When it comes to decision making, tomorrow often never comes. For Bavinck and the Reformed, this adage is too true for the Pelagian doctrine of regeneration. Assuming the final cause of salvation (faith and belief in the Gospel) rests in the ability to accept or deny most people won’t bother; the quality of the message waffles, and those who cannot exercise choice (infants, etc) are simply discounted from the conversation. On the other hand how does God bestow his grace to an indifferent and hostile world? The answer, says Bavinck, is simple.

The Holy Spirit is the cause of regeneration. He is not the instrument, say as a pen, but he is the author, say as the creator of the concept and the reality. The Gospel is preached and offered to human beings not as ‘elect’ or ‘reprobate’ but as ‘sinners’. This creates many conceptual problems which are not intellectual mind-games, but genuinely impact the quality of an individual’s faith in the life of the church body (or community). Bavinck’s treatment of the doctrinal development of baptism on this point is well worth consulting, especially as baptism physically represents all these issues in one tub.

There is more to life and salvation than just a Pelagian antithesis to saved by grace alone. In modern culture, perhaps in post-modernity as well, there will always be the notion that salvation, strictly speaking, is cultural improvement and social redemption. Self-aware spirituality is in many ways the height of being whereas Bavinck and the reformed see it as the minimal qualification defining a human being. Bavinck’s quote with a citation from Euken deserves to be presented in full:

When Christianity acts as a religion of redemption, it by implication assumes the existence of a sharp contrast between what humans are and what they ought to be. It expresses their inability to reach the summit by gradual self-improvement, and proclaims a transformation by elevation by an immediate intervention of the divine [Holy Spirit]. And this is confirmed by the general experience of the spiritual life. For it shows, “how the Spiritual Life is unable to find its necessary self-reliance in the world of ordinary experience; we have seen a breach between genuine spirituality and the world taking place; and we have seen how the effects of all this … toil in vain without an inner elevation through the energy of an absolute life.”

Or so it seems.  It appears that Darryl G. Hart has recently jumped out of the video for a-ha‘s 1985 hit song Take on Me.  He has brought several other recognized theologian-historians from the animated sketch world with him.  They all will be appearing at Christ Reformed Church in Washington DC for Calvin in the Capital Thursdays this fall from October 8 through November 12.

Have you ever wanted to hear a sermon series on Obadiah? Maybe not, since there are not many out there. Rev. Jon Payne, minister of Grace Presbyterian Church in Douglasville, GA, recently finished preaching a short series on the book. These are some extremely edifying messages from a book that is largely overlooked. You can find the messages here.

Iain Campbell has a very helpful posts in which he considers what Herman Bavinck had to say about the first temptation in the Garden of Eden. It seems that there is a counterfeiting of the covenant of works on the part of the evil one when he tempts Adam and Eve on the very object of the Covenant of Works established by God. You can read the post here.

HT: Michael Lynch

Beholding the Glory (John 1:1-14)
Drawing Comparisons (John 1:14-18)
Daily Discipleship (John 1:19-51)
New Wine (John 2:1-11)
New Temple (John 2:12-21)
New Birth (John 2:23-3:14)

The great blessing and curse in our time is technology which enables us to work round the clock. Negatively this tends to marginalize time for self-reflection which can tend to depression or create problems in decision making. For Puritans like William Fenner the lack of self-reflection is a deeply rooted spiritual problem that even hinders salvation: it stunts growth in sanctification and loses sight of God’s favor and promises. Last week we saw Peter’s self-reflection melt into repentance and forgiveness. Here we face another difficult passage with grave results.

In The Use and Benefit of Divine Meditation, a sermon on Hag. 1:5, addresses what it means to meditate on life and scripture. Life is full of busyness even for pre-moderns. So it is an essential part of repentance, says Fenner to meditate on sin in light of scripture (e.g. Psalm 119:59; Ex. 38:33; 1 Jh. 2:14). Conversely unbelievers consider their actions materially ; their attention is spent meditating on daily business or pleasure which actually suppresses the conscience, forcing disobedience to God. At length Fenner arrives at Saul’s example in 1 Samuel 13; Saul willfully disobeyed the Word of God and made sacrifice himself rather than wait for Samuel.

