Beholding the Beauty: Reformed Theology and Piety

Further Confirmation of the Reasons Why I'm Leaving Siouxlands

2010-09-29T08:54:00.000-05:00

August-September, 2010

Investigating Committee Preface

The Presbytery established a committee to investigate the actions of TE Brian Carpenter objected to in the overture from Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church. The committee consisted of TE Tom Penning (chairman), RE Karl Pasch, RE Bill Jorgensen, RE Bill Larson, and TE Wayne Reed. They brought the following report to the Spring 2010 meeting of Presbytery.

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

The accusations concerning TE Carpenter are specific. While we might wish to discuss the ‘tone’ of bloggings, the attitude displayed during discussions, or the dangers of blogging in general, TE Carpenter was accused simply of breaking the ninth commandment, as expanded in the Larger Catechism, Questions 144 and 145.

The investigations of the committee included independently reading the blogs of TE

Carpenter; both those listed in the accusations from Good Shepherd PCA, and further bloggings that were followed from TE Carpenter’s bloggings, and bloggings made since the committee was created.

The committee (represented in person by TE Penning, RE Larson, and in telephone conference call by TE Reed and RE Jorgenson,) met with TE Carpenter (and TE Sartorius, present at TE Carpenter’s request) and asked questions regarding TE Carpenter’s blogs and his statements concerning TE Moon.

TE Carpenter does not perceive that he has broken the 9th commandments in his bloggings concerning TE Moon. He believes that the statements he has made, the conclusions he has drawn, and the accusations he has made are truthful and unexaggerated. In fact, TE Carpenter believes that since TE Moon is guilty of the things TE Carpenter accuses him of, TE Carpenter is obligated to make such things public, using every opportunity to do so that is available to him. He believes that to do otherwise would be, in fact, breaking the 9^th Commandment.

TE Carpenter does not believe he has sinned in his blogging. He was quite emphatic and confidently stated that he had not sinned in any way in this matter.

Conclusions

The committee does not believe that TE Carpenter has been sinless in this matter.

Even beyond the obvious effect that TE Carpenter’s own general sinfulness would have on any and every action of TE Carpenter, the committee finds the following reasons for concern:

The Shorter Catechism (77) summarizes the ninth commandment in this way: "The ninth commandment requires the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name, especially in witness-bearing." And then further (78): "The ninth commandment forbids whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own or our own neighbour’s good name."

TE Carpenter believes that TE Moon is guilty of heinous theological error. However, as TE Carpenter acts in submission to Presbytery, he should acknowledge that Presbytery has not found TE Moon guilty of heinous theological error. If TE Moon had been found guilty, the types of statements made by TE Carpenter might have been found acceptable. But as such, TE Carpenter should have been cautious with his public statements, desiring to protect TE Moon’s ‘good name.’

TE Carpenter’s statement that he was sinless in this matter was particularly of concern to the committee. We are concerned that it evidences a self confidence in this matter that is not Biblically supportable. His intentions might indeed be lofty. But appointing ourselves as God’s necessary actors is not pleasing to God. Moses’ angry actions at Meribah were condemned by God for this very reason.

Recommendations

That Siouxlands Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt, in this particular:

"That in recent written statements in blogs, TE Brian Carpenter has not acted in a way consistent with the Westminster Larger Catechism 144 and 145, and Westminster Shorter Catechism Questions 77 and 78."

That Siouxlands Presbytery follow the instructions found in BCO 31-2 subsequent to

this declaration.

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

The Presbytery received this report and instructed the committee to attach to it specific evidence substantiating this conclusion. Because of the resignation of TE Penning and

RE Larson and the additions to the committee of TE Michael Rico, TE Sam Rico, and TE

Stephen Wynja, the committee presenting this evidence consists of TE Wayne Reed (chairman), RE Karl Pasch, RE Bill Jorgensen, TE Michael Rico, TE Sam Rico, and TE Stephen

Wynja. This committee has spent much time in independent reading of blogs and has met together via conference calls eight times and now presents to the presbytery the following evidentiary report. This report is presented after a 6 to 0 vote concurring with its contents.

August-September, 2010

Investigating Committee Report

TE Brian Carpenter’s actions and the ninth commandment concerning TE Joshua Moon

This report considers TE Carpenter’s actions with regards to TE Moon: Did TE Carpenter violate the ninth commandment (as stated in Westminster Larger Catechism [WLC] Q 144-145) concerning TE Moon and his alleged association to Federal Vision (FV) theology[i]

The discussion and conclusion presented below center around TE Carpenter’s actions, his statements and the manner, against TE Moon. He appears to have publicly declared a strong presumption of guilt with TE Moon in teaching FV, prior to any PCA court ruling that

TE Moon is guilty of FV.

Our committee reasoned that between his own posts and links provided, TE Carpenter violated the ninth commandment as defined in the Larger Catechism Q 145, e.g., in “prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbor,” and “endeavoring or desiring to impair it,” before any courts have made a decision. In addition, the committee finds TE Carpenter guilty when we consider a Christological interpretation of the ninth commandment.

The Sermon on the Mount reveals that when interpreting the law, Christ’s teaching gets at the heart of the law rather than the letter of law. Accordingly, the manner in which TE Carpenter engages the issues bolsters the nature of his infraction.

What follows is discussion of TE Carpenter’s violation of the 9th commandment:

WLC Q 144 and 145: Q144 What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,(1) and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own;

(2) appearing and standing for the truth;(3) and from the heart,(4) sincerely,(5) freely,(6) clearly,(7) and fully,(8) speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,(9) and in all other things whatsoever;(10) a charitable esteem of our neighbours;

(11) loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;(12) sorrowing for,(13) and covering of their infirmities;(14) freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,(15) defending their

innocency;(16) a ready receiving of a good report,(17) and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,(18) concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers,(19) flatterers,(20) and slanderers;

(21) love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;(22) keeping of lawful promises;(23) studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.(24) and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Q145 What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own,(1) especially in public judicature;(2) giving false evidence,(3) suborning false witnesses,(4) wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, out-facing and overbearing the truth;(5) passing unjust sentence,(6) calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;(7) forgery,(8) concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,(9) and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,(10) or complaint to others;(11) speaking the truth unseasonably,(12) or maliciously to a wrong end,(13) or perverting it to a wrong meaning,(14) or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;(15) speaking untruth,(16) lying,

(17) slandering,(18) backbiting,(19) detracting,(20) tale-bearing,(21) whispering,(22) scoffing,(23) reviling,(24) rash,(25) harsh,(26) and partial censuring;(27)misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;(28) flattering,(29) vain-glorious boasting,(30) thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;(31) denying the gifts and graces of God;(32) aggravating smaller faults;(33) hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when

called to a free confession;(34) unnecessary discovering of infirmities;(35) raising false rumours,(36) receiving and countenancing evil reports,(37) and stopping our ears against just defence;(38) evil suspicion;(39) envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,(40) endeavouring or desiring to impair it,(41) rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;(42) scornful contempt,(43) fond admiration;(44) breach of lawful promises;(45) neglecting such things as are of good report,(46) and practising, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.(47)

1. From Blog, “Puritanboard,” on 10-27-2009 05:14 PM:

TE Carpenter provides a reference to Sean Gerety’s post, “Siouxlands Schizophrenia God’s Hammer.” It’s an article laced with name calling and negative pathos. Gerety states, “TE

Moon is insane,” and calls him a dog.[ii] Referring people to this article has negative results.

This blog discussion lead to what the WLC describes as, “Backbiting, detracting, tale-bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash…misconstructing [sic] intentions.” This correspondence has the overall effect of prejudicing the truth of TE Moon’s association with FV.

2. In the same blog, October 28, 2009 at 2:11 pm:

TE Carpenter insinuates danger in TE Moon’s views, he states, “I am committed to fight for the biblical faith once delivered to the saints. And I am determined to do all in my power to see that the PCA doesn’t go the way of the PCUSA.” Stating that the TE Moon FV issue is a sign of the PCA going “the way of the PCUSA”, is an example of what the WLC Q 145 for -bids, “Especially in public judicature,” and “Passing unjust sentence.”

3. Rev. Clay Spronk uses TE Carpenter as source in order to reason that TE Moon is a heretic: Rev. Spronk states, with regards to TE Moon,

“This is a clear assertion of both universal and resistible grace, both of which are clearly rejected by all the Reformed Standards. Despite these heretical views, Lawrence (and Moon by implication) was officially exonerated by the Presbytery by a vote of 24-13. The status of this case is unclear, because it was reported on October 20 that the Presbytery met again and “repented of its hasty actions.” Apparently the case is being reconsidered and will be dealt with again in January.4 Rev.3 Brian Carpenter. Presbytery of the Siouxlands Exonerates Member Suspected of Federal Vision Teaching, Complaint to the SJC Considered. http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=481 (Brian Carpenter. Siouxlands Presbytery Sustains Complaint, Answers Overture).

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com … The disease has spread. There are many who are tolerant of it and unwilling to administer the strong medicine [discipline] that is necessary to kill it. Much instruction must be given, and yes, more discipline will likely have to be exercised. Will it happen? May God give the strength.”

This is a clear example, contrary to WLC 144 & 145, wherein TE Carpenter’s actions are “prejudicing the truth” before the courts have made a decision. For, Rev. Spronk used TE

Carpenter’s correspondence in order to publicly assert the TE Moon holds to FV.

4. From TE Carpenter’s blog, April 10, 2010 7:02 PM Rev. Brian Carpenter:

“Anonymous said...Just curious - there's a lot of chatter about TE Moon. I haven't seen anything posted about what he's actually said. I see that he defended TE Lawrence. But has TE Moon actually said anything that gives cause for believing that he's an FV proponent? Thanks.”

[TE Carpenter] “Yes. See Lane Keister's blog "greenbaggins" for his statement defending TE Greg Lawrence. It is classic FV "scholarship" and he admits there that his views of baptism are the same (with various nuances) as TE Lawrence's. A re-reading of his ordination papers with fresh eyes has also raised some concerns that were missed in his examination. He uses a lot of monocovenantal language, and there are other problems as well.”

In this blog response TE Carpenter affirms, “Yes,” that TE Moon is a proponent of FV. He states this is proven from the fact, via Lane Keister’s blog, that TE Moon develops “classic FV ‘scholarship.’” In this post, TE Carpenter publicly states that TE Moon is FV. And this occurred before any PCA courts have decided the issue.

5. From his blog, Tuesday, March 30, 2010:

Below, contains a timeline that TE Carpenter developed in his blog post on March 30 that links TE Moon to FV. The post is cited in full, as follows:

[TE Carpenter wrote:]

“Background on Siouxlands Federal Vision Controversy: Some Background on TE Joshua

Moon By 2001, when Joshua Moon began his studies at Covenant Seminary, TE Jeffrey Meyers, a PCA Pastor in St. Louis, had been very active with James Jordan’s Biblical Horizons organization for over a decade. The Biblical Horizons list is the discussion list started by a group of men who had formerly been theonomists. They came under the influence of the theology of men like Norman Shepherd, E.P. Sanders, and N.T. Wright. According to one watcher, they ended up rolling their theonomy into their ecclesiology and the result was the Federal Vision.

TE Wes White tells me that by 2001 Jeffrey Meyers was active on this Biblical Horizons list and that even men like John Barach (now a minister in the CREC, Doug Wilson’s denomination) looked up to Meyers as a leader in what later came to be called the Federal Vision movement.

It is important to recognize that what became known as the Federal Vision was a cohesive movement before the controversy about the Auburn Avenue Conference broke out. TE Meyers is the author of a book on Covenant Renewal Worship, which articulates the distinctive theology of worship in the Federal Vision. Some critics have voiced concerns that

Covenant Renewal Worship has too much in common with the Roman Catholic Mass. TE

Meyers is also a signatory of the Joint Federal Vision Statement. Here is a series of photographs that TE Meyers took at an Auburn Avenue Pastor’s conference.

TE Meyer’s church, Providence PCA, is very active in recruiting and training Covenant Seminary students and hosts numerous internships. Prior to TE Moon’s tenure at Providence

PCA, two other men of interest served as interns. In 2000, Albert Scharbach was an intern.

He is now a Roman Catholic priest and assistant to the Bishop in the Diocese of Baltimore.

In January of 2001, TE Greg Lawrence was also an intern at Providence PCA. TE Lawrence is currently under investigation in the Siouxlands Presbytery for holding/teaching Federal Vision theology.

1. Fall 2001 – Joshua Moon begins his studies at Covenant Theological Seminary. He attends Federal Visionist Jeffrey Meyer’s Church for his first two years at seminary. Here is

how Moon described his time at Providence in a document sent to the Presbytery of the

Siouxlands:

“September ‘01 - May ‘03: Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA), St. Louis, MO. Duties included teaching children’s Sunday school, preparing for and leading the weekly adult Bible study and prayer meeting, and occasional preaching along with regular (mostly weekly) meetings with Pastor Jeffrey Meyers.”

2. January 2002 – The first “Federal Vision” Auburn Avenue conference. This conference ignites the Federal Vision controversy in the confessionally Reformed Churches.

3. January 2002-June 2002 – Josh Moon continues regular meetings with Jeffrey Meyers (mostly weekly).

4. June 2002 – RPCUS condemns the Federal Vision as heresy.

5. June 2002-January 2003 – Josh Moon continues regular meetings with Jeffrey Meyers (mostly weekly).

6. January 2003 – The second “Federal Vision” Auburn Avenue Conference in which the Federal Visionists debated their opponents. You can see some of Jeffrey Meyer’s thoughts on this conference here.

7. January 2003-Summer 2003 – Josh Moon continues regular meetings with Jeffrey Meyers (mostly weekly).

8. Summer 2003-Summer 2004: Moon did an internship in a Providence PCA (Meyer’s Church) Church plant, Cornerstone Presbyterian Church. Moon writes:

Cornerstone Presbyterian Church (PCA), St. Louis, MO (church plant.) Duties included regular preaching in morning and evening services, a six-week adult Sunday school course, active participation in the outreach ministries of the church, regular meetings with Pastor Tommy Lee, and attendance at session and planning meetings of the church.

9. Received a grant for graduate theological studies from Covenant Seminary.

10. Fall of 2004-Fall of 2007 – Josh Moon in the U.K. doing post-graduate studies.

11. December 2007 – Moon receives a call from Good Shepherd PCA in Minnetonka, MN to serve as Pastor. Good Shepherd PCA describes its worship as “covenant renewal” worship.

12. January 2008 – TE Moon licensed at the 82nd Stated Meeting of the Presbytery of the

Siouxlands.

13. July 2008 – TE Moon sustains ordination exams at a meeting called for that purpose.

14. April 2009 – TE Moon agrees to serve on a committee to investigate whether or not TE

Greg Lawrence was holding or teaching doctrines related to the so-called Federal Vision.

15. May 2009 - TE Moon is quoted in By Faith magazine as follows:

Joshua Moon, pastor of Good Shepherd PCA in Minnetonka, Minn. says, “I don’t attach a special value to eternal election over and above any other doctrine of the church. However,

Paul emphasizes it to the Ephesians, but not the Corinthians, or the Galatians, or the Philippians.

[The prophets of the Old Testament are] by and large silent on the issue of divine (eternal and effective) election: they are more interested in the reality of ‘covenantal’ election, and urging those elected into the people of God by birth and promise to become and live like true people of God. That I take as more central to my task in preaching.”

16. August 2009 – The committee assigned to investigate TE Lawrence's views winds up its work. The majority recommendation is that a strong presumption of guilt be found that TE

Lawrence is teaching theology at odds with the Confession. TE Moon is one of two "no" votes on the committee. The other "no" vote was RE Milt Werkema, a ruling elder from

Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church

17. September 2009 - TE Joshua Moon stood up and moved that "the Presbytery of Siouxlands finds no strong presumption of guilt in the preaching/teaching views of TE Lawrence with respect to any doctrines associated with the so-called Federal Vision that are contrary to the doctrinal standards of the PCA." This motion passed 20-17.

18. September 2009 - TE Moon's speech defending TE Lawrence (which you can read here), he stated, "The fact is, what TE Lawrence says on baptism is held in various ways and with various nuances by a lot of people in our PCA...myself included..."

19. October 2009 – The Session of Foothills Community Church in Sturgis, South Dakota overtures the Presbytery of the Siouxlands to begin a BCO 31-2 investigation. The Presbytery approved the overture, did a cursory investigation of TE Moon at the end of the meeting, and declared no strong presumption of guilt.

20. January 2010 – The Presbytery of the Siouxlands hears my complaint that the Presbytery erred in not finding a strong presumption of guilt in TE Moon. The Presbytery rejected the complaint in large part because of Moon’s claims that he does not hold Federal Vision theology, is ignorant of Federal Vision theology, and that he was unaware of the controversy surrounding the Federal Vision.

Specifically, TE Moon wrote the following in a letter to the Presbytery in response to news of my complaint:

Mr. Carpenter attempts throughout to attach to me the label of “federal vision,” apparently hoping to influence the court by naming me as such. Presbytery is well aware that I came here ignorant of the controversy, having been overseas throughout the course of the disputes, and still I have read almost nothing from those involved in the disputes. To attempt to lump me into the views of others in such a crass manner, without caring to give justice to my views as an individual, and even stating that a similarity of argument is a “clear sympathy” with “federal vision”, is an especially gross kind of guilt by association. And that is beneath the dignity of this court. What similarities may exist are independent: I have almost no familiarity with the writings of the so-called “federal vision” theologians or their opponents. I trust Presbytery will treat me with more charity and understanding than this type of argument.

[End TE Carpenter’s post]

This timeline and discussion demonstrates that TE Carpenter prejudiced the truth. The timeline links TE Moon to pastors and teachers who have also been accused of advocating FV theology. In associating TE Moon to this men in such a manner, TE Carpenter has engaged in, “Misconstructing intentions, words, and actions.” Neither has he demonstrated, as WLC Q 144 states, “A charitable esteem of our neighbours;(11) loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;(12) sorrowing for,(13) and covering of their infirmities;(14) freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,(15) defending their innocency;(16) a ready receiving of a good report.”

6. From his blog, 25 April 2010:

TE Carpenter wrote:

“On May 19 we will be dragging them before the SJC again in order to deal with their lack of diligence concerning TE Joshua Moon.[iii] TE White and I have come under some criticism from outsiders for asking for the presbytery to investigate TE Moon’s views, instead of just laying charges against him and moving directly to trial. We chose this route because we thought it was important for the presbytery to do its job. When it became apparent that the presbytery had no intention of doing its job,[iv] TE White decided to lay charges against TE Moon for heresy. He attempted to do so on April 22nd, at the most recent stated meeting. The presbytery, in blatant violation of the BCO, refused to entertain the charges. They criticize us for blogging about these things and not simply making use of the process prescribed by the constitution of our church. But when we try to make use of the constitutional processes, they violate the constitution and refuse to allow us make use appropriate use of it and start complaining that we’re violating the Ninth Commandment.[v] I suffered with them for almost two years and didn’t say a peep until it became obvious that 1) they weren’t going to do the right thing without pressure and 2) public disclosure produced pressure.

So once again, we lodge a complaint. The presbytery will reject it. We will appeal to the SJC. Perhaps two or three years from now we will finally have TE Moon before the presbytery under oath and demand an explanation for his words and make an examination of his views.[vi] The presbytery will probably vote to acquit in the face of all the evidence. Then we will appeal to the SJC We will win, eventually. It’s just going to be a long haul. We’re ready for it. We expected it. In the meantime, TE Moon continues to occupy a PCA pulpit, just like TE Lawrence, and probably 60% of our presbytery is enraged at us. I wonder if some even hate us. I don’t like all of this, of course, but making my brothers in the presbytery happy with me is not my highest priority. I am highly, highly disappointed in many of them.[vii]

This blog post is “speaking the truth unseasonably,(12) or maliciously to a wrong end,(13) or perverting it to a wrong meaning,(14) or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice.” Moreover, his statements, “I suffered with them for almost

two years and didn’t say a peep until it became obvious that 1) they weren’t going to do the right thing without pressure and 2) public disclosure produced pressure.” This relates to violating the ninth commandment per WLC Q145, “(1) especially in public judicature.”

Comparing this post by TE Carpenter to the rhetoric of WLC Q 145 reveals that he violates the ninth commandment in variety of ways.

7. From his blog, August 15, 2010:

He wrote,

“I took an unannounced step back from blogging for a while…But now I’m back, and as full of piss and vinegar as before… So let’s get down to brass tacks. The April meeting took place, in part, on my birthday, and Josh Moon and Greg Lawrence gave me a wonderful birthday present. I’d like to share it with you.”

Here, his language is, (from WLC 145) “Rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;(42) scornful contempt,” and “scoffing,(23) reviling,(24) rash,(25) harsh.” This post disregards, (from WLC 144) “a charitable esteem of our neighbours;(11),” and it is not a demonstration of “loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;(12) sorrowing for,(13) and covering of

their infirmities; (14) freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,(15) defending their innocency;(16) a ready receiving of a good report.”

In summary, after investigating TE Carpenter’s public engagement concerning TE Moon &

FV, both on his own blog and the blogs of others, our committee concludes that his actions and character has had this result: “prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbor,” and “endeavoring or desiring to impair it,” before the PCA courts have made a ruling regarding TE Moon’s views. TE Carpenter has prejudiced the debate “in public judicature,” and in his own mind appears to have declared TE Moon guilty as charged in that he believes, teaches, and preaches FV. The committee recommends that the Presbytery of the Siouxlands find a strong presumption of guilt with TE Carpenter, whereby, in relation to TE Moon, he has violated the ninth commandment as both defined by the Larger Catechism, and ultimately as it is interpreted within a Christological framework.

[i] Our committee makes no claim on the theology of TE Moon’s status concerning Federal Vision.

[ii] http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/siouxlands-schizophrenia, 2-3, / 1/13/2010

[iii] This statement is, “Speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end” (Q 145).

[iv] These statements are, “Out-facing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil” (Q 145).

[v] These statements are, “Backbiting, detracting… scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions” (Q 145).

[vi] 6 These do not demonstrate, “A charitable esteem of our neighbours; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report” (Q 144).

[vii] These statements are, “Vain-glorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins... unnecessary discovering of infirmities…raising false rumours, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defence; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavouring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt” (Q 145).

Letter to the Siouxlands Presbytery

2010-09-23T04:40:00.000-05:00

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to the Siouxlands Presbytery (SP) (which has its 90th stated meeting this week) explaining my reason for leaving to join with the RCUS. Please pray for the SP as well as for the PCA at large that peace would return to her as soon as her purity is restored.

Fathers and Brothers, it has been my privilege to sit among you, first, as an interested observer and, second, as a member under care. I do not count it only as a privilege, but I can truly say that I have always looked forward to attending presbytery because I have always enjoyed the fellowship, the worship, the many discussions of both theological and mundane topics, and the close contact with godly, respectable men. This is why it saddens me to write this letter to you. I have been a silent observer in recent months to troubling developments. I initially trusted that right will prevail, and that the excellent system of Presbyterian government would work as it is supposed to to filter out error. The error, of course, that I am referring to is the Federal Vision. I believed that since both our own presbytery and General Assembly issued statements showing the Federal Vision to be out of accord with our Confession, as well as being an error that strikes at the fundamentals of our religion, we were all in agreement that this error should be dealt with in a manner that leaves no doubt as to our stance against it. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that the Federal Vision error exists in this presbytery, you have chosen to either deny the existence of the error, protect the ones who teach this error, or attack the ones who are trying to perform their duty in ridding us of this odious error. Please believe me when I say that during the past several months I have felt like a foreign invader has taken over my homeland. I have and always will feel like the Siouxlands Presbytery is my home. Despite all of this, I remain confident in the system of Presbyterian government. I do not think that our excellent system, which I believe to be of divine right, is to blame. Nor do I believe that any of you are operating under any sinister or ulterior motives. On the contrary, what I know of many of you, I believe that you have nothing but the welfare of the Church and charity towards your neighbor in mind. I cannot nor will not try to understand your reasonings behind all of this. I do believe, however, that it is my duty to inform you that so long as this error persists without being dealt with, for whatever reason, I cannot remain a part of this body. I do not leave with any malice toward any of you, only with malice toward error, as David said, “I hate every false way.” (Ps. 119:104) You are in my prayers as you continue the work set before you, and I trust that God will always work to make His truth triumphant, no matter how painful His ways may be to us.

Your Son in Christ,

Steven J. Carr

Where Have I Been? And What Brought Me Out of Hiding?

2010-08-27T00:48:00.001-05:00

It's been some time, now, since I posted. Some of you may be wondering what I've been up to? Well, to be honest, I have been trying to figure out a direction for my life, while relocating to Hinckley, MN, and looking for work. I have been relatively successful with the last two, but the former has yet to be decided. I have also added more business to my life by applying to a truck driving school to obtain a CDL. I hope to finish the truck driving school in four weeks. If I graduate successfully, then I should be starting orientation and hopefully working with one of several companies I am prehired with. I should also mention that any moment my wife Crystal will be giving birth to our third child. Today is her due date, but so far nothing has happened, but it should be any day now if not sooner.

During this time, I have been doing a lot of thinking and reading about covenant theology, and am working on a short work I've creatively entitled A Brief Overview of Covenant Theology, along with a treatise defending the Covenant of Works. I hope to bring some of my thoughts on covenant theology to this blog soon.

Well, now you know a little bit about where I've been; let me tell you about what brought me out of hiding. Pastors Wes White and Brian Carpenter, those brave contenders of historic Reformed truth, have been at it again writing some poignant and powerful posts about the happenings within their Siouxlands Presbytery and the PCA at large. You can go read their blogs for yourselves; just click on either "The Happy TR" or "Johannes Weslianus" in the right hand column of this blog to be linked to their sites. I'm not here relating anything of what they said. I just simply wanted to go on record saying, how much I really appreciate these two men. I don't know half of what they've had to endure from men within their own presbytery, but from the little bits I've seen I can say that they have sure endured a lot. Lesser men might have given up the fight long ago, but not these men. They are filled with the terror of the Lord. Just the very thing that separates the men from the pansies. They seek to please the Lord, not their fellow men. They embody everything that was good about the Reformation. I know that the Lord will use them mightily. I do not say that in all things they have not sinned, but they would not say that they are sinless either. They are sinners, but they are sinners who are righteous by the blood of Christ alone. But they are righteous sinners who stand for truth in an area where it is not popular to do so, and for that I praise them.

