"Admitting that scientific objections may arise against the particularities of the Christian religion-- against the Christian doctrines of the person of Christ, and of redemption through His death and resurrection--the liberal theologian seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as constituting "the essence of Christianity."

It may well be questioned, however, whether this method of defense will really prove to be efficacious; for after the apologist has abandoned his outer defenses to the enemy and withdrawn into some inner citadel, he will probably discover that the enemy pursues him even there."

J. Gresham Machen from the introduction to'Christianity and Liberalism'

The Audacity of Degrees

2009-05-14T17:33:00.005-05:00

"A community organizer who honed his advocacy for the poor, the marginalized and the worker in the streets of Chicago, he now organizes a larger community, bringing to the world a renewed American dedication to diplomacy and dialogue with all nations and religions committed to human rights and the global common good.'

Wording from the Honorary Degree for Barack Obama that will be bestowed upon him by Notre Dame.

So evidently their is no human right to be allowed to live while in the safety of your mother's womb. Apparently an innocent babe who is torn from his mother, who is complacent in his murder, does not qualify as being marginalized.

HT: Fox News

Impertinent Intruder?

2009-05-14T16:05:00.004-05:00

Psalm 119:105 (English Standard Version)

Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path.

"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. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."

J. Gresham Machen, From the introduction to 'Christianity and Liberalism.'

Reading Through 'Christianity and Liberalism'

2009-05-14T15:37:00.004-05:00

First published in 1923, Christianity and Liberalism was one of the first -- and, to many, still the best -- critique of liberal Christianity from an orthodox Christian perspective. Written at the height of the battle for control over the Presbyterian Church USA, Christianity and Liberalism brilliantly defines -- and definitively refutes -- the theological liberalism that manifests itself chiefly in the rejection of Scripture as infallibly inspired, the denial of the doctrines of the Fall and of Hell, and the mistaken belief in man's "evolutionary" self-perfection. Machen contrasts these errors with the basic foundational truths of Biblical Christianity on God, man, the Bible, Christ, Salvation, and the Church.

Come read 'Christianity and Liberalism,' arguably Machen's greatest work, with me.

Caedmon's Call at My Church

2009-05-14T15:19:00.002-05:00

From Christ the King Presbyterian Church where the Reformed Parishioner listens to the Word of God spoken.

Warfield Wednesdays: The Bible

2009-05-13T20:16:00.005-05:00

"The Church may bear witness to what she received from the apostles as law, but this is not giving authority to that law but humbly recognizing the authority which rightfully belongs to it whether the Church recognizes it or not. The puzzle which some people fall into here is something like mistaking the relative "authority" of the guide-post and the road; the guide-post may point us to the right road but it does not give its rightness to the road. It has not "determined" the road -- it is the road that has "determined" the guide-post; and unless the road goes of itself to its destination the guide-post has no power to determine its direction. So the Church does not "determine" the Scriptures, but the Scriptures the Church." Read More

Benjamin B. Warfield: The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures

HT: The Westminster Presbyterian

Ligonier Ministries Reminds Us To Focus On Family This Summmer

2009-05-13T16:46:00.003-05:00

"School is almost out, and summertime is just around the corner. While taking a break from the hustle and bustle of a regular routine and the busyness of life, it can be easy to take a break from our biblical studies as well.

Amidst the vacations and relaxation this summer, take some time to focus on your family's foundation. We need to be aware of this now more than ever as we live in a time of much uncertainty. From dating and marriage to teenagers to family worship and growth, here are some great resources for a summer study."

HT: Ligonier's Blog

NO Mr. President it is not a Private Family Matter

2009-05-13T16:38:00.003-05:00

It's a magnificent thing: The only newly-originating life in the universe that comes in the image of God is Man.

The only newly-originating life in the universe that lasts forever is Man.

This is an awesome thing. And, as everyone knows, that reverence is not shared by our new President, over whom we have rejoiced.

He is trapped and blind in a culture of deceit. On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he released this statement,

We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.

To which I say:

No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.

No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.

No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.

Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.

We have hope in our sovereign God.

HT: Take Your Vitamin Z

Warfield Wednesdays: I Believe

2009-05-13T16:04:00.005-05:00

A BRIEF AND UNTECHNICAL STATEMENT OF THE REFORMED FAITH
by Benjamin B. Warfield

1. I believe that my one aim in life and death should be to glorify God and enjoy him forever; and that God teaches me how to glorify him in his holy Word, that is, the Bible, which he had given by the infallible inspiration of this Holy Spirit in order that I may certainly know what I am to believe concerning him and what duty he requires of me.

2. I believe that God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and incomparable in all that he is; one God but three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, my Creator, my Redeemer, and my Sanctifier; in whose power and wisdom, righteousness, goodness and truth I may safely put my trust.

3. I believe that the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them, are the work of God hands; and that all that he has made he directs and governs in all their actions; so that they fulfill the end for which they were created, and I who trust in him shall not be put to shame but may rest securely in the protection of his almighty love.

4. I believe that God created man after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, and entered into a covenant of life with him upon the sole condition of the obedience that was his due; so that it was by willfully sinning against God that man fell into the sin and misery in which I have been born.

5. I believe, that, being fallen in Adam, my first father, I am by nature a child of wrath, under the condemnation of God and corrupted in body and soul, prone to evil and liable to eternal death; from which dreadful state I cannot be delivered save through the unmerited grace of God my Savior.

6. I believe that God has not left the world to perish in its sin, but out of the great love wherewith he has loved it, has from all eternity graciously chosen unto himself a multitude which no man can number, to deliver them out of their sin and misery, and of them to build up again in the world his kingdom of righteousness; in which kingdom I may be assured I have my part, if I hold fast to Christ the Lord.

7. I believe that God has redeemed his people unto himself through Jesus Christ our Lord; who, though he was and ever continues to be the eternal Son of God, yet was born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that are under the law: I believe that he bore the penalty due to my sins in his own body on the tree, and fulfilled in his own person the obedience I owe to the righteousness of God, and now presents me to his Father as his purchased possession, to the praise of the glory of his grace forever; wherefore renouncing all merit of my own, I put all my trust only in the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ my redeemer.

8. I believe that Jesus Christ my redeemer, who died for my offences was raised again for my justification, and ascended into the heavens, where he sits at the right hand of the Father Almighty, continually making intercession for his people, and governing the whole world as head over all things for his Church; so that I need fear no evil and may surely know that nothing can snatch me out of his hands and nothing can separate me from his love.

9. I believe that the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ is effectually applied to all his people by the Holy Spirit, who works faith in me and thereby unites me to Christ, renews me in the whole man after the image of God, and enables me more and more to die unto sin and to live unto righteousness; until, this gracious work having been completed in me, I shall be received into glory; in which great hope abiding, I must ever strive to perfect holiness in the fear of God.

10. I believe that God requires of me, under the gospel, first of all, that , out of a true sense of my sin and misery and apprehension of his mercy in Christ, I should turn with grief and hatred away from sin and receive and rest upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation; that, so being united to him, I may receive pardon for my sins and be accepted as righteous in God's sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to me and received by faith alone; and thus and thus only do I believe I may be received into the number and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.

11. I believe that, having been pardoned and accepted for Christ's sake , it is further required of me that I walk in the Spirit whom he has purchased for me, and by whom love is shed abroad in my heart; fulfilling the obedience I owe to Christ my King; faithfully performing all the duties laid upon me by the holy law of God my heavenly Father; and ever reflecting in my life and conduct, the perfect example that has been set me by Christ Jesus my Leader, who has died for me and granted to me his Holy Spirit just that I may do the good works which God has afore prepared that I should walk in them.

12. I believe that God has established his Church in the world and endowed it with the ministry of the Word and the holy ordinances of Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; in order that through these as means, the riches of his grace in the gospel may be made known to the world, and, by the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them, the benefits of redemption may be communicated to his people; wherefore also it is required of me that I attend on these means of grace with diligence, preparation, and prayer, so that through them I may be instructed and strengthened in faith, and in holiness of life and in love; and that I use my best endeavors to carry this gospel and convey these means of grace to the whole world.

13. I believe that as Jesus Christ has once come in grace, so also is he to come a second time in glory, to judge the world in righteousness and assign to each his eternal award; an I believe that if I die in Christ, my soul shall be at death made perfect in holiness and go home to the Lord; and when he shall return to his majesty I shall be raised in glory and made perfectly blesses in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity: encouraged by which blessed hope it is required of me willingly to take my part in suffering hardship here as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, being assured that if I die with him I shall also live with him, if I endure, I shall also reign with him. And to Him, my Redeemer, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, Three Persons, one God, be glory forever, world without end, Amen, and Amen.

HT: Monergism

A Fetus or A Baby?

2009-05-13T15:55:00.002-05:00

Craig Carter: “The Globe and Mail tiptoes carefully through the semantic minefield in this story on an unborn baby having heart surgery in utero. Notice the terms used [my bolding]:”

“TORONTO — In what’s being called a Canadian first, Toronto doctors have successfully performed a heart procedure on a fetus inside the womb.

A team of doctors at the Hospital for Sick Children and Mount Sinai Hospital expanded one of the baby’s heart valves using a balloon catheter. The device was inserted through the mother’s abdomen and then into the fetus to reverse heart failure before delivery.

Sick Kids Hospital says the procedure allowed the baby to remain safely in utero for a crucial extra month before her birth on April 15.

Within an hour of Oceane McKenzie’s birth, she had another procedure, and a third followed a few weeks later. Doctors say Oceane is well on the road to recovery and will soon be going home.”

Carter concludes:

Now the pro-abortion types are going to hate this article. It refers to this little girl as “fetus-baby-fetus-baby-Oceane McKenzie.” This is clearly a fetus, which is also a baby, who also has a name.

But under Canadian law her mother could have changed her mind after the heart operation and had Oceane killed by an abortionist at any moment up to the moment the baby emerged from the birth canal. So how can the pro-abortionists say that abortion is not killing a person? There is only one way to do it: Oceane was a person because her mother wanted her. So one human being can bestow and remove personhood from another by an act of will. The last time that sort of thing was legal was in the days of slavery. How “progressive” we are - not!

HT: Tim Challies

Voddie Baucham instructs us not to look down one Nazi Scientists and Biologists

2009-05-12T20:57:00.001-05:00

We Need To Be Dangerous: Dr. Albert Mohler

2009-05-12T20:43:00.001-05:00

The Deeps: A Puritan Prayer

2009-05-11T21:01:00.002-05:00

Lord Jesus, give me a deeper repentance, a horror of sin, a dread of its approach. Help me chastely to flee it and jealously to resolve that my heart shall be Thine alone.

Give me a deeper trust, that I may lose myself to find myself in Thee, the ground of my rest, the spring of my being. Give me a deeper knowledge of Thyself as saviour, master, lord, and king. Give me deeper power in private prayer, more sweetness in Thy Word, more steadfast grip on its truth. Give me deeper holiness in speech, thought, action, and let me not seek moral virtue apart from Thee.

Plough deep in me, great Lord, heavenly husbandman, that my being may be a tilled field, the roots of grace spreading far and wide, until Thou alone art seen in me, Thy beauty golden like summer harvest, Thy fruitfulness as autumn plenty.

I have no master but Thee, no law but Thy will, no delight but Thyself, no wealth but that Thou givest, no good but that Thou blessest, no peace but that Thou bestowest. I am nothing but that Thou makest me. I have nothing but that I receive from Thee. I can be nothing but that grace adorns me. Quarry me deep, dear Lord, and then fill me to overflowing with living water.

HT: Puritan prayers taken from 'The Valley of Vision'

The Stranger

2009-05-11T20:17:00.005-05:00

"The Stranger"

Proverbs 13:20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise:
but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

A few months before I was born, my dad met a stranger who was new to our small Tennessee town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later.

As I grew up I never questioned his place in our family. In my young mind, each member had a special niche. My brother, Bill, five years my senior, was my example. Fran, my younger sister, gave me an opportunity to play 'big brother' and develop the art of teasing. My parents were complementary instructors-- Mom taught me to love the word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it.

But the stranger was our storyteller. He could weave the most fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries and comedies were daily conversations. He could hold our whole family spell-bound for hours each evening.

If I wanted to know about politics, history, or science, he knew it all. He knew about the past, understood the present, and seemingly could predict the future. The pictures he could draw were so life like that I would often laugh or cry as I watched.

He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Bill and me to our first major league baseball game. He was always encouraging us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several movie stars. My brother and I were deeply impressed by John Wayne in particular.

The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn't seem to mind, but sometimes Mom would quietly get up-- while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places-- go to her room, read her Bible and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed that the stranger would leave.

You see, my dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But this stranger never felt obligation to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our house-- not from us, from our friends, or adults. Our longtime visitor, however, used occasional four letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To my knowledge the stranger was never confronted. My dad was a teetotaler who didn't permit alcohol in his home - not even for cooking. But the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often.

He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (probably too much too freely) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I know now that my early concepts of the man-woman relationship were influenced by the stranger.

As I look back, I believe it was the grace of God that the stranger did not influence us more. Time after time he opposed the values of my parents. Yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave.

More than thirty years have passed since the stranger moved in with the young family on Morningside Drive. He is not nearly so intriguing to my Dad as he was in those early years. But if I were to walk into my parents' den today, you would still see him sitting over in a corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.

His name? We always just called him TV.

Anonymous.

Happy Mother's Day!

2009-05-09T11:52:00.006-05:00

For all the Mothers out there I salute you. Happy Mother's Day!

Rejected by NBC and CNN:

Accepted:

Both simply breathtakingly factual!

HT: Take Your Vitamin Z

Chilling

2009-05-08T19:08:00.002-05:00

HT: Take Your Vitamin Z

Harming the Gospel

2009-05-08T17:55:00.005-05:00

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism is Monergism's Monthly Focus.

Complementarianism:

...is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, yet they are created to complement each other via different roles in life and in the church. It is rooted in a literal interpretation of the creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture.

Egalitarianism:

...in the context of the Christian church is the teaching that all people, both men and women, are to be treated as equal and that women are to share all offices within the church equally with men. This position would hold that women could be pastors, elders, bishops, etc., and that male headship in the church and the family is invalid. Egalitarianism is an avenue of liberalism.

"The denial of complementarianism undermines the church's practical embrace of the authority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitably harming the church's witness to the Gospel)."
- Ligon Duncan

Crucified Between Two Opposite Errors

2009-05-08T17:43:00.004-05:00

"Tertullian (an early church father from Second Century) said, “Just as Christ was crucified between two thieves, so this doctrine of justification is ever crucified between two opposite errors.”

These “two false gospels” can be called hedonism / relativism / irreligion on the one hand, and legalism / moralism / religion on the other hand. There is a Gospel according to the Relativists and a Gospel according to the Moralists."

Read More

HT: The Fide-O Blog

What About Us?

2009-05-07T16:42:00.004-05:00

"If sinners wanted to be around Jesus, why don’t they want to be around us? (Luke 15:1)

If sinners crucified Jesus, why don’t they have a problem with us? (Acts 2:23"

HT: The Blazing Center

They Ought to be Praised

2009-05-07T16:34:00.003-05:00

Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.

- JC Ryle, Warnings To The Churches

Great New Bible Resource

2009-05-07T16:18:00.003-05:00

"About a decade ago, Wheaton College Graduate School professor Greg Beale had the idea to develop a one-volume commentary that would address every instance a New Testament writer quotes or alludes to the Old Testament. He sought the help of D. A. Carson at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and together they began soliciting the contributions of an all-star cast of biblical experts. Finally, in late 2007, they published the hefty Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker, $54.99, 1,152 pp.). CT editor-at-large Collin Hansen spoke with Beale and Carson to learn how this new volume will help Christians understand the Bible as one progressively unfolding story of redemption."

Christianity Today: Interview

HT: Monergism

Counter-Revolution

2009-05-05T15:33:00.002-05:00

In "True Lips Wait?" the good Doctor Mohler explains what a counter-revolution looks like.

Archival Parody of Rob Bell's The Bullhorn Guy

2009-05-02T09:52:00.002-05:00

This is a spot on parody of Rob Bell's the Bullhorn Guy.

HT: Pyromaniacs

The Purpose of Your Life

2009-05-02T09:38:00.000-05:00

“We are not called to build the kingdom of glory, but to carry a cross in the kingdom of grace. To forget the cause of missions is to forget the purpose of Christ in a world still spared from destruction. The purpose of your life must be the purpose of Christ’s death.”

- Edmund P. Clowney, Called to the Ministry

HT: Of First Importance

Putting Real Images With The Word "Choice"

2009-05-01T21:25:00.003-05:00

Zach Nielsen proprietor of the "Take Your Vitamin Z" Blog discusses the following clip from the documentary "Lake of Fire."

"This clip from Lake of Fire shows the reality of abortion that few will ever see. This is part of the problem. Most people can rationalize away what they are not forced to actually come to terms with. I'm sure that most Christians who voted for Obama probably didn't visualize the clip below when they chose to align themselves with a guy who is in full support of the right of this to continue. To me, this is mind-boggling."

I warn you that this clip is not for the faint of heart, but it is real footage.

Read more: Putting Real Images With The Word "Choice"

John MacArthur: USA Abandoned by God

2009-05-01T21:20:00.001-05:00

HT: Reformation Theology

The High Cost of Being Cool

2008-12-19T21:04:00.003-06:00

Mohler discusses the Rick Warren/Obama media storm as only Mohler can.

