The Bible has a lot to say about what is fair in the realm of provisions. The entire book of Proverbs outlines what the wise and hard working man and woman should generally expect and what the lazy and foolish person should expect. That is what makes the issue of socialism being raised right now so important for the Christian to consider. A friend of mine passed this video off to me today. I have to admit, it left me in awe. How can someone actually think this is good?

A few days ago I posted an Eric Alexander lecture titled, “Israel and the End Times.” I promised to post the other two lectures that he delivered at the 1999 Ligonier National Conference. The lecture below is one of the finest lessons on hermeneutics (i.e. principles of biblical interpretation) I have ever heard. I know you will enjoy it! As I mentioned in the previous post on these lectures, Ligonier owns the copyright–making it impossible for me to give you the mp3 download. You can purchase the tapes from Ligonier. You have to call and order them because they are not listed in their catalogue.

On Reading the Bible to the Congregation

You cannot download this message because it is copyrighted by Ligonier Ministries. You can call Ligonier and order this message together with the other two that he gave at their 1999 conference. I will be posting a link to the other two in the near future.

I don’t post a lot of pictures on this blog, but I wanted to put this one up from our trip to Hilton Head, Is. for a few reasons. It reminds me what a blessing children are from the Lord. It also reminds me that I should spend as much time as possible with my family.

While there are many introductions to the Reformed faith, I would like to recommend Joel Beeke’s new volume Living For God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism. This is an excellent well-rounded portrait of the Reformed faith that covers both TULIP and so much more. This is the book to give to family and friends who wonder what the big deal is that you are a Calvinist. It is thorough and winsome.

I also want to suggest a book by apologist William Lane Craig. You may be wondering how a Van Tillian could recommend a classical apologist’s work, but this should be no mystery. I read many books where I disagree with the author, even in fundamental matters. In other words, I find the desire to only read books we know we are going to agree with strange.

My point is that I often learn useful things from apologists in the other schools (classical, evidentialist, cumulative case, and Reformed Epistemology/Warrantism) and I am kept sharp. We Van Tillians do ourselves no favors when we ignore what other apologists are doing. Reasonable Faith is worth reading as Craig is one of the most accomplished apologists in our day. Some of the most interesting discussions about the cosmological argument can be found in his writings (especially the Kalaam argument) and he is probably unsurpassed in the area of examining the historical foundations for belief in the resurrection. Does he say all that needs to be said. No. But some of what he does say is still useful for us Van Tillians.

Please note that I am not arguing for an eclectic approach to apologetics. I am committed 100% to what has been called presuppositional apologetics but which I think would be better called Reformed covenantal apologetics. But we can take the nuggets of truth found in other apologetic methods and put them in their proper context. I am recommending what Augustine called “pludering the Egyptians” and what Scott Oliphint in his book The Battle Belongs to the Lord calls untwisting twisted truth. Now Oliphint is talking about truth embedded in unbelieving systems of thought. But if we can untwist the truth found in unbelieving systems of thought we can certainly untwist truth found in less consistent Christian thought. I am not ashamed to gain truth wherever I can find it.

At the end of the day, my concern is that Jesus Christ be magnified, that the Triune God of Scripture be vindicated. But also I want to see unbelievers brought to faith in Christ and my less consistent brothers and sisters brought to the only consistent form of Christianity in this world, the Reformed faith.

Soli Deo Gloria!

The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the fact. Even if he admits it, he admits it as a fact of nature till then unrecognised by him.

With Reformation Day rapidly approaching it seems appropriate to consider the origins of what we call the solas of the reformation (i.e. Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fidei, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria). Scott Clark has a helpful post outlining the history of these five tennets of the Protestant Reformation. You can read it here. If anyone is able to contribute more to the historical development of Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria, feel free to do so in the comment section of this post.

This past Sunday I had the enormous privilege of preaching at the historic Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Ga. Independent has seen such ministers in its 253 years history as D.L. Moody, Daniel Baker, and most recently Terry Johnson. Pastor Johnson has been the minister there for over 20 years now and has written several very good books for the church. He has made contributions specifically in the area of historic Reformed worship.