My reason for coming out of hiding, however, was not to write an encomium of the acts of Pastors White and Carpenter. It has come to my attention from an unnamed source that one of my blog posts might be used against one of them. This is the blog post, I believe, that is in question. I imagine that the issue is not so much with the post as it is with the title, which is "Presbyterianism or Shenaniganism?" The issue at stake is that Pastor White linked to this post on his blog, and now someone is suggesting that he may be in violation of the fifth commandment. I presume that since I inferred that the January meeting of the Sioux. Pres. resembled more shenaniganism rather than true presbyterianism this is thought by some as a violation of the fifth commandment. Well, if it was, then I am the one to blame, not Pastor White. He simply linked to my blog in order to give his readers an idea of what is being said on other blogs. He in no way gave his assent or approval about what I said. Furthermore, no one from the Sioux. Pres. has confronted me about being in any violation. I have been told by some to reconsider posting it. I have also been told that I need to be careful about what I say, but NO ONE has confronted me about violating the fifth commandment. If pastor White should be accused that he is in violation of the fifth commandment, then it should be established, 1st. that I have violated the fifth commandment, and 2d. that Pastor White has approved of my actions. This must be done in that order. If this is not carried out in this order then those who wish to accuse Pastor White of violating the fifth commandment are in danger of lending credence to my inference that the tactics of some in the Sioux. Pres. resemble more shenaniganism than presbyterianism.

The Importance of the Theologia Unionis

2010-06-19T15:59:00.001-05:00

Fine distinctions abound in the writings of the Reformed Scholastics, and many who are not versed in their language may think such things are really a matter of splitting hairs. When one reads through the various prolegomenas of Reformed theological works, one soon finds that theologia is a topic with many subdivisions and distinctions. The first division with which one is faced is the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. Archetypal theology is the perfect knowledge that God has of Himself. It is God as He really is and as He knows Himself in all perfection. Created beings cannot have this knowledge of God primarily because they are not infinite beings and therefore cannot contain infinite knowledge, for God is infinite and thus is the knowledge of Him.

What knowledge we can have of God is called ectypal theology. This is not an exact copy of the original knowledge but a trustworthy representation. It is all that created finite beings need to know, and can ever hope to know about God. Ectypal theology is further divided into theologia unionis or theology of union, theologia angelis or theology of angels, theologia beata or theology of the blessed, and theologia viatorum or theology of the pilgrims. The latter three divisions all have to do with the theology or knowledge of God known to angels, men as they are perfected in heaven, and men as they are yet in their earthly pilgrimage.

Theology of union is the knowledge that the person of Christ has of God. The person of Christ has two natures one divine and one human. His divine nature can and does possess the archetypal knowledge, but how is this communicated to His human nature? It cannot share in this infinite knowledge because itself is finite and created. This is where the importance of the theology of union comes in. It is the attempt of the Reformed to keep the two natures distinct from each other without admixture according to the ancient orthodox formulations of Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. Christ, according to His human nature, had to receive the knowledge of God in ectypal form. Sebastian Rehnman writes in Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen, "If Christ according to his human nature had the infinite divine knowledge. there would be an interchange of attributes between the natures. However, according to the Reformed view, the integrity of the natures is preserved in their union, so the theology of Jesus Christ is, according to Owen, 'through the personal union' and 'revelations given to him from the Father.' Again Junius is followed: 'The theology which we call of union is the entire wisdom of divine things communicated to Christ the God-man, that is, as the Word made flesh, according to his humanity.' It is this knowledge that the Reformed theologians attempt to define with the concept of the theology of the Mediator or of union." (66, 67)

There is further importance to the theology of union besides preserving the integrity of both the divine and human natures of Christ. Rehnman writes:

The importance of the theology of the Mediator comes from its most intimate connection with all other forms of theology. It is, of course, a subdivision of ectypal theology, but a subdivision par excellence. As Christ is the Mediator between God and man and, the means of redemptive revelation, theologia unionis is the basis for all human theology. Owen writes:
Thus we confess Christ to be the light of the world and for this reason to all men, from the revelation of the Father, or his will concerning the obedience and salvation of sinners; not only because no divine truth was ever revealed without him, but because this shining light of Holy Scripture is sufficient to irradiate all men, to whom it reaches through providence of God, in the light of salvation.
So Christ brought the most perfect revelation to which nothing is to be added. Endued with perfect knowledge, he brought the perfect revelation of God's will to mankind. (67)

Thus it is shown that what at first appears to be a splitting of hairs is in reality a most important distinction. We have in this subdivision of ectypal theology a preservation of the orthodox doctrine of Christ, as well as a confirmation of what Luther called the theology of the cross, the idea that true theology on earth must be seen in light of the person and work of Christ. Christ makes true theology possible for sinners like you and me, and we cannot hope to have the beatific or blessed vision of God in heaven without the work of Christ. If hair-splitting distinctions preserve for us a right understanding of God, then I say, "The more the merrier!"

In Defense of Blogging

2010-05-27T21:27:00.000-05:00

Lately there has been some concern in the PCA about bloggers and blogging. It seems that some people in the PCA view blogging as a real threat to the piece and purity of the Church. I will readily admit that there are blogs that are a waste of time, and that do nothing to advance discussion, but rather serve to spew out venom and vitriol. These blogs are a waste of time, and do nothing to promote the peace and purity of the Church. But what about blogs that do advance discussion? What about those blogs that blow whistles, call insidious heresies what they really are, and call the Church back to her Confessional roots? I suspect that the issue has more to do with the Evangelical wing of the PCA not liking what the Confessionalist wing has to say.

But enough from me...Read Phil Derksen's excellent blog post.

Oh, one more thing; I wanted to point out that bloggers brought down Dan Rather. Remember that glorious day?

Surprise, Surprise, Wes White is Not the Only One to Recognize a Conspiracy in the PCA!

2010-05-27T21:14:00.000-05:00

Read Ron Gleason's interesting, if not heart-breaking, article at the Aquila Report.

Great Deal on Ussher's Body of Divinity

2010-05-06T00:20:00.005-05:00

I f you do not have James Ussher's Body of Divinity you are missing out on one of the most important works of early 17th century Reformed theology. But, thanks to CBD, you can own it at a great price ($5.99 plus shipping)!

James Ussher (1581-1656) was Bishop of Armaugh in Ireland from 1521 until his death in 1556. Educated by two Scottish refugees in Calvinistic theology, Ussher became a leading proponent of Puritanism in Ireland; however, he always expounded that theology in an irenic tone. Ussher's own theology represents a leap forward in the development in Covenant theology. His Body of Divinity is clearly structured by the bi-covenantal system. In 1615 he oversaw the composition of the Irish Articles which was the first Reformed confession to be structured around a system of covenant theology. Today, Ussher is mostly known for his chronology of the Bible found in his Annals of the World, but in his own day, he was known as a brilliant theologian and powerful minister of the Word of God. A Body of Divinity is a testimony not only to his theological acumen, but also to his broad influence. Dr. Crawford Gribben, in his introduction to this work, writes:

The coherence and integrity of the Body of Divinity has been linked by a number of scholars to the most important theological statements of the seventeenth century. In his Lectures on Evangelical Theology (1890), the Princeton theologian A. A. Hodge argued that the Body of Divinity had more to do in forming the [Westminster] Catechism and Confession of Faith than any other book in the world; because it is well known that this book, which he compiled in as a young man, was in circulation in this Assembly among the individuals composing it. And if this is true, you could easily see how much of suggestion there is in it which carried into the Catechism--the Larger Catechism especially--of that Assembly.

And, if that is the case, then Ussher's influence stretches far beyond the boundaries of Anglicanism or Presbyterianism, for the Westminster Confession also provided the framework for subsequent confessions of faith by Congregationalists (the Savoy Confession, 1658) and Baptist (the Second London Confession, 1677 and 1689). The Body of Divinity is therefore one of the foundational texts in the construction of pan-Reformed orthodoxy.

The format of the work really adds to the value of the book. It is written as questions and answers grouped under separate theological headings. This aids the reader in thinking through each topic in a careful and meditative manner. Soundly Puritan and Calvinistic, and richly covenantal, this is a work not to be missed. Take advantage of this great offer. Tolle Lege!
UPDATE: PRODUCT IS SOLD OUT. YOU CAN STILL ORDER IT AT A REASONABLE PRICE HERE.

Strategery I Can Sign On To

2010-04-30T09:26:00.002-05:00

Original Post Here.

Post Copied from The Happy TR:
It's easy to be critical of what others do. It's much harder to present a positive vision for what you'd like to see happen instead.
In the comments section of a heidelblog article Dr. John Payne has posted the following.

Dr. Payne has articulated my heart's desires for the PCA. This has become my rallying cry. What is my vision for the PCA?

1. A renewed commitment to exegetical, God-centered, Christ-exalting, Holy Spirit-filled, lectio-continua preaching.

2. A renewed commitment to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper for the spiritual nourishment, health and comfort of the elect.

3. A renewed commitment to private, family and corporate prayer.

4. A renewed commitment to – and delight in – the Lord’s Day.

5. A renewed commitment to worship God according to Scripture.

6. A renewed commitment to sing the Psalms in private, family, and public worship.

7. A renewed commitment to wed our missiology to our Reformed ecclesiology.

8. A renewed commitment to Spirit-dependent, prayerful, loving, courageous evangelism.

9. A renewed commitment to biblical church discipline.

10. A renewed commitment to family worship.

11. A renewed commitment to biblical hospitality.

12. A renewed commitment to catechize our covenant children.

13. A renewed commitment to biblical masculinity and femininity.

14. A renewed commitment to shepherd the flock of God.

15. A renewed commitment to promote and defend the Reformed Confession.

16. A renewed commitment to the mortification of sin and worldliness.

17. A renewed commitment to rest by faith in Christ ALONE for salvation, without minimizing Gospel obedience.

Strategery in the PCA

2010-04-27T23:35:00.000-05:00

The PCA's 2010 Strategic Plan has been hailed by many as a great plan and a necessary change in the PCA. But not all who've read the plan are as enthusiastic. I would encourage you to read Wes White's insightful analysis here.

William Schweitzer also has a great article at the Aquila Report. Here is a choice selection from his article.

Now, stepping away from ourselves for a moment, is this not the perspective we would assume in relation to some other denominations in decline? Take the PC USA for example. According to their official statistician, the PC USA lost about a million members between 1983 and 2008, from 3,131,228 to 2,140,165. That is a serious S-curve. I do not think, however, that our advice to the PC USA would be that they need to provide “more seats at the table” for women, set up “safe places” for people to talk about new ideas without fear of getting disciplined, or that they needed to withdraw from orthodox fellowships like NAPARC. They implemented similar strategies a long time ago. Hopefully, we would tell them that they are under the curse of God for their theological unfaithfulness, and they should repent.

New Kid on the Blog

2010-04-09T00:37:00.000-05:00

Okay so that title was a lame attempt at being catchy, but I do want to point you in the direction of a new blog, that I hope will generate a good deal of discussion on the doctrine of Law and Gospel. Check it out here: Lex et Euangelium.

On a side note, I know that for the past month or so this blog has been devoted to controversy. It is my plan to let the other blog be a place for controversy, and return to the original focus of this blog: positive dogmatics. I wanted to talk about theology of pilgrims this year, but got sidetracked. I hope, D.V., to return to that theme soon.

Evangelical Christians and Their Love Affair with Compromise

2010-04-07T00:28:00.005-05:00

There's a song by the country-western band Diamond Rio that has a chorus that goes like this:

"I'd start walking your way

You'd start walking mine
We'd meet in the middle
'neath that old georgia pine
We'd gain a lot of ground
cause we'd both give a little
And their ain't no road to long
When you meet in the middle."

It's a catchy song, if you've ever heard it. Even more catchy is the viewpoint that a little compromise is a good thing. It seems that many Americans tend to think that in the debate between two opposing parties, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. I see this viewpoint quite often in conservative vs. liberal debates, or the Republican vs. Democrat debates. But this idea is not just in the realm of politics, it is also found in the Church.

There have been many times when I've met people who claim to hold to a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism. They view both sides as extreme poles, but the truth, they assert, is somewhere in the middle. (If you are looking for a great refutation of the idea of a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism click here.) Wherever you find opposing parties, free-will vs. bound will, sovereign grace vs. resistable grace, universal atonement vs. particular atonement, errancy vs. inerrancy, justification by faith and justification by works, etc., you will find those who claim to hold to the middle ground. Some have even claimed to have found a middle way between the Federal Vision and the Confessional Reformed positions. My question is: what is so attractive about finding a middle way? I'm sure there are a number of factors, but I suspect that it has something to do with a general lack of spine within American Christianity. Many Evangelical Christians cannot stand seeing divisions within the Church, and therefore they think that the real answer is compromise.

Toeing the line requires having a spine, and since many Evangelical Christians, yes, even Evangelical Christians in Reformed Churches, lack a real spine they are repulsed by the thought of having to hold to one side of the debate or the other. Holding to one side just might mean standing up to one's peers and telling them they're wrong, which, of course, one can't do without a spine. What I find with most "middle-grounders" is that they really have no clearly defined position. Those who say that they hold to a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism will quite readily find good points on both sides; however, they find that both sides are somehow missing the entire picture. Yet when pressed as to what EXACTLY is this middle position that they have found, they are unable to give any clear cut answer. The middle ground is not a position that brings clarity to an issue, but rather brings confusion. But, hey, if it helps everyone get along, then what does clarity matter?

Now when it comes to personal matters, or things that are indifferent, I'd be glad to start walking your way, and hopefully you'll start walking mine. But when it comes to the doctrines of the Word of God, we'd better start walking God's way as carefully defined by Scripture, and we should do so with the understanding that God is not going to start walking our way. If the Bible teaches Calvinism, then lets not be afraid to let our Arminian friends know that they are wrong. If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then let's not be afraid to defend inerrancy. If the true gospel is justification by faith alone, then let's be brave and tell those who advocate a justification by works in any way that they are teaching another gospel. If we find that our Reformed Confessions are in line with Scripture then let's not be afraid to bring charges against those who are out of accord with the Confessions.

Paul said to Timothy "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 1:13). And to the Thessalonians he said, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). This is the same person who said that he became all things to all men that he might win some to Christ (1 Cor. 9:22). This is also the same man who was willing to give up certain foods so that he could win some to Christ (1 Cor. 10:25-33). The same Paul who would rather give up certain foods for the sake of his brothers, withstood Peter to his face because he was out of accord with the teaching of the gospel (Gal. 2:11). Finding middle ground is noble when it comes to matters of personal preference or indifference, but when it comes to the gospel and the clear doctrines of Scripture, there is no room for compromise.

Wollebius on Law and Gospel

2010-04-02T22:59:00.002-06:00

You promoters of so-called "biblical theology" may whine and sniff all you want about the term "Scholasticism" and how rigid, dull, and cold it is, but one thing your "biblical theology" lacks is clarity. Here is seventeenth century Reformed Scholastic Johannes Wollebius on Law and Gospel. I dare you to find a statement this clear put out by Wilson, Meyers, Leithart, Horne, etc.

Chapter XV: The Gospel, and Its Similarity to, and Difference from, the Law

1. Thus by the law, we see the need of redemption, now we must consider the truth of redemption, in the gospel.

2. The gospel is the good news, or teaching concerning the Son of God, who was sent into the world so that, after assuming our nature, he might undergo the curse of the law in our place and by his perfect obedience to it earn eternal life for us.

Propositions

I. The gospel is like the law in having the same efficient and instrumental causes: God and the written word. It differs with respect to external instrumental cause; the law was obviously given by Moses, and the gospel by Christ; further, it differs in that the law is also known to man naturally, whereas the gospel is known only by the gracious revelation of God.

II. They are similar because of their common content. both urge obedience with promise and threats. They differ because of the special content of each one: the law primarily teaches what is to be done, the gospel, what is to be believed.

III. They are are similar because of their common form: Both exhibit a mirror of perfect obedience. They differ because of the special form of each: The law teaches what is perfect righteousness, pleasing to God; the gospel teaches where or in whom we may find that perfect righteousness. The law demands it from us; the gospel shows it in Christ.

IV. They are similar because of their final purpose, the glory of God, and, next in importance to that, our salvation, which can be seen in both. They differ in their special purposes. The law was given to drive us to seek Christ; the gospel, to reveal Christ.

V. They are similar in their common object, namely fallen man. They differ in their special objects. The special object of the law is man who is being alarmed and humiliated.

VI. They are similar because of common adjuncts, sanctity, goodness, and perfection, which, considered in themselves, each one has equally. They differ because, on account of the particular circumstances, and of our weakness, the law without the gospel is not enough for salvation.

VII. From the above it can be seen in what sense, in Scripture, the law is opposed to the gospel. and in what sense it is subordinated to it.

VIII. When men are considered as unregenerate or regenerate, then law and gospel must be understood as opposites; when men are considered as regenerate, then the law must be subordinated to the gospel.

Such is the opposition indicated by the apostle: "You are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom. 6:14). Here he indicates the state of man before and after regeneration. Unfaithful man is said to be "under law" because (1) he is subject to the curse of the law; (2) he is subject to the severity of the law, by which it demands perfect righteousness and obedience; and (3) because he looks for occasion for sinning on account of law, according to the proverb: "We always seek what is forbidden, and we must desire that which we have been denied" (see Rom. 7:8).

Faithful man is said to be under grace because (1) he has been freed from the curse of the law; (2) he has been freed from the severity of the law and demand for perfect righteousness, since Christ has discharged it; and (3) because he has been freed from sin ruling in him, so that he no longer desires sin on account of the law, but rather begins to do what the law requires, through the Holy Spirit and because of his gratitude.

The law is presented as subordinate to the gospel when Christ is called "the end of the law" (Rom. 10:4); and the law a "tutor unto Christ" (Gal. 3:24), and when the law is said not to be opposed to him who does the works of the spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). Indeed, the gospel gives to faithful man, in Christ, all the righteousness that the law requires. And although we are not able to satisfy the law in this life, yet the reborn, through the gift of sanctification, begin to do so.

Now compare Wollebius' careful delineation of law and gospel with this statement by the Joint Federal Vision Profession:

Law and Gospel

We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which they also disobey. When they have been brought to the point of repentance by the Holy Spirit, we affirm that the gracious nature of all God's words becomes evident to them. At the same time, we affirm that it is appropriate to speak of law and gospel as having a redemptive and historical thrust, with the time of the law being the old covenant era and the time of the gospel being the time when we enter our maturity as God's people. We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate.

We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.

Wilson, et. al., continue to cry, "Semper Reformanda," with regard to doctrinal formulation, but one wonders, especially in consideration of the careful statements of the Reformed Orthodox compared with the careless statements of the Federal Visionistas, if Reformation has yet to occur.

More Maneuvering

2010-03-21T22:41:00.006-06:00

There have been several attempts to silence Pastors Wes White, Lane Keister and Brian Carpenter, and keep them from speaking out against the Federal Vision error and those who teach it. Brian Carpenter has recorded the latest attempt here which is a letter written to the Siouxlands Presbytery by the session of Christ's Church in Mankato. Below is an excerpt from that letter which caught my attention:

"3. It may be that the members of Christ Church will not read these [i.e., Wes White's] posts, but poison like this has a way of getting around, and causing damage that cannot be anticipated. Scripture warns us: “No man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison”. By publicly interacting with TE Lawrence by name, labeling him and misrepresenting his views, TE White has unleashed words that bring harm to TE Lawrence and Christ Church."

I have a couple of thoughts about this. First, it seems to me that if the session is so concerned about the good name of TE Lawrence that they, along with their friends in Presbytery, would be glad to allow TE Lawrence to go to trial and prove his good name in court. But instead twice now they have stifled the attempts to bring him to trial, despite the fact that two committees have found him with a strong presumption of guilt. Furthermore, who are the ones really responsible for giving TE Lawrence a bad name--Wes White, who is simply reporting the events as they happened at Presbytery and writing about why the Federal Vision is justly considered error or those who continue to stifle the attempts of the committees who were formed to investigate his views.

Secondly, if the committees are correct in their findings, and TE Lawrence is indeed teaching the Federal Vision error, then who is the one doing the poisoning? The Federal Vision poison sure has a way of getting around and causing damage that cannot be anticipated.

Do You Know What is Going on in the PCA?

2010-03-17T23:09:00.002-06:00

Wes White pointed out this article at the Aquila Report. John Otis, the author of the article and pastor of Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church in Burlington, brings to light the teachings of a certain Pastor Craig Higgins, who seems to have some strange views on Reformed ecumenicity, not to mention is suspect in his views on Scripture and Tradition. I would echo the sentiments of Rev. Otis: why hasn't anyone laid charges against this man? What is going on in the PCA? Inquiring minds would like to know.

What is At Stake When Christians Take Their Disputes to Civil Court?

2010-03-13T00:35:00.002-06:00

Pastor Fred Greco, pastor of a PCA Church in Katy, TX, and a former practicing attorney has a good reminder we all need to hear at the Aquilla Report.

What is Wrong with Wright?

2010-03-07T22:52:00.010-06:00

About a month ago James B Jordan posted What's Wrong with N. T. Wright? The same day Steve Wilkins chimed in here. Jordan gives a list of things that make many Reformed Christians uncomfortable, but that he, of course, has no problem with whatsoever. Wright, he says, 1) believes in paedocommunion, 2) believes in theocracy, 3) is basically a postmillenialist, 4) is a member of the Church of England and therefore believes in sung, liturgical worship, 5) is a bishop, but that he has a low church view of the office of bishop, 6) denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, which Jordan believes is part of the original Calvinist Reformation (see my post on the Reformed Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience as a rebuttal of this position), 7) Wright claims to be a Calvinist, though many Calvinists have a hard time believing him, 8) Wright believes in women's ordination, which Jordan disagrees with, and finally 9) Jordan concludes by saying, "There is absolutely nothing in anything N. T. Wright has ever written that even in the slightest compromises the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant."

At the risk of being called ignorant, I shall proceed to give a brief evaluation of what is wrong with Wright. But first, let's look at what Steve Wilkins said.

Here is a man who is getting a hearing around the world--who actually believes in Sola Scriptura and in a literal resurrection and sincerely believes the finished work of Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation (and on top of all else, is a self-professed Calvinist). You'd think that the "Reformed" and other evangelicals would be dancing in the streets. But instead, they have fallen over one another to see who can be the most extreme in their denunciations. It's been nothing short of amazing.

Wilkins cites the formal cause of the Reformation Sola Scriptura. Wright believes in Sola Scriptura, and there I can gladly join hands with N. T. Wright (although Wright has said some things that make me think he does not hold to the classic Protestant doctrine of inerrancy). But what about the material cause of the Reformation--Sola Fide? Here Jordan makes the claim that Wright has not compromised in anyway the Protestant doctrine of salvation. But according to Jordan, Wright denies the imputation of Christ's active obedience; furthermore, Wright has downplayed the forensic nature of justification, made faith a badge of covenant membership rather than the hand that grasps the righteousness of Christ, made obedience to the law a part of our justification, and made the entrance into Christianity and its saving benefits more to do with baptism than with faith. These several things put together do, in fact, compromise the Protestant doctrine of salvation. Wright has gone off in a different trajectory regarding the doctrine of justification than where Luther, Calvin, and Post-Reformation theologians have gone. That is what is wrong with N. T. Wright. He has abandoned the material cause of the Reformation, and given us a doctrine of justification that is as compromised as the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and the Evangelical-Catholic Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Gift of Salvation.

I am not the resident expert on these matters. I have certainly not read everything by N. T. Wright, but I have read enough to both be profited and alarmed by him. Wright has done many things right, but when it comes to the gospel of justification by faith alone, the heart and material cause of the Reformation, he is wrong.

John Bunyan, Move Over!

2010-02-20T23:22:00.006-06:00

Alright, so Rev. Carpenter's work may never equal Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, yet he has written and insightful and very clever allegory regarding the current controversies in the conservative Presbyterian Church. Thus far, he has made three installments to the story, more are sure to follow. I hope you read them and take them to heart. This is more than an amusing (or sad) story; this is an allegorical account of the sad state of affairs from one who has the heart of a prophet.

NEW! Part Six

More to come...I'll try to keep you updated.

Food for Thought: The Denial of the Law/Gospel Distinction as a Fundamental Division an Understandable Mistake or Irresponsible Behavior?

2010-02-13T19:31:00.017-06:00

The signers of the document A Joint Federal Vision Profession made this denial:

We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.

The question for us to think about today is whether the denial of the distinction between Law and Gospel as the fundamental division of Scripture is just an understandable mistake by theologians who are at an early stage in a conversation or an act of theologically irresponsible behavior?

Martin Luther once said, "Hence, whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture." Whether Martin Luther interpreted Paul correctly is a matter for another post. However, the idea of Law and Gospel as the fundamental division in Scripture is a matter easily addressed by examining a few passages from the Apostle Paul. As we look at these passages we should keep a couple things in mind: good news is good news whether one receives it as such, and law is still law whether one obeys it or not.

What does Paul consider good news? Does he consider "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" to be good news? What about "And the Law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live by them" is that good news to Paul?

What about the distinction between Law and Gospel? Does Paul think that this is a fundamental division in Scripture? Here's a sample of his own thoughts on this matter:

The gospel according to Paul is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" not to everyone that doeth. "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith." Rom 1:16,17

When you see faith and works in Paul think Law and Gospel. "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Rom. 4:4,5

Watch the Law/Gospel distinction at work here: "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." Rom. 4:14-16

What about those rebellious people who hate both Law and Gospel? Is the Law/Gospel distinction for them as well? What does Paul say?

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom. 3:19-31

Well, there you have it, folks, from the mouth of the Apostle Paul himself. The gospel is about the free and unmerited salvation wrought for us by Jesus Christ and received by faith alone. It is about being justified freely by His grace apart from works of the Law. Paul says it quite clearly, "The law is not of faith." Is this a distinction only for those who accept the Bible as the Word of God? No! The last passage shows quite clearly that even the Gentiles who did not have the Law must make a distinction between Law and Gospel. If you are going to evangelize (proclaim the good news) to the lost, do yourself and the lost a favor, don't be irresponsible: tell them the good news; tell them that they cannot hope to be justified in the sight of God by works of the Law; tell them that justification and the forgiveness of sins comes only through faith in Christ. At least make that distinction for them.

Conversation Between an Inquirer and a Federal Vision Pastor

2010-02-11T19:01:00.003-06:00

Wes White wrote a fictitious conversation between an inquirer and a Federal Vision pastor. You can read it here. Whatever else this little piece shows, it at least reveals that lack of clarity in presenting the gospel is as dangerous as presenting a false gospel. Sadly, in my opinion, lack of clarity isn't the Federal Vision's only error.