"It doesn't take much. We would all like to be considered cool. Cultural opposition is a tough challenge and bearing public hatred is a hard burden. Being cool means being considered mainstream, acceptable, and admirable. Believing that same-sex marriage is wrong is enough to turn "uncool" in an instant, at least in many circles."

"Rick Warren has just found himself in the midst of a whirlwind. We must pray that God will give him wisdom as he decides what to do -- and what to say -- as he stands in this whirlwind. But every evangelical Christian should watch this carefully, for the controversy over Rick Warren will not stop with the pastor from Saddleback. This whirlwind is coming for you and for your church. At some point, the cost of being "cool" will be the abandonment of biblical Christianity. We had better decide well in advance that this is a cost far too high to pay."

Recently my wife was referred to as a militant for a decision she had made. She is a militant not because of that decision, but because of her decision to attend and support a church that is unwilling to pay the high cost to be cool.

May we stand as Christian Brothers and Sisters to defend Biblical Christianity.

RC

The High Cost of Being (and Staying) Cool -- Rick Warren in a Whirlwind

Penn Jillette on Proseletyzing

2008-12-19T18:08:00.002-06:00

Atheist Penn Jillette can teach us all about sharing the Gospel with others.

Hopefully this will persuade us all to make a greater effort to proseletyze.

RC

Courtesy of The Contemporary Calvinist.

2008-12-04T16:54:00.003-06:00

I recently read a great C.S. Lewis quote in Tim Keller’s book The Prodigal God . You will find the quote in the chapter entitled the “The Feast of the Father.” In this chapter Keller is making the point that salvation is experiential, material, individual, and communal. The quote is used in the section of the chapter dealing with the communal aspects of salvation and is worth the price of the book alone. The quote can be found in Lewis’ book The Four Loves in an essay entitled “Friendship.”

In the lead up to the quote Keller states, “You can’t live the Christian life without a band of Christian friends, without a family of believers in which you find a place.”

Keller further sets up the quote by describing the situation underlying the quote:

“C.S. Lewis was part of a famous circle of friends called the Inklings, which included J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings, and also the author Charles Williams, who died unexpectedly.”

C.S. Lewis’ quote is a reflection on the results of the loss of his friend Charles Williams.

“In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets. Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald’s [Tolkien’s] reaction to a specifically Charles joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having him “to myself” now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald…In this, Friendship exhibits a glorious “nearness by resemblance” to heaven itself where the very multitude of the blessed (which no man can number) increases the fruition which each of us has of God. For every soul, seeing Him in her own way, doubtless communicates that unique vision to all the rest. That, says an old author, is why the Seraphim in Isaiah’s vision are crying “Holy, Holy, Holy” to one another (Isaiah 6:3). The more we thus share the Heavenly Bread between us, the more we shall have.”

Keller sums it up:

“Lewis is saying that it took a community to know an individual. How much more would this be true of Jesus Christ?”

May God use the internet community to reach those individuals who cannot or will not attend church to find a band of Christian brothers and sisters on the internet. Better yet may God help them find a good church home to share their views in the community of believers.

RC

The Lord's Supper

2008-11-24T21:24:00.002-06:00

THE FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE LORD'S SUPPER

Benjamin B. Warfield

The most salient fact connected with the institution of the Lord's Supper is, of course, that this took place at, or, to be more specific, in the midst of, the Passover Meal. It was 'while they were eating" the Passover meal, that Jesus, having taken up a loaf and blessed it, broke it and gave it to his disciples (Matt. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22). This was, assuredly, no accident. As the time of his offering up drew near, the indications thicken of the most extreme care on the part of our Lord in the ordering of every event: and these indications are least of all lacking with respect to this Passover (Matt. xxvi. 2; Luke xxii. 8; Mark xiv. 13 if.; Luke xxii f.), which he himself tells us he had earnestly desired to eat with his disciples before he suffered (Luke xxii. 15). We must certainly presume that all that our Lord did at this meal was in execution of a thoroughly detailed plan of action, formed in the clear light of the whole future (Luke xxii. 16,18, 30; John xiii. 1, 3, 11, 18, 19, 21, 27; Matt. xxvi. 31; Luke xxii. 31, 37, etc.). Nothing can be more certain than that he deliberately chose the Passover Meal for the institution of the sacrament of his body and blood.

The appropriateness of this selection becomes apparent the moment we consider the similarities between the two ordinances. These lie in part upon the surface. Both, for example. are feasts, religious feasts, religious feasts in which the devotional life of Jews and Christians respectively to a large extent center. They penetrate, however, also in part very much below the surface. The central feature of both, for example, is eating a symbol of Jesus Christ himself. The typical character of the Paschal lamb certainly cannot be doubted by any reader of the New Testament (John i. 20, 19, 36; 1 Cor. V. 7; 1 Peter 1. 19; Rev. v.6, 12; vii. 14; xii. 11; xiii. 8 et passim): the lamb that was slain and lay on the table at this feast was just the typical representative of the Lamb that had been slain from the foundation of the world and in whose hands is the Book of Life. The bread and wine of which we partake at the Lord's table are in like manner, according to our Lord's precise declaration, the representations of his body and blood -- his body given, his blood poured out for us What is done in the two feasts is therefore precisely the same thing: Jesus Christ is symbolically fed upon in both. This close similarity between the two feasts again certainly cannot be looked upon as accidental. We must assuredly judge that our Lord, in instituting the Supper, meant to make it to the full extent to which these similarities point, a replica of the Passover. In this sense at least the Lord's Supper is the Christian Passover Meal. It takes, and was intended to take, in the Christian Church, the place which the Passover occupied in the Jewish Church. It is the Christian substitute for the Passover.

Even this, however, does not do full justice to the relation between the two. If in the light of the broad facts suggested rather than recited in what has been said, we seek to go back in imagination to that upper chamber, and to realize exactly what Jesus did when he took the bread and wine and gave them to his disciples to eat and drink in remembrance of him, we shall not fail to perceive that it is almost as inadequate to say merely that the Lord's Supper was instituted as the substitute for the Passover as to say merely that it was instituted at the Passover. It is not something entirely different from the Passover -- or even wholly separate from it -- now put into its place, to be celebrated by Christians instead of it. It is much rather only a new form given to the Passover, for the continuance of its essential substance through all time. Precisely what our Lord appears to have done was so to change the symbols which represented his sacrificed Person in the feast, as to adapt it to the new conditions of the Kingdom as now introduced by him, and thus to perpetuate it throughout the new dispensation. The lamb had hitherto been the symbol of the great coming Sacrifice; but as they sat about the table and ate, Jesus solemnly took up a loaf and breaking it gave it to his disciples and said: "Take, eat: this is my body that is given for you." Many thoughts, many feelings may have crowded in on his disciples' minds as he spoke. There was much they may not have understood; much which, half understanding, they may have half revolted from. But there was one thing that, however dimly, they can scarcely have failed to catch a glimmering of: their Master was identifying himself with the Paschal Lamb, and he was appointing to them a new symbol in its stead. For was not that lamb what had been given for them, the symbol and seal of their redemption? And was he not speaking of himself as given for them, and appointing the bread and wine as the symbols of himself? We may be sure there were searchings of heart that night as to what these things might mean: gropings no doubt in the darkness: but not gropings altogether without a clue or in a darkness unillumined by a single beam.

The reason why Christ made a change in the symbols representative of his sacrificed self is obvious enough. He to whom all the Paschal lambs from the beginning had been pointing, was about to be offered up. The old things were passing away: behold, all things were to become new. As he was in no doubt as to his approaching death or rather as he was in the act of preparing for the death he was himself to accomplish for sinners: so he was in no doubt as to the approaching dissolution of the Jewish state, and the cessation of the ritual law, and with it of the sacrifices which that law prescribed. But not only was it appropriate that the new epoch in the Kingdom of God that was about to dawn should be marked by a change in ritual; it was necessary that the change introduced should follow on some such lines as those our Lord was actually giving it. The Temple sacrifices were to cease; there were to be no longer sacrificed lambs available for the Passover festival. There is accordingly no lamb in the Jewish Passover today while yet there remains the symbol of the Lamb in the Christian Passover: they have no altar, but we have an altar of which they have no right to eat. The new dispensation was to be universal: it was needful that its central act of worship should not imply a central place of worship and be bound to it: the day has come when neither in Jerusalem nor in any other special place should men worship God, but everywhere in spirit and in truth. Above all, the true Lamb to which all the Paschal lambs had pointed was at length to be offered up; fulfilled in the antitype it would be indecorous to offer up longer the types. Thus the change that was made in the chosen symbols of the great sacrifice needed to have regard at once to the closing of the old dispensation of typical sacrifices, to the opening of the new dispensation of universal spiritual worship, and to the passing away of the type in the antitype. All this was beautifully provided for when Jesus, even as they ate the last Paschal lamb, took the bread and wine that lay before him, and, with the unmistakable emphasis of contrast, said "This is my body given for you"; "This is my blood of the covenant poured out for you." Whatever his disciples missed in their wonder at the new things that were so mysteriously and so rapidly crowding upon them, we may be sure they did not miss this: that in some way the Master was transforming the Passover for them and giving them not indeed a new symbolism for it but new symbols in it.

The really palmary fact for the understanding of the Lord's Supper thus clearly emerges. The Lord's Supper in its fundamental significance is just what the Passover Meal was: the symbols are changed, the substance remains the same. It is not necessary for our present purpose to determine the precise nature of the Passover offering -- whether, for example, it was a special, or rather the culminating instance of a sin-offering, differing from other sin-offerings only in the adjunction to it of a sacrificial feast; or whether, just because of the inclusion of this feast, it was, not technically a sin-offering at all, but rather what is generally called a peace-offering. After all, the distinction is merely a matter of distribution of emphasis. Every bloody offering was piacular: and the peace-offering differed from the sin-offering only by the adjunction of an additional conception. Whether we call it a peculiar and more complete form of the sin-offering, or rather a peace-offering, therefore, the two ideas of expiation and communion are alike inexpugnably imbedded in the very substance of the Passover sacrifice. The meal which succeeded the sacrifice in any case owed its significance to its relation to the sacrifice. The victim offered was the material of the meal, and the idea of expiation was therefore fundamental to it -- it was a feast of death. But, on the other hand, just because it was a festive meal, it in any case also celebrated rather the effects than the fact of this death -- it was a feast of life.

Further than is obviously implied in this, it seems also unnecessary for us just now to inquire into the precise meaning of a sacrificial feast. Its general law is laid down by the Apostle Paul in the tenth chapter of First Corinthians: and despite some difficulties that hang over the exact exposition of some of his phrases, certain broad outlines are plain enough. Assuredly, for example, the sacrificial feast is not a repetition of the sacrifice; and equally certainly it is something more than a mere commemoration of the sacrifice: it is specifically a part of the sacrifice, and more particularly this part -- the application of it. Every one who partook of the sacrificial feast, had "communion with the altar." All that may be implied in this we do not stop now to discuss: this much it is allowed on all hands to imply -- those who ate of the sacrificed victim became thereby participants in the benefits attained by the sacrifice. Only one or two of the household, perchance, bore the Paschal lamb to the Temple and were engaged in its sacrificial slaying: all those who partook of the feast, however, were alike the offerers of the sacrifice and its beneficiaries. This is the fundamental law of the sacrificial feast perfectly understood by our Lord's first disciples, who had been bred under a sacrificial dispensation and instinctively felt its implications, but needing to be kept with some effort carefully in mind by us to whom these things are strange and without natural significance.

Precisely what our Lord did therefore, when at the last Passover he changed the symbols by which he was represented -- he, the true Passover, the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world -- was to establish a perpetual sacrificial feast, under universal forms, capable of observation everywhere and at all times, and to command it to be celebrated as a proclamation of his death "till he came." All who partake of this bread and wine, the appointed symbols of his body and blood, therefore, are symbolically partaking of the victim offered on the altar of the cross, and are by this act professing themselves offerers of the sacrifice and seeking to become beneficiaries of it. That is the fundamental significance of the Lord's Supper. Whenever the Lord's Supper is spread before us we are invited to take our place at the sacrificial feast, the substance of which is the flesh and blood of the victim which has been sacrificed once for all at Calvary; and as we eat these in their symbols, we are - certainly not repeating his sacrifice, nor yet prolonging it -- but continuing that solemn festival upon it instituted by Christ, by which we testify our "participation in the altar" and claim our part in the benefits bought by the offering immolated on it. The sacrificial feast is not the sacrifice, in the sense of the act of offering: it is, however, the sacrifice, in the sense of the thing offered, that is eaten in it: and therefore it is presuppositive of the sacrifice in the sense of the act of offering and implies that this offering has already been performed. The Lord's Supper as a sacrificial feast is accordingly not the sacrifice, that is, the act of offering up Christ's body and blood: it is, however, the sacrifice, that is the body and blood of Christ that were offered, which is eaten in it: and therefore it is presuppositive of the sacrifice as an act of offering and implies that this act has already been performed once for all.

We shall not, however, attempt to develop the conception in its details. Even at a glance it can scarcely escape us that this historical method of conceiving the Lord's Supper approves itself in manifold ways by the light it throws on the problems which have perplexed men in their efforts to understand the Supper. Three of the services it thus renders are worthy of special mention. It throws a bright illumination upon our Lord's words of institution, and makes all the dark places in them light. It offers a ready explanation of the corruptions which have crept into the idea and practice of the Supper in the course of Christian history: as the memory of a sacrificial system died out in the course of generations of men born Christian, the significance of a sacrificial feast was lost and the attempts that were made to find some other meaning for phrases growing out of it necessarily have led to error. And it supplies an adequate interpretation of the Supper itself as it is commended to us by the apostolic writers, and gives it its due place in the body of Christian institutions. A simple historical suggestion which performs such services to thought thereby powerfully commends itself as fundamental to a right conception of the institution.

From Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 1, Edited by John E. Meeter, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970. originally from The Bible Student, III, 1991, pp77-83

Courtesy of Reformation Ink.

Light is Always Beneficial in the End

2008-11-13T13:15:00.003-06:00

"Clear-cut 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. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight."

J. Gresham Machen
From the introduction to Christianity and Liberalism.

A Defense of Lesser Lights

2008-10-27T18:07:00.004-05:00

Next notice that it would be well for us to imitate God in this: in not forgetting the lesser lights. I do not know that great men are often good examples. I am sorry when, because men have been clever and successful, they are held up to imitation, though their motives and morals have been questionable. I would sooner men were stupid and honest than clever and tricky; it is better to act rightly and fail altogether than succeed by falsehood and cunning. I would sooner bid my son imitate an honest man who has no talent, and whose life is unsuccessful, than point him to the cleverest and greatest that ever lived, whose life has become a brilliant success, but whose principles are condemnable. Learn not from the great but from the good: be not dazzled by success, but follow the safer light of truth and right. But so it is that men mainly observe that only which is written in big letters; but you know the choicest part of God's books are printed in small characters. They who would only know the rudiments may spell out the words in large type which are for babes; but those who want to be fully instructed must sit down and read the small print of God, given us in lives of saints whom most men neglect. Some of the choicest virtues are not so much seen in the great as in the quiet, obscure life. Many a Christian woman manifests a glory of character that is to be found in no public man. I am sure that many a flower that is "born to blush unseen," and, as we think, to "waste its fragrance on the desert air," is fairer than the beauties which reign in the conservatory, and are the admiration of all. God has ways of producing very choice things on a small scale. As rare pearls and precious stones are never great masses of rock, but always lie within a narrow compass, so full often the fairest and richest virtues are to be found in the humblest individuals. A man may be too great to be good, but he cannot be too little to be gracious. Do not, therefore, always be studying Abraham, the greater character. Does not the text say, "Look unto Abraham, your father, and unto Sarah that bare you". You have not learned the full lesson of patriarchal life until you have been in the tent with Sarah as well as among the flocks with her husband.

C.H. Spurgeon

Courtesy: Fire and Ice: Puritan and Reformed Writings

Machen's Warrior Children

2008-10-08T20:17:00.002-05:00

John M. Frame
Prof. of Systematic Theology and Philosophy
Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida

[“Machen's Warrior Children,” in Sung Wook Chung, ed., Alister E. McGrath and Evangelical Theology ( Grand Rapids : Baker, 2003).]

Abstract
From 1923 to the present, the movement begun by J. Gresham Machen and Westminster Theological Seminary has supplied the theological leadership for the conservative evangelical Reformed Christians in the United States. Under that leadership, conservative Calvinists made a strong stand against liberal theology. But having lost that theological battle in the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., they turned inward to battle among themselves about issues less important—in some cases, far less important—than liberalism. This essay describes 21 of these issues, with some subdivisions, and offers some brief analysis and evaluations. It concludes by raising some questions for the Reformed community to consider: Was it right to devote so much of the church’s time and effort to these theological battles? Did the disputants follow biblical standards for resolution of these issues? Was the quality of thought in these polemics worthy of the Reformed tradition of scholarship? Should the Reformed community be willing to become more inclusive, to tolerate greater theological differences than many of the polemicists have wanted?

Orientation
J. Gresham Machen, a lifelong bachelor, left no biological children but many spiritual ones. The story of American conservative evangelical Reformed theology [1] in the twentieth century is largely the story of those children.