You can listen to Rev. Johnson’s sermons here.

You can listen to the sermon I preached last Sunday here.

Here is the link to the Christ the Center interview we had with Russell Moore. Dr. Moore is the senior vice president of academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author of several books (including one forthcoming) and articles. Our goal was to talk with him specifically about his book The Kingdom of Christ, which is a study of the sociological and theological ramifications of evangelicalism on the political situation in America.

Christ the Center recently interviewed Dr. John Carrick, Associate Professor of Applied and Doctrinal Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, about his newly released book on the preaching of Jonathan Edwards. I had the privilege of having Dr. Carrick as a professor of homiletics during my time in seminary, and we thoroughly enjoyed having him on the program to talk about this book. You can listen to the interview here.

Tonight I found an important paper by William Cunningham, entitled, “The Principles of the Reformation Not the Cause of Sects and Heresies,” in James Wylie’s Tercentenary of the Scottish Reformation, pp. 108-123. The charge that Protestantism produces thousands of schisms and sects is frequently bandied about by the likes of Scott Hahn.

You can find Wylie’s book here.

The ESV Study Bible has finally been published and I must say that it is an impressive piece of work! You can find discussions about this new study Bible all over the internet so I will keep my comments brief. This is a virtual library between two covers. Reformed readers should know that unlike The Reformation Study Bible this Bible includes material produced by non-Reformed Evangelical scholars. But a quick scan of the study notes and articles suggests that the lion’s share of the study helps are produced by Reformed scholars. I would encourage you to take a look at this Bible.

Another book I want to discuss here is a gem that stems from the Together For the Gospel conferences. Many of you will be familiar with the ministries of Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C. J. Mahaney, and Al Mohler. They have been friends for years and have teamed up to encourage pastors and edify the church. Preaching the Cross is the product of the 2006 conference and is must reading. In addition to the four friends, the book contains addresses and sermons by R. C. Sproul, John Piper, and John MacArthur.

This is what I would call an excellent meat and potatoes volume. By that I mean that the messages found between the covers get to the meat of the nut. There is no superfluous fluff here. The centrality of the cross to the gospel and the implications of a cross- shaped ministry find clear articulation. It is good to be reminded of the central things of the gospel from time to time. I never tire of contemplating the cross of my Savior. If you are of the same mind, you will then greatly appreciate this volume.

Mark Dever addresses what a real minister ought to be based on Paul’s remarks in 1st Corinthians 4 whereas Ligon Duncan demonstrates that Christ can be preached from all of the Old Testament. Dr. Mohler demonstrates, as he daily does on his radio program, the necessity of preaching with cultural sensitivity. R. C. Sproul reminds us of the importance of the doctrine of justification and John Piper fires us up with the expository exultation of the glory of God. C. J. Mahaney pointedly reminds us that the pastor is called to watch both his life and doctrine. And John MacArthur rounds out the book with 10 reasons why, after more than 40 years in the ministry, he still preaches the Bible.

Now you may not be wowed by this line-up, but I tell you that it is good to be reminded of the basics of the faith. That is a salient thing in this day when so many deletarious movements have emerged within the Evangelical community. I think we can take away this message from this book. The minister and the church need to keep the cross at the center of the proclamation of the gospel. It is, at the end of the day, the main thing. And this book reminds us that when it comes to the gospel, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing!

I am pleased to announce that the first volume of a projected three volume set of Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation has been released. Professor Dennison, who is connected with Northwest Theological Seminary, has done us a great service in bringing these valuable confessions of faith into the English language. Dennison also provides us with very helpful introductions. I am already looking forward to the remaining two volumes.