Food for Thought: How in line with the Confessions are the FVists?

2010-01-27T23:59:00.005-06:00

The FVists and their ilk, when charged with being contrary to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, are quite prepared to say that they are in full agreement with the Standards. To some extent, this has been successful in duping many into believing that they are, in fact, in line with the Standards of the PCA. When asked, "Do you believe in baptismal regeneration contrary to the Westminster Confession?" All they have to say is, "No, I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I hold to the Westminster Confession," and, amazingly, those who haven't taken the time to examine their sermons and writings will heave a big sigh of relief and say, "Whew! No FV here. Move along, now. Nothing to see." When those who actually see through the facade make a complaint that the presbytery hasn't done her job in examining a suspected FVists on his views, they cry foul and say, "This man has said he is in line with our Standards; we believe him."

This kind of thing has happened enough times for this kind of scenario to be familiar to many people. FVists and those who hold to similar teachings have been able to get away with teaching error by simply throwing up their facade of being in line with the WCF. I figure it is time to offer some food for thought to help people see past their facade. Here it is:

If the FVists and their kind were allowed to ammend the Confessions what would the end result look like? Let me expand on this a little. If, let's say, Dr. Leithart were to write a new chapter on justification for the WCF in what way(s) would it be different? Would there still be an emphasis on justification as a forensic act or would there be a more socio-ethical emphasis? If Wilkins were to re-write the chapter on the Covenant, how would it be different than it is now? How would he tie covenant with election? Would he write out the idea of the covenant of works? I will only mention the chapters on faith, baptism, and sanctification so that you can get the picture.

Folks, if the FVists were the original writers of the Westminster Confession and Catechism, we would have different Standards altogether. They may say all they want that there were those who were part of the Westminster Assembly and those who influenced the Assembly who were very much in line with their thinking, but the fact of the matter is the Confession and Catechism are the way they are and not the way they would want them to be. How, then, can they say that they are in line with the Confession? This is, indeed, food for thought.

I'm getting verklempt...Talk amongst yourselves; I'll give you a topic...the Federal Vision is neither Federal nor a Vision...discuss.

Apology for Breaking with Standard Operation

2010-01-26T23:34:00.005-06:00

This past weekend I broke with my usual way of operating on my blog. I have promoted this blog in the past as a place for positive dogmatics. I have tried to keep out of polemics as much as possible, focusing on the positive side of Reformed theology. There are times, however, when those who wish to stay on the sidelines of a conflict must get drawn in. The difficulty is to know when to get involved and when to stay out. I confess that I, as yet, lack wisdom in these matters, but the actions of this past Presbytery meeting helped persuade me that I cannot remain uninvolved.

I am not a voting member of presbytery, I am only a candidate for the gospel ministry. I am under care of the presbytery, and have promised to submit myself to the proper supervision of the Presbytery (BCO 18-3). When I come to Presbytery, I come with hat in hand. I fully acknowledge my place as one who must submit to the men in authority over me. My previous post was in no way an attempt to renege on my promise to Presbytery.

But does a submitting son remain silent when his father is promoting and/or committing error? The son who goes astray must be reproved, but what about when the father goes astray? Does the son remain silent? Does he say to himself, "I must say nothing to my father because he is my father, and I must submit to him." A son who sees his father going astray will not remain silent, and neither will I remain silent. I would rather stay on the sidelines and let better men get involved, but this last presbytery meeting clearly revealed that things are getting out of hand and that I cannot remain neutral.

I believe that by using the term "shenaniganism" to describe the maneuvering tactics of the party trying to stall the work of those who want to bring TE Lawrence to trial, I was not exaggerating, nor do I think I was out of line in saying it. I could have used other terms, but any other terms I could have used were synonymous. It gave me no pleasure to say it. I said it in fear fully knowing that it may come back to haunt me. I even debated myself for a full day before I posted it. I almost took it off when someone pleaded me to remove it from my blog. Nevertheless, I said what I did and left it on my blog because I wanted to let the SP know that I do not approve of what took place.

I am not now taking matters into my hands, nor do I wish to place myself above the Presbytery. I am a Presbyterian and have full confidence in our courts, and am happy to let everything work through the courts. I simply wish to let the SP know my views on this matter with the hope that good order will prevail in this Presbytery.

Presbyterianism or Shenaniganism?

2010-01-23T13:45:00.012-06:00

I am sure many have been following the saga of the F.V. controversy in the Siouxlands Presbytery (SP) with much interest. Being a member of a Church in the SP and a member under care, I have a bit at stake in what is going on. (For those of you who do not know what is going on, you can read here, here, here, and here.)

This saga has been continuing for a long time now, and many are getting wearied of debate and manuevering. Speaking of manuevering, this has been the tactic taken by those who are opposed to the party trying to bring charges upon the teaching elder who has already been found by one committee with a strong presumption of guilt. The evidence given by the last committee overwhelmingly showed that his teaching and preaching leans towards Federal Vision theology. But apparently this was not enough to bring him to trial.

The latest in their manuevering tactics is recorded here by TE Brian Carpenter, pastor of a PCA Church in Sturgis, SD. Instead of bringing the TE in question to trial for teaching error contrary to the PCA's standards, those who are his friends and supporters would rather set up a committee to see if TE Carpenter is in violation of the ninth commandment. Candid reader, I ask you to carefully read his post and ask yourself whether this is Presbyterianism or just plain shenaniganism?

Update: More shenaniganism reported here.

What our Presbytery needs right now is your prayers. The war for the peace, purity, and unity of the Church is not over. Men who love the Church and the Truth are growing weary; keep these warriors in your prayers.

From the Blogosphere:

2010-01-20T22:25:00.003-06:00

Wes White examines whether or not there is a middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Dr. David Murray has some excellent thoughts regarding Christian leadership.

Nick Batzig has the lowdown on all the upcoming conferences that you should mark on your calendar this year.

Is Google afraid of Islam? Bob Mattes has an interesting post.

Monday's Meditation: The Foundation of Our Salvation

2010-01-18T21:17:00.007-06:00

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:2

The Apostle Peter addressed this first epistle of his to "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." (1 Pet. 1:1) These "strangers" were perhaps the same Jews from all around the world who heard Peter preach at Pentecost and put their faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:9-11). Peter specifically chose to call them strangers (exiles--Esv; Gr. parepidemos) not only because it described them historically as members of the Jewish dispersion (see John 7:35), but also because it described them theologically as Christians. They were strangers or exiles because, though they lived in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, or Bithynia, their real homeland was in heaven (Phil. 3:20). Jamiesson, Fausset, and Brown write, "These [Peter], as the apostle of the circumcision, primarily addresses, but not in the limited temporal sense only; he regards their temporal condition as a shadow of their spiritual calling to be strangers and pilgrims on earth, looking for the heavenly Jerusalem as their home." As believers in Jesus Christ born again to a lively hope, they were to live their lives as pilgrims looking ahead to "an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away" that was reserved in heaven for them. Though their pathway might be fraught with peril, yet they would be "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

It must be kept in mind, however, that they were not pilgrims by their own initiative. Like Abraham, the greatest of all pilgrims, who was called by God to take a journey to a land that God would show him, they were called by God to go on their pilgrimage. Peter not only calls them strangers, but also "elect" strangers. They were specifically chosen by God for this pilgrimage. They were not chosen based upon any inherent righteousness or good in them, nor were they chosen because they were better than everyone else. The phrase "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" does not mean that God the Father from all eternity saw in them something that made them desirable or worthy to be chosen. If this were the case, then salvation is not of grace but of works. When we search in the Scriptures as to the basis of this foreknowledge of God, we find that it is based solely upon the good pleasure of His own will (Eph. 1:5, 8). God's election is unconditional. He did not choose them because they were worthy; He chose them because it was His will to do so.

But God did not stop with election. He also sent His Holy Spirit to sanctify them and to set them apart for this holy pilgrimage. Sanctification here means "the Spirit's setting apart of the saint as consecrated to God." This includes both the applying of redemption in setting apart from sin through repentance and faith and the continuing on in that redemption unto holiness. The Spirit's work is to sanctify. This is done by granting repentance and faith, and by renewing believers in the whole man in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

The redemption to which God chose them and sent His Spirit to apply to them was made possible only by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Without His blood there would be no satisfaction for their sins. They were called out of pagan lands to live sanctified lives, but it must be remembered that they were not chosen because they were holy; they were chosen to be holy. They were sinners just like all the other inhabitants of their countries. In order to be holy, their sins had to be forgiven, and that forgiveness could only come through the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, and through faith in His name. The obedience spoken of here is not to be understood as a works salvation. Peter is quite clear that they were elected and sanctified unto or for obedience, not because of or on account of obedience. This obedience is a result of the faith granted by the Holy Spirit, which faith was to be in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone.

Here we have the foundation of our salvation. We, too, are pilgrims on a journey to our home in heaven. Like Abraham, and these strangers from Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, etc., we did not initiate our pilgrimage. Rather it was the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, working harmoniously together to effect our redemption, who called us out of this world of darkness, sanctified and purified us, and keeps us by His power through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Monday's Meditation: The Old Temple Destroyed, the New One Established

2010-01-12T00:57:00.006-06:00

"And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Mark 13:1-2

This brief interchange between Jesus and His disciples launched what some have called the Olivet Discourse, which is Christ's sermon regarding the destruction of the temple and His second coming. The disciples, who were rural folk and not used to seeing such awesome sights, could not help but gaze in wonder at the beauty and design of the temple. One can almost see them tug at their Master's shoulder as they point and exclaim about the stones and the buildings. But Jesus, ever the teacher, uses the opportunity to point them to the realities of the New Covenant. One can almost feel the wind being sucked out their sails as Jesus declares, "There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

The times that the disciples lived in were that of transition. Old things were passing away and new things were being put in place. Every civilization has come to the point where they are faced with the reality that their time on earth is temporary. I grew up in Southwestern United States and had the opportunity to visit various ruins from the Pueblo and Anasazi cultures. Both of these cultures were well developed and had built great structures in the side of cliffs, atop mesas, and within canyons. If you visit these structures today, you will see that they are called ruins for good reason. There may be a wall here and a wall there, but what was once a beautiful building is now a pile of rocks. Structures made by human hands, no matter how well built, are not meant to last.

Now imagine if you were able to travel back in time and visit one of the Pueblo or Anasazi sites. What reactions would you get if you told them that within a few hundred years or so their civilization along with their buildings would be destroyed? Now imagine what the disciples must have felt when Jesus declared that the temple was going to be totally destroyed. He might as well have said to them that the end of the world was coming, and, indeed, judging by the questions they asked in the following verse, we see that the disciples thought this very thing.

Buildings have a way of giving us a sense of permanency, especially the ones that are both immense and well built. The temple was both. To the disciples, who were reared in the old covenant, it gave them the sense that the old customs and traditions that they were used to were going to be around for a long time. But if they were to take part in the transition from old covenant to new covenant, they had to be broken of this sense of permanency. If we think of Jesus as trying to break them of this permanency, we can write His words thus: "See this temple? You are too attached to it. You are still thinking very much like the way you were taught in the old covenant. All of this will be destroyed to make way for the new and better covenant."

It was a sobering thought to the disciples. But even more sobering was the message Jesus taught them in the following discourse. What he says in the Olivet discourse is, in effect, that the new covenant will bring its own trials and tribulations and that those who do not join the program of the new covenant and its temple, will be destroyed along with the old one. Is this not what He is saying in verses 19 and 20, "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days."

The rejection of the new covenant was not a matter of mere preference for the old versus the new. It was tantamount to rejection of the Messiah. We see this quite clearly throughout the New Testament. What is most ironic about this is that those who rejected the Messiah rejected the very thing the old covenant pointed them to. The old covenant showed itself very clearly to be both temporary and imperfect. It was designed to self-destruct, as it were, when it accomplished what it was designed to do. Every prophet of the Old Testament looked forward to the time when the old covenant would pass away, and the new one would be established (Jer. 31:31-34).

The destruction of the Temple in 70 A. D. was a horrific event. Many suffered by the hands of the Romans during this period. We do not want to minimize their suffering in any way. But, at the same time, we should not be surprised by the destruction of the Temple. It was, after all, part of the old covenant. It too pointed forward to the Messiah, and looked forward to the day when it would come into disuse. While the Temple served its purpose, it was glorious. The Apostle Paul admits that the old covenant was glorious, "For," he says, "if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Cor. 3:11) But the time for the old covenant and its Temple to pass away has come.

We now have a new covenant and a new Temple, and praise be to God and our Lord Jesus Christ that this new covenant will never pass away. The new Temple can never be destroyed because it is not made by human hands. The author of Hebrews writes, "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." He goes on to say, "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building." (Heb. 8:1-2; 9:3) Believers are the Temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), and God has promised that no army, not even the gates of Hell, can destroy this Temple. God dwells permanently in them and walks with them.

We must remember, too, that though the destruction of the old Temple was astonishing, even more so was the destruction of the temple of Jesus' body. Jesus spoke concerning himself, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19) His temple, His body was destroyed by those who rejected the new covenant. Nevertheless, He prevailed against them, and three days later He rose again from the dead, proving that the new covenant, along with its new Temple, is superior to the old one. How appropriate it is for us today, who are the disciples of Christ, to exclaim in wondrous adoration, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" Praise Him for His wondrous works!

From the Blogosphere:

2010-01-09T09:21:00.002-06:00

Dr. David Murray (Professor of O. T. and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary) has a blog here.
The Theology of the Cross is one of Luther's most important and fascinating contributions to theology. Here is a great diagram showing how we relate to God and how God relates to us through and only through the cross.
Evangelicals in Spain? This is a fascinating article about the existence of Protestants or Evangelicals in Spain, a country where, until 1868, Protestants could only exist underground. You need to be able to read Spanish for this article.

Monday's Meditation: The Blessedness of Forgiveness

2010-01-03T22:13:00.007-06:00

"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." Psalm 32:1-2

Truly here is something that demands our contemplation: the blessedness of forgiveness. When we wrong a friend or loved one, though we know they will most likely look past our fault for the sake of the friendship or relationship, it is still sweet to our soul when they utter the words, "I forgive you for what you've done." Your relationship with your friend or loved one was in jeapordy, but with those few words coming from a sincere heart the relationship is repaired. You are now reconciled and the fault is put away never to be thought of again.

How much sweeter then is it to hear these words uttered to miserable sinners who have sinned against a holy and infinite God? Sin and the wrath of God against sinners is the source of all misery in this life, but the mercy of God and the forgiveness of sins is the source of all blessedness. The theme of blessedness is a major one in the Psalter, and for good reason. Joy and happiness are often occasions for breaking out into song. True happiness and blessedness that can only be had through the forgiveness of sins IS indeed reason enough to sing for joy.

If you have not experienced the forgiveness of your sins, then you may be wondering how to obtain this forgiveness of sins. There is no magical formula, nor are there any hoops that you need to jump through. The Apostle Paul explains very clearly in Romans 4 what we must do to obtain forgiveness, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Rom. 4:4-8) It is only through faith not by works that we can have forgiveness of sins.

The gospel formula is simple: repent and believe. Confess your sins and trust in Christ. When David did not confess his sins his "bones waxed old;" he could feel God's hand heavy upon him (Ps. 32:3-4). But when he confessed his transgressions then the Lord forgave his sins (v. 5). Repentance and faith is the key to blessedness. This is the message Christ preached on earth (Matt. 4:17) This is the message the apostles preached (Acts 2:38; 16:31). This is the message that must be preached today so that all who hear might learn to confess their sins and put their faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

Christians, too, must live by this formula. Repentance and faith is not a one time thing. It is to be the rhythm of life from the moment they put their trust in Christ to the moment they are received into glory. They need to daily confess their sins and put their faith in Christ for the remission of sins. David did not write Psalm 32 as an unbeliever, but as a believer. He fell out of sync with the rhythm for a while, and it caused him turmoil and unrest. Then he remembered to confess his sins and put his trust in the justifier of the ungodly, and it put this new song into his heart. Learn to live in sync with the rhythm of confession and faith. And may you learn to sing with all your might of the blessedness of those whose transgressions are forgiven.

Wayfarers All

2010-01-01T13:59:00.008-06:00

The theme of pilgrimage is one of my favorite themes in the Bible, and I suspect that it is for many Christians as well. How many works of Christian literature can you think of that center on this theme? I can think of at least one: John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. There is also a book of the Bible where this theme plays a prominent role: 1 Peter. Nelson Kloosterman wrote an excellent commentary on 1 Peter entitled Pilgrims Among the Pagans, and this title captures well our own plight. The pilgrim lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, too, are paradigmatic for the Bible's understanding of the righteous living by faith. The author of the book of Hebrews says of these and other men like them, "But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb. 11:16)

Back of all our theology, piety, and worship is the idea that we do not belong in our present place. This is why Reformed theologians call our theology theologia viatorum, theology of pilgrims. Our worship must reflect our status as pilgrims, and our day to day Christian life must be lived as though we have our staff in hand ready to take our journey home.

I have decided on this blog to nominate 2010 as the year of the pilgrim. I am doing this for several reasons: 1) Theological. The state of theology in the Church today reflects that Christians are more in love with this earth than is healthy for them. The social gospel and liberation type of theology that is infectiously present throughout the evangelical church is not a theology that fosters a pilgrim mentality. I do not propose we abandon social justice; rather I propose we adopt a theology that places within every Christian breast a longing for their heavenly home.

2) Practical. How often do we find ourselves thinking about our hope as Christians? How often in our worship services are we given a glimpse of our heavenly inheritance? When was the last time any of you, like pilgrim in Pilgrim's Progress, had a glimpse of the celestial city? I suspect that such things are a rarity in our worship and daily life. We need to be reminded often of our destination. If we are not, it is all too easy to become attached to this life. Attachment to this world can be fatal for Christians.

3) Cultural. There is a lot of fear and anxiety in the world today. This is reflected in all the 'end times' movies that have been made by the dozens lately. This fear is seen in people's reactions to the current economic crisis. This is seen in people's reactions to current political events. People are uncertain of the future. They want to know that there is hope to be had in uncertain times. Our culture needs a robust pilgrim theology. They need the hope that can only be found in Jesus Christ, not in any political candidate or economic recovery. Christians possess the blessed hope of the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. We need to bring this hope to those who are perishing.

This year we will be exploring our theology as theologia viatorum. There are many facets to this idea so I think it will be very interesting to see where all this will lead. Hopefully it will lead all of you in the right direction as pilgrims on a journey to the celestial city. May God guide you in the right path.

Thursday’s Theological Question: What is meant by method in Systematic Theology or Dogmatics?

2009-11-19T00:22:00.002-06:00

Method refers to “the way in which the content of Dogmatics is obtained, that is, the source or sources from which it is derived, and the manner in which it is secured.” (Berkhof 59) In every science there is a source from which to obtain the material and a way to treat it that is most conducive to a right study of the material. Biology, for example, obtains its material from living organisms. We would say that a Biologist is not properly treating the material if, instead of observing a living organism, analyzing the principles of life inherent in that living organism, and comparing the findings of biologists before him that have observed the same living organism, he rather tried to observe everything around the organism without ever observing the organism itself or studied how the organism made him feel and then tried to reach conclusions about that organism. If there is a proper method to obtain and treat the material of Biology, then there is certainly a proper method to obtain and treat the material or theology, which is the queen of the sciences.

We must, however, go beyond an understanding of method as merely the proper or preferred manner of obtaining and treating the material of Dogmatics. “The question of method,” says Van Til, “is not a neutral something. Our presupposition of God as the absolute, self-conscious Being, who is the source of all finite being and knowledge, makes it imperative that we distinguish the Christian theistic method from all non-Christian methods.” (Introduction to Systematic Theology 8) Christians will go about the study of theology in a much different manner than non-Christians. Van Til goes on to explain: “There are two mutually exclusive methodologies. The one of the natural man assumes the ultimacy of the human mind. On this basis man, making himself the ultimate reference point, virtually reduces all reality to one level and denies the counsel of God as determinative of the possible and the impossible. Instead of the plan of God, it assumes an abstract notion of possibility or probability, of being and rationality. It may therefore be said to reason univocally. To be sure, the term analogy may even so be employed. The term then makes divine knowledge to be analogous to human knowledge.

“On the other hand there is the Christian position. When consistently expressed it posits God’s self-existence and plan, as well as self-contained self-knowledge, as the presupposition of all created existence and knowledge. In that case, all facts show forth and thus prove the existence of God and his plan. In that case, too, all human knowledge should be self-consciously subordinate to that plan. Its task in systematic is to order as far as possible the facts of God’s revelation.” (18)

Method therefore must be understood not only in terms of the right manner of treatment of theology, but also in terms of having the right presuppositions. According to Van Til, it is having the right presuppositions that makes all the difference in the world.

The Son of God Who Created the World Not Recognized by the World

2009-11-03T20:18:00.001-06:00

He (the Word) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John 1:10

This verse, which is part of the prologue to John’s gospel, is remarkable for at least two reasons. The first reason is what it says about Jesus Christ, whom John identifies as “the Word” (ho Logos). If you recall, John speaks of the Word as being from the beginning, being with God, and being very God (vs. 1, 2). In verse 3, John declares that “all things were made by him.” In verse 10 that same declaration is restated: “the world was made by him.” Why is this declaration significant? It is significant for what it asserts about Jesus Christ the Logos. By saying that the world was made by him, John is asserting that Jesus Christ is God. The book of Genesis begins with the statement “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There was no other being who created the heaven and the earth. God alone is the one who bears the title of Creator. John is therefore not adding something new to the Scriptures by claiming that a lesser being or deity named the Logos created the world; rather he is declaring the full deity of Christ. He is reinforcing his statement that Christ the Logos is God by saying that He created all things. It matters very little what the Jehovah’s Witnesses say about Jesus being “a god” rather than “God.” When John says that Jesus made all things and made the world, all of their arguments fall to the ground, for no one but God Himself is the Creator of the heaven and the earth. Jesus Christ the Son of God is not a lesser god but one with the Father. Though distinct from the Father, He is of the same substance and equal in power and glory as the Father.

Secondly, this verse is remarkable because of what it says about those to whom Christ came to minister. Christ came into the world, it says, but the world did not know Him. Furthermore, John states in the next verse that “he came unto his own, but his own did not receive him.” Now some might argue that there is nothing unusual about this. After all, Jesus did not come into the world in the fullness of His divine glory but was clothed, as it were, in human flesh. But this argument does not hold for several reasons. First, the Bible declares in no uncertain terms that Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). True, Christ is God (John 1:1), but He is also the image of God par excellence. Man was created in the image of God, and as such he was endowed with the ability to recognize, love, and obey his Creator in Whose image he was created. The entrance of sin and the resulting corruption of the image of God in man changed all that. Nevertheless, though corrupted, man still retains the image of God in some sense; man is still accountable to recognize, love, and obey his Creator. The world was without excuse for not knowing the Creator.

Second, and more specifically, John says that Jesus “came unto his own.” By “his own” John is referring to the Jews who were God’s chosen nation. True, Jesus was a son of David according to the flesh and ethnically a Jew, but this phrase has more significance than merely stating that Jesus came to those who were the same in nationality. John has already proved the divinity of Christ; it follows that John is thinking of Christ as the one to whom the Jews owed their allegiance as His chosen “peculiar people” (Deut. 14:2). Jesus was their Messiah. They should have recognized Him, for all the prophets spoke concerning Him, and John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets, declared Him to be “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). They were without excuse, therefore, in their rejection of Christ. Yet it was not surprising that they rejected Christ. They rejected the prophets before Him. They had a history of disregarding the Word of God, and following after their own wicked ways instead of following in the commandments of God. Isaiah put it this way: “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.” (Isa. 1:3) Their wickedness blinded them from recognizing the Son of God when He came to earth.

We must say how odd it is that the Son of God who created the heaven and the earth came down in human likeness and the world did not know Him. Yet there were those who did believe in Him. What made them special? John explains that it was nothing that they did, nor any merit of their own that enabled them to recognize the Son of God as the Savior of the world. He says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12, 13) The ability to receive the Son of God and to believe on His name does not come from human will or strength. It is a work of God’s grace alone.

What about us today? No one today has met Jesus Christ; His time on earth is long past. How are we able to see for ourselves whether Christ is indeed the Son of God, the Savior of the world? We have the Word of God. Everywhere in the pages of Scriptures we have testimony regarding Christ. “Search the Scriptures,” Christ enjoins us, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39) Those who do not believe the testimony of the Scriptures do not believe because the Scriptures are not clear or free of doubt; rather they do not believe because God has not given them power to become sons of God. He must do a work of regeneration that we may be healed of our blindness and be enabled to recognize the Son of God and receive Him as our Savior. May God grant to you the power to become a son of God that you may recognize the Son and receive Him and have eternal life.

Calvin on Attending to the Image of God in Others

2009-10-29T21:31:00.004-06:00

We know that the Bible teaches us to do good unto others, even our enemies, but we still have difficulty following what the Scriptures instruct us to do. The golden rule is by no means an easy rule to follow. Calvin says, "How difficult it is to perform the duty of seeking the good of our neighbor!" What is the reason for the difficulty? According to Calvin, the reason why we find it so hard to do good to our neighbors with all sincerity and to forgive our enemies is that it is "against nature" to do so. Our nature is not to love our neighbors, but, as the Heidelberg Catechism teaches, we are prone by nature to hate God and our neighbors (HC Q/A 5).

The solution to this difficulty is not to work harder at loving our neighbor or use our reason to bypass the difficulty; rather the solution is to undergo a radical transformation in which we yield ourselves up to the Holy Spirit. Calvin writes, "This transformation (which Paul calls the renewing of the mind, Rom. xii.2; Eph. iv.22), though it is the first entrance into life, was unkown to all the philosophers. They give the government of man to reason alone, thinking that she alone is to be listened to; in short, they assign to her the sole direction of the conduct. But Christian philosophy bids her give place, and yield complete submission to the Holy Spirit, so that the man himself no longer lives, but Christ lives and reigns in him (Gal. ii. 20)."