Machen (1881-1937) took degrees at Johns Hopkins University and Princeton Theological Seminary, then studied for a time in Germany. He returned to teach New Testament at Princeton Seminary. His faith and theological stability had been somewhat shaken by his experience with liberal German Bible critics and theologians, particularly Wilhelm Herrmann. But in time he became a vigorous and cogent defender of the confessional Presbyterianism taught at Princeton by such stalwarts as Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and Geerhardus Vos. In The Virgin Birth of Christ [2] and The Origin of Paul’s Religion, [3] he attacked (mostly German) critics of Scripture, arguing the historical authenticity of the New Testament. In 1923, he published Christianity and Liberalism, [4] an attack on the liberal or modernist theology espoused by those critics and by many in American churches. This book argued, not only that liberalism was wrong, but that it was a different religion from Christianity. According to Machen, Christianity and liberalism were antithetically opposed in their concepts of doctrine, God and man, the Bible, Christ, salvation, and the church. The liberals taught that doctrine is secondary to experience, that God is father to all apart from redemption, that the Bible is a book of mere human testimonies, that Christ is merely a moral example, that salvation is to be found by following that example, and that the church should accept this liberal gospel as orthodox.

Princeton Seminary was under the authority of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A. (henceforth PCUSA). In 1928, that body determined to reorganize the seminary to make it represent a broad range of opinion in the church, including the liberalism against which Machen had written. In response, Machen left the seminary, together with colleagues Robert D. Wilson and Oswald T. Allis. These scholars founded Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and added to its faculty such younger men as R. B. Kuiper, Ned B. Stonehouse, Allan A. MacRae, Paul Woolley, Cornelius Van Til, and John Murray. Machen intended that Westminster would continue the confessional Presbyterian tradition of what would then be called “Old” Princeton.

In 1936, Machen left the PCUSA after the denomination suspended him from the ministry for his involvement in the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. Machen and others had created that Board to send out missionaries that could be trusted to preach the biblical gospel without any compromise with liberalism. Rather than accepting his suspension, Machen founded a new denomination, known first as the Presbyterian Church of America, later renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (henceforth, OPC).

Machen’s movement represented numerically only a small proportion of Reformed believers in the US. Many conservative Reformed people remained in the PCUSA. Many belonged to older, smaller denominations, such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) and Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) that descended from the Scottish Covenanters. There is also a major wing of American Calvinism with Dutch roots. The Reformed Church in America (RCA) goes back to the founding of New Amsterdam (later New York) in 1626. The Christian Reformed Church (CRC) originated in a split from the RCA in 1822 and retained a more conservative stance than that body through much of the period since that time. In the last forty years, however, it has been troubled by debates over biblical inerrancy, women’s ordination, and homosexuality, leading many of its more conservative members to leave and form other denominations such as the Orthodox Christian Reformed Church (OCRC) and the United Reformed Church (URC). These Scottish and Dutch groups, together with the conservatives in the PCUSA, respected what Machen and Westminster were doing, though they also supported their own denominational seminaries.

A small Reformed denomination of German background, the Reformed Church in the U. S. (RCUS) used Westminster for many years as the main institution for training its pastoral candidates.

There are also in the US a number of people with Reformed convictions in Congregational, Independent, and Anglican churches (both the large Protestant Episcopal Church and smaller bodies like the Reformed Episcopal Church). Many Baptists also embrace Reformed soteriology, with, of course, differing levels of appreciation for traditional Reformed views of covenant and church government. Some students from these traditions attended Westminster, and the seminary had some influence within these communities.

In 1973 there was a split in the Presbyterian Church U. S. (PCUS), the southern counterpart of the PCUSA from which Machen departed, essentially for the same reason as the Machen split: opposition to liberal theology. Many of those who left the PCUS formed the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). [5]

Machen’s movement did not represent all of these elements of Reformed Christianity, but it had a major influence on all of them. Indeed it can be argued that it provided their theological leadership. Machen himself made an effort to bring together American, Scottish, and Dutch traditions at Westminster. The original faculty included R. B. Kuiper, Ned Stonehouse, and Cornelius Van Til, all of whom were raised in the CRC. Another major influence on the seminary was biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos, another Dutchman from the CRC who taught at Princeton and remained there after 1929, though he had strong sympathies with Westminster. The Scots were also represented on the early faculty by systematic theologian John Murray, who maintained his British citizenship, though he taught in America until his retirement in 1967. Murray held to some of the distinctives (such as the exclusive use of Psalm versions in worship) of the groups in America influenced by Scottish covenanters, such as the RPCNA, though he himself was a minister in the OPC.

There was also theological diversity in Machen’s movement, which I believe he cultivated intentionally. Allan A. Macrae of the Westminster faculty was premillennial, later serving as an editor of the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) a major work of dispensational theology. Paul Woolley was also premillennial, but without dispensationalist sympathies. Machen himself was postmillennial, which was the majority position on the Old Princeton faculty. The rest of the Westminster faculty was amillennial, so far as I can tell, though John Murray leaned in a postmillennial direction in later years. Other premillennialists served with Machen on the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. The premillennialists served as a link between Machen’s confessional Presbyterianism and the broader currents of American evangelicalism.

This diversity, both ethnic and doctrinal, brought many influences to bear on Westminster and the OPC. It also helped Westminster to have significant influence upon many Reformed bodies and upon American evangelicalism generally. Old Princeton had already been regarded by many evangelicals as their theological leader. Even many non-Calvinists looked to the writings of Princeton professors B. B. Warfield, Robert Dick Wilson, and Machen himself, for scholarly defenses of biblical authority and inerrancy. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, corresponded with Machen urging closer ties between the two seminaries (a desire that Machen did not reciprocate). Westminster also had a major influence upon the conservative wing of the CRC (and later the OCRC and URC), upon the Reformed Episcopal Church, among the Scottish bodies like the RPCNA, upon the PCA, and upon individuals and churches of Reformed Baptist persuasion.

Westminster graduates taught at seminaries such as Covenant, Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, Biblical, Mid-America, and Reformed Episcopal. When Fuller Theological Seminary was organized in 1947 it used at first a curriculum very much like that of Westminster, and several Westminster graduates served on the early faculty. Reformed Theological Seminary, founded in Jackson Mississippi in 1966, now with three campuses and numerous extension centers, readily acknowledges a large debt to Westminster, in curriculum, theological emphasis, and faculty.

Westminster faculty and graduates have continued to provide leadership to the Reformed theological world. I believe it can be said that although Machen’s Westminster was not a large seminary it was one of the most important influences, perhaps the most important institutional influence, upon conservative Reformed theology in the twentieth century.

Machen died of pneumonia in 1937, disappointed that his new denomination was already showing signs of division. Machen’s children were theological battlers, and, when the battle against liberalism in the PCUSA appeared to be over, they found other theological battles to fight. Up to the present time, these and other battles have continued within the movement, and, in my judgment, that is the story of conservative evangelical Reformed theology in twentieth-century America. In the rest of this essay I will discuss that theological warfare, distinguishing 21 areas of debate.

1. Eschatology
The first theological battle in Machen’s new denomination concerned the order of events in the last days, particularly the nature of the millennium, the thousand year period mentioned in Rev. 20:4-6. Classic premillennialists, following some of the early Church Fathers, teach that the return of Christ will precede a thousand years of peace in which Christ would reign upon the earth. Dispensational premillennialists hold that Christ’s return will be in two stages: (1) secretly to rapture his saints, leaving all others behind, and (2) publicly, after seven years of tribulation, to institute his visible millennial reign. They also teach that during the millennium God will literally fulfill his promises to Israel, promises not given to Gentile believers. Amillennialists believe that the thousand years of Revelation 20 is a figurative number, indicating the whole period between Jesus’ Resurrection and his Return, in which Christ rules from heaven and brings people to know peace with God through the preaching of the Gospel.

In December, 1935, John Murray began in The Presbyterian Guardian, then the organ of the Machen movement, a series of articles called “The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes.” These articles attacked dispensational premillennialism, as well as modernism and Arminianism, as heresy. They offended a number of people in the Machen movement who either (1) sympathized with dispensational theology, (2) were unable to regard it as heresy, or (3) who thought the debate about dispensationalism could lead to an attack upon non-dispensational premillennialists. This issue, together with the next to be mentioned, led to a split within the Machen movement, producing after Machen’s death yet another new seminary (Faith Theological Seminary) and another new denomination (the Bible Presbyterian Church, BPC), which revised the Westminster Confession of Faith to make it premillennial.

Debate over eschatology has continued since that time among conservative American Calvinists. In 1957, Loraine Boettner’s The Millennium [6] appeared, renewing discussion of the postmillennial position, which had been relatively unpopular in Reformed circles since the days of Old Princeton. Postmillennialists today usually agree with amillennialists that the thousand years of Rev. 20 designates the age between the Resurrection and the Return of Jesus. But they emphasize that during this period, or toward the end of it, the Gospel will triumph, not only in bringing individuals to salvation, but also in dominating culture. In the 1960s and 70s, postmillennialism became the dominant view of the Christian Reconstruction movement, led by R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Greg L. Bahnsen. The Reconstructionists argued that amillennialism and premillennialism, since they were pessimistic about the possibility of Christian cultural dominance, bore significant responsibility for the modern decline of Christian influence in society. [7]

Postmillennialists tend to hold preterist interpretations of many biblical texts dealing with the “last days” such as Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) and the Book of Revelation. [8] Preterism holds that many (or, in an extreme form of preterism, all) of the events predicted in these passages have already taken place, in the “coming” of God to judge Israel, resulting in the destruction of the temple in 70 A. D. Recently, preterists (some affiliated with the Christian Reconstruction Movement, some not) have become very active, forming organizations, holding conferences, producing literature. [9] The extreme form of preterism, sometimes called “full” preterism, denies that Scripture promises a coming of Christ that is future to us.

In my judgment and that of many others, extreme preterism is unorthodox. But partisans of the other eschatological views have exaggerated the importance of adopting one such position over another. It is not evident that Scripture is precise enough in this area to decisively establish one of these as the truth, let alone as a test of orthodoxy. And, contrary to the Reconstructionist postmillennialists, I think that eschatological positions have had very little to do with the cultural pessimism or optimism of their proponents. Many of the most politically active Christians in the US have been premillennialists (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson) or amillennialists (James Skillen, the Association for Public Justice), contrary to the postmillennialist claim that these positions foster cultural irrelevance and impotence. For many Christians, biblical admonitions to seek justice in society are sufficient reason to become culturally and politically active, and these are far more weighty than the supposed implications of any eschatological view.

By the 1970s, for the most part “eschatological liberty” prevailed in most American Reformed denominations. Even the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPES), an offshoot of the BPC, which maintained the premillennial revisions to the Westminster Confession, came to hold that all three major positions could be tolerated in the church. But this developing consensus was not sufficient to erase the effects of the breach of 1937, which is still reflected in the denominational alignments.

2. Christian Liberty
The other main issue that divided the OPC in 1937 was the issue of whether Christians should totally abstain from alcoholic beverages. Machen held that Scripture permitted moderate use of alcohol. Others in the Machen movement, however, held that the use of alcohol had produced so many evils in the modern world (such as destruction of individual lives, destruction of families, auto injuries and deaths) that conscientious Christians had no option but total abstinence. The moderationist position was the majority view of the Reformed tradition, abstinence the majority view of broader American evangelicalism, which had supported the prohibitionist amendment to the US Constitution. To the moderationists, the abstainers violated the principle of sola Scriptura, elevating a cultural prejudice to the status of doctrine. To the abstainers, the advocates of moderation were refusing to apply broader Scriptural principles to a major social evil.

My impression is that the moderationists have pretty much won the day, although even now many American Reformed churches (usually in deference to recovering alcoholics) use unfermented grape juice in the Lord’s Supper. One rarely hears the arguments for abstinence any more in Reformed circles, though the discussion continues in other forms of American evangelicalism.

3. The Incomprehensibility of God
From around 1944 to 1948, the OPC was troubled by a controversy between followers of Cornelius Van Til, Westminster’s Professor of Apologetics, and those of Gordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College, later at Butler University and Covenant College. The Presbytery of Philadelphia of the OPC ordained Clark to the ministry in 1944, but followers of Van Til complained against his ordination. Several issues entered this controversy, the main one described as the issue of the “incomprehensibility of God.” Both sides agreed, of course, that God was incomprehensible to human beings. But they disagreed on the relation of God’s thoughts to man’s thoughts. [10] To Van Til, when God thinks “this is a rose,” the “contents” of his thought are “qualitatively different” from the contents of any human mind thinking “this is a rose.” To Clark, the contents of God’s thought and a human being’s in this case are identical: both God and man are having the same thought. Van Til was trying to guard the creator-creature distinction by saying that just as God radically differs from man, so the contents of God’s mind radically differ from the contents of man’s mind. Clark was trying to avoid skepticism: for if God’s thought is true, and human thought necessarily differs from it in every respect, then human thought cannot be true.

The debate was vigorous and voluminous. The key terms “contents” and “qualitative difference” were never very well defined, and the two parties regularly talked past one another. I think that in this discussion personal issues impeded conceptual clarity. And we must ask, to what degree of precision may theologians seek to define the incomprehensibility of God without violating that very incomprehensibility?

As I see it, however, Van Til, though he sometimes expressed his view in confusing language, did not deny what was most important to Clark, namely that God and man can believe the same proposition and thus can agree as to what is objectively true. Similarly, Clark expressed, in his discussion of the “mode” of God’s knowledge, what was important to Van Til, namely the radical difference between the nature and workings the divine mind and the human.

The result of the controversy was that the General Assembly of the OPC did not revoke Clark’s ordination, but Clark himself and many of his disciples left the denomination later over issues related to the controversy. Another battle, another split. [11]

4. Apologetics
Clark and Van Til battled over epistemology and therefore also over how people come to know God. Both men were “presuppositionalists” in that they believed that God’s revelation was ultimately authoritative for all human knowledge, rather than being subject to the higher authority of factual evidence. Becoming a Christian involves accepting God’s Word as the supreme criterion of truth, that is, as one’s ultimate presupposition. So the Word of God validates factual evidence, not the other way around.

Clark held that Christian theism, like other world-views, was like an axiomatic system in mathematics: presupposing certain “axioms” but validated by the criteria of logical consistency and adequacy for its tasks. The axiom of Christianity is the truth of the Bible, but the apologist can persuade inquirers that the Bible is logically consistent and is adequate to its redemptive task. Van Til resisted Clark’s view of logic as a test of revelation, holding that logic itself, like factual evidence, is validated by Scripture rather than Scripture by logic. [12] To Van Til, Clark was a rationalist. To Clark, Van Til was an irrationalist.

Others in Reformed circles rejected presuppositionalism altogether for more traditional apologetic approaches. Dr. James Oliver Buswell, one of the premillennial group who broke with Westminster and the OPC, questioned Van Til from a largely empiricist perspective, [13] and several writers from the Christian Reformed church questioned whether Van Til’s approach was genuinely Reformed. [14] The “Classical Apologetics” of John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul, and Arthur Lindsley rejects Van Til in favor of an approach based on natural theology and historical evidences, presupposing certain “basic assumptions” including “the law of noncontradiction,” “the law of causality,” and “the basic reliability of sense perception.” [15] The debate continues into the present, with additional alternatives being offered and new voices being heard. [16]

One of those voices is that of philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who describes his position as “Reformed Epistemology.” [17] This position says that people are rationally justified in believing in God without evidence or argument, though such rational beliefs are open to refutation by evidence and argument. In Plantinga’s view, we come to know God when our faculties of knowledge, working rightly and placed in the proper environment, come naturally to form a belief in him. This position, I think, is largely right, but it seeks to answer different questions from those of Van Til, Clark, Gerstner, and others. Therefore it isn’t really an alternative to these other views, though many consider it to be that. To borrow a distinction of William Lane Craig, Reformed epistemology is more concerned with how we can know the truth, whereas presuppositionalism and evidentialism are more concerned with how we can show it.

The discussion has, I think, been a useful one, leading the church to ask important questions (rarely asked in past centuries) about how Reformed theology bears upon epistemology and apologetics. But, as with the debates over eschatology, Christian liberty, and incomprehensibility, the discussion has been far too shrill. It has led to the formation of factions in Reformed community, each assured that it has the truth about apologetics and that the other factions have denied crucial aspects of Reformed theology. Van Til himself questioned the Reformed commitment of those who disagreed with his apologetic approach, and his opponents spoke equally strongly against him.

One may argue that the theology of Calvin and the Reformed confessions has apologetic implications. But the confessions do not deal specifically with apologetics or epistemology, so these should be regarded as open questions in the Reformed churches. Further, it seems to me that this is a subject on which more thinking needs to be done, before we attain a position worthy to be a test of Reformed orthodoxy.

5. Philosophy
Until about 1960, Van Til was associated fairly closely with the Dutch philosophical school of thought known as the “philosophy of the idea of law.” The most famous member of this school was Herman Dooyeweerd, [18] but many others followed more or less the same approach, including D. Th. Vollenhoven, S. U. Zuidema, K. Popma, J. P. A. Mekkes, H. Evan Runner, H. Van Riessen. Around 1960, however, it became evident that Dooyeweerd disagreed with some aspects of Van Til’s apologetic system and, more broadly, with the whole idea of making philosophy subject to the “conceptual contents” of Scripture. Van Til, therefore, began to distance himself from the movement.