I have also been reading through Robert Brown’s prize-winning volume Jonathan Edwards and the Bible
where the author cogently argues that one of Edwards’ concerns was to answer the Enlightenment criticism of historical testimony as inadequate for epistemological certainty. In other words, religious belief based upon the Bible (which as historical testimony was unable to provide the foundation for universal, indubitable knowledge) was mere opinion and did not produce clear and distinct ideas patterned after the more geometrico so beloved by Enlightenment philosophers and critics of the Bible. This book contributes to a better understanding of Edwards’ commitment to Scripture as the infallible Word of God. It also opens up for the reader the world in which Edwards lived. All was not sweetness and light.

We possess an embarrassment of riches when it comes to books like these. Read them for your spiritual and intellectual benefit.

I recently picked up my copy of Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism in order brush up on his arguments. Kuyper argues that Calvinism espouses an “all-embracing system of principles” (Kuyper, 19) that defines our relation to God, the world and man. This shouldn’t be news to any self-respecting reformed person, but Kuyper pushes the envelope with quotes like this:

…Calvinism is rooted in a form of religion which was peculiarly its own, and from this specific religious consciousness there was developed first a peculiar theology, then a special church-order, and then a given form for political and social life, for the interpretation of the moral world-order, for the relation between nature and grace, between Christianity and the world, between church and state, and finally for art and science… (Kuyper, 17)

and even more provocative:

[Calvinism] is opposed to all hierarchy among men; it tolerates no aristocracy save such as is superiority of character or talent, and to show that it does not but for the sake of spending it in the service of God. So Calvinism was bound to find its utterance in the democratic interpretation of life; to proclaim the liberty of nations; and not to rest until both politically and socially every man, simply because he is man, should be recognized, respected and dealt with as a creature created after the Divine likeness. (Kuyper, 27)

While I appreciate his intent, I struggle to find the Bible advocating “a given form for political and social life.” While the Bible certainly has much to say about the way we conduct our political and social lives, is not the precise form of our political arrangement in particular a matter of Christian liberty? Cannot the church flourish under both monarchies and republics? Granted, some structures may be more suited for the Christian and the advancement of the gospel, but I would not go so far as to say that democracy is the natural result of a consistent Calvinism.

While browsing books by Andrew Thomson on Googlebooks, I came across a volume entitled, “Four Lectures for Young Men.” It is not edited by the Andrew Thomson for whom I was searching, but I discovered that one of the lectures was by one of my all-time favorite theologians, William Cunningham. The lecture is entitled, “On the Temptations of Young Men to Embrace Infidel Opinions.” It is 20 pages long. Enjoy! It can be found here.

I affirm the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, within limits. I will explain what I mean after I briefly define the doctrine in question. What is the doctrine of the spirituality of the church? Simply put, it is the view that Jesus Christ has called the church to be concerned about one thing and one thing only, the ministry of Word and Sacrament. That is, the church exists to proclaim the gospel, indeed the whole counsel of God. There is more to it than that. But that is the idea in a nutshell. I happen to think that this doctrine is basically biblical and basically sound. The church should not get caught up in making pronouncements about things which it has no business talking about. Think about it like this. What is it that the church can communicate or that the church can do that no other organization or community can do? There are many good things that the church can get caught up in that are not its raison d’tre. For instance, the church could get involved in a great many humanitarian efforts. But is that its calling? It is certainly true that the church should not try to dictate specific policy to the magistrate or tie itself to the wagon of any particular political party. This is all well and good.

Recently we have been reminded that the temptation to pontificate on subjects not within the purview of the church is a besetting sin of both the left and the right. There is a tendency to want to equate one’s political philosophy, for instance, with the teaching of the Bible. We have been told that the Christian faith transcends the political divisions of the left and the right. I agree that we should not equate a particular political party with the teaching of God’s Word. However, I must humbly demur when someone talks like the Bible has no bearing on life outside the four walls of the church building or that the Christian life is limited to public worship on Sunday. I agree that the corporate public worship of the church is and ought to be central. It ought to be the main thing. But it is not the only thing. My faith has a bearing on my political views. Does that make me infallible? By no means. Could I be wrong on a particular issue? You bet I can.