Yet believers know that even having undergone this transformation there is still difficulty in loving our neighbors. Oftentimes we are less prone to do good to those we do not know, sometimes we find it hard to do good to those who are undesirable in our eyes, and many times we cannot bring ourselves to do good to those who have wronged us. Calvin shows us, however, that there is a key reason from Scripture for doing good to our neighbor without exception. He writes,

Scripture subjoins a most excellent reason, when it tells us that are not to look to what men in themselves deserve, but to attend to the image of God, which exists in all, and to which we owe all honor and love. But in those who are of the household of faith, the same rule is to be more carefully observed, inasmuch as that image is renewed and restored in them by the Spirit of Christ. Therefore, whoever be the man that is presented to you as needing your assistance, you have no ground for declining to give it to him. Say he is a stranger. The Lord has given him a mark which ought to be familiar to you: for which reason he forbids you to despise your own flesh (Gal. vi. 10). Say he is mean and of no consideration. The Lord points him out as one whom he has distinguished by the lustre of his own image (Isaiah lviii. 7). Say that you are bound to him by no ties of duty. The Lord has substituted him as it were into his own place, that in him you may recognise the many great obligations under which the Lord has laid you to himself. Say he is unworthy of your least exertion on his account; but the image of , by which he is recommended to you, is worthy of yourself and all your exertions. But if he not only merits no good, but has provoked you by injury and mischief, still this is no good reason why you should not embrace him in love, and visit him with offices of love. He has deserved very differently from me, you will say. But what has the Lord deserved? Whatever injury he has done to you, when he enjoins you to forgive him, he certainly means that it should be imputed to himself. In this way only we attain to what is not to say difficult, but altogether against nature, to love those that hate us, render good for evil, and blessing for cursing, remembering that we are not to reflect on the wickedness of men, but look to the image of God in them, an image which, covering and obliterating their faults, should by its beauty and dignity allure us to love and embrace them. (Inst. III.iii.6)

Those who know the biography of Calvin, certainly know that he wasn't perfect in keeping the Scripture's commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves. Calvin wrestled his whole life with his problem of anger, constantly agonizing over his inability to keep it in check. But those who know his biography also know that it was his aim to be an example to others in this regard. Part of his legacy in Geneva was the way he showed kindness to all manners of people. This passage from his Institutes is certainly inspiring as well as convicting. May God grant that we always see our neighbors as made in the image of God, and may it inspire us to show compassion and love to them.

Monday's Meditation: All Nature Praises God

2009-09-28T23:43:00.003-05:00

Psalm 65:13 "The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing."

In our family worship this evening we sang the 1912 Psalter version of the second half of Psalm 65. The last stanza reads: "The hills and vales, with verdure clad /Are girt with joy, the earth is glad / New life is all abroad / With feeding flocks the pastures teem / With golden grain the valleys gleam / All nature praises God." It was particularly the last phrase that caught my attention, "All nature praises God."

After family worship, I usually spend a little time with the children while Crystal cleans up the dishes from supper. I took my son, Steven, Jr., for a walk outside. It was a beautiful, crisp fall evening; just the kind of weather that gladdens my heart. The wind made our noses red, the dried leaves so recently fallen danced about our feet, and the clouds spread out above us in remarkable patterns that only a cold northern air current could form. As I observed all the splendors that this autumn evening afforded me, I could not help but think of the line we just sang, "All nature praises God."

I realize that this is a loose translation, or rather paraphrase, of verse 13, but, though this paraphrase may be considered unwarranted by some, the idea it conveys is certainly justifiable as we shall see. The last five verses of Psalm 65 are a praise to God for His governing care over the earth. The Israelites were an agricultural society, so there was much at stake for them when the earth was cared for by God. If there was plenty of rain, then they enjoyed prosperity. Furthermore, they well understood that the watering of the earth and the prosperity of their crops and flocks were directly related to the blessing of the Lord. When the land was blessed by rain and prosperity, therefore, it was a cause for praise to God for His goodness.

What is interesting in the last verse is the poetic imagery of the pastures and the valleys singing songs of praise. Now that they are clothed with sheep, and covered with grain, they burst forth in songs of thanksgiving and praise to God. Yet this is more than a mere poetic device; this is a theological truth. All nature is endowed with the ability to give glory to God. It is not as though the earth literally sings; rather it is the fact that all of creation, by virtue of it being created by God, is a witness to His glory, power, and wisdom. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork," says the Psalmist elsewhere.

What a shame it is, then, when we do not praise God for His goodness to us. Valleys and fields do not have mouths and voices to lift up songs of praise to God. We are given mouths and voices, but we rarely use them to praise God. If the heavens and the earth were for a brief moment granted the gift of tongues and voices, this universe would be filled with the most beautiful and glorious hymn of praise such as never was heard in the history of the world. We would do well to remember that, though the heavens and the earth do not have tongues and voices, yet, in their own way, they are shouting out the highest praises to God. The pharisees once asked Jesus to silence the people who were shouting, "Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord." Jesus replied, "I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out." There is no stopping the praises of God; He will be magnified no matter what. Sinful man may despise the praises of God, but there will always be a witness to His glory, power, goodness, and wisdom in this earth. If the people of God will not praise Him, surely the stones, the fields, the valleys, yea, all nature will praise Him. Let us, who are not only given tongues and voices, but also reason to sing because of His mercy and grace, bless and praise God for His goodness to us.

Apologies

2009-09-22T20:25:00.002-05:00

So...I just looked at the date of the last post and realized that it has been over a month since I posted last. My, how time flies! Well, I apologize to my readers (whoever you are) for not having posted for so long. I thought that once we were settled in our new house I would have more time to write. Not so. I enjoy being busy, but unfortunately this comes at the expense of not having time to write. I hope to soon remedy this, however, and continue on in my posting. Thank you for your patience.

Monday's Meditation: The Peace and Holy Security of the Redeemed, Continued

2009-08-18T00:34:00.004-05:00

Read: Psalm 4

Jamiesson, Faucett, and Brown state that Psalm 4 probably has the same historical occasion as the one before it. It seems likely, in fact, that this psalm is a continuation of Psalm 3. This is seen not only in the obvious fact that both were written by David, but also in that both were written in time of distress, speak of men who are mocking him, and speak of the blessed security one has in the Lord while asleep in bed.

It is truly a blessing from the Lord to be able to lay your head upon your pillow and fall asleep with feelings of serenity and security. To be sure, the days are evil when there is no possibility of sleeping without fear of being violently assaulted in bed. For much of the time in David's life, the days were indeed evil. Most of his earlier days before he became king were spent living like an outlaw and being cruelly and unjustly hunted by King Saul. Later on, his own son, Absalom, betrayed him and lead a revolt against him. We shouldn't forget to mention that David was also a warrior; he had been through many battles and perhaps had many narrow escapes from death. As a warrior, he had to sleep at night on the ground with one eye open, lest he fall victim to the enemy.

David was accustomed to distress, but more importantly he had become accustomed to calling upon the Lord in time of need. David begins his prayer with an imperative: "Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness," This opening line displays a confidence in God, a mature faith of one who has time after time seen the many marvelous ways God has answered prayer. David is not coming to God with a list of his demands; he cries boldly to God because he has plenty of evidence from experience that God is one who hears and answers prayer. He encourages himself by recounting the times when God answered him out of his distress, "Thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress," or as the ESV translates it, "You have given me relief when I was in distress." "Past favor is a ground of hope for future," write Jamiesson, Faucett, and Brown. Believers ought to recall from time to time the mercies of God shown in the past when they cried unto Him in their hour of need. Recounting the goodness of God displayed in our lives is an excellent way to strengthen our faith, and give us a livelier hope for what lies ahead.

David was called "a man after God's own heart," and here we see something of what was meant by this moniker. David is surrounded by those who despise him, and would, if possible, bring him to destruction, yet he is not vengeful to them. Instead he calls them to repentance. He reveals to them their folly and offers prescriptive ways to correct it. He shows them that their love for vain words and lies will bring no fruit because it is God who sets apart the godly, and they cannot separate him from the love of God with their empty words. But if they would submit themselves to God in faith, they, too, would be set apart by God. He also calls them to cease from sin, to commune with their hearts and ponder how sinful they are and how they can stop sinning, to offer the sacrifices of the righteous, and to do that which is the only way to be justified before God: believe in the Lord. He goes on to pray for the skeptics who say, "Who will show us any good?" These skeptics do not know the goodness of God, but David prays that God will shine forth His goodness that all may see and believe.

What a heart David had! He would rather that sinners come to repentance than to be destroyed in their folly. Since he is called "a man after God's own heart," we can rest assured that God, too, would rather that sinners come to repentance than to be destroyed. Would that more sinners be persuaded by the goodness of God, and turn to him in repentance and faith. But we must always remember that it is God who sets apart the godly; salvation is a work of His sovereign will and good pleasure. Those who repent and believe do so because God ordained it; those who do not have no excuse. They cannot say, "It is not my fault God didn't ordain me to eternal life," because the call to repent and believe was given to all indiscriminately, and they willfully rejected the gracious call of God to believe in Him for redemption.

David ends this psalm with a firm confidence in God his refuge and strength, "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety." The bed that David lay down upon was not his royal bed tucked safely away behind the walls of his palace. His bed was the cold ground. He had to sleep with one eye open because, lurking in the shadows, were those who were lying in wait to kill him. But David could sleep in peace, because he knew that with God as his shield he was just as safe there as he would have been anywhere else.

Praying in a Public School May Get a Florida Principle and Athletic Director Six Months

2009-08-15T19:04:00.007-05:00

Details here. I'm going to resist the temptation to follow Chuck Baldwin and call Principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman 'modern day Daniels.' The parallels aren't close enough to warrant this kind of rhetoric. However, this is an interesting development in the struggle over what is the correct interpretation of the First Amendment. What this upcoming trial clearly demonstrates is that the courts have power to trump the constitution, but, then again, this is nothing new. The Santa Rosa School district may have reached a settlement the previous year with the ACLU, but the larger question that should be on everyone's mind is which party is the one violating the constitution. I, for one, can't see how Principal Lay and Athletic Director Freeman violated the establishment of religion clause, but I can see how the ACLU and the federal district court are violating both the freedom of religion clause and the freedom of speech clause.

Back to Out Regular Programming Schedule

2009-08-14T11:38:00.002-05:00

I am happy to announce that by the grace of God we have safely moved into our new home in Minnesota. Our life is slowly returning back to normal, so now is a good time to resume the regular schedule of blogging. Monday's meditation will resume this coming Monday with a meditation on Psalm 4. Thursday's Theological Question will continue this coming Thursday with a question on theological method. Posts on the life and theology of John Calvin will continue as well.

Here is something for the meanwhile:

Whose Lens Are You Using? by Greenbaggins
Infants of Believers Dying in Infancy by Wes White
All of Life Worship? Err...Maybe Not by Shane Lems

We Will Resume Our Regular Schedule in Two Weeks

2009-07-31T07:00:00.002-05:00

Monday's Meditation and Thursday's Theological Question is put on hold for the next two weeks. I am busy packing and getting ready for moving back to Minnesota. Once we are moved in and settled I will resume with the regular schedule of posting.

Thursday’s Theological Question (I know, I know, today is Saturday): What are the disciplines of Theological Encyclopedia and what is their relation to one another?

2009-07-25T12:49:00.004-05:00

There are traditionally four heads of Theological Encyclopedia: Exegetical Theology, Historical Theology, Systematic or Dogmatic Theology, and Practical Theology.

1. Exegetical Theology is the department of theological science that deals with the whole of what is involved in the interpretation of Scripture. Under Exegetical Theology are the heads Biblical Philology, which is the study of the languages used by the human authors of Scripture; Biblical Geography, which is the study of the various locations described in the Bible; Biblical Archeology, which is the study of "the physical, ethnological, social, political, and religious conditions of the people among whom the Scriptures originated, together with an account of their customs and institutions, and of the relation of these to those of their ancestors and contemporaries" (A. A. Hodge 21); Hermeneutics, which is the "science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation" (Berkhof 11); and Biblical Theology, which is the study of "the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible." (Vos 13)

Exegetical Theology is the first step, so to speak, in the study of theology. We begin with the presupposition that God is, and that He has spoken in His Word. It remains for us to examine the Scriptures using all the tools at our disposal in order to understand what it is God has said. It is important for us never to forget that it is impossible to come to a true understanding of the Word of God apart from a lively faith in Christ and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.

2. Historical Theology involves "a critical survey of previous attempts to draw from the sources of information concerning God what may be know of God, with an estimate of the results of these attempts and of their testing in life." (Warfield 91) It is the office of the History of Doctrine, as it is often called, to delineate the development of the Church's dogma, how and why that Dogma took shape, and how it has been worked out in the life of the Church.

Church History is related to the History of Doctrine, but differs in that it is a study of the Church in its cultural, political, geographical, and intellectual context (Muller 99), whereas the History of Doctrines is concerned primarily with the Church's dogma.

Historical Theology is the second step in the study of theology; although we must be careful how this is stated, because Exegetical Theology is never done in a vacuum. It is always done in light of how the Church has historically understood what the Scriptures teach. Muller writes, "Church history and the history of doctrine provide the connecting link between us and the text. They belong to the hermeneutical circle in which the text is carried forward, interpreted, and shown to be significant in the present." (97) It is important to understand that the message of the Bible is not historically locked in the past, and only at certain times can we reference it. Rather it is a message that is alive, and has significance for today that we can only understand if we see its development through history beginning with the Old Testament period and continuing on through the New Testament, the Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern periods to today.

3. Systematic or Dogmatic Theology is simply "the contemporary exposition of the greater doctrines of the church." (Muller 127) There are two important parts of this definition: historical and contemporary. Muller explains, "Dogmatics cannot just be a recitation of the doctrinal statements of the church in a topical rather than a historical order nor can it be just the contemporary exposition of someone's theological ideas, no matter how brilliant they might be. The doctrines must be churchly, and the exposition, also churchly in its basic attitude and approach, must be contemporary in its expression." (127)

Not all have agreed that Systematic Theology is its own separate branch. Schleiermacher and others tried to subsume it under Historical Theology. Berkhof writes, "This was due to the fact that he conceived of Dogmatics as a systematic exposition of the Christian faith at a certain stage of its development, and more specifically as the science of the doctrine confessed by a particular Christian Church at a certain stage of its historical development." (48) This is, of course, consistent with his and other Modern theologians' view that dogma is not stable but must change with every age. The Reformed view, however, is that dogmas are stable, but that they must be developed and declared afresh with every age. There are two reasons for the need of doctrinal development: first, the Church must always be trying to come to a fuller and deeper understanding of her dogma, and, second, every age brings with it fresh attacks upon these doctrines. The reason why these dogmas must be declared afresh is that the doctrines of the Word of God are not written as an ahistorical reference book that should be referenced from time to time, but that they are alive and have met the needs of the Church at every age. We must look at how both how they have met the Church's needs in the past and how they can meet her needs today. Our situation is not the same as those in the Middle Ages or the Reformation; Dogmaticians must draw upon all that is discovered in both Exegetical Theology and Historical Theology, and bring these discoveries to bear upon the Church's present situation.

The topics treated under Systematic Theology are Apologetics, Dogmatic Theology, Symbolic or Confessional Theology, Polemical Theology, and Ethics. There is some debate as to the placing of Apologetics in Theological Encyclopedia. Most theologians place it under Systematic Theology, but some (most notably the Princetonians such as the two Hodges and Warfield) make it a separate branch completely and place it at the beginning of Theological Encyclopedia. (Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, 5-9; A. A. Hodge, 19,20)

4. Practical Theology is concerned simply with the relation of theory with praxis. The dogmas of the Church are not meant to be a matter of speculation or contemplation only; rather, they must be lived out. Practical Theology looks at each doctrine and asks how they are to be translated into the corporate life of the Church and each individual Christian's walk.

The field of Practical Theology is so wide and varied to be listed in detail, but some of the topics discussed include liturgics, homiletics and pastoral theology, Church offices, counseling, Christian living, marriage and family, etc.

It is an unfortunate thing that in many seminaries Practical Theology has been given ascendancy over Systematic Theology, but this is damaging in the long run, because without a robust understanding of the Church's dogmas heresies of all sort will arise without any means of countering them. Ultimately this will affect the Church's practice, causing it to degrade into idolatrous worship and superstition.

Carl Trueman on Calvin in His Historical Context

2009-07-20T20:21:00.002-05:00

On YouTube. (HT: Dr. Clark)

Monday's Meditation: The Peace and Holy Security of the Redeemed

2009-07-20T12:07:00.002-05:00

Read: Psalm 3

The superscription of this Psalm informs us that David wrote it when his own son, Absalom, led a revolt against him (2 Sam. 15:1-17:29). David immediately voices his amazement at the extent of the revolt, "Lord, how are they increased that trouble me!" (see 2 Sam. 15:33) And why shouldn't David be amazed? Was he not God's anointed? Was he not "the man after God's own heart?" Was he not the "Sweet Psalmist of Israel?" Was he not the one whom the people praised years before when they sang, "Saul has slain his thousands, but David his tens of thousands?" What we are confronted with right away in this Psalm, however, is the reality that favor with God and with men does not exempt believers from a life filled with trial and suffering. God promises strength and comfort, but never does He promise a life free from adversity.

We cannot hope in this life that we will always retain favor with people. The hearts of people are like the wind, which changes direction without warning, and it is often the most vain things that causes their hearts to change. David was a man after God's own heart, but the people loved Absalom more and more because of his beauty and his show of piety to the people. It was no wonder that when Absalom led the coup against his father and took the throne away from him, that the people concluded that "There is no help for him in God." What mockery! The people were so blinded by Absalom's beauty and pseudo-piety that they were willing to join in rebellion against God's anointed. It did not matter to them that David was a man after God's own heart; in their blindness they concluded that God was no longer with him.

Does this not remind you, dear Christian, of events in our Lord's life? As he made his entry into Jerusalem, the people shouted, "Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest." But this same crowd, not long after, were shouting, "Crucify him; crucify him!" The people were blinded by the Pharisees' and the Chief Priest's pseudo-piety, and concluded that there was no help for Christ in God.

Though the reality is that believers, like their Lord, are not exempt from a life of adversity, the greater reality is that God will never forsake his redeemed. David was well aware of this great truth, and his reaction in this psalm to his adversity shows us the great comfort he found in it.

When believers are faced with adversity the temptation is to think that God has somehow abandoned them, or that somehow they have offended God, and He is striking back at them. This is far from the truth. David has a much different conclusion. "But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head," he says. The Lord was to him a refuge in times of trouble; He was to him a shield of protection against all that would do him harm. Adversity was not to him an evidence of God's disfavor, but an opportunity for God to show Himself faithful to His people.

David showed great courage during this exceedingly trying time because of his great faith in God. Though the people mocked him saying that God had abandoned him, he was all the more confident because previous experience gave him evidence that God would take care of him through any danger. Every trial that David endured previous to this one served to strengthen his faith and confidence in God. This is what trials are designed by God to do for believers.

Now when adversity came, David could sleep in peace knowing that the Lord would watch over him. David's confidence in the Lord was so great that he would not lose one once of sleep on account of his present danger. One of the great blessings and truths of the Christian Faith is that the believer is as safe in the heat of danger as he is in the comforts of his own bed. Nothing can compromise the safety and security of those who are in Christ.

Did not Christ acknowledge his own security while suffering on the cross? His last words were, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." This was a direct quote from Psalm 31, one of David's psalms. Though Christ endured the hatred of world, the suffering of the cross, and even the wrath of God for the sins of the world, He knew that His soul was in safe keeping with the Father. And those who are in Christ can be assured that their soul is in safe keeping with the Father. Though the whole world should rise up against them; there is nothing that can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus.

God will one day recompense tribulation to them that trouble his people (2 Thess. 1:6-10). His people are precious to Him, and He will not suffer those who persecute them to go unpunished. One day, the Lord Jesus will appear with all His saints to the consternation and dismay of all the wicked. David held to this same hope. "Arise, O Lord," he says, "save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly."

David concludes this Psalm with yet another reference to the true happiness of the believer. He says, "Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people." Is it any wonder that he should return to this theme? Adversity does not negate the believer's happiness; rather, it serves to enhance it, for the foundation of the believer's happiness is not in this world, but in God who draws believers closer to Him through adversity. Let us be strengthened and comforted by this great truth, casting aside all temptation to fear and doubt.

Thursday’s Theological Question: What is “dogma” or “Dogmatics,” and is the latter term more preferable than “Systematic Theology?”

2009-07-15T23:22:00.004-05:00

"Dogma" means decree, ordinance, or command, whether civil or ecclesiastical (see BAG, Greek-English Lexicon 201). It has been used for the decrees of Caesar (Luke 2:1), and it has been used for the decrees of the Church (Acts 16:4). It has also been used for the laws of Moses (3 Macc. 1:3; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). Dogma has also been loosely used as teaching. The term, though mostly associated with religion, can also be used in a broader context. Berkhof notes that there are "not only religious dogmas, but scientific, philosophical, and political dogmas as well. The fundamental and supposedly unchanging principles of science, the established teachings of philosophy, the decrees of governments, and the generally accepted doctrines of religion,—they are all dogmata." (Introduction to Systematic Theology 18)

Acts 16:4 is significant because it establishes a theological use for the term. The Church met in council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), deliberated over a theological question, made a decision regarding the proper teaching based upon the proper biblical interpretation, and sent letters to all the Churches calling them to submit to their decision. Berkhof writes, "It is true that the assembly at Jerusalem did not formulate any doctrine, but its decision certainly had doctrinal bearings. Moreover, this decision was clothed with divine authority, and was absolutely binding on the churches for which it was intended…The passage under consideration therefore contains at least an intimation of the fact that a religious dogma is a doctrine officially defined by the Church and declared to rest upon divine authority." (18, 19) Concerning the nature of dogmas, Berkhof gives three characteristics: "their subject matter is derived from Scripture; they are the fruit of the reflection of the Church on the truth, as it is revealed in the Bible; and they are officially adopted by some competent ecclesiastical body." (21)

Not all are in agreement in the definition of Dogma. The differences in the definition of dogma depend upon where the authority of a dogma is said to be derived from. The Reformers and the Reformed Orthodox obviously state that a dogma is authoritative because it is derived from the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church, however, says that dogmas derive their authority from revelation and an infallible teaching authority, i.e., the Church. Otten writes, "Christian Dogma is obviously less inclusive than Christian Doctrine; for this latter comprises not only defined truths, but also such others as are ordinarily set forth in the instruction of the faithful with the simple approval of the magisterium ecclesiasticum. Obviously, too, Christian Dogma presupposes two things: the fact of revelation and the existence of an infallible teaching authority." (A Manual of the History of Dogmas Vol. I, p. 2) With Schleiermacher came a shift in the understanding of dogma. No longer did it contain any idea of objective truth, but rather it began to be understood as "the soul's experience of spiritual life within the Christian Church" (Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology 61) and "the scientific affirmations of the faith of the Church;" (Berkhof 19) not faith as in the objective contents of that which is to be believed, but the faith of the believing Church. Furthermore, dogma is no longer considered authoritative for all time. Haering writes, "It becomes evident that no Dogmatic of any age is identical with the saving truth of the Christian Faith. Its office is to set forth this truth for its own age, and thus it passes away with the age to which it belongs. Dogmatics must remember that in the next generation it belongs to the History of Dogma." (The Christian Faith 21) While it is true that the dogma of the Church must develop in clarity and in its conformity to Scripture, this is not the same as saying that every age of Dogmatics makes the previous one obsolete.

"Dogmatics" is the science of Christian dogma. Hoeksema defines Dogmatics as "that theological discipline in which the Dogmatician, in organic connection with the church in the past as well as in the present, purposes to elicit from the Scriptures the true knowledge of God, to set forth the same in systematic form, and after comparison of the existing dogmas with Scripture, to bring the knowledge of God to a higher state of development." (Reformed Dogmatics 5)

There exists a debate as to which is preferable, "Dogmatics" or "Systematic Theology?" Warfield argues that "Systematic Theology" is preferable given that "dogma" is not very well defined. "This ambiguity," he writes, "in the connotation of the term 'dogma' is fatal to the usefulness of its derivative 'dogmatic' as a designation of a department of theological science. It undertakes to tell us nothing of the department to which it is applied but the nature of the elements with which it deals; and it leaves us in uncertainty what the nature of these elements is, whether established truths or only 'religious beliefs.'" "'Systematic theology,'" he goes on to say, "is attended with no such drawbacks. It properly describes the department to which it is attached, according to its own nature: it is the department in which the truths concerning God, given to us by the other departments of theological science, are systematized and presented in their proper relations to one another and to the whole of which they form parts." (Studies in Theology 94) Berkhof prefers "Dogmatics" over "Systematic Theology" because "(1) it is the more specific of the two, and designates the real object of study with greater precision; and (2) because the modifier 'systematic' in 'Systematic Theology' is apt to create the impression that the study under consideration is the only theological study which treats its subject-matter in a logical order, or that among the theological discipline there is no other that is systematic in structure; and this is not true." He goes on to note, however, that it is more practical to use "Systematic Theology" given its popular appeal in America. Using this term, he says, "does not require the sacrifice of any principle." It should be noted, though, that "Dogmatics" is the term preferred by Reformed theologians in Germany and the Netherlands.

Happy Birthday...Nikola Tesla???

2009-07-10T13:23:00.005-05:00

I'm shocked; I really am. While the whole world is celebrating the birth of one of the greatest theologians, Google has the audacity to ignore the 500th birthday of John Calvin and instead celebrate the birth of Nikola Tesla. So what if this Tesla guy made impressive contributions to the field of electromagnetics, as well as to robotics, ballistics, nuclear and theoretical physics. Why would anyone rather celebrate the birth of the man who invented the Tesla coil than the man who wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion?

Okay, so I am being a little tongue in cheek here. Google has no obligation to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin, and I certainly do not feel in the least bit slighted by their lack of acknowledgment of this great theologian. In fact, as a secular institution (I would say business, but they've reached institution status, IMO) that has benefitted greatly from the invention of the computer they ought to feel greatful to Tesla who also made contributions to computer technology. As I write on my own computer, I too am greatful for scientists who have made technology what it is today, and I am certainly greatful for those who continue making technology better.

Christians may be tempted to feel slighted when the world acknowledges the contributions of its own, rather than the many extraordinary contributions of Christians. Calvin's influence is arguably more profound and more far spread than Tesla's, but we shouldn't be surprised when institutions like Google ignore him in favor of a Serbian Scientist. They have their own secular interests which are generally scientific or cultural and are further removed from theological interests than Christians are. Is it sad that Google and many other institutions and people around the world are ignoring the 500th anniversary of John Calvin? Yes. Should I be upset about it? No.