In the late 1960s, some younger members of this philosophical school, including James Olthuis, Hendrik Hart, and Calvin Seerveld, founded in Toronto the Institute for Christian Studies. [19] The ICS group published, not only technical, but popular articles on philosophical, political, social, and theological issues. Conferences were held in many locations. As with other movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a radicalism about the presentations that inspired great zeal. The young audiences got the message that traditional Reformed theology was “scholastic,” “dualistic,” and thus not worthy of the Reformers. The only path to true reform, they thought, was to make theology, ethics, politics, and all other spheres of life subject to a Christian philosophy, namely that of Dooyeweerd and his disciples. So the Reformed community went to war again, fighting battles in churches, seminaries, and Christian schools over these issues.

The ICS leaned toward socialist politics and liberal views on many social and theological issues, but other followers of Dooyeweerd took more conservative positions. My impression is that by the late 1970s the battles in churches and institutions had petered out, though views on these matters continue to be exchanged in academic contexts.

6. Sabbath
Differences over the Sabbath began very early in the history of the Reformed community. Calvin held that in the New Covenant there was no special day divinely mandated for worship and rest. The Puritans and Scots, however, believed that the New Testament “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10) is identical with the Old Testament Sabbath except that it is observed on the first day of the week rather than the seventh. [20] Calvin’s view is reflected in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Puritan view in the Westminster Standards. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the OPC disciplined two ministers who held essentially Calvin’s view of the Sabbath. These cases raised the question of whether Calvin himself would have been sufficiently orthodox to minister in that denomination and the more serious question of whether even the main historic divisions of the Reformed community are capable of ecclesiastical fellowship.

7. Charismatic Gifts
Most Reformed believers hold that the New Testament gifts of tongues and prophecy ceased at the end of the apostolic age. The view that these gifts continue in the church has been thought to conflict with the Reformed view of sola Scriptura, particularly the statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.1) about “those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” Nevertheless, some have argued that although Scripture is our sufficient standard of faith and life, God continues occasionally to reveal himself in other ways. John Calvin says Paul applies the term prophet in Eph. 4:11 “not to all those who were interpreters of God’s will, but to those who excelled in a particular revelation. This class either does not exist today or is less commonly seen [emphasis mine].” These prophets were “instrumental in revealing mysteries and predicting future events” that “now and again [the Lord] revives them as the need of the time demands.” [21] Later in the same discussion, he says that God even raised up apostles (probably Calvin refers to Luther) in Calvin’s time, for extraordinary purposes. Samuel Rutherford, a member of the Westminster Assembly, reports supernatural predictions of the future among the Reformers. [22] Vern Poythress also cites reports of such extraordinary prophecies from John Flavel, various Scottish covenanters, Peter Marshall, Cotton Mather, and others. [23] Poythress argues that even given the cessation of the apostolic gifts it is still possible to recognize extraordinary works of the Spirit today that are significantly analogous to the apostolic gifts. [24]

Nevertheless, two OPC pastors have been disciplined for thinking it possible that the Spirit might do such things today, and many more in various Reformed denominations have been denied ordination on such grounds. A frequent argument is that the Reformed churches must “bear witness against the modern charismatic movement.” It appears, however, that in taking this position the Reformed churches are also bearing witness against a part of their own history.

8. Theonomy
The publication in 1973 of Rousas J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law [25] and in 1977 of Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics [26] created still another controversy. These books revived a position often held in Reformed history (but never unanimously) that present-day civil states should be governed by the Law of Moses. Specifically, the theonomists argued, the penalties for crimes in Old Covenant Israel should be applied to the same crimes today. So, now as then, adultery, homosexuality, and blasphemy should be capital crimes. The theonomists were very militant in promoting their positions, and those in opposition were equally militant, if not more so. Churches and presbyteries were divided over this issue.

Opponents argued that God’s relationship to Old Testament Israel was unique and that the specific laws given to Israel were not intended to rule all other nations. A moderate position [27] is that we must look at each of the laws God gave to Moses, to determine the function of each in redemptive history and civil society, and thus to determine the precise relevance of each statute for our society.

The theonomists, also called Christian reconstructionists, sometimes seemed to be offering a political program for immediate implementation. Opponents were rather horrified at the idea that someone could take over the government and immediately institute death penalties for any number of actions that had until that time been treated lightly in society. As the discussion proceeded, however, it became evident that the theonomic thesis was actually somewhat more moderate, because (1) in their view, the Old Testament laws could not, and should not, be implemented in modern society until, through preaching of the gospel, those societies were dominated by regenerate people who loved God’s law. Since most reconstructionists were postmillennial, they believed that one day Christianity would dominate human culture, but that that might not happen until many centuries into the future. And (2) they believed in a very limited state government, incapable of instituting anything like a reign of terror. In their view, the dominant government in society should be that of the family and the self-government of regenerate individuals.

My sense is that this controversy, like earlier ones, has wound down somewhat, though it continues to be much discussed in classrooms of Christian colleges and seminaries. More moderate positions, like that of Poythress referenced earlier, seem to be winning the day.

9. Covenant and Justification
John Murray taught that the essence of covenant is God’s gracious redemptive promise. [28] A younger colleague, Old Testament Professor Meredith G. Kline, argued in his article “Law Covenant” [29] that the essence of covenant is law, not grace, though in the New Covenant Christ bears the penalties of the law as a substitute for his people, thus fulfilling the law covenant by grace. Thus our relationship with God is based strictly on merit: either our own merits, which lead only to condemnation, or the merits of Christ imputed to us and received by faith, which bring us forgiveness and eternal life.

In the 1970s, Norman Shepherd, one of Murray’s successors in Westminster’s systematic theology department, championed Murray’s view of covenant. Shepherd emphasized especially that in the covenant God’s grace and human responsibility are inseparable, as by God’s Spirit we are united to Christ. In his view, our relationship to God is not based on merit: indeed, “the very idea of merit is foreign to the way in which God our Father relates to his children.” [30] Rather, God “promises forgiveness of sins and eternal life, not as something to be earned, but as a gift to be received by a living and active faith.” [31]

Since saving faith is living and active (James 2:17), Shepherd emphasized that works are a “necessary” evidence of justification by faith. The word “necessary” led to much controversy at Westminster Seminary from 1974 to 1982, and the reverberations from that controversy continue today. Shepherd’s opponents said that he was making works necessary to salvation, compromising the heart of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works. His defenders argued, however, that although works do not in any sense save us, any faith without works is a dead faith, a non-saving faith. Faith doesn’t save because of the good works associated with it, but only because it embraces Christ alone as savior. But neither is saving faith ever without good works. To profess Christ with no interest in serving him is “easy believism” or “cheap grace.” [32]

A number of bodies (Westminster’s faculty, its board, Philadelphia Presbytery of the OPC) studied Shepherd’s position and did not officially pronounce him unorthodox. But the controversy would not quit, and in 1982 Shepherd was asked to resign his position for the good of the seminary community. In my view, that decision was an injustice.

Though Shepherd left Westminster for pastoral positions in the CRC, the controversy continues to this day. The web site www.trinityfoundation.org has published several articles accusing followers of Shepherd of denying the gospel. Westminster’s California campus is now dominated by those (including Meredith Kline, W. Robert Godfrey, Michael S. Horton, and R. Scott Clark) who think that Shepherd’s position is a serious error. [33] But some faculty members at Westminster in Philadelphia, which dismissed Shepherd in 1982, still endorse the main thrust of Shepherd’s position.

10. Law and Gospel
A number of Reformed writers in the 1990s have been attracted to a rather sharp dichotomy between law and gospel, a view historically more typical of Lutheran than of Reformed theology. On this view, the law consists exclusively of commands, threats, and terrors, the gospel exclusively of promises and comforts. There are no comforts in the law, no commands in the gospel. Those who maintain this view say that without a sharp distinction between law and gospel, the law is softened, and the gospel is no longer good news. [34] Such a distinction between law and gospel, they believe, is implied by the doctrine of justification by God’s grace through faith alone. These writers think that the views of Norman Shepherd mentioned earlier confuse law and gospel. The publication Modern Reformation has consistently maintained this position, and it is the dominant view of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and Westminster Theological Seminary in California.

Opponents of this position in the Reformed community argue that the Bible itself does not take pains to separate law and gospel, though it does teach justification by grace through faith alone. The classic biblical statement of the law, the ten commandments, begins by proclaiming God’s gracious deliverance of Israel from Egypt and tells Israel to keep the law out of gratefulness for that deliverance (Ex. 20:1-17). Among the commandments themselves are promises of blessing (verses 6 and 12). God is gracious through his law (Psm. 119:29). Similarly, the “gospel” in Scripture is the good news that God reigns; thus it includes the authority of God’s law (Isa. 52:7). It includes the command to repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15), and the belief it commands is a living faith, one that does good works (James 2:14-26). [35]

Those holding to the sharp distinction between law and gospel have been known to accuse their opponents of denying the gospel itself. [36] As with the other issues discussed here, this discussion has created a partisan division in the Reformed community.

11. Counseling
Jay E. Adams joined the Westminster (Philadelphia) faculty in the late 1960s, and in 1970 he published Competent to Counsel, [37] setting forth his theory of “nouthetic” (later often called “biblical”) counseling. Adams was skeptical of secular psychology, believing that Scripture alone was sufficient for pastors to deal with the problems of counselees. He questioned whether there was any such thing as “mental illness,” arguing that illnesses were either of the body (the sphere of medicine) or of the soul (the sphere of pastoral care). The biblical counseling movement grew rapidly. Now there are a number of churches, counseling centers, and seminaries that maintain this viewpoint. Adams’ movement seeks to bring the Bible to bear on counseling as Van Til brought the Bible to bear on apologetics and philosophy.

But like the other movements we have discussed, Adams’ has provoked opposition. His opponents (sometimes called “integrationists” or “Christian” [38] counselors) say that his counseling is not sufficiently responsive to the data of general revelation. His defenders argue that other forms of counseling substitute worldly wisdom for the teachings of Scripture. Differences also exist concerning the nature of science: is psychology a religiously neutral discipline, or does it operate on religiously significant presuppositions (note the Van Tillian term), antithetical to biblical teaching? The two schools also commonly differ as to the institutional status of counselors: Nouthetic counselors argue that counseling is part of the pastoral ministry of the church. Integrationists often maintain that counselors should be state-licensed professionals outside of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

I do sense some movement on both sides, especially in the last ten years or so: Integrationists seem to be more and more impressed with insights from Scripture relevant to the problems of people, and nouthetics seem to recognize more and more the importance of general revelation. [39] Adams has always admitted the importance of medical care for physical problems. But the science of the last thirty years has found more and more links between the body and the mind, such as in the treatment of schizophrenia. But for all this rapprochement, the mutual suspicion and partisan divisions have been formed, and they do not seem to be going away.

12. The Days of Creation
As in the broader evangelical world, the interpretation of Genesis 1 has been controversial in Reformed circles. Nevertheless, there has been relative peace and tolerance over this issue until recently. A number of Old Princeton professors, including Charles and A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Oswald T. Allis, held that the days of creation were not literally twenty-four hours long. Edward J. Young, who taught Old Testament at Westminster for many years, held that the days referred to long ages of time. [40] In 1957, Meredith G. Kline published an article, “Because it Had Not Rained,” [41] arguing not only that the days were non-literal, but that the narrative does not even teach a temporal sequence of events. Following N. H. Ridderbos, [42] Kline argued that the list of days is a literary framework that has no implications for the length of time or the sequence of events. So in the Reformed community, some have held to literal days, others to age-long days, and others to symbolic days. These positions coexisted fairly comfortably in Reformed churches until around 1980.

But since then many have taken up the cause of twenty-four-hour-day creation, [43] and their disciples have followed the twentieth-century Reformed pattern of being militant about their views. Many Christian Reconstructionists have embraced a literal position, joined by many strict subscriptionists (see later discussion) who base their argument on what the writers of the Westminster Confession are likely to have believed. Some presbyteries in the OPC and the RCUS have denied ordination to candidates who reject the literal view of Genesis 1.

Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them. A non-literal interpretation does not entail, for example, that Adam was anything but a real person, or that human beings evolved from animals.

13. Worship
The “worship wars” of evangelicalism have also divided the Reformed community. Debate has centered on two specific issues:

(1) The Regulative Principle: This phrase denotes the way God regulates the worship of the church. Reformed theology has claimed to maintain a stronger view of sola Scriptura, the sufficiency of Scripture, for worship, than the Lutheran and Anglican traditions. That is the view that all elements of worship must be “prescribed” in Scripture. [44] Not everything done in worship has the status of “element.” The Westminster Confession of Faith says,

…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God… common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. [45]

But what, precisely, is an element, and what is a circumstance? Is the use of musical instruments an element, or a circumstance? And what about the specific words of sermons, prayers, and hymns? These are neither prescribed in Scripture, nor are they “common to human actions and societies.” Reformed theologians have taken various positions on these issues.

Some continue to defend the traditional Puritan-Scottish approach which leads to the exclusive use Psalm-versions as worship songs (without musical instruments), [46] or some variant of that approach, with less drastic consequences. [47] Others hold that the “prescriptions” of Scripture are fairly general, leaving a broader range of freedom than the tradition has recognized. [48] Those holding the latter view argue that although God’s prescriptions for the sacrificial ritual of the tabernacle and temple are very detailed and specific, the Bible prescribes nothing specific about the synagogue worship, and little about the worship of the New Testament church.

(2) Worship Style: Some in the Reformed community advocate a very simple style of worship, focused on preaching, emulating the Puritans. Others have advocated a more elaborate ceremony, adapting the liturgies of Geneva and other Reformation churches. Still others have introduced elements associated with contemporary evangelicalism: three or four songs in a row, use of guitars, synthesizers and drums, use of contemporary worship songs, attempts to be sensitive to unchurched visitors. The first two groups have characterized the third as non-Reformed; advocates of contemporaneity accuse the traditionalists of ignoring the Pauline imperative that worship should be edifying (and therefore understandable) to the congregation, even to non-Christian visitors (1 Cor. 14; note especially verses 22-25). [49]

14. Roles of Women
As with other traditions, the Reformed community has been much concerned with the roles of women in family, church, and workplace. The ordination of women to church office has been particularly controversial. As I mentioned earlier, many conservatives left the CRC in the 1990s because that denomination opened all the offices of the church to women. Most of those I defined earlier as “conservative” reject the ordination of women. But one group, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), which left the PCUSA over its liberal theology, has women elders in some churches, though unlike the PCUSA the EPC does not require congregations to have women officers.

Even those denominations that reject women’s ordination have not escaped controversy. One large congregation recently left the PCA because of controversy over their use of women in worship. A woman stood behind a pulpit and used Scripture in a way that some described as “preaching.” So the controversy in the PCA has come down to the question of whether some biblical restrictions pertain to women that do not pertain to unordained men. That question turns largely on the interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15. Some argue that these passages exclude women only from the teaching and ruling offices of the church. Others say that in addition to this, women should either be entirely silent during meetings of the church, or at least should not be permitted to teach God’s Word to a group that includes men. [50]

There has also been controversy over recent attempts to translate the Bible into “gender-neutral” language, avoiding such things as generic masculine pronouns and the generic “man.” [51] In 1997 there was an agreement between a group of evangelical leaders and the International Bible Society, together with Zondervan publishers, that the IBS would not proceed on a plan to revise the New International Version in a gender-neutral direction. But in 2001 IBS and Zondervan announced that they had not abided by this agreement, but were completing work on a translation called “Today’s New International Version” (TNIV) that follows a gender-neutral policy. This decision caused a great stir among evangelicals generally, the Reformed among them. [52]

Proponents of gender-neutral translations say that gendered generics are no longer understandable to contemporary readers of English. Opponents say that (1) these generics are understandable, though politically offensive to some, and that (2) replacing them inevitably depersonalizes the biblical message, replacing masculine generics with plurals and abstract terms.

15. Preaching and Redemptive History

Though Geerhardus Vos, Professor of Biblical Theology, stayed at Princeton after Westminster was founded, many Westminster faculty members admired him and were highly influenced by his teaching. Vos taught that Scripture was not a book of doctrinal propositions or ethical maxims, but a history of redemption, narrating the mighty acts of God from creation to consummation.

In 1961, Edmund P. Clowney, Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster, published Preaching and Biblical Theology [53] in which, following some Dutch writers of the 1930s and ‘40s, he argued that the main purpose of preaching is to set forth that redemptive-historical narrative. Negatively, Clowney argued that sermons should not present biblical characters as moral examples (called “exemplarism” and “moralism” in the Dutch discussion), but rather should present the role of each character in the historical drama that leads to Christ. Thus preaching should always be centered on Christ and the Gospel. This position was carried to an extreme by others who, unlike Clowney, argued that a preacher should never “apply” the Scriptures to moral issues. [54]

Still others are not convinced by this argument. Though grateful for Clowney’s drawing our attention to the redemptive-historical drama of Scripture and the centrality of Christ, some have noted that (1) Scripture contains not only narrative, but also laws, proverbs, songs, letters, and apocalyptic, all of which have distinct purposes that preachers should bring out. (2) The intention of biblical writers in describing biblical characters is in part, indeed, to present them as positive or negative examples for human behavior (as Rom. 4:1-25, 1 Cor. 10:1-13, Heb. 11, Jas. 2:21-26, 5:17-18, 2 Pet. 2:4-10, Jude 8-13). (3) Scripture explicitly tells us to imitate Jesus (John 13:34-35) and Paul (1 Cor. 11:1, 2 Tim. 3:10-11), indeed to imitate God the Father (Matt. 5:44-48, 1 Pet. 1:15-16). And Paul tells Timothy also to be an example (1 Tim. 4:12). Imitation is an important means to the believer’s sanctification. (4) The whole purpose of Scripture is application: to our belief (John 20:31) and our good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). (5) Redemptive-historical preachers have sometimes been criticized for interpreting texts arbirtrarily to maintain an artificial Christ-centeredness. [55]

16. Subscription

The long-standing Reformed debate over the nature of subscription to confessions continued through the twentieth century. Reformed churches are traditionally confessional, requiring all officers (in some communions, all members) to pledge agreement with historic Reformed confessions, such as the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, the Belgic Confession, etc. The controversy over liberal theology convinced many conservatives that the confessions should be taken more seriously. Some warned, however, that there are dangers in a form of subscription that is too strict: If subscription means that one may never teach anything contrary to the confession, then, for all practical purposes the confessions are unamendable and are placed on the same level of authority as Scripture. Reformed theology embraces sola Scriptura and therefore must allow practical means by which the Bible can lead us to revise the confessions if need be.