Saul forced himself to disobey and perform the sacrifice. The Hebrew verb ’apeq is uncertain. It may be translated I took the risk, I compelled, I restrained (or (2) refrained) myself. The ambiguity in the text is fairly self-evident: Saul felt compelled to disobey, or he had no choice given the uncertainty of the moment.  Fenner cites the Dominican scholar Paginus’ (1471-1541) rendering he confirmed himself to say, “He thrust himself upon doing it” i.e. he went ahead anyway despite God’s command. Having finished the hard part of exegesis all that is left to do is take the passage and apply it to his audience:

God urged [Saul] in his conscience not to do it, yet he would do it: God again whispered to him not to do it, yet he forced himself to do it; as if he should say, I hope I may do it, I have stayed seven days … and a little piece breaks no square: No? God rejected Saul for that venture; God would have forced him by meditation, O no! do it not by no means: [God] made him think, Oh, it is against God’s commandments, I may not do it. Thus God deals with thousands and millions in the world. Be not a drunkard, God flings the meditation into the conscience, yet a drunkard thou wilt be. Be not a drunkard again, a drunkard notwithstanding thou wilt be. Be not again; they force themselves, they will go to the Ale-house. And so of all other sins … Thus they will not meditate, or if they do, they break it off before it comes to any strength or perfection.

Here is the link to the latest Christ the Center interview. We had the great privilege of talking with Burk Parsons about his book Assured By God and the all important doctrine of assurance. We really enjoyed having Burk on the show.

The theme of the book of Hebrews is surely perseverance by looking unto Jesus. While there are many underlying ideas and teachings in the book, this is the overarching focus. When the author comes to chapter 10, he quotes a modified form of Habakkuk 4:2-4: “For yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” If you went back and considered the original context of that prophecy, you would discover that it is a generic statement about the surety of the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises. It is realized in the first coming of Christ and will be consummated in the second. Moving from a general statement of the response to God’s promises, and the fruit thereof (i.e. the just shall live by faith), the writer of Hebrews proceeds to set out the example of the Old Testament saints who lived by faith, waiting on the promised Messiah. After setting out the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1, the writer builds on the idea of hoping in what is not seen. This phrase is repeated in various forms throughout the great faith chapter. The writer tells us in verse 2 that it is “by faith we believe that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made by things which are visible. Then, in verse 7, we are told that Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen…acted in faith by building an ark for the salvation of his household. In each and every case in this chapter men and women are set out as examples of faith, because they believed the word of God about things to come–things that they could not see with their eyes.

The climax of the section actually comes in chapter 12 where the writer says, “Since therefore we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin that so easily besets us, and let us run with endurance the race set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith…” The whole thing is summed up in Christ. The Old Testament saints looked forward to Him (see 11:25-26), we look back at His finished work and forward to His promised return. Every promise of God that we are called to believe is “Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus to the glory of God.” The writer of Hebrew emphasized this at the beginning of the epistle when he said in chapter 2, “Now we do not yet see all things put under him (i.e. man) but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the Angels…” The future consummation–the world to come that is made subject to redeemed humanity–is founded upon the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, even though we do not see all that God has promised and secured in the death and resurrection of Christ, we, nevertheless, see Him by faith. In seeing Him, and continuing to look to Him, by faith we apprehend all the promised blessings of God. Remember what the apostle says in 11:6, “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”

Here is a previous meditation on Hebrews 11.

Tim Keller wrote an outstanding article in the Dec. 2008 Themelios (33-3) titled “The Gospel and the Poor.” This is one of the finest presentations of the relation of word and deed that I have come across. In the article Keller notes several persuasive arguments of Jonathan Edwards in his well-known work Charity and Its Fruits. Keller points out two objections that Edwards anticipates with regard to caring for the unkind and irresponsible. Keller observes:

Edwards takes on two other objections: “I don’t want to help this person because he is of an ill temper and an ungrateful spirit” and “I think this person brought on their poverty by their own fault.” This is an abiding problem with helping the poor. We all want to help kindhearted, upright people, whose poverty came on without any contribution from them and who will respond to your aid with gratitude and joy. Frankly, almost no one like that exists. And while it is important that our aid to the poor really helps them and doesn’t create dependency (see my last section), Edwards makes short work of this objection by again appealing not so much to ethical prescriptions but to the gospel itself.

Christ loved us, was kind to us, and was willing to relieve us, though we were very evil and hateful, of an evil disposition, not deserving of any good . . . so we should be willing to be kind to those who are of an ill disposition, and are very undeserving. . . .