In all actuality, however, Google's celebration of Tesla gives us Calvinists a chance to exercise our Calvinism. As Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism so aptly pointed out, Calvinism goes beyond a theological system to embrace a pervasive world and life view. As Calvinists, we can enjoy the contributions of scientists because we know that even the talents of unbelieving scientists are gifts from God. Calvin wrote, "If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or contemn truth wherever it appears. In despising gifts, we insult the Giver." We also know that science is not a field that belongs only to secularists, but rightly understood, science ought to be used for enjoyment and utility of God's created universe. Today we enjoy much of what scientist have done for us; it would be disingenuous for us to not give credit where it is due.

I am thankful for Calvin and his influence on the world. I praise God for raising him up as a standard bearer of truth in an age of error. I am also thankful for men like Tesla who made contributions to science that I can benefit from. Both of these men are gifts from God to the world.

Thursday’s Theological Question: Is “Theology” an Appropriate Term for Christian Usage?

2009-07-09T08:00:00.002-05:00

The word "theology" is not found on any of the pages of Scripture. Instead Scripture uses terms such as "the faith" (Gal. 1:23; Eph. 4:5; Phil. 1:27), "doctrine" (John 7:16,17; Acts 2:42; Rom. 6:17 [typon didaches]), "principles of the doctrine of Christ" (arches tou christou logon) (Heb. 6:1), "form or pattern of sound words" (hyptyposis hygiaino logos) (2 Tim. 1:13), and "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Cor. 2:2), to describe the body of Christian doctrine that leads to salvation. Theology was first used by pagans to describe the myths and fables of the poets, and the discourses on the worship and the nature of the gods by priests and philosophers. The fact that Scripture does not use it, however, does not automatically disqualify it from Christian usage, neither does the fact that "theology" was a term first used by pagans.

The Church has always claimed that it is lawful to employ terms not found in Scripture in order to clarify or describe doctrines or ideas that are found in Scripture. Turretin writes

II. Although the word "theology" is not in so many words in-written (engraphos autolexei), yet it is not altogether un-written (agraphos). The simple words of which it is composed often occur there: as logos tou theou ("word of God") and logia tou theou ("words of God" ; cf. Rom. 3:2; 1 Pet. 4:11; Heb. 5:12). Therefore it is one thing to be in Scripture as to sound and syllables (or formally and in the abstract); another to be in it as to sense and the thing signified (or materially in the concrete). Theology does not occur in Scripture in the former manner, but in the latter.

III. Although it is not lawful to form any doctrines not in Scripture, yet it is lawful sometimes to use words which are not found there if they are such as will enable us either to explain divine things or to avoid errors. For this purpose, the words "triad," homoousiou, "original sin," and the like have been used by theologians. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I.i.2, 3)

Theology, which is defined as both sermo Dei (word of God) and sermo vel ratio de Deo (word or rational discourse about God), is a useful term because the doctrines of Scripture are from God, and they are rational discourses about God and divine things.

Monday's Meditation (A Little Late): An Earnest Invitation to Wicked Nations and Rulers

2009-07-06T23:28:00.008-05:00

Read: Psalm 2

Matthew Henry writes concerning the second Psalm, "This psalm, as the former, is very fitly prefixed to this book of devotions, because, as it is necessary to our acceptance with God that we should be subject to the precepts of his law, so it is likewise that we should be subject to the grace of his gospel, and come to him in the name of a Mediator." Rightly does Henry regard this Psalm as one that is evangelical and flowing with gospel promises, though we may be inclined to think otherwise due to its seemingly ruthless contents.

This Psalm is directed to the wicked nations of the earth and the kings who rule over them. These nations and rulers are in league with one another with one purpose in mind: to break free from the rule and authority of kingdom of God and of His Christ. "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us," they say. This is the language of rebels and insurrectionists. They want nothing to do with the kingdom of heaven. They prefer autonomy rather than subject themselves to the rule of Christ.

The language of rebellion may take some by surprise. "I am not in rebellion against God," some will say," I am tolerant of Christianity and of all faiths. I have nothing against religion." Rebellion, however, takes many forms; it does not necessarily have to take the form of those who openly persecute the Church or openly defy God. All unbelief is rebellion against God. Those who do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are in rebellion against God. Christ says to the tolerant ones who are yet in unbelief, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23)

Why are the nations in rebellion against the kingdom of God? What has God done to provoke insurrection? The answer is: He has done nothing deserving of rebellion against Him. When the Americans fought their war for independence, they did so because they wanted freedom from tyranny. The king of England had a history of injury and usurpation; it was deemed necessary by the thirteen colonies to throw off this despotic government and put in place a new guard to protect their rights and freedoms. But God is no tyrant; He has no history of abuses and usurpations. As the supreme Lord of heaven and earth, He does what is His pleasure, but He does not do that which is wicked and abusive. On the contrary, "For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD." (Ps. 33:4,5)

The rulers and the nations of the earth are in rebellion against God because they are in darkness and enslaved to sin and the power of the devil. They do not possess the true knowledge of God; if they did, even a small portion of it, they would immediately cast away all rebellious thoughts and earnestly seek after reconciliation with God through Christ. But they do not possess the true knowledge of God; they have bought into the lie that Satan has been telling since the beginning that God is preventing them from reaching their potential of being gods themselves. Filled with an insatiable desire to take the name of gods upon themselves, they are willing to go to any lengths to make sure their desires are fulfilled. They would even go to war against God Himself. However, it is not possible that they should fight against God. He is inaccessible to them; therefore, they set their sights on the citizens of God's kingdom to destroy, mock, or marginalize them. Believers can expect in this life to be the target of the world's hatred. The world is at enmity with God and therefore anybody associated with God.

From the vantage point of believers on earth, the outlook for the kingdom of God seems at times to be bleak. The wicked outnumber the righteous, and they control the positions of power and influence. They are quite successful in wreaking havoc upon the Church. But from the vantage point of God in heaven, however, the outlook for the wicked is bleaker still. The Lord sits enthroned in heaven. He is absolutely safe from any attempt to dethrone Him. All the threats and plots of the wicked are laughable to Him. He actually mocks their pitiful attempts to destroy His kingdom. His laugh, though, will soon turn to fury as He speaks to them in wrath and vexes them in His sore displeasure.

The war that the wicked have waged against the kingdom of God will ultimately fail. God, from before the foundations of the earth declared the decree that His only begotten Son would be set as king upon the holy hill of Zion. What God has decreed from all eternity will come to pass. There is nothing that can frustrate the decree of God. God will give these wicked nations to His Son as an inheritance, and He shall break them "with a rod of iron." Christ "shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust. All kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him." (Ps. 72:8,9,11) One day every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10,11).

So long as the wicked remain in league against God and His anointed, they remain without hope. But there is mercy and pardon offered to them. It comes from the one who they think is their enemy. God offers to these wicked and rebellious nations the hope of the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings," He instructs them, "Be filled with the true knowledge of God. Stop believing the lie of Satan." He calls them to be reconciled. "Kiss the Son," He says. It is through the Son that the world is reconciled to God. The kiss is the symbol of two enemies becoming friends, as Jacob and Esau kissed each other after years of enmity and strife (Gen. 33:4).

By offering to the world the hope of salvation God shows Himself to be unworthy of the their hatred. They hate Him without cause and are without excuse in this world. God is not a tyrant that He should be hated, but good and just. He is always ready to show mercy, but His mercy, though it is longsuffering, will not last forever. If the kings and rulers of the earth do not cease their warring and become reconciled to God through His Son, they will "perish in the way." We read in Psalm 1 that "the way of the ungodly shall perish."

This Psalm ends by reminding us once again of the way to true happiness. "Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Believing Satan's lie will not end in happiness, but in destruction. Only by believing in Christ, and being reconciled to God can we find true happiness.

Thursday’s Theological Question: What is the definition of theology and what are its several types?

2009-07-02T01:16:00.004-05:00

The basic definition of "theology" given by the Reformed Dogmaticians is a word or discourse concerning God. This definition, however, they considered inadequate for Christian theology. Turretin, Institutes, I,i,7: "Among Christians, the word 'theology' is used either inadequately (with reference to the efficient to mean a discourse of God [Theou Logon], and with reference to the object, a discourse about God [logon peri tou Theou]) or adequately inasmuch as it denotes both a discourse of God and a discourse about God. These two things must be joined together because we cannot speak concerning God without God." Also the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, I.1: “Theologia est, juxta nominis notationem, ut quibusdam placet, sermo Dei, vel potius sermo de Deo, ut nos censemus.” Hence the specialized definitions of theology, such as: Wollebius, 29: "Christian theology is the doctrine concerning God, as he is known and worshipped for his glory and our salvation." "The word 'theology'…will be used in this work to describe that knowledge of God which a Christian may attain in this life from God's own word." Perkins, A Golden Chaine, 11: "Theologie is the science of liuing blessedly for euer." Ames Marrow of Theology, 77: "Theology is the doctrine of living to God." Owen, Biblical Theology, 16: "We can come to a definition of theology as: 'The doctrine of God with regard to Himself, His works, His will, His worship, as well as our required obedience, our future rewards and punishments, all as revealed by God Himself to the glory of His name.' This is the Word of God—this is theology!"

The definitions given by the Reformed Dogmaticians were meant to emphasize three things. 1) True theology comes to us only by way of divine revelation. 2) Its primary contents teach us the proper way of worshipping God and the only way of salvation, and therefore 3) it is primarily a practical rather than a speculative science.

Types of Theology

1. The first division of theology is into archetypal and ectypal theology. Archetypal theology (theologia archetypa) is the knowledge that God has of himself and is the definitive pattern of all true theology. Ectypal theology (theologia ectypa) is the true theology that is a reflection of the divine archetype and is capable of being understood by the minds of finite beings. Ectypal theology is further divided into theology of union (theologia unionis), i.e., the theology known to Jesus Christ according to His human nature in union with His divine nature; theology of the angels (theologia angelorum), i.e., the theology that is understood by the elect angels and is a higher form of theology that is attainable by man; theology of the pilgrims (theologia viatorum), i.e., the imperfect theology of believers in this world; theology of the blessed (theologia beatorum), i.e., the perfected form of theology of believers in their glorified state.

2. Besides the division of theology into archetypal and ectypal it is also divided into true and false theology (theologia vera et falsa). True theology is all theology that reflects the divine archetype, including the archetype itself. False theology is all theology that is opposed to the true knowledge of God. It is divided into the theology of pagans, which is either mythical, civil or political, or philosophical, and the theology of infidels and heretics. False theology is not classified as ectypal since it does not reflect the divine archetype.

3. The final division of theology is into natural and supernatural or revealed theology (theologia naturalis et theologia supernaturalis sive revelata). Natural theology is that theology which is derived from the created order. Natural theology is both innate in the heart of man from common notions implanted in everyone, and acquired by reflection upon the glory of God that is conspicuous in all of Creation. Since the fall, natural theology is insufficient to give man the knowledge of God that leads to salvation, but it is sufficient to leave man without excuse before God. Supernatural or revealed theology is that theology which is given to us in the Scriptures, and is sufficient to give man the knowledge of God that leads to salvation.

Monday's Meditation: The Way of the Righteous and the Way of the Ungodly, or True Happiness Set Forth in Contrast with the Misery of the Wicked

2009-06-29T09:02:00.003-05:00

Read: Psalm 1

This Psalm was placed at the beginning of the Psalter as a preface to the whole book. Here we see two ways of life set in stark contrast with one another: the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked.

The way of the righteous is set down in terms of blessedness or true happiness. There isn't a person on earth who isn't seeking after true happiness. All men are in a state of misery, and thus are seeking that true happiness that will alleviate their misery. But most men are seeking true happiness in the wrong place. They are seeking it in the wrong place because they do not understand the true cause of their own misery.

The righteous understand that the true cause of their misery is sin. By meditating on the Law of God, they have been given not only a knowledge of their own sin, both original and actual sin, as the root cause of their misery, but they have also been given a knowledge of the true path to happiness. This is why the righteous do not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of the scornful. If they follow the advice or the invitations of ungodly men they know this will only increase their misery.

The ungodly blindly and arrogantly think that the way of vice and wickedness is the way to happiness, and that the way of righteousness only leads to boredom and discontentment. The righteous, however, know that the only way to true happiness is through obedience to God and His Law, yet they realize that they do not have the capacity to keep the Law of God; they have broken it, and even their best actions are damnable before God. Thus they turn from the Law to Christ as the only way, truth, and life. The Law points them to Christ as the truly righteous and blessed one who has taken upon himself their sin and nailed it to the cross, satisfying the wrath of God, and in the place of their sin, He has imputed to them His righteousness, so that now, through faith in Christ, they are able to please God and find true happiness. This knowledge, this way to true happiness comes to them only through the Word of God. That is why it is their delight to meditate upon it day and night.

By meditating on the Word and being sanctified and renewed day by day after the image of God, they become like a tree that is planted by rivers of water. They produce fruit; they flourish; they increase in grace and in the knowledge of their Lord Jesus Christ. The wicked, however, languish. Their sin and guilt eat away inside them like a canker. They are likened to the chaff which the wind drives away. They are counted as nothing before God; all of their accomplishments and their pseudo-righteousness, which they arrogantly thought would lead them to true happiness, will be burned up like hay and stubble in the Day of Judgment.

There is only one way to true happiness, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. Make it your delight to meditate upon the Law of God day and night. Ask assistance from the Holy Spirit to show you the true way to happiness that is contained therein. The Lord knows the way of the righteous. "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." (1 Tim. 2:19) It is He that has granted to them the way of salvation. They shall find true happiness, which will last through all eternity. But the way of the wicked will be the death of them; they shall perish in the everlasting fires of hell.

Thursday’s Theological Question: What is Prolegomenon and What is Its importance in Reformed Dogmatics?

2009-06-24T23:15:00.012-05:00

Prolegomenon (plural: prolegomena) means first word(s) or introductory remarks. In Reformed dogmatics or systematic theology prolegomenon is the introductory section that discusses the definition and basic principles of theology. Topics that are usually discussed are the definition and appropriateness of the term theology, types of theology (archetypal, ectypal, true and false), religion, and the principia of theology (principia essendi, principia cognoscendi externum et internum). Prolegomenon is not the same as, and should not be confused with, theological encyclopedia and methodology. Encyclopedia is a study of "the entire circle of the special sciences devoted to the discovery, elucidation, and defense of the contents of the supernatural revelation contained in the Christian Scriptures, and aims to present these sciences in those organic relations which are determined by their actual genesis and inmost nature." (A. A. Hodge, 15) Methodology is "the science of theological method" (A. A. Hodge, 15) or "applied encyclopedia" (Crooks and Hurst, 11). It should not be assumed, however, that encyclopedia and methodology are not sometimes treated in prolegomena, or that the topics discussed in prolegomena are not discussed in theological encyclopedia and methodology.

Examples of Prolegomena are found in Hyperius' De Theologo, seu de ratione studii theologici, libri IIII, Wollebius' Compendium Theologiae Christianae, Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Hodge's Systematic Theology, Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, and Berkhof's Introduction to Systematic Theology (Now published as part of his Systematic Theology). Richard Muller treats of the development of prolegomena in Reformed and Lutheran dogmatics in volume one of his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The development of prolegomena in Lutheran dogmatics is also treated in volume one of Robert D. Preus' The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism.

Prolegomenon is important in Reformed Dogmatics because in non-theological sciences if one does not know the proper definition and basic principles of what is being investigated, one will not know how to proceed in further study. How much more, then, is it necessary in theology to know its proper definition and basic principles? Prolegomenon is therefore important for helping theologians arrive at proper conclusions. Berkhof says, "There seems to be a lurking fear that the more we systematize the truth, the farther we wander from the presentation of it that is found in the Word of God. But there is no danger of this, if the system is not based on the fundamental principles of some erring philosophy, but on the abiding principles of Scripture itself." (15)

Something New

2009-06-24T20:24:00.005-05:00

I am well aware that my blog is not all that exciting, so I decided that I would try something new. Every Thursday, starting tommorrow, I am going to post a theological question and answer. The title to this series is "Thursday's Theological Question". Snappy, eh? The kids should love it. I hope you do too. Don't worry; I'm still staying with the regular posting schedule on John Calvin. I have a new article to come out soon, D.V., entitled Calvin on Religion.

Update: This Monday, I am going to start a series called "Monday's Meditation".

Say Hello to Hannah Grace!

2009-06-21T13:28:00.002-05:00

Hannah Grace was born today (Sunday June, 21) at 12:05p. She weighed in at 8 lbs 4 oz, and is 20 in. long. Join with us in praising the Lord for His goodness and mercy that endures forever.

Thoughts on the Death of Dr. George Tiller

2009-06-06T20:39:00.005-05:00

Many of you know about the recent killing of Dr. Tiller, the medical director of a clinic in Wichita known for performing late-term abortions. His funeral was held today at College Hill United Methodist Church, the details of his funeral can be read here. The following thoughts were occasioned by several conversations I've had regarding his death at the hands of a gunman and by the protests held at his funeral.

Murder is murder; there is no way to justify murder. This goes both ways for the late Dr. George Tiller and for Scott Roeder who killed him.

I do not know the statistics of how many abortions were performed at Dr. Tiller's clinic in Wichita, so I cannot comment on the extent of his crimes against humanity. That abortions were performed there is well-known. It matters little to me whether they were late-term or first-trimester abortions; it is all the same: murder of the unborn. However one wants to try to justify it, whether one calls it freedom of choice, women's rights, or women's health care, it is still murder. It is a most heinous form of murder: the murder of the helpless. God has promised to enact justice upon those who oppress the helpless (see Psalm 10), and shall we deny that this also applies to those who kill the unborn?

Let me be clear, I am not making any claim as to the state of Dr. Tiller's soul. He was shot in church, fulfilling his duties as usher. I am glad, for his sake, that he was in church; perhaps he was able to hear the gospel. Still, I cannot help but wonder what kind of church allows a known murderer to be an active member. Perhaps Dr. Tiller was not a member of the church (I don't know), but the fact that he was an usher shows that the church allowed his active participation. This is clearly against the call of the gospel which says that murderers cannot inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21).

Again, let me be clear, I am not saying that the likes of Dr. Tiller can never inherit the kingdom of God. He who seeks repentance from sin will find forgiveness. But he who does not repent and continues in his sin will not find forgiveness. It is not my place to judge. God is judge, and Dr. Tiller has to answer to Him for his actions. Though it is not my place to say whether or not Dr. Tiller has been sent to eternal torment, still I can say that the abortions that were performed by him and those at his clinic were wicked and unrighteous acts. This I can say by the authority of the Word of God. If Dr. Tiller is in heaven, it is only by the grace of God, which I will magnify day by day. If Dr. Tiller has been sent to eternal punishment, it is because of the justice of God, which I, too, will magnify day by day.

Let us turn now to Scott Roeder. Eleven years ago, Dr. Tiller was shot in both arms by Shelley Shannon, who later testified in court that there was nothing immoral about what she did. Perhaps Roeder has the same mindset. Perhaps he thinks that he is the instrument of God in delivering justice to Dr. Tiller. Is the violent death of Dr. Tiller the judgment of God? It could very well be; I will not rule that out. This nation has sanctioned the murder of the helpless, and if the courts of this land will not stand against the oppression of the helpless, the Judge of heaven and earth will intervene.

If we do suppose that Dr. Tiller's death is the judgment of God, shall we excuse Roeder's actions? By no means! God has not given to individual citizens the right to act as judge and executioner. God has stated in no uncertain terms, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." (Rom. 12:19) God has set magistrates upon the earth as His ministers to do good upon the earth. If these ministers of God will not do what is good and just, I say again, the Judge of heaven and earth will intervene. But though these ministers of God do not that which is good and just, it is never the right of individual citizens to act as judges, seeking vengeance upon those who do evil. If they do not find justice in this land, they must appeal to heaven, rather than taking justice into their own hands. In addition to appealing to heaven there is provision in the constitution of this land to lawfully work for justice. Many have already taken it upon themselves to use these lawful means, and individual citizens who are concerned about justice ought to join with those lawfully working towards justice. This violent act against Dr. Tiller is inexcusable. Roeder, I have no doubt, will find that God does not say in vain, "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he (that is the magistrate) beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Rom. 13:4) It should come as no surprise to us that Roeder may very well receive a severe penalty for his actions.

What Dr. Tiller has done is murder; there is no way around it. The same goes for Roeder; his killing of Dr. Tiller is also murder. Dr. Tiller is now in the hands of God to be done with as the Judge of heaven and earth sees fit. Roeder is now in the hands of the civil magistrate to be done with as he sees fit.

Let us not praise the actions of either men. Dr. Tiller has done wrong, and Roeder has done wrong. Let us rather lawfully work toward a just society that protects the helpless and gives vengeance to whom it belongs.

I now speak directly to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us always keep in mind that we bear the name of Jesus Christ. We are his ambassadors on the earth. As those who bear the name of Christ, let us always remember that "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17) Our ministry on earth is not to enact vengeance upon the world. Our ministry is one of reconciliation, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19) We would do well to remember that the one who spoke these words was one who was a former murderer. The Apostle Paul, in his early years, had set himself to destroy the Church of God, but God in his mercy sent Jesus Christ to bring him to the knowledge of His gospel, that he might become the Apostle to the Gentiles.

The grace of God in Christ can change the hearts of even the most hardened sinners. Let us keep our focus on the gospel which was entrusted to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. (Matt. 28:18-20) Let us also keep our focus on Christ, who is the redeemer of lost sinners, always remembering that we were once sinners, but God through Christ has redeemed us, washed us, and sanctified us. Let us therefore work all the more for the kingdom of God, calling sinners everywhere to repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Imagine what good will come when sinners everywhere repent and believe, turning from their wicked works to works that are glorifying to God.

Calvin on Implicit Faith

2009-06-01T11:09:00.001-05:00

Calvin’s chapter on faith is one of the most pastoral chapters on faith I have ever read (certainly rivaling it is Comrie’s Het ABC des Geloofs and the chapter on Faith in Witsius’ Economy of the Covenants). In section 2 of this chapter, Calvin refutes the scholastic notion of fides implicita, implicit faith, that is, a blind acceptance of what the Church teaches without any knowledge of the actual contents of faith. He writes,
But besides impairing, and almost annihilating, faith by their obscure definition, they have invented the fiction of implicit faith, with which the name decking the grossest ignorance, they delude the wretched populace to their great destruction. Nay, to state the fact more truly and plainly, this fiction not only buries true faith, but entirely destroys it. Is it faith to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church? Faith consists not in ignorance, but in knowledge—knowledge not of God merely, but of the divine will. (Inst. III.ii.2)

Faith, Calvin argues, is more than mere assent to the doctrines of the Church. There is real knowledge involved. There is a knowing on the part of the one who believes. This knowledge, according to Calvin, does “not mean comprehension, such as that which we have of things falling under human sense.” He goes on,
For that knowledge is so much superior, that the human mind must far surpass and go beyond itself in order to reach it. Not even when it has reached it does it comprehend what it feels, but persuaded of what it comprehends not, it understands more from mere certainty of persuasion than it could discern of any human matter by its own capacity. (Inst. III.ii.14)
Citing Eph. 3:18, 19 (That ye may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge), Calvin states that Paul’s “object was to intimate, that what our mind embraces by faith is every way infinite, that this kind of knowledge far surpasses all understanding.” (Ibid.)

Though this knowledge surpasses what we are able to understand as human beings, Calvin still calls it a “sure and firm” knowledge. He writes, “For as faith is not contented with a dubious and fickle opinion, so neither is it contented with an obscure and ill-defined conception.” (Inst. III.ii.15) It is a sure knowledge because it is a supernatural knowledge, i.e., a knowledge that is given to us by the Holy Spirit. Calvin says that the Spirit “may be properly termed the key by which the treasures of the heavenly kingdom are unlocked, and his illumination, the eye of the mind by which we are enabled to see.” (Inst. III.i.4)

Though Calvin strongly denies the Romish doctrine of implicit faith, he grants that faith, on this side of glory, is indeed implicit. He writes, “We grant that so long as we are pilgrims in this world faith is implicit, not only because as yet many things are hidden from us, but because, involved in the mists of error, we attain not to all. The highest wisdom, even of him who has attained tthe highest perfection, is to go forward, and end endeavour in a calm and teachable spirit to make further progress.” (Inst. III.ii.4) This does not mean that Calvin has conceded to the Papist position, for Calvin is not saying here that we must blindly accept what the Church teaches. Rather, Calvin states that in this side of glory that knowledge that we have of heavenly things is not yet perfected, and we must wait patiently for the day when all will be fully revealed. Till then we must implicitly believe what God says in His word though we may not understand everything.

Witsius, too, acknowledges an implicit faith. He writes, “But indeed it must be confessed , that in the present dark state of our minds, even the most illuminated are ignorant of a great many things; and that many things are believed with an implicit faith, especially by young beginners and babes in Christ.” (Economy of the Covenants Vol 1, 376) He goes on to say, however, that “it no ways follows, that faith is better described by ignorance than knowledge: or that they do well who cherish ignorance among the people as the mother of faith and devotion.” “All,” he says, “should strive to have their faith as little implicit, and as much distinct as possible.” (377)

This lack of understanding, Calvin says, ought to motivate us to humility. He writes, “In our daily reading we fall in with many obscure passages which convict us of ignorance. With this curb God keeps us modest, assigning to each a measure of faith, that every teacher, however, excellent, may still be disposed to learn.” (Inst. III.ii.4) John Owen echoes this sentiment,
I personally do not claim to have attained to any great peak in the study of heavenly wisdom, or to be able to do more than stammer pitifully when I come to discuss or teach of such high matters. Here we are on ground where, at best, we can hope to see in part. Here is subject matter which the entire breadth of human intellect could never grasp; that is, until we cease to see through a glass darkly, and come to know even as we are known as we enjoy God without limit (1 Corinthians 13:12) There is little need of our denying our deep ignorance and shame of sloth when the same Apostle, in that epistle, admits that “If any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” (Biblical Theology 591)

Calvin acknowledges another kind of implicit faith, which is not properly faith, but rather a preparation for faith. Referring to many of the disciples of Christ who, though they lacked knowledge, believed that He was sent from heaven to gather disciples, Calvin writes, “We may also call their faith implicit, as being properly nothing else than a preparation for faith.” (Inst. III.ii.5) The Gospel writers, he claims, describe many of those in the crowd who followed Jesus as believers because they were excited by Christ’s miracles, yet they never understood any of His doctrine. Calvin writes, “Even those who are not yet imbued with the first principles, provided they are disposed to obey, are called believers, not properly indeed, but inasmuch as God is pleased in kindness so highly to honour their pious feeling. But this docility, with a desire of further progress is widely different from the gross ignorance in which those sluggishly indulge who are contented with the implicit faith of the Papists.” (Ibid.)