Theologians have advocated different views of subscription, some more strict than others. [56] In my judgment, this debate has focused too much on history, not enough on theology. It has stressed too much the attempt to define the historic view of American Presbyterianism, too little the theological question of what kind of subscription is desirable: both to maintain orthodoxy in the church and to maintain the supremacy of Scripture above all secondary standards.

17. Church Unity

Among the Reformers, Calvin was most concerned with the unity of the church, specifically with the visible unity of the Protestant movement. Resisting the tendency of Protestants to divide into Calvinist and Lutheran camps, Calvin subscribed to a revised version of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession. More recently, however, some Reformed thinkers have subscribed to the notion of “pluriformity,” the view that denominations are, on the whole, a good thing. On this view, denominations are God’s way of dealing with diversity in temperaments, gifts, and doctrines. They maintain peace in the body of Christ in the way that good fences make good neighbors.

Other Reformed theologians, however, have rejected pluriformity, believing that God never ordained denominational division and that he intends for differences among believers to be worked out within the church, not over good fences. [57] That position became more influential in the late twentieth century. Reformed denominations have formed organizations, such as the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, the International and American Councils of Christian Churches, the World Reformed Fellowship, and the National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. They have sought “fraternal” or “sister church” relationships with other bodies. Some denominations have discussed union with others.

In 1982, the RPES “joined” the PCA and was “received” by them. [58] But the PCA turned down the application of the OPC to be received into the larger denomination. Four years later, the OPC, lacking the necessary two-thirds vote in the General Assembly, rejected a renewed invitation to union with the PCA. Pro-union and anti-union parties engaged in much ecclesiastical warfare during this period.

It seems to me that although Reformed churches are committed in theory to seeking union, there is a notable tendency for them to shy away from any actual union, and indeed to create new divisions unnecessarily. Reformed churches tend to glory in their distinctives: their history, their ethnic origins, the theological battles of the past that have made them different from others.

Further, when groups of people leave a denomination over some issue, they tend to form new denominations, rather than to join denominations that already exist. So those who left the CRC over the issue of women’s ordination did not, for the most part, join other Reformed or Presbyterian denominations, but formed new bodies. In my judgment, these new denominations were unjustified and therefore add to the divisions in the body of Christ.

In the 1990s, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) brought together Christians from various confessional traditions: Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anglican, and others. Their emphasis was on the Reformation solas: by Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. The Alliance showed promise of bringing Christians together. However, to some extent it has itself become divisive, for it has become a party in evangelicalism advocating certain distinctives: a sharp distinction between law and gospel, a “two kingdoms” view of Christ and culture, a history-centered approach to theology, strict subscription, and traditional worship.

18. Tradition in Theology

More should be said, therefore, about the role of tradition in the work of theology. Reformed theology has embraced sola Scriptura, a principle which Luther and Calvin used to carry out a radical critique of the ideas and practices of the church of their time. But these Reformers did respect their predecessors, making much use especially of the Church Fathers and Augustine. They accepted the teachings of the early creeds, and they purified worship in a thoughtful, cautious way, critical of the violent change advocated by others.

For thirty years or so there has been a movement in American evangelicalism to recover the past, to remedy the “rootlessness” that many have felt in evangelical churches. In the 1950s and ‘60s, the intellectual leaders of evangelicalism were for the most part biblical scholars, apologists, and systematic theologians. But at the end of the twentieth century, church historians, and theologians who do their work in dialogue with ancient and recent history, have become more prominent. Reformed theology has participated in this development, so that many of its most prominent figures, such as David Wells, Donald Bloesch, Mark Noll, George Marsden, Darryl Hart, Richard Muller, and Michael Horton, do theology in a historical mode. Many of these also advocate strict subscription and traditional worship, and they seek to renew an emphasis on Reformation distinctives: hence the discussions of covenant, justification, law, and gospel, noted earlier. The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has supported this emphasis.

Though this emphasis has done some good by revitalizing interest in the Reformed heritage, some have found deficiencies in the theology emerging from this movement. The main issue is sola Scriptura. The Reformed tradition consists, not in merely repeating previous Reformed traditions, but, as with Calvin, in using the Scriptures to criticize tradition. The history-oriented theologians tend to be uncritical of traditions and critical of the contemporary church. But their arguments are often based on their preferences rather than biblical principle and therefore fail to persuade. The Reformed community, in my judgment, needs to return to an explicitly exegetical model of theology, following the example of John Murray. [59] The exegetical approach is also (perhaps paradoxically) the most contemporary approach, for it applies Scripture directly to our lives today. This question is, of course, one of emphasis. We should never ignore our past. But my view is that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of a historical emphasis.

19. Sonship

C. John Miller taught practical theology at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia and planted the New Life Church (originally OPC, later PCA). He emphasized the importance of evangelistic, outward-facing ministry in the church and founded World Harvest Mission. [60] He also began a ministry called Sonship, which through conferences and tapes presents a distinctive view of the Christian life: not only justification, but sanctification too is by faith. The way to victory over sin, according to Miller, is not by the law, but by the gospel: looking to Jesus as the one who has born the full guilt of our sins, “preaching the gospel to yourself.” That involves a life of repentance, but also the recognition that Christ has set us free from sin to be his sons and daughters. Some have criticized the Sonship teaching as failing to understand the positive uses of the law in the believer’s spiritual growth. [61]

Sonship has become a major renewal movement in conservative Presbyterian circles, especially the PCA. Those who have taken the Sonship course often emerge with a far more vital relationship with Christ. Nevertheless, advocates and opponents of Sonship have fought the typical Reformed battles. As with many of the movements and ideas discussed in this paper, I tend to agree with what Sonship affirms (the benefit of preaching the Gospel to ourselves) but not with what it denies (that reflecting on God’s law and striving to obey are somehow harmful to our sanctification).

20. Christian Hedonism

John Piper’s writings [62] have made a large impact on Reformed and other evangelical believers in the late twentieth century, and their influence continues unabated. Building on some ideas of Jonathan Edwards, Piper argues that the Christian life is essentially an enjoyment of God, for God is glorified when his people enjoy him. The Christian life gets out of kilter when we find ourselves enjoying other things in the place of God. Piper’s work has generated a renewal movement similar to that of Sonship, though with a somewhat different message. Piper has been criticized for failing to recognize the theme of the Heidelberg Catechism, that our obedience to God is motivated by gratitude for what he has done for us.

21. Multi-Perspectivalism

Emerging from these battles, it has occurred to some of us that perhaps at least some of these conflicts have resulted from misunderstandings. Some of the disagreements may not be straightforward differences over truth vs. falsity, but to some extent have resulted from people looking at biblical content from different angles or perspectives. The story of the blind men and the elephant is relevant here: one describes the elephant as shaped like a tree trunk, another like a great boulder, another like a thick cable, because one focuses on the leg, the second on the torso, and the third on the trunk. Were they able to see, they would understand that there is truth in all three descriptions, that no description captures the whole animal, and that there is no cause for disagreement.

So I suspect, for example, that the disagreement over the incomprehensibility of God is a difference between some who focus on the continuity between God’s thoughts and ours and others who focus on the discontinuity. I see no reason why we cannot affirm both, if we can escape our movement loyalties and read Scripture afresh. On the issue of confessional subscription, I think it possible to establish a form of subscription that will guard the church against heresy, while at the same time allowing Scripture to function as the church’s primary standard, so that the church can, if necessary, revise the confessions according to the Word of God. On the issue of the dynamics of the Christian life, I’m inclined to think that Scripture teaches a number of factors in sanctification: not only reviewing the Gospel (Miller) and scrutinizing our pleasures (Piper), but also asking God’s grace to give us thankful hearts (the Heidelberg Catechism), seeking godly models to imitate (as discussed earlier), and reviewing the law to see how our Father wants us to behave (not only theonomy, but the traditional Reformed “third use of the law”).

Not every theological difference, of course, is a difference of perspective. Sometimes one must simply choose between one view that is true and another that is false. For example, either women should be ordained to church office, or they should not be. There is no middle ground on this specific issue, and the difference is not merely a difference of perspective. Even here, however, perspectival differences enter into nature of the disagreement. Advocates of women’s ordination tend to view the biblical data largely from the perspective of Gal. 3:28: “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Opponents tend to focus on 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15. I doubt that unity will be restored on this issue until each group takes the perspective of the other group more seriously.

The main point of multiperspectivalism is that only God is omniscient, seeing reality simultaneously from all possible perspectives. Because of our finitude, we need to look at things first from one perspective, then another. The more different perspectives we can incorporate into our formulations, the more likely those formulations will be biblically accurate.

Several of us have expounded this approach to theology in various places. [63] But alas, multi-perspectivalism itself has become a focus of controversy in Reformed circles. [64] The usual criticism is that multi-perspectivalism is relativist, but multi-perspectivalists deny that criticism emphatically. On our view, there is one objective truth: the truth as God has made it. We can know much of that truth with certainty, based on God’s revelation. But there are some matters, even in theology, about which many of us are uncertain. And especially in those cases it is important for us to cross-check our ideas by looking at the data from different perspectives.

Observations

1. I have enumerated 21 areas of conflict occurring in American conservative Reformed circles from 1936 to the present. [65] Under some of those headings I have mentioned subdivisions, subcontroversies. Most of these controversies have led to divisions in churches and denominations, harsh words exchanged between Christians. People have been told that they are not Reformed, even that they have denied the Gospel. Since Jesus presents love as what distinguishes his disciples from the world (John 13:34-35), this bitter fighting is anomalous in a Christian fellowship. Reformed believers need to ask what has driven these battles. To what extent has this controversy been the fruit of the Spirit, and to what extent has it been a work of the flesh?

2. The Machen movement was born in the controversy over liberal theology. I have no doubt that Machen and his colleagues were right to reject this theology and to fight it. But it is arguable that once the Machenites found themselves in a “true Presbyterian church” they were unable to moderate their martial impulses. Being in a church without liberals to fight, they turned on one another.

3. One slogan of the Machen movement was “truth before friendship.” We should laud their intention to act according to principle without compromise. But the biblical balance is “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). We must not speak the truth without thinking of the effect of our formulations on our fellow Christians, even our opponents. That balance was not characteristic of the Machen movement. [66]

4. Reformed people need to do much more thinking about what constitutes a test of orthodoxy. Is it really plausible to say that, say, Gordon Clark’s view of incomprehensibility was unorthodox, when neither Clark’s nor Van Til’s positions are clearly set forth in the Reformed confessions? But again and again through the history described above, writers have read one another out of the Reformed movement (and even out of Christianity) on such dubious bases. The assumption seems to be that any difference of opinion amounts to a test of fellowship, that any truth I possess gives me the right to disrupt the peace of the church until everybody comes to agree with me. But surely there are some disagreements that are not tests of orthodoxy, some differences that should be tolerated within the church. Examples include the disagreements over days and the eating of meat described by Paul in Rom. 14, and the disagreements about idol food which he discusses in 1 Cor. 8-10. In those passages, there is no suggestion that people holding the wrong view should be put out of the church. Rather, Paul condemns the party spirit and calls the disagreeing parties to live together as Christian brothers and sisters. In my judgment, the Machen movement thought little about the difference between tolerable and intolerable disagreements in the church.

5. Scripture often condemns a “contentious” spirit (Prov. 13:10, 18:6, 26:21, Hab. 1:3, 1 Cor. 1:11, 11:16, Tit. 3:9) and commends “gentleness” (2 Cor. 10:1, Gal. 5:22, 1 Thess. 2:7, 2 Tim. 2:24, Tit. 3:2, Jas. 3:17). The Reformed community should give much more attention to these biblical themes.

6. With many, though not all, of the issues described above it is possible to see the positions as complementary rather than as contradictory. I believe that is true of the Van Til/Clark controversy, the counseling controversy, the Sonship controversy and some others. As I said earlier, I find these positions more persuasive in what they affirm than in what they deny.

7. With other issues, there are genuine contradictions between the positions of the parties. But even in those cases, I think that often these parties are trying to express complementary biblical truths. Theonomy, for example, emphasizes the continuity between Old and New Testaments, anti-theonomy the discontinuity. A more adequate account will seek to do justice to both.

8. Overall, the quality of thought displayed in these polemics has not been a credit to the Reformed tradition. Writers have gone to great lengths to read their opponents’ words and motivations in the worst possible sense (often worse than possible) and to present their own ideas as virtually perfect: rightly motivated and leaving no room for doubt. Such presentations are scarcely credible to anybody who looks at the debates with minimal objectivity.

9. The various anniversary celebrations and official histories in the different Reformed denominational bodies have been largely self-congratulatory. [67] In Reformed circles, we often say that there is no perfect church, that churches as well as individuals are guilty of sin and liable to error. But Reformed writers and teachers seem to find it almost impossible to specify particular sins, even weaknesses, in their own traditions or denominations, particularly in their own partisan groups. A spirit of genuine self-criticism (prelude to a spirit of repentance) is an urgent need.

10. Nevertheless it is important to remember that there are some theological issues that really are matters of life and death for the church. In the PCUSA as of the time of this writing, there are controversies over whether church officers should be expected to observe biblical standards of sexual fidelity and chastity, over the ordination of homosexuals, and over whether Jesus is the only Lord and Savior. The outrageous fact that such issues can actually be debated within the church places other controversies into perspective. The Confessing Church Movement within the PCUSA is fighting a courageous battle, and they deserve the prayers and encouragement of all Reformed believers.

11. My assignment was to write on Reformed theology. But I should note that the remedy for the divisions above is not merely better theological formulations. The almost exclusive focus on doctrinal issues in many Reformed circles is itself part of the problem. As Tim Keller advises, Reformed Christianity needs a vision that encompasses not only doctrinal statements, but also our piety, evangelistic outreach, and missions of mercy. [68]

An Unrealistic Dream

1. That Reformed thinkers continue to have bright, fresh ideas, but that they present these ideas with humility and treat with grace and patience those who are not immediately convinced.

2. That Reformed thinkers with bright ideas discourage the rapid formation of parties to contend for those ideas.

3. That those initially opposed to those bright ideas allow some time for gentle, thoughtful discussion before declaring the bright ideas to be heresy.

4. That these opponents also discourage the rapid formation of partisan groups.

5. That those contending for various doctrinal positions accept the burden of proof, willing to bear the difficulty of serious biblical exegesis.

6. That we try much harder to guard our tongues (Jas. 3:1-12), saving the strongest language of condemnation (e.g., “denying the gospel”) for those who have been declared heretics by the judicial processes of the church.

7. That Reformed churches, ministries, and institutions be open to a wider range of opinions than they are now—within limits, of course.

8. That we honor one another as much for character and witness as we do for agreement with our theological positions.

9. That occasionally we smile and jest about our relatively minor differences, while praying, worshiping, and working together in the love of Christ. [69]

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

[1] I apologize for the large number of adjectives in this phrase, but it does state concisely the range of theology I will seek to analyze in this paper. “Conservative” and “evangelical,” of course, are terms variously defined. Here I will restrict my attention to those types of Reformed theology that credibly subscribe to historic Reformed confessions such as the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. The theology of Karl Barth, though often described as conservative, evangelical, and Reformed, does not fit this restriction, because of Barth’s view of Scripture, his denial of God’s eternal decree, and his refusal to identify the events of salvation directly with events of calendar time, among other things.

[2] New York: Harper, 1930.

[3] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1925, 1947.

[4] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923.

[5] These names and initials can be confusing of course. The denomination founded by Machen was originally called the Presbyterian Church of America, which differs from the PCA only by a preposition. In the present-day PCA, my own denomination, we try to remind people that as the church is in the world but not of it, the PCA is in America, but not of it. Not that Machen would have had any other vision for his own denomination!

[6] Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed.

[7] See Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), Rousas J. Rushdoony, God’s Plan for Victory: The Meaning of Postmillennialism (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1977).

[8] See, for example, David Chilton, Days of Vengeance (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), a commentary on the Book of Revelation.

[9] See, for example, www.preteristarchive.com.

[10] In my judgment, therefore, “incomprehensibility” is a misleading term to describe the issue of the debate.

[11] For a more thorough description and analysis of the controversy, with bibliography, see John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishers, 1995), 97-113.

[12] For Clark’s position, see his A Christian View of Men and Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), and Religion, Reason and Revelation (Phila.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961). For Van Til’s position, see my Cornelius Van Til, esp. 141-184.