While I happen to agree that the Christian faith ought not to be confused with a particular political (or economic or social or…) philosophy, I do believe my faith constrains or informs my political philosophy. So when I hear that the Christian faith transcends the left/right dichotomy, I am a bit skeptical. What does that really mean, after all? Why does it always seem to be the case that calls to transcend the conservative/liberal standoff in politics or theology or whatever always seem to come from one end of the spectrum? How come? I actually believe that my Christianity necessitates that I align with a given political perspective (note I did not say a particular party).

As a Christian I should be guided by God’s Word. And God’s Word has implications for how I live in this world politically, economically, socially, etc. And what if fellow Christians disagree with me? What of it? Does the mere presence of someone disagreeing with me make me wrong? Sometimes I get the impression in this postmodern age that the mere presence of an opposing viewpoint makes me wrong. Well, I beg to differ. Consider this, Pharaoh probably disagreed with Moses about whether he should let the Israelites leave Egypt. Paul disagreed with the Judaizers about whether Gentiles had to be circumcized to be good Christians. So mere disagreement does not make one wrong. It merely creates a context for the need for persuasion. So pardon me if I think that my Bible provides me with principles that suggest that I take a particular stand on a given political, social or economic matter.

Having said all this I still agree with the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, within limits. The limits are these: the gospel impinges upon my life in areas beyond corporate worship. However, the spirituality of the church doctrine has it right that the central thing for the church as an institution to do is to stick to what our Lord has commanded us to do. And that is to proclaim the whole counsel of God through the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

As I was preparing a message for this Sunday morning I remembered something the great, biblical-theological Southern Presbyterian, Stuart Robinson, had outlined in eight points in Discourses of Redemption. Focusing on the significance of God’s curse on the serpent, Robinson explained:

1) The Redeemer would be a man (i.e. the seed of the woman)
2) The Redeemer would be more than a man (i.e. He would be Divine) because He would conquer the one who conquered man (i.e. the devil)
3) The Redeemer would represent a people.
4) The Redeemer would gather a collective group of redeemed individuals to Himself (this is seen in the use of the word ‘seed’ in Scripture. Christ is the “Seed” of the woman, and we are the ‘seed’ of the woman in Him.) This was the beginning of the visible church on earth. There would be a corporate nature of the redeemed.
5) Redemption would involve a new nature. Before this promise men were all hopelessly lost in sin. Man had made himself a slave of sin and Satan, and accordingly had a fallen, corrupt nature. In order for there to be enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, those who would become the seed of the woman would necessarily have to have a different nature.
6) It would be the gracious work of God in giving His people a new nature.
7) The Lord would put the enmity between the devil and those in his kingdom and Christ and those in His Kingdom.
The Redeemer would die a vicarious death on behalf of His people. (i.e. His heal would be bruised, not for anything that He had done but because of the sin of others).

The only thing I would add to all this is the fact that God did not require anything of His people except faith in His promise. This first preaching of the Gospel shows that salvation is ALL the work of God and ALL the work of grace. Man contributes nothing to it.

If the angry driver with a Christian bumper sticker on the back of his car is a bad witness, this is probably worse. We need to be sure that God’s word is dwelling richly in us before we call others to know it and live by it.

Here is the latest Christ the Center episode. We recently interviewed Dr. John Fesko on his newly released work, Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. John is pastor of Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Woodstock, Ga. He is also Adjunct Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. Prior to writing this book on justification, John wrote this biblico-theological gem, and this helpful little book. There are many helpful biblico-theological references in the interview. At one point he shows the connection between Israel coming through the water and into the wilderness, where they were tempted, with Christ’s coming through the water of baptism and being driven into the wilderness to be tempted.

Consider this comment from J.H.Merle’s History of the Reformation (Context: Merle is discussing the bishop of Constance, Hugo of Landenberg, whom Zwingli thought was sympathetic to the reformation of the church.):

He was one of those men, too common in the Church, who, although they prefer truth to error, show more regard to error than to truth, and often end by turning against those by whose sides they should have fought.