This kind of implicit faith is also acknowledged by Ames. He writes, “Implicit faith is the believing in the truths of faith in their common principle, not distinctly in each separately.” (Marrow of Theology 244) He goes on to say though that “the common principle of all things to be believed in this way is the Scriptures, not the church. (Ibid.) Like Calvin, he says that “this implicit faith is good and necessary but it is not in itself sufficient for salvation; nor does it possess the true meaning of faith if it stands alone.” (Ibid.)

As I noted earlier, Calvin’s chapter on faith is very pastoral. On the one hand, Calvin does not allow his readers to be content with the bare minimum of the required knowledge for true faith; nor does he allow them to merely believe what the church tells them to believe. Knowledge is an important part of faith. It is everywhere implied in Scripture that we are given knowledge of what we are to believe. On the other hand, Calvin is willing to acknowledge that in our present state it is not possible that we should attain to a full perfection of knowledge. Even those believers who have made the most progress must admit that they do not know everything. The knowledge of God is infinitely wide as it is deep; who can know it? Yet Calvin urges his readers to press on, and to never be content with the present state of their knowledge. There is more to learn, and they should always desire to know more. May we always have a hunger and thirst for the knowledge of God.

Lincoln and Calvin

2009-05-22T14:43:00.008-05:00

My last class at Kuyper College was on the life of Abraham Lincoln. Don't tell my Southern friends, but I really enjoyed the class. Lincoln was a man with many faults, just like myself, but he left a legacy that was larger than those who lived during his time realized. I think it is fitting that his 200th anniversary is being celebrated the same year as Calvin's 500th. Not that Lincoln was in any way equal to Calvin, but that both left legacies larger than their persons, and both have shaped the history of America. What follows is a two page reflection paper that I wrote for the class. I note the differences and similarities between both men, mainly focussing on their understanding of providence. I should note before moving on that I find Lincoln's religious views somewhat problematic. He did not have the theological acumen that Calvin had; furthermore, he never seemed to move past a generic civil Christianity into true faith, but he did have a thorough-going knowledge of the Bible and quoted from it with the ease of one more than familiar with it. Despite this, I think that Abraham Lincoln is worthy of careful study, whether you agree with him or not. Calvin, too, love him or hate him, must warrant our attention.

With much of their attention being given to the celebration of the 500^th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin (1509), many Calvin scholars and devotees may have forgotten that this year also marks the 200^th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln (1809). Conversely, I do not think that many Lincoln scholars are paying much attention to the anniversary of Calvin's birth. This is unfortunate. Both of these men, whether you love them or despise them, have left an indelible mark on the history of not only America, but of the world.

These past few weeks I have been pondering over the similarities and differences between Calvin and Lincoln, trying to find any common ground between them. I must admit that I have not been able to find much that is similar. Calvin and Lincoln were as different as night and day. Calvin was a son of a well-to-do middle class man and always retained an aristocratic air about him. Lincoln was born in the depths of poverty and always appealed to the common man (I can hardly imagine Calvin as the "Rail-Splitter"). Both had legal training, but Calvin learned law at one of the best law schools in France. Lincoln had only one year of schooling; he had to teach himself how to be a lawyer by reading books and being mentored by another lawyer. Calvin was a stern man who always had to keep his temper in check. Lincoln was a jovial man who always had a story or a joke on hand. He was in some ways what Calvin wished he could be. On the issue slavery, it is difficult to say whether they agreed or not. Both abhored slavery, but Calvin could not come right out and condemn it because the Bible spoke of it. Interestingly, it was never Lincoln's intention to abolish slavery just arrest the spread of it. Of course the war changed all that.

There are many other differences especially when we consider Calvin's theological abilities versus Lincoln's. But they did have a few things in common. Both were men who were well acquainted with grief. Throughout the course of Calvin's life he lost his mother at the age of three, saw many friends die a martyr's death, lost several children in infancy, lost his wife to illness, and his family was marked with scandal. Lincoln also lost his mother at an early age. He also lost a sister, his fiancée, Ann Rutledge, and two of his sons. Interestingly, both Lincoln and Calvin lived to be about the same age. Calvin died May 27, 1564; Lincoln died April 15, 1865. Another thing they had in common was their uncommon ability to write and speak with precision and refinement. Calvin, no doubt, developed this ability from his humanistic and legal training. Lincoln, never having formal training, learned how to write from his profession as a lawyer. Both Calvin and Lincoln's writing styles are models of what good writing should be: a proper mixture of clarity, brevity, and spontaneity.

There is one commonality, however, that I wish to capitalize on for the rest of my time. Both men had a profound and abiding sense of the providence of God. Lincoln's famous quote, "I confess plainly that I have not controlled events but that events have controlled me," is something that Calvin felt at all times. Lincoln, perhaps, may have been more fatalistic than what Calvin's doctrine of providence permits, but he took great comfort in the idea that God controls all things. Calvin, too, found comfort in this doctrine; it was a solace to both of them to know that they were not the masters of their fate, but that Almighty God had his purposes that he was fulfilling through them and in spite of them.

In his "Second Inaugural Address", Lincoln returns to the idea of providence. He writes, "The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe unto that man by whom the offence cometh!' If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?" Calvin taught that "the Christian, then being most fully persuaded that all things come to pass by the dispensation of God, and that nothing happens fortuitously, will always direct his eye to him as the principal cause of events, at the same time paying due regard to inferior causes in their own place." Lincoln's eye was certainly directed to God as the principal cause of the war, yet he also paid due regard to the inferior causes (union and slavery). It is quite remarkable that Lincoln's mind should be trained thus, for, to my knowledge, Lincoln never read Calvin's Institutes. Also remarkable is Lincoln's moderation in his statement, for Calvin says, "If anything adverse befalls him (the Christian), he will forthwith raise his mind to God, whose hand is most effectual in impressing us with patience and placid moderation of mind."

Lincoln and Calvin, as I said before, were as different as night and day. If they had known each other, their personalities might have clashed. Both had different lives and callings, as well as different upbringings. And most certainly Lincoln was not the theologian that Calvin was. But their reliance upon the providence of God is worthy of our respect and consideration. Their understanding of providence was no less remarkable in their day as it is in ours. Two great men who shaped history in significant ways could both confess plainly that they did not control events, but that events, which happened according to the purposes of Almighty God, controlled them.

Calvin on the Necessity of Reforming the Church

2009-05-01T12:45:00.003-05:00

There are many today who don't know what the big deal is concerning the differences between the Reformed Churches and Catholics. They want to declare the Reformation as officially over and done with. Now is the time for ecumenicity. Now is the time to put away our differences.

In one sense the Reformation is over. The time period known as the Reformation as well as the subsequent period of Reformed Othodoxy is over. But in another sense it is not over. The Word of God, and the doctrines contained therein, are still being attacked, and they are being attacked with more force and vigor than even at the time of the Reformation.

Now more than ever, we need to study afresh the historic doctrines of the Christian faith, especially as they were formulated by the theologians of the Reformation. I am thankful for the recent scholarship put out by many fine young scholars eager to understand the theology of the Reformation. But scholarship is not enough. It must be accompanied with the conviction that the essential teachings of the Reformation theologians are indeed the pure doctrine of the Word of God. The Reformers themselves had this same conviction and for good reason. They spent countless hours pouring over the Word of God comparing the doctrines of the Church with the doctrines of Scripture, throwing out what was contrary to Scripture and formulating in their own words what was true to Scripture. Having the same conviction as the Reformers means that we will be willing to assert that what we believe does, in fact, matter and has consequences in how we live out the Christian faith.

I want to thank my father, Dr. Kevin Carr, for writing this article for my blog. I hope that as you read this article you will see that the Reformation isn't over. True, for Calvin, Luther, and others the Reformation is over, but for us the Reformation is just getting started.

THE REFORMATION MANIFESTO OF JOHN CALVIN:
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NECESSITY OF REFORMING THE CHURCH
Kevin C. Carr, D. Min. – April 30, 2009

The Apostle Paul admonished Timothy, “What you have heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you” (1 Tim. 1:12-13). Jude spoke of contending “for the faith that was once entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3-4). These and other like Scripture are the impetus that lie behind the need for Reformation in the church. They recognize that the Bible presents a baseline of truth from which the sinful heart is prone to wander. They call the church to return to “the pattern of sound teaching”—“the good deposit”—that was her original trust. This was the essence of the sixteenth-century Reformation.

John Calvin is indisputably one of the church’s great Reformers. Shortly after his return to Geneva he wrote his Reformation “manifesto” entitled The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1544). The treatise was addressed to Emperor Charles V on the occasion of the Diet of Spires held in 1543. Theodore Beza, Calvin’s colleague, successor, and biographer notes, “I know not if any writing on the subject, more nervous or solid, has been published in our age.”[i] Reforming the Church is divided into the three parts. He addresses 1) what particular things are in need of reform; 2) what actions have been taken by the Reformed church; and, 3) why immediate reform is necessary. The tract is symphonic in structure. He draws attention to his major Reformation themes and returns repeatedly to them throughout the “movements” or major parts of the work.

In Calvin’s view there were four cardinal issues driving the need for Reformation. He says that “the question is not, whether the church labors under diseases…but whether the diseases are of a kind the cure of which admits not of longer delay.”[ii] These were matters where “slow remedies” were not an option. Calvin is clear concerning what he regards as areas urgently requiring Reform. Targeting worship, justification, sacraments, and church government, he makes the following claims:

We maintain, then, that…those heads of doctrine in which the truth of our religion, those in which the pure and legitimate worship of God, and those in which the salvation of men are comprehended, were in great measure obsolete. We maintain that the use of the sacraments was in many ways vitiated [impaired or made defective by the addition of something] and polluted. And we maintain that the government of the church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny.[iii]

For Calvin there is an order of importance. He seeks a recovery of knowledge, “first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained.” He continues, “When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain.” Secondarily, but important for the “preservation of these branches of doctrine”, he includes the sacraments and the government of the church.[iv] The latter two he says “resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, and points out the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body.”[v]

Calvin places worship before everything else. Under that topic he discusses what Reformed Christians call the regulative principle of worship. For Calvin there are two reasons why God disallows all forms of worship that are not authorized by Scripture. He claims: “First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure…and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray.”[vi] He recognizes the challenge that such a view presents to the Reforming church. He admits, “I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God.”[vii] Calvin discusses such aberrations as the worship of images and relics, the intercession of the saints, and unbiblical ceremonies, while promoting prayer with faith and understanding in true humility. He notes that “the Word of God is the test which discriminates between his true worship and that which is false”[viii] and insists that “God rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and employs his Word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience.”[ix]

Closely allied with worship in importance is the doctrine justification by faith. For Calvin, “The safety of the church depends as much on this doctrine as human life does on the soul. If the purity of this doctrine is in any degree impaired, the church has received a deadly wound.”[x] According to Calvin the knowledge of salvation is presented in three stages. First, he says, “We must begin with a sense of individual wretchedness, filling us with despondency as if we were spiritually dead.”[xi] Second, Christ must be acknowledged “as the only Priest who reconciles us to the Father, and His death as the only sacrifice by which sin is expiated, the divine justice satisfied, and a true and perfect righteousness acquired.”[xii] Third, a sinner must “rest in him with firm and solid confidence, feeling assured that Christ is so completely his own, that he possesses in him righteousness and life.”[xiii] However, Calvin understands that “this doctrine has been perverted” which is the reason for the attention it is given. He claims, “There is no point which is more keenly contested, none in which our adversaries are more inveterate in their opposition, than that of justification, namely, as to whether we obtain it by faith or by works.”[xiv] Calvin recognizes that the ultimate dispute between Rome and Geneva “is not, whether good works ought to be performed by the pious, and whether they are accepted by God and rewarded by him; but whether, by their own worth, they reconcile us to God; whether we acquire eternal life as their price; whether they are compensations which are made to the justice of God, so as to take away guilt; and whether they are to be confided in as a ground of salvation.”[xv]

If worship and gospel are the soul of the church, sacraments and government are the body which gives it form. With regard to sacraments, Calvin criticizes Rome’s propensity for “ceremonies devised by men” that are placed on par with “the mysteries instituted by Christ.”[xvi] He denies Rome’s system of seven sacraments while acknowledging only baptism and the Lord’s Supper as true sacraments instituted by Christ. Although he does not present his sacramental view in full, he does expose the sacrificial nature of the Roman mass calling it an “excommunication”[xvii] and a “theatrical exhibition.”[xviii] He claims that the priest “offers a sacrifice to expiate the sins of the people” and asks, “Who authorizes men to convert taking into offering?”[xix] Furthermore, Calvin sees an uncomfortable comparison between the Roman view of the sacraments and paganism. He observes that the consecration of baptism and the mass “differs in no respect whatever from magical incantations.” He continues:

For by breathings and whisperings, and unintelligible sounds, they think they work mysteries. As if it had been the wish of Christ, that in the performance of religious rites his word should be mumbled over, and not rather pronounced with a clear voice. There is no obscurity in the words by which the gospel expresses the power, nature, and use of baptism. Then, in the supper, Christ does not mutter over the bread, but addresses the apostles in distinct terms when he announces the promise and subjoins the command, ‘This do in remembrance of me.[xx]

He also reveals what is perhaps his major complaint—the Word divorced from the sacrament. He observes how “people are entertained with showy ceremonies, while not a word is said of their significance and truth. For there is no use in the sacraments unless the thing which the sign visibly represents is explained in accordance with the Word of God.”[xxi]

For Calvin, the government of the church was deficient in a number of areas. Along with exposing the folly of the “auricular confession” [that is, the practice of confessing to the priest], restrictions on eating meat, and the celibate priesthood, Calvin addresses two major concerns. The first regards a minister’s primary calling. Whether denominated bishop or pastor, he notes that the office was appointed “that they might edify the Church with sound doctrine.”[xxii] He says of the priest, “They would sing or mutter in the church, exhibit themselves in theatrical vestments, and go through numerous ceremonies, but they would seldom, if ever, teach.” He continues, “According to the precept of Christ, however, no man can claim for himself the office of bishop or pastor who does not feed his flock with the Word of the Lord.”[xxiii] Calvin’s second concern regards a minister’s conduct. He exposes the practices of acquiring church offices through purchase, violence, or other “nefarious actions.” A man of God was to undergo strict examination in both doctrine and life. For Calvin, “The Word of God furnishes a standard by which all such appointments ought to be tested.”[xxiv] Yet Calvin mourns the abysmal lack of holiness in life and conduct among the clergy of his day. He exclaims, “While those who preside in the church ought to excel others, and shine by the example of a holier life, how well do those who hold the office in the present day correspond in the respect to their vocation!”[xxv]

The Reformers were particularly sensitive to Rome’s accusation that they were schematics, caring little for the unity of the church.[xxvi] But the unity of the church was the very thing they cherished. Calvin insists that “it is not enough…simply to throw out the name church, but judgment must be used to ascertain which is the true church, and what is the nature of its unity.”[xxvii] Referencing Ephesians 4:4-5 he insists that such unity as the Bible teaches, “We hold sacred, and we denounce anathema against all who in any way violate it.”[xxviii] Significantly he defends the Reformation’s course of action as both correct and necessary on the grounds that the Roman Church had corrupted the very things he had been addressing. Rome called for tolerance and moderation. For Calvin and the Reformers some things were not negotiable. He says:

In a corruption of sound doctrine so extreme, in a pollution of the sacraments so nefarious, in a condition of the church so deplorable, those who maintain that we ought not to have felt so strongly, would have been satisfied with nothing less than a perfidious tolerance, by which we should have betrayed the worship of God, the glory of Christ, the salvation of men, the entire administration of the sacraments, and the government of the church. There is something specious in the name of moderation, and tolerance is a quality which has a fair appearance, and seems worthy of praise; but the rule which we must observe at all hazards is, never to endure patiently that the sacred name of God should be assailed with impious blasphemy; that his eternal truth should be suppressed by the devil’s lies; that Christ should be insulted, his holy mysteries polluted, unhappy souls cruelly murdered, and the church left to writhe in extremity under the effect of a deadly wound. This would be not meekness, but indifference about things to which all others ought to be postponed.[xxix]

Calvin’s critique of the church in his Necessity of Reforming the Church speaks with a contemporary resonance. Before the modern church seeks to reinvent itself, it should read Necessity of Reforming the Church and consider its time tested priorities and practices for badly needed reform. The issues it discusses are of utmost importance and have not gone away. Worship continues to be driven by human caprice rather than the Bible. The erosion of the gospel persists at an alarming pace. The Rome continues to condemn it, the modernist has rejected it, and the evangelical often ignores it. The sacraments are frequently treated in a cavalier manner rather than as the sacred mysteries and means of grace that they are. The church’s government is ordered and organized by pragmatism rather than Scripture. Calvin’s translator, Henry Beveridge, admits that the church of his day (in the nineteenth-century) still sadly contended with these issues which were “so long ago triumphantly refuted.” Yet he says, “It is pleasing to think that refutation still exists….Every one who studies it [The Necessity of Reforming the Church] thoroughly puts himself in possession of a weapon offensive and defensive, which will enable him, within his own sphere, to fight the battle of true Protestantism against open enemies and treacherous friends.”[xxx]

End Notes:
[i] Henry Beveridge, ed., John Calvin: Tracts and Letters (1844; repr. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2009), I:xlv.
[ii] Ibid., I:125.
[iii] Ibid., I:125.
[iv] Ibid., I:126.
[v] Ibid., I:127.
[vi] Ibid., I:128.
[vii] Ibid., I:128.
[viii] Ibid., I:132.
[ix] Ibid., I:133.
[x] Ibid., I:137.
[xi] Ibid., I:133.
[xii] Ibid., I:134.
[xiii] Ibid., I:134.
[xiv] Ibid., I:135.
[xv] Ibid., I:135.
[xvi] Ibid., I:137.
[xvii] Ibid., I:138.
[xviii] Ibid., I:137.
[xix] Ibid., I:138.
[xx] Ibid., I:138.
[xxi] Ibid., I:139.
[xxii] Ibid., I:140.
[xxiii] Ibid., I:141.
[xxiv] Ibid., I:142.
[xxv] Ibid., I:141.
[xxvi] Ibid., I:211. Calvin says, “The last and principle charge which they bring against us is, that we have made schism in the church. And here maintain against us, that in no case is it lawful to break the unity of the church.”
[xxvii] Ibid., I:213.
[xxviii] Ibid., I:214.
[xxix] Ibid., I:198.
[xxx] Ibid., I:x.

Calvin on Christ’s Descent into Hell

2009-03-23T10:44:00.003-06:00

One of the vexing things about the Apostles' Creed is that the Apostles didn't give proof texts. Why didn't Thomas, for example, tell us where descendit in inferos was found in Scripture? Paul, too, could have been more helpful and written a commentary on the Apostles' Creed instead of writing letters. For those of you who are slow (you know who you are), I'm being a little tongue in cheek here. The Apostles didn't write the Apostles' Creed nor did they write a commentary on it. These two facts should give us pause before we become overly dogmatic about some off the wall interpretation of descendit in inferos. We would do well to heed the admonition of the Lutheran symbol, the Formula of Concord, which says, "It is our unanimous opinion that we should not engage in disputations concerning this article, but believe and teach it in all simplicity."

One of my favorite features of Calvin's Institutes is the care he takes in his approach to theological topics. Calvin is always careful to go where Scripture goes and to leave off when Scripture goes no further. He rejects speculation in theology, and is content to teach only what is conducive to true piety. This, too, is his approach to the article, he descended into hell, which he claims is "of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption." (Inst. II.xvi.8)

Calvin rejects the Roman Catholic teaching that Christ, after his death, went into the limbus partum and proclaimed his accomplished redemption to the Old Testament saints, who died under the law and were in prison awaiting the full redemption of Christ (Inst. II.xvi.9; see Catechism of Trent on Art. 5 of the Creed). He rejects this teaching because it is founded upon faulty interpretation of several passages in Scripture such as Psalm 107:16, Zechariah 9:11, and 1 Peter 3:19. Concerning the last passage, Calvin states that Peter mentions that Christ went by the Spirit "that he might take away the notion of what may be called a real presence." (Commentary on
1 Peter 3:19-22) Calvin says, "the purport of the context is, that believers who had died before that time were partakers of the same grace with ourselves: for he celebrates the power of Christ's death, in that he penetrated even to the dead, pious souls obtaining an immediate view of that visitation for which they had anxiously waited; while, on the other hand, the reprobate were more clearly convinced that they were completely excluded from salvation. Although the passage in Peter is not perfectly definite, we must not interpret as if he made no distinction between the righteous and the wicked: he only means to intimate, that the death of Christ was made known to both." (Inst. II.xvi.9) According to Calvin, then, there is no literal descent of Christ into hell. He did not go to hell to be punished, for that is contrary to His cry on the cross, "It is finished." Nor did he go to hell to announce His victory over death and hell, for Scripture does not speak of any such thing.

If there is no literal descent into hell, what are we to make of this article? Unlike several theologians today who want to remove the article from the Apostles' Creed (see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 594), Calvin, as I noted above, saw the article as an important part of our redemption. It is important because of what it has to say concerning the sufferings of Christ on our behalf. "It is of consequence," he writes, "to understand aright how much our salvation cost the Son of God." (Inst. II.xvi.12) While many read the descent into hell as happening chronologically after the death and burial, Calvin sees it as a further explanation of Christ's sufferings. Suffering under Pontius, Pilate, being crucified, dying, and being buried are "what Christ endured in the sight of man;" whereas descending into hell is "the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God." (Inst. II.xvi.10) Wollebius says that for Calvin, "the sequence is not temporal, but in order of realities; the article has two parts, one dealing with sufferings of the body, and the other with those of the soul." (Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics, 102)

According to Calvin, the importance of reading the article in this way is that it teaches us "that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man." (Inst. II.xvi.10) Noting what Peter says that God raised up Christ "having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it" (Acts 2:24), Calvin shows that this is referring to the Son of God's enduring the not only death itself, but the pains produced by the curse and wrath of God, which is the source of death (Inst. II.xvi.11).

Christ's suffering the agony of the curse and wrath of God, according to Calvin began in the Garden of Gethsemane. He writes, "If any one now ask, Did Christ descend to hell at the time when he deprecated death? I answer, that this was the commencement, and that from it we may infer how dire and dreadful were the tortures which he endured when he felt himself standing at the bar of God as a criminal in our stead." (Inst. II.xvi.12) Seeing how greatly Christ agonized in His soul that He sweat drops of blood ought to give us pause to contemplate the depths of fear and agony that Christ experienced on our behalf.

Calvin deals with the arguments of those who deny that Christ truly feared for his soul. While I do not wish to go into the details of Calvin's arguments, I do want to note quickly that it is worth reading his arguments, because Calvin warmly and experientially exhibits the humanity of Christ, something which theologians such as Barth claim is lacking in Calvin. Summing up the importance of teaching that Christ had a true fear and dread of his coming sufferings, Calvin writes, "It becomes us, therefore (as Ambrose truly teaches), boldly to profess the agony of Christ, if we are not ashamed of the cross. And certainly had not his soul shared in the punishment, he would have been the Redeemer of bodies only." (Inst. II.xvi.12)

It must be noted that many later Reformed theologians did not hold to Calvin's understanding of Christ's decent into hell. Although his view was codified in Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 44, it was not held unanimously by all Reformed theologians. The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms refer to the descent into hell as a "continuing under the power of death." (WSC Q/A 27 and WLC Q/A 50) Wollebius, though he prefers the interpretation that the descent into hell means being under the power of death, still says that Calvin's view "is not to be rejected lightly." (Beardslee, 102) In fact, Calvin's view is not rejected lightly. His understanding of Christ's suffering, in His soul, the curse and wrath of God is incorporated into most, if not all, the dogmatic works of Reformed theologians (for example, see Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, Thirteenth Topic, Quests. XIV, XV, XVI).

There has always been a difference of opinion concerning this article, and we would do well to remember that before we become too dogmatic about our favorite view. But we also ought to seriously consider Calvin's view. Even if the original meaning of the descent into hell was something other than what Calvin says, we cannot deny that he was correct in his judgment of Christ's suffering in his soul the agony of the curse and wrath of God for our sins.

Calvin on Common Grace

2009-03-06T16:43:00.007-06:00

In this post, I am dealing with a somewhat narrow definition of common grace. I am only looking at common grace as defined by the "Three Points of Common Grace" adopted by the Christian Reformed Synod of 1924. There will be no discussion here of common grace and its relation to apologetics, nothing here about Christianity and Culture, and certainly nothing here dealing with Herman Hoeksema's arguments against common grace. I am simply seeking to answer the question, Did Calvin teach common grace? I have also decided to leave off discussing Calvin on the free offer of the gospel. The very interesting topic of Calvin and the free offer of the gospel will be taken up later this year, D. V., by Donald MacLean of the James Durham Thesis, who is an expert on this subject.

Did Calvin teach the doctrine of common grace? There have been several Reformed theologians who have rejected the idea of common grace, and claim that Calvin is in agreement with them. Two theologians stand out in their rejection of common grace: Herman Hoeksema in America and Klaas Schilder in the Netherlands, both of whom were concerned that the doctrine of common grace paved the way for worldliness in the Church. My aim in this post is not to examine the merits of the concern of these two theologians; rather, it is to examine whether or not Calvin taught the doctrine of common grace. It is true that common grace cannot be found in Calvin's writings in so many words; however, we may deduce the doctrine from his writings by good and necessary consequences.

What Common Grace Is

Before we begin our examination of Calvin, we need to define common grace. I would like to define common grace in three ways: 1) that God has a favorable attitude toward all mankind in general, which, among other ways, is displayed in the free offer of the gospel; 2) that there is a common operation of the Spirit at work in the world, giving life to all men, granting them their specific gifts and talents, and in a non-saving way restraining them from an unimpeded life of sin; and 3) that, although man is not able to do any spiritual or saving good, is, nonetheless, by the morally influencing work of the Spirit, able to do civil good. Students of Christian Reformed Church history will recognize that I have taken this definition of common grace from the "Three Points of Common Grace" adopted by the Christian Reformed Synod of 1924 in Kalamazoo, MI. I have adopted these points not because I wish to bring up an old controversy, but because I think that they provide a good definition of what is meant by common grace, and they provide a good pattern to follow in discerning whether Calvin taught common grace.