[13] See Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phila.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 239-267.

[14] Ibid., 4-20, 267-302. This and the previous section were dropped from later editions of The Defense of the Faith. See also James Daane, A Theology of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), and Van Til, The Theology of James Daane (Phila.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1959).

[15] John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 70-90. See also my review of this book, published as Appendix A of my Cornelius Van Til, 401-422, and also as Appendix A of my Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 219-243.

[16] See, for example, Steven B. Cowan, ed., Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000). Prof. Alister McGrath, whom we honor in this volume, has made some helpful contributions to this literature, such as Glimpsing the Face of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), Explaining Your Faith Without Losing Your Friends (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) and Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993). If I may say so, however, I think he is not at his best in the Appendix to the latter book that deals with Van Til.

[17] For the apologetic development of his ideas, see his Warranted Christian Belief (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000). Kelly James Clark, a follower of Plantinga, has used this approach in Return to Reason (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) and in Cowan, op. cit., 265-312.

[18] Dooyeweerd’s magnum opus is De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, translated into English as A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1953), four volumes. A more popular presentation of his ideas is In the Twilight of Western Thought (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958).

[19] Some writings from the early North American phase of the movement: Hendrik Hart, The Challenge of Our Age (Toronto: Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship, 1968), Hart, Understanding Our World: An Integral Ontology (Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America, 1984), L. Kalsbeek, Coutours of a Christian Philosophy (Toronto: Wedge, 1975), Calvin Seerveld, A Christian Critique of Art and Literature (Toronto: Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship, 1968). For my critique, see Frame, The Amsterdam Philosophy: a Preliminary Critique (Phillipsburg, NJ: Harmony Press, 1972) and Cornelius Van Til, 371-386. For an attempt to apply Dooyeweerdian ideas to systematic theology, see Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).

[20] For a discussion of these positions, see Richard B. Gaffin, Calvin and the Sabbath (Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 1998). Still others hold that the New Covenant abrogates the Sabbath, but replaces it with the Lord’s Day, a first-day celebration of the Resurrection, but not a day of rest. See Donald A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

[21] Calvin, Institutes, 4.3.4.

[22] Rutherford, A Survey of Spirituall Antichrist… (London: Andrew Crooke, 1948) 1.7, 42-44, cited by Poythress; see following note.

[23] Poythress, Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology (Glenside, PA: Westminster Campus Bookstore, n. d.). See also Greg Barrow, A Reformation Discussion of Extraordinary Predictive Prophecy Subsequent to the Closing of the Canon of Scripture (Edmonton, AL: Still Waters Revival Books, 1998). The latter author and publisher represent the Puritan Reformed Church, an extremely small and highly traditionalist denomination that regards most conservative Presbyterian groups (such as OPC, PCA, RPNA) as apostate because they do not subscribe to the Scottish Solemn League and Covenant. In this case, ironically, their very traditionalism leads them to a position considered in the OPC to be a concession to the modern charismatic movement.

[24] Poythress, Modern Spiritual Gifts.

[25] No place of publication listed; Craig Press. I reviewed this book in Westminster Theological Journal 38:2 (Winter, 1976), 195-217.

[26] No place of publication listed; Craig Press. A second, expanded edition, including responses to critics, was published in 1984.

[27] For a more balanced discussion of the relevance of Old Testament law to the Christian, see Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Brentwood: Wohlgemuth and Hyatt, 1991).

[28] See his pamphlet, The Covenant of Grace (London: Tyndale Press, 1954). See also “Covenant Theology” in his Collected Writings (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), 4.216-240. In his lectures on systematic theology, he says that “covenant in Scripture denotes the oath-bound confirmation of promise,” Collected Writings 2.49.

[29] Westminster Theological Journal 27 (1964-65), 1-20. See also his Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), and The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).

[30] Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000), 39.

[31] Ibid.

[32] This controversy somewhat parallels the controversy in broader evangelical circles over “Lordship salvation,” the debate over whether one can confess Jesus as savior without confessing him as Lord. Shepherd’s reasoning implies that one cannot.

[33] An error “of Galatian proportions,” according to one Westminster/California professor in correspondence.

[34] See, for example, Michael Scott Horton, “The Law and the Gospel,” at www.alliancenet.org/pub/articles/horton.LawGospel.html.

[35] For more discussion, see my “Law and Gospel,” at http://www.reformationrevival.com/WeeklyE-News/Semper%20Archive/LawandGospel.html, or http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0201/020104frame.shtml.

[36] My basis for this statement consists of email exchanges and personal conversations.

[37] No place of publication listed: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishers.

[38] As opposed to “biblical”!

[39] For a review of developments since Adams’ original work, describing recent rapprochement between the two schools and specifying the remaining differences, see David Powlison, “Questions at the Crossroads: The Care of Souls and Modern Psychotherapies,” in Mark McMinn and Timothy Phillips, eds., Care for the Soul: Exploring the Intersection of Psychology and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 23-61. See also Powlison, “Crucial Issues in Contemporary Biblical Counseling,” Journal of Pastoral Practice, 11:3 (1988), 53-78.

[40] See Young, Studies in Genesis One (Phila.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964).

[41] Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1957-58), 146-157. Later he amplified his views in “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,” in Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 48 (1996), 2-15.

[42] Ridderbos, Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957).

[43] Some recent examples: Noel Weeks, The Sufficiency of Scripture (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1988), 95-118, Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 392-94), James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1999).

[44] Westminster Confession of Faith, 21.1. Compare 1.6, 20.2. Lutherans and Anglicans argue that we may do anything in worship that Scripture does not forbid, keeping in mind the overall biblical purposes of worship.

[45] 1.6.

[46] For example, Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant Publications, 1980).

[47] As in D. G. Hart and John Muether, With Reverence and Awe (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002).

[48] See my Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1996) and “A Fresh Look at the Regulative Principle” in David G. Hagopian, ed., Always Reformed, forthcoming.

[49] The earlier-referenced book by Hart and Muether argues for traditional worship. My Contemporary Worship Music: a Biblical Defense (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997) argues for a more contemporary approach.

[50] For these views and others, see Bonnidell and Robert Clouse, Women in Ministry: Four Views (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989). The most helpful treatments of these issues in my view are James Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) and John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991).

[51] Some feminists have advocated that God himself be designated without gender or even as a female. Zondervan and IBS did not go this far.

[52] For different viewpoints on this question, see D. A. Carson, The Inclusive-Language Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), Mark L. Strauss, Distorting Scripture? (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998), and Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2000. The last is most persuasive to me.

[53] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

[54] For this more extreme position, see the publication Kerux.

[55] For a longer discussion of these points, see my “Ethics, Preaching, and Biblical Theology,” at www.thirdmill.org.

[56] The case for “full” subscription is made by Morton H. Smith in The Subscription Debate (Greenville, SC: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, no date listed; published 1993 or later). A less conservative view is William S. Barker, “System Subscription,” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001), 1-14. Four elders participated in a debate on subscription before the PCA General Assembly of 2001, which was published in the denominational web magazine, PCA News, at http://www.christianity.com/pcanews.

[57] See John Murray, Collected Writings 1.269-287 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), Edmund P. Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove: IVP, 1995), John Frame, Evangelical Reunion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991, also available at www.thirdmill.org).

[58] The process of “joining and receiving” was a procedure designed to minimize pre-union negotiations, the idea being to work out differences after union rather than before. Arguably this is a more biblical procedure than the conventional negotiation, since Scripture tells Christians to work out their differences within the church rather than to shout at one another over denominational barriers. In practice, however, the RPES and PCA did engage in much negotiation and discussion before the union was approved.

[59] I have argued these points at greater length in “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism,” Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997), 269-318, with responses by Richard Muller and David Wells, reprinted as an Appendix to Contemporary Worship Music. See also my “Traditionalism” at www.thirdmill.org and in Chalcedon Report 434 (Oct., 2001), 15-19, and 435 (Nov., 2001), 14-16.

[60] Among his writings are Repentance and Twentieth-Century Man (Phila.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980), Outgrowing the Ingrown Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), Powerful Evangelism for the Powerless (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1997).

[61] For a positive exposition of Sonship, read Neil H. Williams, Theology of Sonship (Phila.: World Harvest Mission, 2002). For a critique, Jay E. Adams, Biblical Sonship (Woodruff, SC: Timeless Texts, 1999).

[62] See especially his Desiring God (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1996).

[63] See John Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1987), Perspectives on the Word of God (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999), Vern S. Poythress, Symphonic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), Poythress, God-Centered Biblical Interpretation (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1999).

[64] Mark Karlberg, “On the Theological Correlation of Divine and Human Language: A Review Article,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32:1 (March, 1989), 99-105, and his review of my Cornelius Van Til (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1995) in Mid-America Journal of Theology 9:2 (Fall, 1993), 297-308. I have replied to both Karlberg pieces in Appendices to my Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002).

[65] Of course, between 1900 and 1936 the chief battle was over theological liberalism. There was also a major conflict in the CRC over the doctrine of common grace, leading to the formation of the Protestant Reformed Church. I cannot enter into that controversy here, but I have addressed it in my Cornelius Van Til (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1995), 215-230.

[66] Machen, like others in the Reformed tradition, emphasized the “primacy of the intellect.” See his What is Faith? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1925, reprinted 1962). As Ulrich Zwingli eliminated music from the worship service, turning it into a teaching meeting, Reformed leaders through history have tended to value intellectual rigor at the expense of people’s emotions. In my judgment, this intellectualism is a mistaken emphasis and needs to be overcome. See my Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1987), 319-346.

[67] See, for example, Darryl Hart and John Muether, Fighting the Good Fight (Phila: The Committee on Christian Education and the Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1995). Though there is much useful information and reflection in this book, there is far too little recognition of possible inadequacies within the tradition.

[68] See Keller, “The Vision of PPLN,” available at http://www.pastoral-leadership.org/articles/PPLNvision_Keller.pdf.

[69] Thanks to Steve Hays, D. Clair Davis, David Powlison, John Muether, and Greg Welty, who read an earlier draft of this paper and made helpful suggestions. I take all responsibility for the final formulation.

Courtesy of The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress

What the Westminster Confession of Faith has to say about God's Providence

2008-02-10T21:28:00.000-06:00

Of Providence

I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

V. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God does oftentimes leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.

VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.

VII. As the providence of God does, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it takes care of His Church, and disposes all things to the good thereof.

(Courtesy of CRTA)

2008-02-10T20:39:00.000-06:00

THY WAY, NOT MINE, O LORD
"The Lord will guide you always." Isaiah 58:11

Thy way, not mine, O Lord,
However dark it be;
Lead me by Thine own hand,
Choose out the path for me.

Smooth let it be or rough,
It will be still the best;
Winding or straight, it leads
Right onward to Thy rest.

I dare not choose my lot;
I would not, if I might;
Choose Thou for me, my God,
So I shall walk aright.

Take Thou my cup, and it
With joy or sorrow fill,
As best to Thee may seem;
Choose Thou my good and ill.

Choose Thou for me my friends,
My sickness or my health;
Choose Thou my cares for me
My poverty or wealth.

The kingdom that I seek
Is Thine: so let the way
That leads to it be Thine,
Else I must surely stray.

Not mine, not mine the choice
In things or great or small;
Be Thou my guide, my strength
My wisdom, and my all.

Horatius Bonar, 1857.

(Courtesy of Reformation Ink)

May I find comfort in my Lord's providential care.

RC

Infinite wisdom directs every event!

2008-02-10T20:25:00.000-06:00

(from Dagg's "Manual of Theology")

"And we know that God causes everything to work
together for the good of those who love God and
are called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

It should fill us with joy, that God's infinite
wisdom guides the affairs of the world.

Many of its events are shrouded in darkness and
mystery, and inextricable confusion sometimes
seems to reign. Often wickedness prevails, and
God seems to have forgotten the creatures that
He has made.

Our own path through life is dark and devious,
and beset with difficulties and dangers.

How full of consolation is the doctrine, that
infinite wisdom directs every event, brings
order out of confusion, and light out of darkness,
and, to those who love God, causes all things,
whatever be their present aspect and apparent
tendency, to work together for good.

"And we know that God causes everything to work
together for the good of those who love God and
are called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

(Via Grace Gems)

Immutable Love

2008-02-05T13:09:00.000-06:00

God’s redeeming love is Particular and Distinguishing.
Those who declare that God loves all people alike,
the saved as well as the damned, greatly tarnish the love
of God, reducing it to a fickle, helpless, frustrated passion.
But that cannot be. The love of God is like himself, from
everlasting to everlasting, immutable and sure. “Nothing
is more absurd than to imagine that anyone beloved of
God can eternally perish (A. W. Pink).

How We Ought to Think about God's Providence

2008-02-04T19:33:00.000-06:00

Thomas Boston

1. Beware of drawing an excuse for your sin from the providence of God; for it is most holy, and is in no way any cause of any sin you commit. Every sin is an act of rebellion against God; a breach of his holy law, and deserves his wrath and curse; and therefore cannot be authorised by an infinitely-holy God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity without detestation and abhorrence. Though he has by a permissive decree allowed moral evil to be in the world, yet that has no influence on the sinner to commit it. For it is not the fulfilling of God's decree, which is an absolute secret to every mortal, but the gratification of their own lusts and perverse inclinations, that men intend and mind in the commission of sin.

2. Beware of murmuring and fretting under any dispensations of providence that you meet with; remembering that nothing falls out without a wise and holy providence, which knows best what is fit and proper for you. And in all cases, even in the middle of the most afflicting incidents that happen to you, learn submission to the will of God, as Job did, when he said upon the end of a series of the heaviest calamities that happened to him, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord," Job, i. 21. In the most distressing case, say with the disciples, "The will of the Lord be done," Acts, 21:14.

3. Beware of anxious cares and fearfulness about your material well-being in the world. This our Lord has cautioned his followers against, Matt. 6:31. "Take no thought, (that is, anxious and perplexing thought,) saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?" Never let the fear of man stop you from duty, Matt. 10:28, 29; but let your souls learn to trust in God, who guides and superintends all the events and administrations of providence, by whatever hands they are performed.

4. Do not think little of means, seeing God works by them; and he that has appointed the end, orders the means necessary for gaining the end. Do not rely upon means, for they can do nothing without God, Matt. 4:4. Do not despair if there be no means, for God can work without them, as well as with them; Hosea 1:7. "I will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen." If the means be unlikely, he can work above them, Rom. 4:19. "He considered not his own body now dead, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb." If the means be contrary, he can work by contrary means, as he saved Jonah by the whale that devoured him. That fish swallowed up the prophet, but by the direction of providence, it vomited him out upon dry land.

Lastly, Happy is the people whose God is the Lord: for all things shall work together for their good. They may sit secure in exercising faith upon God, come what will. They have good reason for prayer; for God is a prayer-hearing God, and will be enquired of by his people as to all their concerns in the world. And they have ground for the greatest encouragement and comfort in the middle of all the events of providence, seeing they are managed by their covenant God and gracious friend, who will never neglect or overlook his dear people, and whatever concerns them. For he has said, "I will never leave you, nor forsake you," Heb. 13:5.

Courtesy of Fire and Ice.

Christian Audio Free Download for February / How to Pray by R.A. Torrey

2008-02-04T19:16:00.001-06:00

The Christian Audio free download of the month is "How to Pray" by R.A. Torrey.

It is available to read on-line.

RC

J.I. Packer on God's Providence

2008-01-26T12:55:00.000-06:00

Providence - God Governs This World
J.I. Packer (from Concise Theology)
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD" (Pro. 16:33).

"God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions" (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.11). If Creation was a unique exercise of divine energy causing the world to be, providence is a continued exercise of that same energy whereby the Creator, according to his own will, (a) keeps all creatures in being, (b) involves himself in all events, and (c) directs all things to their appointed end. The model is of purposive personal management with total "hands-on" control: God is completely in charge of his world. His hand may be hidden, but his rule is absolute.

Some have restricted God's providence to foreknowledge without control, or upholding without intervention, or general oversight without concern for details, but the testimony to providence as formulated above is overwhelming.

The Bible clearly teaches God's providential control (1) over the universe at large, Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11; (2) over the physical world, Job 37; Pss. 104:14; 135:6; Matt. 5:45; (3) over the brute creation, Ps. 104:21, 28; Matt. 6:26; 10:29; (4) over the affairs of nations, Job 12:23; Pss. 22:28; 66:7; Acts 17:26; (5) over man's birth and lot in life, 1 Sam. 16:1; Ps. 139:16; Isa. 45:5; Gal. 1:15-16; (6) over the outward successes and failures of men's lives, Ps. 75:6, 7; Luke 1:52; (7) over things seemingly accidental or insignificant, Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:30; (8) in the protection of the righteous, Pss. 4:8; 5:12; 63:8; 121:3; Rom. 8:28; (9) in supplying the wants of God's people, Gen. 22:8, 14; Deut. 8:3; Phil. 4:19; (10) in giving answers to prayer, 1 Sam. 1:19; Isa. 20:5, 6; 2 Chron. 33:13; Ps. 65:2; Matt. 7:7; Luke 18:7, 8; and (11) in the exposure and punishment of the wicked, Pss. 7:12-13; 11:6. (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed.)