Every generation produces a variety of ‘popular theologies’ for laymen. They generally reflect the strengths and weaknesses of their times. Believing, as I do, that the old is better, I found a volume of this sort published in 1915. It is entitled, The Christian Faith; a Handbook of Christian Teaching and was written by William Crawford Clark.

I’m not sure why I looked at it since it was published in Boston by a publisher of which I had never heard. Imagine my surprise when the book came with an Introduction by that fine Southern theologian, R.A. Webb (author of The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption). He wrote:
“It is a pleasure and a compliment to introduce this book to the public. … It has been a long time since anything so sound and loyal has come from the press. … Beset by critics and speculators and reconstructionists, here is drink from the well of our fathers – the faith of our childhood – so cool, so refreshing, so delicious, so biblical!”

The author, William Clark, served pastorates in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky. He wrote the book to help his parishioners understand what they were to believe in order that they might share it intelligently with others. The book is 350pp. It covers the main topics of Christian faith that one would expect in a volume of this sort.

It is highly useful in our day to see how our forefathers taught the faith and what they desired their people to understand. This book was written in a time when pastors took theology seriously and understood that it was vital that their people understand Biblical doctrine if they were to be soundly converted and would have a proper foundation for spiritual growth. You can find it here.

While I do not like getting into political debates, I have recently come to terms with the fact that people my age in the United States have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS IN REGARD TO CHARITY. I highly doubt you could find one in fifty who could tell you about the foundational principles of Capitalism, let alone give you an economic plan that is most God honoring and beneficial to society. Nevertheless most of them will vote to put a political ideology into the White House.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

You can read the rest here

One final quote by Williams sums all my concerns up in one sweeping explanation:

Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it has to first take other people’s money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another.

So, as a Christian who lives in America and votes in leaders, I hope that you will consider the ethical ramifications of the political ideologies at hand. While we do not and should not use the pulpit to promote politics, we nevertheless have a responsibility to be informed. Just some thoughts.

What happened is well known; how in the excess of their zeal, they filled the waterpots to the brim–an accidental circumstance, yet useful, as much as that seems accidental, to show that there could be neither delusion nor collusion; how, probably in the drawing of it, the water became best wine–’the conscious water saw its God and blushed;’

A sign it was, from whatever point we view its meaning, as previously indicated. For, like the diamond that shines with many colors, it has many meanings; none of them designed in the coarse sense of the term, but all real, because the outcome of a real Divine Life and history. And a real miracle also, not only historically, but as viewed in its many meanings; the beginning of all others, which in a sense are but the unfolding of this first. A miracle it is which cannot be explained, but is only enhanced by the most incredible platitudes to which negative criticism has sunk in it commentation, for which there exists no legendary basis, either in Old Testament history, or in contemporary Jewish expectation; which cannot be sublimated into 19th Century idealism; least of all can be conceived as an after thought of His disciples, invented by an Ephesians writer of the second century. But even the allegorical illustration of St. Augustine , who reminds us that in the grape, the water of rain is ever changed into wine, is scarcely true, save as a bare illustration and only lowers our view of the miracle. For miracle it is, and will ever remain; not indeed magic, or arbitrary power, but power with a moral purpose, and that the highest. And we believe it because this ‘sign’ is the first of all those miracles in which the Miracle of the Miracles gave a ‘a sign,’ and manifested forth His glory–the glory of His Person, the glory of His purpose, and the glory of His work.1

[1] Alfred Edersheim The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (NY: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1901) vol. 1 pp. 362-363.

Brad Hertzog, a friend of mine from seminary, is leading a group from Franklin Square OPC to plant a church in Queens, NY. There will be an exploratory meeting on October 24th. If you live anywhere near Queens and can make it I would strongly encourage that you attend. You can learn more here. I am very excited that the Gospel will sound forth and that there will be another Reformed Presbyterian Church in Queens. I also want to mention another friend, Tim Broberg, who is a faithful minister at Community Bible Church, an independent Reformed Church in Queens.