What Common Grace Is Not

In order to avoid confusion, it is necessary to be clear on what common grace is not. First of all, it is not a prevenient grace in the Roman Catholic or Arminian sense, that is, a grace which assists one in his cooperation with divine salvation. Common grace, as conceptualized by the Reformed, is distinguished from saving or particular grace. The Reformed insisted that saving grace is a work of the Spirit apart from any cooperation from man. They also insisted that saving or particular grace is given only to the elect. Common grace, therefore, does not refer to the salvific work of the Triune God, but, rather, refers to the general attitude of goodness and favor He exhibits toward all mankind. G. H. Kersten rightly says, "There is therefore no objection to speaking of common grace, provided that we insist against all those that hold the doctrine of universal redemption, that the blood of Christ was shed only for the elect, and the application of it given only to the elect. The reprobates are not given any temporal or spiritual benefits through the merits of Christ's atonement." (73)

Second, common grace does not mean that God never displays his wrath or just hatred to the wicked. This is clearly opposed to the view of God we have in Scripture, which often portrays the wrath of God toward the obstinate and wicked. Also we see clearly in Romans 9 that God hated Esau, the elder son of Isaac, and that His hatred preceded any good or evil committed by him. Common grace is not an attempt to negate the passages of Scripture that teach the wrath and hatred of God; rather, it is an attempt to do justice to the testimony of Scripture, which portrays both a just wrath towards unregenerate sinners, as well as a general kindness toward them.

Now that we have an idea of what common grace is, let us proceed in our examination of Calvin. We will look at each of the three points of the definition of common grace in turn asking whether Calvin taught a) the divine favorable attitude toward all mankind, b) the common operations of the Spirit, and b) the ability of sinful man to do civil good, and then we will then determine whether it is proper to say that Calvin taught common grace.

1. God's Favorable Attitude Toward All Mankind

As we inquire whether Calvin taught that God displays a general favor to all mankind, we need to keep one thing in mind. That is, that God's dealing with men is multifaceted. Calvin at some points speaks of God's favorable attitude to the wicked, and at other points speaks of his wrath and just displeasure, yes, even hatred, toward the wicked. As I pointed out above, the one attitude does not negate the other. It is true that Calvin, throughout his Institutes and Commentaries, lays a heavy emphasis on the on the wicked as vessels of God's just wrath. It is also true that his exegesis of passages such as Ezekiel 33:11 and Matthew 23:37 is not the same as the Puritans, who interpret these passages as a free offer of the gospel. The Matthew 23 passage, for example, he interprets as an expression of indignation rather than an expression of compassion; whereas Matthew Henry says, "The repetition is emphatical, and bespeaks abundance of commiseration." For those looking for swarms of passages in Calvin that bespeak of God's love and kindness towards unregenerate man, Calvin is going to disappoint. However, there are enough passages where Calvin does speak of the goodness of God toward the non-elect to justify saying that he did teach that God has a favorable attitude towards all mankind.

There are two texts which may be called the classical texts of common grace. The first is Matthew 5:45, which refers to God's goodness in sending sunshine and rain upon the just and the unjust. The second is Romans 2:4, which refers to God's kindness that leads sinners to repentance. Commenting on the first passage Calvin writes, There are two passages in Scripture that we might call the classical texts of common grace. They are Matthew 5:45 and Romans 2:4. The first passage refers to God's general goodness in sending rain upon the just and the unjust; the second refers to the kindness of God which leads sinners to repentance. On the first passage Calvin comments, "He quotes two instances of the divine kindness toward us (i.e., sunshine and rain), which are not only well known to us, but common to all (emphasis mine): and this very participation excites us the more powerfully to act in a similar manner towards each other, though, by a synecdoche, he includes a vast number of other favors." Calvin here shows that, first, the divine kindness is common to all, that is, the divine kindness is shown to the just and the unjust without distinction, and, second, that the divine kindness is not just limited to sunshine and rain. In this passage we see that Calvin is conveying God's kindness as common to all not just to the elect. It is hard, from this passage, to defend the notion that Calvin does not teach that God has a general favorable attitude toward all mankind. For one thing, Calvin is a careful exegete of Scripture and the text itself does not allow any interpretation that does not have God showing a general favor or kindness toward all mankind without discrimination. When we inquire why we ought to love our enemies the reason is given that we need to imitate our Father in Heaven who makes no distinction between just and unjust when sending good gifts to earth. What kind of a reason would it be if God didn't have a favorable attitude toward all mankind?

For another thing, Calvin does not go into any discourse about what the differences are between the just and the unjust, how God deals differently with them, or even how the unjust are made the objects of His wrath. Calvin simply points out that the divine kindness is shown to the just and the unjust without distinction.

The second passage, Romans 2:4, does show two different attitudes that God has toward the wicked. On the one hand, it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance, but, on the other hand, we see from the following verses that the wicked if they remain unrepentant will bring upon themselves the wrath of God stored up for the day of judgment. Here is Calvin's comment on verse 4:

"For the Lord by his kindness shows to us, that it is he to whom we ought turn, if we desire to secure our wellbeing, and at the same time he strengthens our confidence in expecting mercy. If we use not God's bounty for this end, we abuse it. But yet it is not to be viewed always in the same light; for when the Lord deals favorably with his servants and gives them earthly blessings, he makes known to them by symbols of this kind his own benevolence, and trains them up at the same time to seek the sum and substance of all good things in himself alone: when he treats the transgressors of his law with the same indulgence, his object is to soften by his kindness their perverseness; he yet does not testify that he is already propitious to them, but, on the contrary, invites them to repentance. But if any one brings this objection -- that the Lord sings to the deaf as long as he does not touch inwardly their hearts; we must answer -- that no fault can be found in this case except with our own depravity. But I prefer rendering the word which Paul here uses, leads, rather than invites, for it is more significant; I do not, however, take it in the sense of driving, but of leading as it were by the hand."

It is important to note that in Calvin's reply to the objection that God sings to the deaf when he shows kindness to the unrepentant, his doctrine of double predestination does not come into the discussion at all. It doesn't even come into play in the following verses. Rather, here is what Calvin says regarding verse 5:

"This is a remarkable passage: we may hence learn what I have already referred to -- that the ungodly not only accumulate for themselves daily a heavier weight of God's judgments, as long as they live here, but that the gifts of God also, which they continually enjoy, shall increase their condemnation; for an account of them all will be required: and it will then be found, that it will be justly imputed to them as an extreme wickedness, that they had been made worse through God's bounty, by which they ought surely to have been improved. Let us then take heed, lest by unlawful use of blessings we lay up for ourselves this cursed treasure."

Notice Calvin's language in both passages. In the comment on verse 4, he says, "his object is to soften by his kindness their perverseness," and, "he yet does not testify that he is already propitious to them, but, on the contrary, invites them to repentance." In the comment on verse 5, he can speak of "the gifts of God," "God's bounty," and "blessings." These words seem to suggest that indeed Calvin taught that God has a general favor for the wicked.

There are a couple of passages in the Institutes I want to look at before moving on to the next point. In the chapter on prayer, Calvin discusses God's answering of the prayers of the wicked. He says, "It is also plain from the Book of Judges that, whenever [the Jews] wept, though their tears were deceitful, they were delivered from the hands of their enemies. Therefore, as God sends his sun indiscriminately on the evil and on the good, so he despises not the tears of those who have a good cause, and whose sorrows are deserving of relief. Meanwhile, though he hears them, it has no more to do with salvation than the supply of food which he gives to other despisers of his goodness." (Inst. III.xx.15) Calvin argues based upon Matthew 5:45, that God answers the prayers of the wicked. Is this not a general favorable attitude toward the wicked?

In the Chapter on man being deprived of free will, Calvin says that the natural abilities that men possess must be "ascribed to the Divine Indulgence." (Inst. II.ii.17) What is Divine Indulgence, but a result of a general favorable attitude toward all mankind.

2. Common Operations of the Spirit

This second point is much easier to prove because Calvin is more explicit. We will only look at two passages. The first one is in regard to how the Spirit works in all men. Calvin writes,

"Moreover, let us not forget that there are most excellent blessings which the Divine Spirit dispenses to whom he will for the common benefit of mankind. For if the skill and knowledge required for the construction of the Tabernacle behaved to be imparted to Bezaleel and Aholiab, by the Spirit of God, (Exod. 31: 2; 35: 30,) it is not strange that the knowledge of those things which are of the highest excellence in human life is said to be communicated to us by the Spirit. Nor is there any ground for asking what concourse the Spirit can have with the ungodly, who are altogether alienated from God? For what is said as to the Spirit dwelling in believers only, is to be understood of the Spirit of holiness by which we are consecrated to God as temples. Notwithstanding of this, He fills, moves, and invigorates all things by the virtue of the Spirit, and that according to the peculiar nature which each class of beings has received by the Law of Creation. But if the Lord has been pleased to assist us by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics, dialectics, mathematics, and other similar sciences, let us avail ourselves of it, lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously offered to us, we be justly punished for our sloth." (Inst. II.ii.16)

Calvin makes a distinction between how the Spirit works in the hearts of believers, and how He works in all men. The work of the Spirit in believers is a salvific work, which Calvin refers to as "the Spirit of holiness." The work of the Spirit in all men in general is non-saving and is seen in how the Spirit who is the "Lord and giver of life" gives to men their natural gifts and abilities.

The second passage refers to how God restrains sin keeping men from wandering after every sin. Calvin says,

"But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it, (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14: 3, &c.) What? Can you exempt yourself from the number of those whose feet are swift to shed blood; whose hands are foul with rapine and murder; whose throats are like open sepulchres; whose tongues are deceitful; whose lips are venomous; whose actions are useless, unjust, rotten, deadly; whose soul is without God; whose inward parts are full of wickedness; whose eyes are on the watch for deception; whose minds are prepared for insult; whose every part, in short, is framed for endless deeds of wickedness? If every soul is capable of such abominations, (and the Apostle declares this boldly,) it is surely easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit human passion to follow its bent. No ravenous beast would rush so furiously, no stream, however rapid and violent, so impetuously burst its banks. In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things." (Inst. II.iii.3)

Calvin makes a very interesting statement here, which ought to make common grace deniers uncomfortable. Notice in the first sentence he says that "notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint." He uses the term grace without a salvific reference. Could we say that this is common grace?

These two passages are sufficient, I think, as proof of the second point being taught by Calvin. Let us move on to the next and final one.

3. The Ability of Man to Do Civil Good

Again, there are only two passages to be consider here. In the first one, Calvin compares two men from ancient Roman history; one a wicked man, the other a morally upright man; both were unregenerate. Calvin says,

"The objection, however, is not yet solved. For we must either put Cataline on the same footing with Camillus, or hold Camillus to be an example that nature, when carefully cultivated, is not wholly void of goodness. I admit that the specious qualities which Camillus possessed were divine gifts, and appear entitled to commendation when viewed in themselves. But in what way will they be proofs of a virtuous nature? Must we not go back to the mind, and from it begin to reason thus? If a natural man possesses such integrity of manners, nature is not without the faculty of studying virtue. But what if his mind was depraved and perverted, and followed anything rather than rectitude? Such it undoubtedly was, if you grant that he was only a natural man. How then will you laud the power of human nature for good, if, even where there is the highest semblance of integrity, a corrupt bias is always detected? Therefore, as you would not commend a man for virtue whose vices impose upon you by a show of virtue, so you will not attribute a power of choosing rectitude to the human will while rooted in depravity, (see August. lib. 4, Cont. Julian.) Still, the surest and easiest answer to the objection is, that those are not common endowments of nature, but special gifts of God, which he distributes in divers forms, and, in a definite measure, to men otherwise profane. For which reason, we hesitate not, in common language, to say, that one is of a good, another of a vicious nature; though we cease not to hold that both are placed under the universal condition of human depravity. All we mean is that God has conferred on the one a special grace which he has not seen it meet to confer on the other." (Inst.II.iii.4)

Notice again how Calvin uses the term "grace" in a non-salvific manner. He even calls it a "special grace" that God bestows upon certain men who are unregenerate. Be that as it may, the point of this passage is to prove that unregenerate men are capable of civil good. Camillus was able to do good works, although he is considered to be a profane man. Calvin obviously doesn't mean that Camillus was able to do spiritual or saving good, but he does mean that he is able to do upright things without any saving benefit. This is what is meant by "civil good."

The second passage is referring to the second use of the law, which is to curb sin in the wicked. Calvin writes,

"The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice. Such persons are curbed not because their mind is inwardly moved and affected, but because, as if a bridle were laid upon them, they refrain their hands from external acts, and internally check the depravity which would otherwise petulantly burst forth. It is true, they are not on this account either better or more righteous in the sight of God. For although restrained by terror or shame, they dare not proceed to what their mind has conceived, nor give full license to their raging lust, their heart is by no means trained to fear and obedience. Nay, the more they restrain themselves, the more they are inflamed, the more they rage and boil, prepared for any act or outbreak whatsoever were it not for the terror of the law. And not only so, but they thoroughly detest the law itself, and execrate the Lawgiver; so that if they could, they would most willingly annihilate him, because they cannot bear either his ordering what is right, or his avenging the despisers of his Majesty. The feeling of all who are not yet regenerate, though in some more, in others less lively, is, that in regard to the observance of the law, they are not led by voluntary submission, but dragged by the force of fear. Nevertheless, this forced and extorted righteousness is necessary for the good of society, its peace being secured by a provision but for which all things would be thrown into tumult and confusion." (Inst. II.vii.10)

One might say that this passage of Calvin does not teach that man can do civil good. It only teaches that man is curbed from allowing his thoughts to break out into sin. However, when a man does not do one thing he will do another thing in its place. When man is restrained by the law from doing any evil, he will do something good in its place. Albeit, as Calvin points out, this does not make him better or more righteous in God's sight, but, nevertheless, we can still say that the good thing the wicked man did was, indeed, good.

Conclusion

Did Calvin teach common grace? Dr. H. Kuiper shows that Calvin only uses the epithet "common" with the term "grace" only four times and in two of these instances he is speaking of "special" grace (Berkhof 434). Calvin did not teach common grace in so many words. However, I have, I think, sufficiently demonstrated that Calvin taught 1) a divine favorable attitude toward all men, 2) that Spirit works in all men endowing them with natural abilities and restraining sin in their lives, and 3) that men are capable of doing civil good. Is this common grace? We may quibble for hours about the word "common" and the word "grace," but the idea is expressed in the three points, which are all taught by Calvin. You know the old saying, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck," well, you get the picture.

Summary of Paul Tripp's Marriage Seminar

2009-02-21T19:51:00.002-06:00

This Friday and Saturday, Crystal and I attended a Paul Tripp seminar on marriage entitled "What Did You Expect?" Although I can't remember what my expectations were going into marriage (it was so looong ago :p ), my expectations for the conference were certainly met and then some. Paul Tripp is an excellent speaker, and what he says is always challenging (and at times painful). We were both challenged by the idea that every part of marriage needs to be centered on the kingdom of God not on the kingdom of ourselves.

Crystal has a nice "summary" of the seminar here.

First RP Conference on Practical Theology: The War for Poverty, Is Now Online

2009-02-17T11:55:00.003-06:00

The second annual Conference on Practical Theology held at First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Grand Rapids was held two weekends ago on Feb. 7. It was well attended, and those who came can attest that the messages delivered by Rev. Barry York of Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church were both powerful and challenging. It is my pleasure to announce that the lectures are now available online.

First Lecture: Heeding Our Warrior King's Call as We Worship

Second Lecture: Establishing the Command Post

Final Message: Sending Out the Foot Soldiers

Hear, now, from John Calvin on this most important matter:

"Is it then true, you will ask, that it is a more complete summary of righteousness to live innocently with men, than piously towards God? By no means; but because no man, as a matter of course, observes charity in all respects, unless he seriously fear God, such observance is a proof of piety also. To this we may add, that the Lord, well knowing that none of our good deeds can reach him, (as the Psalmist declares, Psalm 16: 2,) does not demand from us duties towards himself, but exercises us in good works towards our neighbour. Hence the Apostle, not without cause, makes the whole perfection of the saints to consist in charity, (Eph. 3: 19; Col. 3: 14.) And in another passage, he not improperly calls it the "fulfilling of the law," adding, that "he that loveth another has fulfilled the law," (Rom. 13: 8.) And again, "All the law is fulfilled in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," (Gal. 5: 14.) For this is the very thing which Christ himself teaches when he says, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets," (Matth. 7: 12.) It is certain that, in the law and the prophets, faith, and whatever pertains to the due worship of God, holds the first place, and that to this charity is made subordinate; but our Lord means, that in the Law the observance of justice and equity towards men is prescribed as the means which we are to employ in testifying a pious fear of God, if we truly possess it." (Institutes II.viii.53)

Calvin on the Distinction Between Necessity and Compulsion

2009-02-12T11:09:00.004-06:00

"Saying that we sin necessarily is rather harsh. Moreover, it is an absurdity and makes it so that we are not responsible for our sin." This was an objection to both Augustine's and Calvin's view of the bondage of the will. Some thought that their understanding of the fallen will as enslaved to sin and able to do nothing but sin destroyed the voluntariness of man's sinning and therefore made it so that man could not be held morally culpable for his own sinful actions. According to the objectors, freedom of the will means that the will has the ability to do either good or evil and can by its own strength choose to do either. Any kind of necessity, they assert, is repugnant to freedom.

Both Calvin's and Augustine's responses to this objection are similar: necessity is not the same as compulsion or coercion. Calvin writes, "When I say that the will, deprived of liberty, is led or dragged by necessity to evil, it is strange that any should deem the expression harsh, seeing there is no absurdity in it, and it is not at variance with pious use. It does, however, offend those who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion." (Inst. II.iii.5) When we sin, Calvin asserts, we sin voluntarily; no one is forcing us to do a particular sinful action. However, since our wills are in bondage to sin, everything that proceeds from the will of man is necessarily evil; therefore, man can do nothing but sin. To drive his point home, Calvin demonstrates the difference of necessity and compulsion from both the character of God and of the devil.

Were any to ask them, Is not God necessarily good, is not the devil necessarily wicked, what answer would they give? The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas, the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness, that he can do nothing but evil. Should any one give utterance to the profane jeer, that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil? Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning? (Inst. II.iii.5)

God is not less free because he necessarily does good, and the devil does not sin less voluntarily because he can do nothing but evil. Man, therefore, cannot be said to be less free in his sinful choices because he sins voluntarily. Calvin does not deny that man was totally free in his original choice to sin. Adam and Eve had the power to do good and the power to choose good or evil. Calvin agrees with Augustine, who said, "Man through liberty became a sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity." (Inst. II.iii.5)

To sum it all up Calvin says, "Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil." (Inst. II.iii.5)

But what about the doctrine of divine providence, isn't Calvin's teaching that "whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God" repugnant to freedom? Doesn't this also make God the author of sin?

Calvin shows how, first of all, God is not the author of sin by looking at the example of Job, whom the Lord allowed Satan to afflict by means of Chaldean adversaries. He says that we need to first look to the end and then to the mode of acting. "The Lord designs," he writes, "to exercise the patience of his servant by adversity; Satan's plan is to drive him to despair; while the Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder." (Inst. II.iv.2) In the mode of acting we see God permitting Satan to afflict Job; while he hands the Chaldeans over to the impulses of Satan, who then instigates them to commit the crime against Job (Inst. II.iv.2). As we look into this example, we see that, secondly, Calvin does not destroying his earlier distinction between necessity and compulsion.

God did not force Satan into afflicting Job; neither did God force the Chaldeans to plunder Job's goods. Satan was all too willing to afflict Job, and the Chaldeans were all too willing to plunder Job's goods. The Chaldeans can't even claim that Satan forced them to plunder. Calvin asserts that the will is not unwillingly and reluctantly forced by Satan to do his bidding; rather, "fascinated by the impostures of Satan, it necessarily yields to his guidance and does him homage." (Inst. II.iv.1)

Calvin is willing to say that God acts by more than just bare permission. Scripture, he points out, says that God blinds and hardens the reprobate, turns their hearts, and inclines and impels them. According to Calvin, there are two methods in which God so acts. The first is, by withdrawing his light and Spirit, he so blinds and hardens men, and causes them to stray from the right path. The second method is by using Satan as his instrument, he directs men's counsels, excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as he sees fit (Inst. II.iv.3). We see, once again, that the distinction between necessity and compulsion is not destroyed.

One may ask, what is the importance of the doctrine of man's bondage to sin and God's providential directing of all of man's affairs? Calvin gives plenty of application in his Institutes and in his treatises on the eternal predestination of God and on the bondage and liberation of the will. Rather than talk about all his applications, I will simply give you Calvin's "big picture." This whole discussion relates to Calvin's initial claim that "true and solid wisdom consists almost entirely of two parts: knowledge of God and of ourselves" (Inst. I.i.1). True knowledge of God is whatever is conducive to his glory, and true knowledge of ourselves tends to our humility. Certainly the doctrines of divine providence and of the bondage of the will to sin aims toward those two ends.

Deal of the Century

2009-02-07T18:43:00.003-06:00

Banner of Truth has reprinted the 7 Volume Tracks and Letters of John Calvin. For the entire year of 2009, they will be only $80. I own the Baker Book House edition of Calvin's Selected Writings, and I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed them. I consider them to be one of the best purchases I have ever made. What I can tell you is that $80 dollars for these volumes is a deal. It's times like these I wish I was a wealthy philanthropist so that I could buy a whole shipment of books to distribute to people. Alas, I am not wealthy so you'll have to come up with your own $80.

Calvin's Return to Geneva: Some Insights

2009-02-04T20:12:00.006-06:00

Geneva was not an easy city to minister in. This is, in fact, an understatement. It is more fitting to say that Geneva was a nightmare. From the time Calvin became the pastor of the Church in Geneva until he was banished by the city council a year and a half later, Calvin had to put up with opposition from city council, suspicion and hostility from many of the citizens, and threats to his life from angry mobs. After leaving Geneva, Calvin moved to Strassbourg and there became the pastor of the French refugee congregation. His years in Strassbourg were among the most peaceful, happy, and prosperous times. He revised his Institutes, published a commentary on Romans, married Idelette de Bure, and above all enjoyed relative serenity.

It was only a few years after his banishment that the Church of Geneva realized their mistake and began asking for Calvin to come back. Calvin's response to the Genevan call is very interesting. On the one hand, he had always retained a love and a sense of duty toward the Genevan Church, despite what he went through. In 1539 he wrote to them, "Here, therefore, with the most fervent salutation written by my own hand, do I supplicate the Lord Jesus, that he may protect you in his holy fortress of defense; that he may heap on you his gifts more and more; that he may restore your Church to due order, and specially, that he may fill you with his own spirit of gentleness, so that in the true conjunction of soul we may every one bestow ourselves in the promoting of his kingdom. Your most devoted, J. C."

On the other hand, when Calvin's friends urged him to return to Geneva he gave them an "over my dead body" response. In May of 1540, he wrote to Viret, "I read that passage in your letter, certainly not without a smile, where you shew so much concern about my health, and recommend Geneva on that ground. Why could you not have said at the cross? for it would have been far preferable to perish once for all than to be tormented again in that place of torture. Therefore, my dear Viret, if you wish well to me, make no mention of such a proposal."

We should not read Calvin's negative response to the Genevan call as an unwillingness to return. Rather, we need to see it terms of an intense internal struggle. If it was up to Calvin to decide, he would rather stay in Strassbourg, but he knew that the decision was not his to make. Calvin was the ready servant of the Lord. If the Lord should so order that Calvin return to Geneva, he was ready to offer his heart "a slain sacrifice to the Lord." Slowly it became clear that it was God's desire that Calvin should return to Geneva. Though Calvin was now more willing to return, he was still reluctant, yet he was completely resolved to do the Lord's will. He wrote to Farel in August 1541, "As to my intended course of proceeding, this is my present feeling: had I the choice at my own disposal, nothing would be less agreeable to me than to follow your advice. But when I remember that I am not my own, I offer up my heart, presented as a sacrifice to the Lord. Therefore there is no ground for your apprehension that you will only get fine words. Our friends are in earnest, and promise sincerely. As for myself, I protest that I have no other desire than that, setting aside all consideration of me, they may look only to what is most for the glory of God and the advantage of the Church. Although I am not very ingenious, I would not want pretexts by which I might adroitly slip away, so that I should easily excuse myself in the sight of men, and shew that it was no fault of mine. I am well aware however, that it is God with whom I have to do, from whose sight such crafty imaginations cannot be withheld. Therefore I submit my will and my affections, subdued and held-fast, to the obedience of God; and whenever I am at a loss for counsel of my own, I submit myself to those by whom I hope that the Lord himself will speak to me."

It is noteworthy that Calvin does not discharge himself from his duties in Strassbourg, but waits until he is relieved of them by the Church and Council of Strassbourg. Calvin shows himself here to be both a man of strong convictions and a man who is willing to submit himself to the brethren.

Finally, on September 13th, 1541, Calvin returned to Geneva and was warmly and graciously received. Three days later he wrote to Farel, "As you wished, I am settled here; may the Lord overule it for good." Though Calvin was apprehensive, he knew that it was the Lord's will. He also knew that there were troubles ahead of him, yet he had confidence that "when you have Satan to combat, and you fight under Christ's banner, He who girds on your armour and has drawn you into the battle, will give you the victory."

Calvin's second time in Geneva was full of struggles, but it was blessed by God. It took several more years for Calvin's reforms to be put into practice, but he faithfully continued to minister. And after many setbacks and struggles Geneva became the Reformed City of the World. John Knox could describe it as "the most perfect school of Christ since the time of the apostles." In 1559, Calvin was honored by the city council of Geneva when they bestowed upon him full citizenship. Interestingly enough, eight years after Calvin returned to Geneva, Bucer and other reformed pastors, along with the French congregation Calvin ministered to were ordered by edict of the Emporer out of the city of Strassbourg. Bucer spent the rest of his years exiled in England. Who knows what would have become of Calvin if he had stayed in Strassbourg?

There are some important insights I think we can draw from all this. First, we who are pursuing the ministry and who are already in it must always remember, as the Heidelberg Catechism states, that we, with body and soul, both in life and in death belong to our faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. We are not in ministry for ourselves; we are in ministry to serve Jesus Christ. If we are to be his disciples we must always remember that true discipleship consists of self-denial and cross-bearing. If Christ calls us to go where we would rather not go; we must be willing and ready to place our wills and affections under obedience to God. If you think that going into the ministry is a good way to attain status, wealth, and comfort, then you are not a true follower of Christ, nor are you a true minister of Christ.