Clear thinking about God's involvement in the world-process and in the acts of rational creatures requires complementary sets of statements, thus: a person takes action, or an event is triggered by natural causes, or Satan shows his hand - yet God overrules. This is the message of the book of Esther, where God's name nowhere appears. Again: things that are done contravene God's will of command - yet they fulfill his will of events (Eph. 1:11). Again: humans mean what they do for evil - yet God who overrules uses their actions for good (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23). Again: humans, under God's overruling, sin - yet God is not the author of sin (James 1:13-17); rather, he is its judge.

The nature of God's "concurrent" or "confluent" involvement in all that occurs in his world, as - without violating the nature of things, the ongoing causal processes, or human free agency - he makes his will of events come to pass, is mystery to us, but the consistent biblical teaching about God's involvement is as stated above.

Of the evils that infect God's world (moral and spiritual perversity, waste of good, and the physical disorders and disruptions of a spoiled cosmos), it can summarily be said: God permits evil (Acts 14:16); he punishes evil with evil (Ps. 81:11-12; Rom. 1:26-32); he brings good out of evil (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; 13:27; 1 Cor. 2:7-8); he uses evil to test and discipline those he loves (Matt. 4:1-11; Heb. 12:4-14); and one day he will redeem his people from the power and presence of evil altogether (Rev. 21:27; 22:14-15).

The doctrine of providence teaches Christians that they are never in the grip of blind forces (fortune, chance, luck, fate); all that happens to them is divinely planned, and each event comes as a new summons to trust, obey, and rejoice, knowing that all is for one's spiritual and eternal good (Rom. 8:28).

(Via Monergism)

The Mystery of Providence: John Flavel Resources

2008-01-26T12:45:00.001-06:00

Monergism has extensive resources related to this book. A search on their site for "The Mystery of Providence" will yield you links to the book on-line, as well as, MP3s of the book.

A search for John Flavel will yield many of Flavel's other works.

Lastly a search for providence will yield a treasure trove of materials regarding providence.

Thank you Monergism.

Now may I apply myself to the study of Providence, John Flavel and his book "The Mystery of Providence,"

May this study enrich and edify my life.

RC

The Mystery of Providence: John Flavel

2008-01-26T12:31:00.000-06:00

February will see participants of the Puritan Reading Challenge reading John Flavel's book: "The Mystery of Providence." I have decided to select providence as the theme for my blog for the month of February.

RC

Dr. Mohler being Dr. Mohler

2008-01-24T21:47:00.000-06:00

For your enjoyment a wonderful sermon by Dr. Mohler entitled: "Every Thought Captive"

Please do yourself a favor and give it a listen.

More sermons and speeches are available at AlbertMohler.com.

RC

Dr. Mohler Recommends 3 Story Bibles

2008-01-22T21:36:00.000-06:00

Dr. Mohler recommended 3 Story Bibles for children in two posts on his blog.

Bible Story Books for Children and And For Older Children . . . Respect Their Desire to Read and to Learn.

I have heard wonderful things about each book.

Now thanks to Tonny Kummer of the Said at Southern Seminary blog and Ministry-To-Children.com you have the opportunity to win all three. Just take a look at his post: "Win 3 Great Children’s Story Bibles!" to find out how you can win.

If you do not win I would strongly encourage you to purchase these books.

RC

Christian Liberty and the Dangers Legalism and Libertinism

2008-01-21T13:53:00.000-06:00

Christian Liberty is a dicey issue. I do not have a good grasp of what it means. I have begun to study the subject. I tend to lean towards legalism and have to constantly check my motives. Others may tend to lean towards libertinism. Both extremes are equally wrong. John MacArthur gives a good illustration of the Christian struggle between the two extremes in his article: "What is Christian Liberty?"

"Let me illustrate how Christianity relates to the extremes of legalism and libertinism: Christianity resembles a narrow bridge spanning a place where two streams come together. One of those streams is crystal clear, but contains treacherous and deadly rapids; it symbolizes legalism--it appears to be a source of righteousness, but you can't stay afloat in it. Legalism will smash you on its rocks. The other stream is polluted libertinism-- if you fall into it, you will drown because of its filth. Therefore, the Christian must maintain his balance on the bridge between the treachery of legalism and the filth of libertinism. Christians who have fallen into the rapids of legalism destroy the effectiveness of their spiritual lives. Those who are wallowing in the vices of libertinism put themselves in line for divine discipline. Galatians 5:13-16 tell us how to stay on the bridge."

One must be vigilant to stay on the bridge.

Another good article was penned by Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason which was entitled "Christian Liberty".

Hopefully I will learn to apply the idea of Christian Liberty to my life.
Hopefully my posts will help you better understand the issue.

RC

(H.T. Monergism)

Richard Sibbes and The Bruised Reed

2008-01-21T10:02:00.000-06:00

Richard Sibbes and The Bruised Reed
by J. William Black

[Reprinted with permission from the Banner of Truth Magazine Issue 299-300, Aug-Sept 1988, pp. 49-58.]

Richard Sibbes, like so many of his peers, was a man of humble origins. He was born in 1577 in Tostock, Suffolk, the first-born son of a wheelwright. In 1595, against his father's wishes that he carry on the family trade, Sibbes joined St John's College, Cambridge. Though of his own spiritual progress we know little, we do know that he undoubtedly heard the preaching of William Perkins in Cambridge, and that he was ultimately converted under the ministry of Perkins' successor, Paul Baynes. After earning his B.D. in 1610, he was appointed as a lecturer at Holy Trinity in Cambridge, a position from which he was relieved five years later because of his Puritan tendencies. Sibbes, however, had by then become widely known for his preaching, and through the influence of some powerful friends, in 1617 he was chosen to be the preacher at Gray's Inn, one of the most influential pulpits in London. At Gray's Inn, Sibbes' eminence and influence as a preacher continued to grow, to the extent that his foes did not dare move against him. In 1626, he came back to Cambridge as Master of St Catherine's Hall, while retaining his position at Gray's Inn. And in 1633, he returned to Holy Trinity, this time by crown appointment 'to its perpetual curacy'. Sibbes continued his preaching ministry both there and at Gray's Inn, as well as maintaining his duties at St Catherine's. until his death on 5th July 1635, at the age of 58.

During his lifetime, Sibbes authorised the publishing of only three volumes of his work. One is a treatise entitled The Soul's Conflict with Itself and Victory over itself by Faith, and the other two are collections of sermons under the titles The Saint's Safety in Evil Times and The Bruised Reed and Smoking Flax. Both The Soul's Conflict and The Saint's Safety are able works, exposing their author as a master at the practical application of Scripture and theology. But it is in The Bruised Reed that we find crystallised the foundation and essence of Sibbes' own ministry and preaching.

Though well written and reasoned, The Bruised Reed is far from a scholarly treatise. It was originally published as 'Some Sermons contracted out of the 12. of Matth. 20.' It was not written in the heat of academic debate, but in the heat of pastoral concern, as the title page continues: 'At the desire, and for the good of weaker Christians.' But Sibbes writes armed with more than just a pastor's concern. He writes with a physician's skill, for he knows the true cause of his readers' woes and symptoms, and wastes no time in directing them to the cure:

having had occasion lately of some fresh thoughts concerning this argument, by dealing with some, the chief ground of whose trouble was the want of considering the gracious nature and office of Christ; the right conceit of which is the spring of all service to Christ, and comfort from him. [This and all subsequent quotations from Sibbes are drawn from The Bruised Reed.]

Our purpose is to understand from The Bruised Reed this experiential process by which Christ is apprehended and applied by the believer, and thereby to understand why Christ is so magnified by Sibbes. To accomplish this we shall first consider how Sibbes undertakes to convince his readers that their wrong conceit of themselves is the true source of their misery, for such a wrong conceit will never allow Christ to be rightly understood or appreciated. Once the wound is lanced and the true position uncovered, we shall then observe Sibbes' description of the way Christ heals and saves us by exercising the offices of prophet, priest and king on our behalf. Finally, we shall consider the particularly powerful way in which Sibbes applies these truths concerning Christ to his readers to their great benefit.

Why Christ Bruises Us

To describe the process by which God convinces and enlightens sinners to have a right conceit of themselves, Sibbes uses the metaphor of bruising. For if his readers are rightly to apprehend and appreciate Christ, they must first see themselves as God sees them and judge themselves as they, in effect, truly are before a holy and righteous God. This is the bruising. And the end result is that we are reduced from the mighty oaks of our pride's imagination to the frailty of bruised reeds, which is our true standing before our Creator:

This bruised reed is a man that for the most part is in some misery ... and ... by misery is brought to see sin the cause of it; for whatsoever pretences sin maketh, yet bruising or breaking is the end of it; ... sensible of sin and misery... [he sees] no help in himself

By this bruising, God is being neither malicious nor capricious. In Sibbes' view, this work of bruising is both necessary and crucial. For humanity labours under a double curse. Not only have men and women wilfully and repeatedly transgressed the laws of God, declaring themselves his enemies by arrogantly rebelling against his good and rightful authority over them, but they are, for the most part, either altogether deceived and ignorant of the true nature of their crime and guilt (and of the terrible penalty such offence must incur if God be just), or they are rendered senseless to it, intoxicated as it were, by their pride. For Sibbes, God's holy wrath against those who persist in their sin and rebellion is an awful and terrifying reality:

Can we think that he that threw the angels out of heaven will suffer dust and worms' meat to run a contrary course, and to carry it away always so? No; as verily as Christ is 'King of kings and Lord of lords', Rev. 19:16, so will he dash all those pieces of earth 'which rise up against him, as a potter's vessel; Psa. 2:9.

Condemned by sin, lost by delusion, a more wretched state could not be conceived. Bound by this double curse, men and women are truly without hope. Therefore, to bring us to salvation, God must first even bring to light the need for salvation. To heal truly, the Physician must in effect first wound, and wound deeply. God in grace opens our eyes, but what he bids us gaze at first is not Christ, but our sin. Of ourselves, we would in no way be attracted to Christ at all, for as the prophet Isaiah says, 'He had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him' [Isa. 53:2]. However, when we are thus bruised by having this true and right conceit of ourselves as sinners before God, it is then that we begin to look at Christ differently. In fact no one can truly come to Christ who has not first experienced this 'bruising':

This bruising is required ... before conversion that so the Spirit may make way for itself into the heart by levelling all proud, high thoughts, and that we may understand ourselves to be what indeed we are by nature.

Sibbes makes the further distinction that bruising is not to be identified with or contingent upon the negative situations or circumstances which one must endure (circumstances interpreted by many in his day as 'crosses'). Rather true bruising results from understanding one's own heart, for by such an understanding we are 'brought to see [our] sin, which bruiseth most of all.'

This bruising is not just a recognition of the sin within us, but is also the wrenching realisation of our impotence ever to resist its influence and our resulting total inability ever to please God. Sibbes preaches this with force, undoubtedly from the wellspring of his own experience:

[W]hereas Christ saith, 'Without me you,' apostles that are in a state of grace, 'can do nothing; John 15:5, he doth not say you can do a little, but nothing. Of ourselves, how easily we are overcome! how weak to resist! we are reeds shaken with every wind; we shake at the very noise and thought of poverty, disgrace, losses, &c., we give in presently, we have no power over our eyes, tongues, thoughts, affections, but let sin pass in and out. How soon we are overcome of evil! ... How many good purposes stick in the birth and have no strength to come forth! all which shews how nothing we are without the Spirit of Christ.

Moreover, such is the deceitfulness of our hearts that even this bruising, this fathoming of our own true condition is beyond our ability. For ultimately this bruising, as it is God's way of driving us to Christ, is a work that only God himself can effect. For 'all directions will not prevail, unless God, by his Spirit, convinceth us deeply, setting our sins before us and, driving us to a stand. Then we will make out for mercy.' 'Therefore,' continues Sibbes, 'desire God that he would bring a clear and a strong light into all the corners of our souls, and accompany it with a spirit of power to lay our hearts low.'

For Sibbes, God's purpose and interest are clear. Such bruising intends to drive us 'to a stand; to cause us to 'make out for mercy,' to drive us to Christ. It is because men and women are 'for the most part, not lost enough in their own feeling for a Saviour' that this bruising is applied. Only then will we finally despair of ourselves. Only then, when pride is thus slain and God's judgment upon our sin thereby accepted, will Christ begin to make sense to our fallen minds. For 'a man truly bruised judgeth sin the greatest evil, and the favour of God the greatest good. . . . He had rather hear of mercy than of a kingdom.'

But yet this bruising is costly for those who lie under it. For some, a right conceit of themselves is a terrible burden, so tender are their consciences. And Sibbes gives stern warnings to ministers and others in positions of spiritual authority not to overwhelm or overrun those entrusted into their care, but instead with tenderness and compassion to encourage and bear with those who are troubled in spirit. For 'those are failing that, by overmuch austerity, drive back troubled souls from having comfort by them; for by this carriage many smother their temptations, and burn inwardly, because they have none into whose bosom they may vent their grief and ease their souls.'

And ultimately for everyone with whom God deals, this bruising is indeed most costly, for it wars with our natural inclinations and seeks to subdue and put to death that archenemy of God within us, our pride. But when God by his grace so wounds and bruises us, he does not leave us to die in the misery of our sins. When he bids us open our eyes and gaze at the reality of our sin, he does not leave us in despair. Rather, he widens our field of vision till we see that our sin is in fact fastened to the cross in Christ and dealt with there. Such a vision is at once both most wonderful and most terrible to behold. And it is beholding this supreme manifestation of God's love—Christ Jesus crucified for us—that finally undoes us. For in Christ, the love of God embraces our sin with deadly effect. And we are left to lament with Sibbes, 'Lord, what an heart have I that needs all this, that none of this could be spared!'

With our sin so exposed and Christ so presented, God is free to begin his work of salvation within us, to save us from our sin through Christ and receive us to himself. This is the end and the glory of God's work of bruising within us. But it is a work which must be repeated often. So restless and fallen are our hearts, that even after we have been converted, our eyes find ways to stray from Christ and look back upon ourselves. But while we would try to put our rest and hope and comfort of security in our sanctification, God, in his persevering mercy, drives us again back to Christ, forcing us 'to pitch our rest on justification, not sanctification' (emphasis mine). By forsaking our vision of Christ and training our eyes upon ourselves and our own spiritual progress, or lack thereof, were thereby place ourselves back under the ministry of the law, under which we can stand only condemned. But God intervenes again and again, exercising this ministry of bruising so that by it we might know experientially both the heinousness of our sin and the transforming love of God, till our hearts be so refined that they know and desire nothing but Christ. Therefore can Sibbes conclude:

[T]here can be no danger in thorough healing. It is better to go bruised to heaven than sound to hell. Therefore, let us not take off ourselves too soon, nor pull off the plaster before the cure be wrought, but keep ourselves under this work till sin be the sourest, and Christ the sweetest, of all things.

How Christ Heals

Important and crucial though this bruising is, it is but the prelude and the preparation for the true and effectual apprehension of Christ. No one is saved or rendered acceptable to God by this bruising (for indeed, it is only a revelation of the reality of one's true standing), but no one can be saved without it. Only when the disease is properly diagnosed can the right cure be applied. And having thus expounded man's desperate state and need before God, Sibbes proceeds to describe and apply God's cure. To this end, Sibbes focuses our attention on Jesus. And as a jeweller examines his diamond facet by facet, in a light which makes his stone dazzle, so Sibbes bids us look on Christ in the light of God's word, where we see refracted through the facets of his character and offices a rainbow of comfort and hope and mercy.

For Sibbes, Christ's work in us and for us is threefold, defined by the 'offices' he fulfils on our behalf In his sermon, 'Description of Christ.' a work which, after his death, was published with The Bruised Reed as an introduction, Sibbes writes:

He is a prophet wise enough, and a priest full enough to make us acceptable of God. If we want any grace, he is a king able enough, rich enough, and strong enough to subdue all our rebellions in us, and he will in time by his Spirit overcome all.

To know Christ in this way is for Sibbes the heart of the Christian gospel, the very marrow of divinity. Thus if we are to understand the reason behind Sibbes' Christocentricity, then we must see and understand Christ as he and his Puritan brothers did, as prophet, priest and king.

The Office Of Prophet

Christ is first described as a prophet. Indeed, he is in reality what earthly prophets are merely a type and shadow of, for in Christ is God, his character, his word and his will, most perfectly mediated to us. Perhaps the best way of understanding the difference is to compare the effects of their ministries. The prophets of the Old Testament undoubtedly mediated the counsel of God to Israel. But their mediation, their prophesying, had no power of its own to effect anything. In fact most of it was ignored, to the great ruin of Israel. But when Christ mediates the word and counsel of God, great change is wrought; because, as Sibbes observes, 'Where Christ by his Spirit as a prophet teaches, he likewise as a king by his Spirit subdueth the heart to obedience of what is taught.' Sibbes expounds his meaning by stating:

This is that teaching which is promised of God, when not only the brain, but the heart itself, is taught: when men do not only know what they should do, but are taught the very doing of it; they are not only taught that they should love, fear, and obey, but they are taught love itself, and fear and obedience itself.

Moreover, Christ does not just speak and prophesy generally, as if to a multitude, but he sets up his school in each one's heart. And by his very presence he is able to alter its frame, and thus 'makes his subjects good,, together with teaching of them to be good' (emphasis mine).

But not only is Christ effective when he takes on the office of prophet and teacher, he is also good and merciful. Christ is indeed the perfect prophet, the perfect teacher, and to sit at his feet is to be desired above all. For, as Sibbes observes, 'It is no great matter how dull the scholar be, when Christ taketh upon him to be the teacher: who as he prescribeth what to understand, so he giveth understanding, even to the simplest.'