Second, we should follow Calvin's example of submitting himself to others. Though he was willing to do whatever the Lord bid him to do, he did not see that as isolated from what fellow brethren in ministry would recommend to him. Calvin believed that God worked through means, and one of those means was fellow ministers. When the fellow ministers of the Church agreed that he should go to Geneva, and discharged him of his duties, he took it as if they were speaking for God. We ought never be mavericks in ministry. God calls us to submit ourselves to our fellow ministers, and view them as both fathers and brothers, seeking wisdom from them and heeding their advice.

Third, success in ministry is not measured in terms of how well plans are implemented, how many people are persuaded by your preaching, or how much status you achieve.
Rather, success is measured in how faithfully you execute your ministry. At the end of his life Calvin was not boasting about how well he reformed the city, how much influence he had gained, or how much wealth he had accumulated (Calvin actually was dirt poor all his life); rather he simply states, "I have endeavored to preach the Word purely and chastely, and faithfully to interpret the Sacred Scriptures...I have used no impostures, no wicked and sophisticated devices, but have acted candidly and sincerely in defending the truth." And he goes on to say, "I trust no other security for my salvation than this...that as God is the Father of mercy, he will show himself such a Father to me, who acknowledge myself to be a miserable sinner." Calvin was a sinner saved by grace, and the only thing that mattered to him was that he was faithful to his only Savior, Jesus Christ. No matter what the difficulties are that lie ahead in our ministries, we must always remember that we are sinners saved by grace, and that we are to be faithful to Christ no matter how hard our calling may be.

May God grant us that we might be like Calvin, not in his unique ability and genius, nor even in his circumstances, but in his being a faithful and willing servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where Should I Begin With Calvin?

2009-01-24T13:25:00.018-06:00

It is my hope that this year many Christians will be motivated to read John Calvin's Institutes. Not everyone is up to the challenge, although it is my personal conviction that there is no good reason why any Christian with an average American reading ability can't make it through the Institutes. A good reading plan has been made available through Princeton Seminary that will get one through the Institutes in a year. I highly recommend to anyone interested in reading Calvin's Institutes to use this plan. Calvin's writing style is very accessible to modern readers, and I think that anyone who has read through the Bible in a year is able to read through the Institutes in a year.

That being said, there will still be those who want a quicker, easier way to read Calvin. Though I urge everyone to read Calvin's unabridged Institutes, I would rather people read abridgements than no Calvin at all. Thankfully there are some very good abridgements available (Note: the following list is not exhaustive. If there are others that you know of which you think are better, feel free to comment).

There are three abridgements that I have found to be very good. The first is The Institutes of the Christian Religion edited by Tony Lane and Hilary Osbourne. Careful selections are taken from the Institutes by Tony Lane and the English of Henry Beveridge's translation is modernized by Hilary Osbourne. This one might be one of the most popular abridgements.

The second is Calvin's Institutes: A New Compend. Hugh T. Kerr does a fine job of editing selections from the Battle's translation edited by John T. McNeill. His earlier compendium of the Institutes was based upon Allen's translation. Both are probably my favorite abridgements.

The third is called Biblical Christianity. This one is published by Grace Publications. It is more a summary than an abridgement, though it does remain faithful to Calvin's theology. My only real complaint is that it only goes through Book Three of the Institutes.

If you want to read more than just the Institutes, I would highly recommend getting John Calvin Steward of God's Covenant edited by John Thornton and Susan Varenne. This is a wonderful selection from Calvin's Institutes, sermons, commentaries, and treatises. There is even a fine selection of Calvin's prayers toward the end. I do not recommend reading the preface by Marilynne Robinson, though. It is full of the tired old misrepresentations of John Calvin that have no support from history except from the enemies of Calvin.

Other good selections are Day by Day With John Calvin by Mark Fackler, Philip Christman, Donald Dumbacher, and Paul Stob and 365 Days With Calvin by Joel Beeke. Both take selections from Calvin's sermons and put them into a daily devotional format.

There is no good substitute for reading the actual unabridged Calvin. However, these selections are helpful for getting people into the Reformer's works who would otherwise not read him. I hope that you will take the time to read Calvin this year. Seriously consider reading the actual Institutes, but if you can't, at least take the time to read one or more of these abridgements and selections.

Note: Every one of these books can be found through either Reformation Heritage Books or Amazon.com. Biblical Christianity can be found at Grace Publications.

500 Years Later, Is Calvin Still Relevant?

2009-01-16T11:18:00.010-06:00

Unless you have been living under a historical theological rock, you are aware that this year is the 500^th anniversary of the great reformer, John Calvin. Scholars are busy this year preparing lectures and writing books about the great Reformer. No doubt, many will attend conferences about him. Meanwhile, the Western world is undergoing a shift away from modernity and modernism, a period of history and a way of thinking that many now deem irrelevant. Calvin belongs to modernity (but not modernism, which I shall show later). If it is true, as many postmodern and emergent Christians say, that modernity with all its absolutes, lack of tradition, and all its lack of mystery is out, postmodernity with all its questioning, mystery, aesthetics, and ritual is in, then it would seem that Calvin, as great a man as he was for his time, may not be the man for today. In fact, Calvin just might be an embarrassment to the Church. After all, who wants to be associated with the man who burned Servetus? Burning candles is in vogue, but burning people for heresy is passé.

I have just mentioned one caricature of Calvin, and there are plenty more that are still going around despite the scholarship that has been successfully done to dispel false notions about the man and his theology. These caricatures feed the idea that Calvin is outmoded, outdated, and irrelevant for the Church trying to be "missional" and engage the twenty-first century culture. I am sad to report that it is not only those who belong to the emergent church that see Calvin as irrelevant, but also those who belong to Reformed Churches that have historically toed the Calvinistic line.

What are we to make of all this? On the one hand, postmodernism and the emergent church present a formidable challenge to Reformed Churches, so the temptation is there for many to cave in and reformulate Reformed Churches along the lines that some emergent leaders have called for (See Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy). On the other hand, the specter of Calvin has been haunting the world the past five hundred years, and it is clear that he is not going away anytime soon. We need, therefore, to reckon with him. We need to examine his theology. We need to know why he is not going away, and if he has anything relevant to say today. It is my contention that Calvin is eminently relevant for today, not just for Reformed Christians, but for all Christians who want to influence their culture for Christ, and I hope to prove that in five propositions.

How is Calvin Relevant to the Twenty-First Century?

1. Though Calvin belongs to the period of modernity, his theology is not properly modernistic.

Calvin, it is true, was a man of his times. He was, as a young student, caught up in the humanism of his day (Cottret, 53). Much of his Institutes reveal him as a man who was well versed in humanistic studies. But when he embraced evangelical religion, he left off the study of the humanities and turned to the Word of God. The final edition of the Institutes was a product of years of exegetical reflection upon the sacred text.

Calvin was a man deeply ingrained with the Word of God. What was not of Christ did not belong in religion. His comment on 1 Corinthians 11:23 reflects his entire theology: "Return, then, to the original source. Thus, bidding adieu to human laws, the authority of Christ will be maintained in its stability." Again on 1 Corinthians 1:23 he says, "We must carefully notice these two things—that a knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science of Christ is wanting; and man, with all his acuteness, is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God, as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies. For in this way he reproves the destructive pride of those who glory in the wisdom of the world so as to despise Christ, and the entire doctrine of salvation, thinking themselves happy when they are taken up with creatures; and he beats down the arrogance of those who, trusting to their own understanding, attempt to scale heaven itself."

It is important to note that Calvin, first of all, does not view other sciences as unworthy of our study; rather, he wants us to see them in their proper place, and secondly, he is adamant that the only normative rule of religion is the Word of God. Man, for all his learning, cannot speak with any authority about matters of religion unless inspired by God or directed by the Word of God. Calvin is at great pains to bring his theology under the authority of Christ. Merle d'Aubigné said, "Christ's gospel is what Calvin, the doctor of ancient as well as of modern times, glorified foremost in his life. The Reformer was not willing to select among the traditions of men, and to preserve the least anti-scriptural; he put them all aside, to set up in their place the Word of God only. Let all the idols of men perish, and let Christ's glory remain alone. That was the great mainspring of his life." (Let Christ Be Magnified, 11) It is for this reason that Calvin's theology cannot be properly called modernistic. It transcends modernity because Christ transcends modernity. It is relevant today because Christ is relevant today.

I am not now advocating repristination of his theology. Obviously doctrinal development has occurred and must occur. As times change, new controversies and issues arise, and theology must develop in order to address current issues. But development does not mean the same thing as tearing down old structures and putting up new ones. Theological development means building upon the old but solid foundations. This we need to do today with Calvin's theology.

2. Calvin is a witness to the truth of Christ.

"But should any one object, that to write the Life of Calvin is a very different thing from defending the truth, I will at once admit that man and truth are very different things; this, however, I will not hesitate to say, that He who is truth itself did not speak rashly when he said, 'As the Father hath sent me, so send I you,' (John 20:21) and 'whoso heareth you heareth me,' (Luke 10:16).'" Thus spoke Theodore Beza in the preface to his Life of Calvin (Calvin's Selected Works, Vol. 1). He was eager to lay aside the charge that they worshipped the Reformers as gods, but he was also desirous to let the enemies of the Reformed Church know that Calvin and the Reformers were witnesses to the truth.

One of the roles of Christians is that of witnesses. They are to speak to the world both of what they have seen and heard concerning Christ. As witnesses they are not to speak for themselves but for Christ. In fact, those who hear them hear not only the witnesses themselves but also Christ. Those who reject them reject Christ.

There have been times in the Church when the truth was eclipsed by darkness and ignorance. It is usually in these times that God in His grace and mercy calls men and endows them with great abilities to testify to the truth before a world that hates the truth. These men were so gifted by God that the power of their testimony is still felt today. Calvin was one of these men.

Calvin was such a powerful witness in his day that even his enemies acknowledged it. But Calvin's testimony to the truth did not end when he died. He left many books, commentaries, treatises, and letters behind all declaring the truth of Christ. These are all a gift to the Church to be treasured. Calvin has carefully preserved in his writings a Christ-centered theology for posterity to read and study. So long as the truth of Christ is relevant, Calvin is relevant.

3. The Spirit of Calvinism is missional.

The watchword of the emerging church is "missional." There is nothing wrong with this word. In fact, not to be missional is not to be biblical. Now, we need to properly understand what is meant by "missional". There are some (the emerging churches, liberal churches) who think the mission of the church has more to do with relationships, community, and mercy ministries without necessarily having any gospel focus; there are others (often this caricature of modern evangelical churches is true) whose evangelistic zeal has caused them to make objects out of converts, having concern more for numbers than for sincere conversions and for the physical needs of those in their communities.

The proper mission of the Church, however, is to bring the gospel first and foremost to lost sinners AND to build relationships and care for others. The Church must have this inward and outward focus because the gospel is holistic, encompassing not only the saving of the soul but also of the body. The gospel is not only about saving individuals but also gathering those individuals into a community of faith under the headship and care of Jesus Christ.

It was not long after Calvin's conversion to the evangelical faith that we see him roaming the countryside preaching the gospel, visiting homes, and writing sermons to instruct people in the faith. While he was doing all this he was often in peril of losing his life. Such was his missional spirit that he cared not for his life, but willingly gave it to the service of his Lord.

As the pastor of Geneva Calvin did more than care for the soul, he cared also for the whole person. "Observe him," writes Merle d'Aubingé, "in his care of souls, in his visits to the sick, to the stranger, to the magistrates, and to the poor. He ascends to the garret; he is not contented with the city, he traverses the suburbs, and recalls the dissolute to their duty…There is no church which he does not direct; no minister whom he does not encourage; no prisoner and martyr whom he does not console. His whole life glorifies the Lord." (45)

Let the notion that Calvin was not missional be dispelled forever. He embodied the term in its fullest sense. His whole life was driven by one thing: to give glory to God in all things. This missional spirit is his legacy to the Church.

4. Calvin provides us with a way to engage culture without conforming to culture.

Let us first look at what aspects of Calvin's theology help us in engaging culture, and then we will look at what aspects help us not to conform to it.

First of all are his doctrines of the knowledge of God, of Scripture, of man in the image of God, of creation, common grace, and of the last things.

By knowledge of God Calvin meant "that by which we not only conceive that there is some God, but also apprehend what it is for our interest, and conducive to his glory, what, in short, it is befitting to know concerning him." (Inst. I.ii.1) This knowledge is possible for man, firstly, because "there exists in the human mind…some sense of Deity" (Inst. I.iii.1), which proves that man is capable of knowing God; secondly, because God has revealed himself not only conspicuously in creation in which "both the heavens and the earth present us with innumerable proofs" (Inst. I.v.2), but also in his Word "as a surer and more direct means of discovering himself." (Inst. I.vi.1) This Word is made sure to us by "the secret testimony of the Spirit." (Inst.I.vii.4) With this assurance that man can know God and that He has revealed Himself by the sure means of His Word and Spirit, we can boldly bring the message of the gospel to the culture around us.

In creation we see "the paternal goodness of God toward the human race, in not creating Adam until he had liberally enriched the earth with all good things." (Inst. I.xiv.2) God gave to Adam and Eve everything they needed for sustenance, work, and enjoyment. Without these things we cannot have a culture. What God created was good and was for man to use for the glory of God and his enjoyment. Moreover, God created man in His own image. "By this term is denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker." (Inst. 1.xv.3) Without this image of God man could not make use of all the good things God enriched him with. Man could not build, paint, sculpt, produce, farm, etc., without being made in the image of God.

Man did not remain in his integrity; he fell into sin. "Although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity." (Inst. I.xv.4) Man did not lose his capacity as a cultural being; however, this is only attributed to the goodness of God showed through common grace. "Had not God so spared us, our revolt would have carried along with it the entire destruction of nature. In that some excel in acuteness, and some in judgment, while others have greater readiness in learning some peculiar art, God, by this variety, commends his favour toward us, lest any presume to arrogate to himself that which flows from his mere liberality." (Inst. II.ii.17) We can still take part in cultural activities, and even enjoy them, especially as regenerated Christians.

The final doctrine which helps us to engage the culture is Calvin's doctrine of the last things. There is nothing in Calvin of the escapist mentality we see in the Left Behind religion. "Faith, in apprehending the love of God, grasps thereby the promises of life present and future…But wherever there is this lively faith, it cannot but always bring with it the hope of eternal salvation, or rather engender and produce it." (Inst. III.ii.28 and 42, qtd. in Wendel, 285) Far from causing us to retreat to our bunkers and basements, the doctrine of the last things ought to impel us to live more godly and righteously in the world. "Our present condition, therefore, requires us to 'live soberly, righteously, and godly;' 'looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'" (Inst. III.xxv.1) And, "The very importance of the subject ought to increase our ardour." (Inst. III.xxv.3)

Secondly, Calvin's doctrine of the depravity of man is what helps us not to conform to culture.

The Scriptures teach that we are to "be not conformed to this world," (Rom. 12:2) and that "all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father." (1 John 2:16) These verses and others are not admonitions to flee culture; rather, they are admonitions to avoid what is sinful in culture. "The whole man," says Calvin, "from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, is so deluged, as it were, that no part remains exempt from sin, and, therefore, everything which proceeds from him is imputed as sin." (Inst. II.ii.9) Man is corrupt; therefore, culture, which is an establishment of man, is also corrupt. Thankfully, because of common grace, culture is not a cesspool of every kind of wickedness; nevertheless, it is still corrupt. Christians must be discerning when engaging culture. What is not conforming to the pattern of Scripture must be rejected. If the pattern of culture is modernism (not a pattern of Scripture), the Church must not conform to modernism. If the pattern of culture is postmodernism (also not a pattern of Scripture), the Church must not conform to postmodernism. Both are patterns of sin and rebellion against God.

The Church in all things must be transformed by the renewing of mind, must make every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and be imitators of Christ.

5. Calvin provides us with a proper balance between mystery and certainty.

One of the critiques the emerging church has of the modern church is that they have no sense of mystery. Systematizing of Christian truth and religious certitude based on foundationalism, according to them, remove the beauty and the mystery of the Bible; whereas, beauty and mystery are somehow preserved by pluralism and relativism.

One of the problems with the emerging church's critique of foundationalism is that they are overly reductionistic. They mistake anything that is structured or systematic with foundationalism (I have found Jeffery Waddington's essay in Reforming or Conforming? very helpful here). Theology that is structured or systematic, however, is not necessarily based on foundationalism. To be sure, some theologians have adopted foundationalism, such as is found in reformed epistemology, as their apologetic starting point. But not all theologians have adopted foundationalism. Actually, the concept of starting point is very important in this discussion, for the starting point determines the outcome of the theology.

Calvin does not begin his Institutes like many other theologies began; he does not begin with a discussion of the proofs for the existence of God. For him, the existence of God is so plainly manifested in creation, and is so acknowledged by the human conscience, although unrighteously suppressed, that theistic proofs are redundant. Furthermore, theistic proofs, though helpful in making man more inexcusable, do not have the ability to bring man to a saving knowledge of God.

Calvin prefers to have his starting point with Scripture. "If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture." (Inst. I.vi. 2) Having the Word of God as one's starting point is necessary for Calvin because, on the one hand, man is not capable of attaining to the true knowledge of God without a sure guide, and, on the other hand, man, in prideful curiosity, has a tendency to peer into things he should not peer into.

Calvin's theology not only begins with the Word of God but it ends with it. Where Scripture goes Calvin goes; where it breaks off, he is content to break off. "Let us here remember that on the whole subject of religion one rule of modesty and soberness is to be observed, and it is this—in obscure matters not to speak or think, or even long to know, more than the Word of God has delivered. A second rule is, that in reading the Scriptures we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not indulge in curiosity, or in studying things of no use." (Inst. I.xiv.4) In the chapter on how God works in the hearts of men Calvin writes, "Ancient writers sometimes manifest a supersticious dread of making a simple confession of the truth in this matter, from a fear of furnishing impiety with a handle for speaking irreverently of the works of God. While I embrace such soberness with all my heart, I cannot see the least danger in simply holding out what Scripture delivers." (Inst. II.iv.3)

This starting point, or better yet, foundation (not foundationalism), gives Calvin's theology a proper balance between certainty and mystery. On the one hand, what the Scriptures teach we can know for certain because Scripture is accompanied "by an assurance higher and stronger than human judgments can give" (Inst. I.viii.1). On the other hand, we must retain a sense of mystery at the Being of God and of His dealings with men because Scripture only goes so far in its teachings.

Calvin's theology enables us to retain religious certainty without swinging over into rationalism, and it helps us keep a sense of the beauty and mystery of God without falling into mysticism.

Conclusion

I am pleased that there is going to be a lot of people studying Calvin this year, and I hope that the celebration of his anniversary will generate more interest among Christians. His theology, I hope I have proved, is eminently practical and remarkably relevant for the needs of the Church today. I know my discussion here has been aimed at those within the emergent church. I hope some of them will have listened to what I have to say. I hope also my discussion has been helpful and that it will lead them to reconsider some of their presuppositions about the Church in general and the Reformed Church in particular, about Calvin, and about what it means to be relevant.

A Prayer of Calvin for the New Year

2009-01-01T13:25:00.003-06:00

Grant, almighty God, since we are so prone to error, that thy truth may always shine upon us amidst the darkness of the world. Grant also that we may look upon it with open eyes, and subject ourselves to thee with true humility, so that being governed by both thy Word and Spirit, we may fulfill our course and at length arrive at that happy rest, which thine only-begotten Son has prepared for us. Amen.

From Prayers of the Reformers compiled by Clyde Manschreck

Psalter Meditation for the New Year

2008-12-31T09:45:00.002-06:00

I have always found Psalm 90 to be a good Psalm to reflect upon for New Years Day. Here is a metrical version of it from The Psalter 1912:

Tune: Armstrong

1. Lord, through all the generations
Of the children of our race,
In our fears and tribulations,
Thou hast been our dwelling place.
Ere the vast and wide creation
By Thy word was caused to be,
Or the mountains held their station,
Thou art God eternally.

2. Each succeeding generation
At Thy mighty word appears;
Thou dost count in time's duration
One day as a thousand years.
Death, with swift and sudden warning,
Calls us from life's dream away,
Like the grass, green in the morning,
Withered ere the close of day.

3. In Thy wrath our spirits languish,
Sinful 'neath Thy searching eye;
All our days are passed in anguish,
In Thy wrath we pine and die.
Threescore years and ten we tarry,
Fourscore years the strong may stay,
Long the load of grief to carry,
Till at last we fly away.

4. Who can weigh Thy just displeasure,
Who can fear Thee as he ought?
Teach us now our days to measure
And to wisdom turn our thought.
Lord, return, regard our sadness;
With Thy servants now abide;
Fill our days with joy and gladness,
With Thy mercy satisfied.

5. Long the clouds of evil lower;
Bless us now with gladsome days;
Let Thy servants see Thy power,
Let their children learn Thy praise.
On us let the grace and beauty
Of the Lord our God remain,
Strengthen us for noble duty
That our work be not in vain.

May your New Year be filled with the blessing of the Lord.

Looking Forward to the 500th Anniversary of Calvin’s Birth

2008-12-30T23:45:00.004-06:00

As many of you well know, 2009 is the 500^th anniversary of the birth of one of the Church's greatest theologians, John Calvin. Conferences about John Calvin will abound next year, and, judging by what publishing companies have already put out this year, there is going to be a plethora of books about him. I also imagine that every blog that has a reformed bent to it will have a few things to say about Calvin as well.

My blog will be no exception. In honor of the esteemed Reformer, I have decided for the entire year to blog about the life and theology of John Calvin. Subjects of my postings will include Calvin as Pastor of Geneva, Calvin's doctrine of the knowledge of God, Calvin's theological method, Calvin's twofold knowledge of man and how it relates to his twofold knowledge of God, Calvin on total depravity, Calvin and Common Grace, Calvin and the offer of the gospel, Calvin and the Consensus Tigurinus, Calvin and the Calvinists, and a few others. I also plan to write reviews of biographies and studies of Calvin that I have found particularly helpful in my personal study of Calvin.

In writing about John Calvin, it is not my hope that I will write something original that will put my name in the registries of elite Calvin Scholars; rather my hope is to learn more about Calvin. We learn a lot about certain topics when we write about them. I hope I learn much more about Calvin this year. I hope you will too.

The Jesus of History

2008-12-24T14:55:00.005-06:00

Years ago there was an attempt to discover the Jesus of history. It was known as the Jesus Seminar. Those who took part began with the presupposition that anything supernatural or anything that made Jesus divine was ahistorical and must be rejected. The true historical Jesus, they contended, was much different than the Jesus of the Gospels. He was merely a Rabbi who taught great things but was misunderstood, not only by the Jews, but also by his disciples. It was his disciples, especially Paul, that perverted his teachings to form the Christianity that we know today. This is what the Jesus Seminar would have us believe. But how can we take the word of a handful of scholars who had to vote what was true to history and what was not in the Gospels?

The Gospels and the Epistles of Paul were written by those who were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. We who believe can bear witness to the fact that the Holy Spirit has testified to us that these words are true. The Gospels and the Epistles are not the only testimonies to Christ. We also have the prophets of the Old Testament who prophesied of the coming Christ. They prophesied that he would do wondrous miracles. They prophesied that He would pay for our sins on the cross. They even prophesied that He was the divine Son of God come in human flesh.

The Jesus of the Bible IS the historical Jesus. The many testimonies to that fact are overwhelming. But the most convincing testimony is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit testifies to us, and we know the Spirit of God when we confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:2).

This past season the Church across the world commemorated the birth of our Lord Jesus. Sadly, all too often the Church gets caught up in worldly sentimentality, and many Christians, especially American Christians, are ensnared by the consumerism and materialism that has been regrettably associated with this time of year. The Jesus of the sentimentalists and the materialists is not the Jesus of history. Christ did not come into the world to make us feel good and to give us things.

The Jesus of history came into the world to save His people from their sins. The name Jesus means "Jehovah Saves." The world is blinded to this one great fact of history; even worse, the Church in many places seems also to be blinded to it. But the Bible, from beginning to end, is clear that this was the only reason why a man named Jesus was here on earth.

The Bible is also clear that in order for man to be reconciled to God, he must believe in Jesus Christ. He must confess the Lord Jesus Christ and believe that God has raised Him from the dead. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

Christ came in the fullness of time to redeem those who are under the curse of the law. The event of Christ's birth is the pivotal moment of history. All that has gone on before was in preparation for the advent of Christ. All that comes after is realization of the rule of Christ and looking forward to His second appearing.

If you do not know the Jesus of history, I implore you to study His word and put your trust in Him as the only Savior of the world.

Semester Almost Over

2008-12-06T17:12:00.004-06:00

I have just enough time to come out of my cave and blog a little. I haven't been in the blogosphere lately because it is crunch time at college. This was my last week of class, and next week is finals. Thankfully I only have one final exam and that is a take home exam which I am almost done with. Wednesday Crystal, Steven Jr. and I leave for Minnesota. We will be staying there for a few weeks. I hope to get a lot of reading done, and hopefully do some blogging.

If anyone is interested my son is now a model for Scarlet Stitch. You can view him here and here. He's on the bottom right in both pages. Cute ain't he.

Protecting Second Ammendment Rights at the Expense of Social Ostracization

2008-11-25T14:46:00.003-06:00

Want to keep your second ammendment rights? Be prepared to face harassment and discrimination. Just like this soccer mom did. That's right, I did say soccer mom. I hope this woman's children are proud of her; I would be.

New Calvin Devotional

2008-11-24T12:02:00.002-06:00

Some of you may be thinking that for Calvin's 500th birthday next year you want to read Calvin. If you are up to the task, I think you would profit the most from reading his Institutes. Most people are capable of reading through the Institutes in a year. However, I am fully aware of how time constraints and obligations can quickly get us off track. If you think that you won't be able to get through the Institutes in a year, the new devotional 365 Days with Calvin is the next best thing. Edited by Dr. Joel Beeke, the short daily readings are carefully selected from Calvin's commentaries and sermons. Though the Institutes show us the brilliance of Calvin's mind, his sermons and commentaries show the experiential warmth of his heart. The devotional is organized in a simple and straightforward manner. The selections from January through May are from his Old Testament commentaries; June through September, from his New Testament commentaries; October, from his sermons on Ephesians; November, from his sermons on Timothy, Titus, and 2 Samuel; and December, from his sermons on Galatians.

If you want to gain a better understanding of the genius of Geneva, but don't want to work through the Institute, then I highly recommend this book.

"We cannot help but notice when working with Calvin his stunning repertoire of diverse experiences that, by God's grace, produced a remarkably mature Christian. I trust that you, too, will find it a joy to sit at Calvin's feet." --Joel Beeke, from the Preface