The Office Of Priest

Christ is not only a prophet, mediating God and his counsel to us; he is also our priest, mediating us and our plight to God. But Christ's mediation on our behalf is not that of the hired but ultimately disinterested attorney and advocate, pleading the case of an obviously guilty defendant. If Christ were such a mediator, there would be no hope for us. We might consider him a friend because of his interest in our case and his sympathy for us, but his pleading would be to no effect, for the nature of our crime against God and our guilt beyond doubt would demand that justice be done and God's sentence carried out against us.

But Christ does not mediate in such a way. Instead, because of his relationship to the Father, his petition is heard because the Father loves him. And because of the perfect obedience of his earthly life, he is able to take on the office of priest before God, and thereby stand between God and man. But in light of his own holiness and righteousness and our own sin and corruption, he has the right and is in fact given the authority to be our judge. But the mystery of grace is that the very one who by right and authority should pass judgment and be done with us becomes instead the very sin against which that judgment is pronounced. Christ, in the mystery and wonder of his love and humility, wraps himself not only in our nature, but in our very sin as well, and takes upon himself the anger and the wrath of God against our sin and corruption: 'Christ drank the dregs of the cup [of judgment] for us.... He became not only a man, but a curse, a man of sorrows for us. He was broken that we should not be broken; he was troubled that we should not be desperately troubled; he became a curse, that we should not be accursed.' Even more wondrous, if possible, 'He came to die as a priest for his enemies ... standing between God's anger and them; and shed tears for those that shed his blood.'

Christ's mediation on our behalf is effective, for not only does he plead our case before God, but he takes the cause of our offence to God, our sin, to himself and destroys it on the cross. Thus when God considers us now, he does so through the lens of his Son, with whom he is well pleased.

Therefore, by fulfilling the office of priest on our behalf, Christ is able to answer perfectly the terrors awakened in those who have experienced the work of bruising in them. For it was to this very end that we were bruised to begin with, that we might fly to Christ. Sibbes again confirms that it was for reasons of mercy that we were bruised: for 'God seeth it fit we should taste of that cup of which his Son drank so deep, that we might feel a little what sin is, and what his Son's love was.'

In the light of such a mediator, Sibbes draws these applications for those who lie bruised under the knowledge of their sin:

What should we learn from hence, but 'to come boldly to the throne of grace,' Heb. 4:16, in all our grievances? Shall our sins discourage us, when he appears there only for sinners? Art thou bruised? Be of good comfort, he calleth thee; conceal not thy wounds, open all before him.. . Go to Christ though trembling.. . Never fear to go to God, since we have such a Mediator with him, that is not only our friend, but our brother and husband.

The Office Of King

Christ's work as mediator and priest on behalf of his people may be a profound work of inexpressible grace and love, but for Sibbes, that work is only the beginning of Christ's gracious dealing with them. Christ means to do an even deeper work than that. For even though their heavenly status has been altered by his grace and effective mediation, his people are still, in reality, nothing more than 'bruised reeds' or 'smoking flax' before him. But Christ continues in mercy. As such, they are not scorned or despised by him. Instead, marvels Sibbes, '[H]e will not only not break the bruised reed, nor quench [the smoking flax], but he will cherish them.' Indeed, his purpose is to see the work of grace begun in them to completion, to ensure that what is ratified in heaven concerning them is ultimately confirmed in their present reality. Christ, in Sibbes' words, thereby commits himself to continue with his people 'until the sanctified frame of grace begun in their hearts be brought to that perfection, that it prevaileth over all opposite corruption. Christ accomplishes this by the initiation and advance of his 'judgment, or government and rule in the lives of those whom he saves. So Christ is not only prophet and priest, he becomes king of his people by conquest as well.

Such conquest, however, is perhaps the most difficult work of all. Christ, by his work of grace, may overthrow the sinful self and set up his own throne in one's heart, but sin refuses to surrender. Therefore, in one sense, the government which Christ sets up in the heart is a martial government, whose purpose is to subdue sin and promote righteousness: 'By this judgment set up in us, good is discerned, allowed and performed; sin is judged, condemned, and executed.' And again, 'The spirit of judgment will be a spirit of burning, Isa. 6:4, to consume whatever opposed corruption like rust eats into the soul'

Again, Sibbes is careful to direct our focus to Christ. The work is in the hands of a sure and able sovereign, even when it seems obscured to our eyes by our failing. But because of the limitations of our perspective, we are in constant danger. Our state is ironic and seemingly contrary, for as Sibbes notes, 'If our faith were but as firm as our state in Christ is secure and glorious, what manner of men should we be?' But we still see with the weak eyes of this life. Even so, once Christ has set up his government in our hearts, the only true misery which the enemy can still cause is somehow to distract us from Christ. But what sharp misery such distractions result in, and the enemy exploits our weakness to his greatest advantage. For though he has been frustrated in his efforts to carry us off to hell, our weaknesses encourage him to bring as much of hell as he can to us in our present situations. But, as Sibbes warns, it is oftentimes when we feel most strong and secure that we are in fact most weak and vulnerable. Feeling our need drives us to Christ, wherein is our true security:

Weakness and watchfulness will stand out, when strength with too much confidence faileth. Weakness, with the acknowledging of it, is the fittest seat and subject for God to perfect his strength in; for consciousness of our infirmities driveth us out of ourselves to him in whom our strength lieth.

But even here there is much tension and even danger, for those with tender consciences are liable first to be overwhelmed by their weaknesses and failings and insecurities, and the condemnation which they hear from Satan, before they remember their Saviour and his promises. To such, Sibbes speaks powerful encouragement:

It mattereth not so much what ill is in us, as what good; not what corruptions, but how we stand affected to them; not what our particular failings be, so much as what is the thread and tenor of our lives; for Christ's mislike of that which is amiss in us, redounds not to the hatred of our persons, but to the victorious subduing of all our infirmities.

Christ's government within us is not just a martial or a conquering government, it is a transforming government as well. 'Other princes; writes Sibbes, 'can make good laws, but they "cannot write them in their people's hearts" Jer. 32:40. This is Christ's prerogative, he infuseth into his subjects his own Spirit.' For Christ is not just concerned with outward conformity. But as he subdues our old nature, so he creates a new one, of which he is both the pattern and the architect, as well as the means and the motivation. And he accomplishes this not only by infusing us with his own Spirit, but by revealing himself more and more to us: 'The very beholding of Christ is a transforming sight.'

Finally, Christ's government within us is an eternal government. He is not easily daunted by the task. In fact, he is not daunted at all. He seems to delight in turning mourning into joy and dancing, in bringing those lost in darkness into the light of his love, in bringing even the most irascible and hell-bent sinner to sing of his glorious grace. For as we have already seen, what Christ begins, he will bring to completion, and what he intends he will bring to pass. In spite of our failings or our feelings, Christ will indeed save the ones who trust in him. God's purpose will not be thwarted. God's love will not be frustrated. Sibbes himself says it best:

The victory lieth not upon us, but upon Christ, who hath taken upon him, as to conquer for us, so to conquer in us. The victory lieth neither in our own strength to get, nor in our enemies to defeat it. If it lay upon us, we might justly fear. But Christ will maintain his own government in us, and take our part against our corruptions; they are his enemies as well as ours.

For 'Christ as king brings a commanding light into the soul, and bows the neck, and softens the iron sinew of the inner man; and where he begins to rule, he rules for ever, "his kingdom hath no end", Luke 1:33'

Our Need Today

Richard Sibbes writes and preaches as a man constrained and compelled by the love of Christ. He cannot know enough about Christ. For more than anything else, Christ defines his existence. And he has found Christ to be the source of everything good and needful. The Bruised Reed represents a distillation of this Christocentric world view, and in it Sibbes writes persuasively, with both tenderness and compelling urgency, betraying by his words an intimacy with the ways of God. He counsels as one who knows what it means to be broken and bruised and poor in spirit before God. His words carry with them the wisdom of one who has spent many hours at the feet of his master. He preaches as one whose sins have been forgiven, whose heart has been filled with Good News. And he speaks with the peace of one who knows what the final outcome of the battle will be. Thus, in The Bruised Reed, Sibbes reveals the fountain of his life, the very core of motivation in his heart. But not of Sibbes only. He simply expresses most clearly the experience of many in his day. A recovery of this experimental and marrowy Calvinistic teaching is one of the church's greatest needs in our day.

(H.T. Monergism, Fire and Ice)

Sermon Sundays

2008-01-20T21:28:00.000-06:00

The first installment of Sermon Sunday features Dr. Alan Cairns' message:

Joel Osteen's Gospel of Positive Thinking

Dr. Cairns speaks about Joel Osteen's Gospel of Positive thinking and then addresses Christ's question from Matthew 16: "Whom say yee that I am?"

Enjoy.

RC

Piper: Football or Christ?

2008-01-20T11:42:00.000-06:00

Piper asks the hard questions. Convicting stuff. Sadly my actions betray my heart.

May my actions betray my love for Christ.

RC

(H.T.: Purgatorio)

Matriarchy

2008-01-18T20:17:00.000-06:00

ma·tri·ar·chy
–noun, plural -chies.
1. a family, society, community, or state governed by women.

2. a form of social organization in which the mother is head of the family, and in which descent is reckoned in the female line, the children belonging to the mother's clan; matriarchal system.

Matriarchy is on the rise.

Dr. Mohler speaks about it in his blog post: Is Matriarchy the Shape of the Future

"Christians committed to a biblical model of marriage and gender relations must look to this social revolution with a deeper level of concern. The most significant concern must be the long-term consequences of a new matriarchal world order. While Christians support the cause of higher education, the biblical worldview puts a higher priority upon the rightly ordered family and church. This dramatic social change will only serve to subvert that purpose."

The emergence of matriarchy is a troubling development which is counter to Biblical teaching. We must be willing to support the Biblical model. We as Christian men often fail to live up to our Biblical mandates and until we do so we will reap the consequences.

RC

Mohler on Marriage

2008-01-15T13:18:00.000-06:00

"Marriage is not primarily about what we as individuals think we want or need. It is about a central public commitment that the society needs, that couples need, that children need, and yes, that the spouses need. Marriage is a public institution, not merely a private commitment. It identifies the couple as a pair committed to lifelong marriage and thus to be respected in this commitment. The fact that our society has weakened marriage offers only further incentive to get it right and to strengthen this vital institution."

Dr. Albert Mohler

May we as Christians get marriage right.

May I, with God's help, become a better spouse to my wife.

RC

From his blogpost: Does Marriage Matter?

DIRECTIONS FOR GRIEF AT THE DEATH OF FRIENDS - Richard Baxter

2008-01-15T12:19:00.000-06:00

I lost a good friend and co-worker recently and I have been meaning to post this advice from Richard Baxter since that time. My friend as far as I know was not a Christian. The real shame is that I never spoke with him at length about his beliefs. I did invite him to church, but I never shared the gospel with him. The one thing I claim to want to do the most I failed to do with him. During the time I had an opportunity to share the gospel with him I was busy doing other things. I have no excuse. I must do better.

May Baxter's words help us to deal with the death of friends.

May God give us the strength, desire, and wisdom to share the Gospel with those people in our immediate sphere of influence.

RC

Richard Baxter:

"Direct. IX. Be neither unnaturally senseless at the death of friends, nor excessively dejected or afflicted. To make light of the death of relations and friends, be they good or bad, is a sign of a very vicious nature; that is so much selfish, as not much to regard the lives of others: and he that regards not the lives of his friends is little to be trusted in his lesser concernments. I speak not this of those persons whose temper allows them not to weep: for there may be as deep a regard and sorrow in some that have no tears, as in others that abound with them. But I speak of a mischievous, selfish nature, that is little affected with any one's concernments but its own.

Yet your grief for the death of friends, must be very different both in degree and kind. 1. For ungodly friends you must grieve for their own sakes, because if they died such, they are lost for ever. 2. For your godly friends you must mourn for the sake of yourselves and others, because God has removed such as were blessings to those about them. 3. For choice magistrates, and ministers, and other instruments of public good, your sorrow must be greater, because of the common loss, and the judgment thereby inflicted on the world. 4. For old, tried Christians, that have overcome the world, and lived so long till age and weakness make them almost unserviceable to the church, and who groan to be unburdened and to be with Christ, your sorrow should be least, and your joy and thanks for their happiness should be greatest. But especially abhor that nature that secretly is glad of the death of parents, (or little sorrowful,) because that their estates are fallen to you, or you are enriched, or set at liberty by their death. God seldom leaves this sin unrevenged, by some heavy judgments even in this life.

Direct. X. To overcome your inordinate grief for the death of your relations, consider these things following. 1. That excess of sorrow is your sin: and sinning is an ill use to be made of your affliction. 2. That it tends to a great deal more: it unfits you for many duties which you are bound to, as to rejoice in God, and to be thankful for mercies, and cheerful in his love, and praise, and service: and is it a small sin to unfit yourselves for the greatest duties? If you are so troubled at God's disposal of his own, what does your will but rise up against the will of God; as if you grudged at the exercise of his dominion and government, that is, that he is God! Who is wisest, and best, and fittest to dispose of all men's lives? Is it God or you? Would you not have God to be the Lord of all, and to dispose of heaven and earth, and of the lives and crowns of the greatest princes? If you would not, you would not have him to be God. If you would, is it not unreasonable that you or your friends only should be excepted from his disposal? 4. If your friends are in heaven, how unsuitable is it, for you to be overmuch mourning for them, when they are rapt into the highest joys with Christ; and love should teach you to rejoice with them that rejoice, and not to mourn as those that have no hope. 5. You know not what mercy God showed to your friends, in taking them away from the evil to come, you know not what suffering the land or church is falling into; or at least might have fallen upon themselves; nor what sins they might have been tempted to. But you are sure that heaven is better than earth, and that it is far better for them to be with Christ. 6. You always knew that your friends must die; to grieve that they were mortal, is but to grieve that they were but men. 7. If their mortality or death be grievous to you, you should rejoice that they are arrived at the state of immortality, where they must live indeed and die no more. 8. Remember how quickly you must be with them again. The expectation of living on yourselves, is the cause of your excessive grief for the death of friends. If you looked yourselves to die to-morrow, or within a few weeks, you would less grieve that your friends are gone before you. 9. Remember that the world is not for one generation only; others must have our places when we are gone; God will be served by successive generations, and not only by one. 10. If you are Christians indeed, it is the highest of all your desires and hopes to be in heaven; and will you so grieve that your friends are gone thither, where you most desire and hope to be?

Object. All this is reasonable, if my friend were gone to heaven: but he died impenitently, and how should I be comforted for a soul that I have cause to think is damned?

Answ. Their misery must be your grief; but not such a grief as shall deprive you of your greater joys, or disable you for your greater duties. 1. God is fitter than you to judge of the measures of his mercy and his judgments, and you must neither pretend to be more merciful than he, nor to object to his justice. 2. All the works of God are good; and all that is good is amiable; though the misery of the creature be bad to it, yet the works of justice declare the wisdom and holiness of God; and the more perfect we are, the more they will be amiable to us. For, 3. God himself, and Christ, who is the merciful Saviour of the world, approve of the damnation of the finally ungodly. 4. And the saints and angels in heaven do know more of the misery of the souls in hell, than we do; and yet it abates not their joys. And the more perfect any is, the more he is like-minded unto God. 5. How glad and thankful should you be to think that God has delivered yourselves from those eternal flames! The misery of others should excite your thankfulness. 6. And should not the joys of all the saints and angels be your joy, as well as the sufferings of the wicked be your sorrows? But above all, the thoughts of the blessedness and glory of God himself, should overtop all the concernments of the creature with you. If you will mourn more for the thieves and murderers that are hanged, than you will rejoice in the justice, prosperity, and honour of the king, and the welfare of all his faithful subjects, you behave not yourselves as faithful subjects. 7. Shortly you hope to come to heaven: mourn now for the damned, as you shall do then; or at least, let not the difference be too great, when that, and not this, is your perfect state."

Courtesy of: Fire and Ice

What is Monergism?

2008-01-10T17:31:00.000-06:00

Monergism.com gives the following definition:

Monergism: In regeneration, the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ independent of any cooperation from our unregenerated human nature. He quickens us through the outward call cast forth by the preaching of His Word, disarms our innate hostility, removes our blindness, illumines our mind, creates understanding, turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh -- giving rise to a delight in His Word -- all that we might, with our renewed affections, willingly & gladly embrace Christ. The Prophet Ezekiel inspired by the Holy Spirit asserted "I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God." (Eze 11:19, also 36:26) The Apostle Paul said, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." (1 Thess 1, 4, 5). I.e. In regeneration the word does not work alone but must be accompanied by the "germination" of the Holy Spirit. And again "...you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God." (1 Pet 1:23)

The Century Dictionary defines it as follows:

"In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."

It means that the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly comes to us through regeneration -- and if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, he/she ignores the teaching of the Apostles, for Paul says, "...Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved." and "...he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5) And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

It is in contrast to synergism which the Century Dictionary defines as

"...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."

They also offer a more indepth treatment here.

RC

The Bruised Reed

2008-01-10T17:13:00.000-06:00

The first book of the 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge is The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes. You can purchase it by itself or you can purchase all 12 books in the 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge for only 65 dollars. That is a steal.

Short on Cash?

You can read The Bruised Read on-line at Monergism.

RC