If they are come to want by a vicious idleness and prodigality; yet we are not thereby excused from all obligation to relieve them, unless they continue in those vices. If they continue not in those vices, the rules of the gospel direct us to forgive them . . . . [For] Christ hath loved us, pitied us, and greatly laid out himself to relieve us from that want and misery which we brought on ourselves by our own folly and wickedness. We foolishly and perversely threw away those riches with which we were provided, upon which we might have lived and been happy to all eternity.16

Edwards goes on to argue, wisely, that for the sake of children within families, sometimes we will need to sustain aid to families in which the parents do not turn away from their irresponsible behavior.17

In short, Edwards teaches that the gospel requires us to be involved in the life of the poor–not only financially, but personally and emotionally. Our giving must not be token but so radical that it brings a measure of suffering into our own lives. And we should be very patiently and nonpaternalistically open-handed to those whose behavior has caused or aggravated their poverty. These attitudes and dimensions of ministry to the poor proceed not simply from general biblical ethical principles but from the gospel itself.

May God grant us grace to demonstrate the fruit of the Gospel in our lives in self-sacrificing mercy to others.

1 Corinthians 9:19 has become one of the most frequently quoted Bible verses over the past 5 years. But do people really understand what the apostle Paul is saying there? Jay Adams has a take on it that is faithful to the analogy of Scripture and 2 Corinthians 6:17 in particular. You can read it here.

I would only add to Jay’s explanation that Paul meant he would not offend by criticizing a particular cultural distinction if it was not, in and of itself, a sinful practice.

Starting at 3 pm (EST) we will be online live here to interview Dr. Joseph Pipa with regard to his doctoral dissertation William Perkins and the Development of Puritan Preaching. If you can join us, please feel free to sign into the chat room. If you have questions we will be glad to ask them for you.

This morning my wife asked me the following question: “Did Jesus ever sacrifice?” She was not asking if He sinned and needed to sacrifice. She was asking the question because He would go to the Temple every year and observe the Passover. I remember having wrestled with this question several years ago, and don’t think that I ever came to a solid conclusion. Jesus received circumcision, the sign of the covenant that represented the need for the filth of the flesh to be removed in bloody judgment. We know that the cross was also said to be circumcision for Jesus (see Colossians 2:11-13). We know that Jesus was baptized with a baptism of repentance though He needed no repentance for personal sins. We know that His death on the cross was baptism (Mark 10:38), the washing away of the sins of the world in His death on the tree. But how do we explain why He was circumcised and baptized? Well, the cross provides the solution to this question. Jesus came as the representative of His people. As God, manifest in the flesh, He bore in His body our sins on the tree. He stood in our place. So, as the representative of His people He had to undergo everything that God ordained, first for Old Covenant Israel (circumcision) then for the New Covenant Israel (baptism). Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for sin. Though He needed no sacrifice for Himself, He nevertheless brought the sacrifice of Himself for us. When He went to the Temple every year to worship, did Jesus participate in the sacrificial system? In all likeliness He did, not for His own sins but for the sins of His people. Praise God for such a Savior, who represents us in everything that God requires of us.

In his excellent JETS article, “The Scriptures Were Written For Our Instruction,” George Knight persuasively asserts that all of the Scripture, including the Old Covenant theocratic case laws, have a spiritual application to the New Covenant community. Chartering the waters between a theonomic  approach, on the one hand, and dispensational approach, on the other, Knight proves that we have very precise hermeneutical principles, set down in the apostolic writings, to follow. He explains:

In examining the core passages that have constituted the focal point of our study, we are coming to realize that in each place Paul is dealing with the responses God expects of humans. In 1 Cor 9:8 ff., he appeals to the theocratic case law that specifies that oxen must not be muzzled when threshing (citing Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9). Paul is persuaded that this law, like others, reflects God’s view of how people should relate not only to animals but also to human beings when those human beings are involved in laboring for our benefit, as he indicates in his transitional words that correlate the OT to his argument: “Yes, it was for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you?” (vv. 10–11). This is not the only situation in which Paul appeals to the theocratic case laws. He does it also earlier in 1 Cor 5:13. There he refers to one or more of the passages in Deuteronomy in which God in his written word instructs the people of God to remove the unrepentant wicked man from their midst (which in the OT context is done by stoning him). And therefore Paul’s entire description of the action to be taken is that of removing the man from their midst and not associating with him, not even eating with him. We note however that the action Paul enjoins is not that of stoning but rather of putting him out of the fellowship with a view to his repentance (cf. 1 Cor 5:5). That this spiritual action becomes the NT principle for church discipline in general, rather than the act of stoning, is borne out by his comments in 2 Cor 2:6–8 where he urges that one who had been disciplined should be forgiven, comforted and restored (impossible if he has been stoned to death). Paul’s utilization of this theocratic case law shows that he regards it as teaching an important principle that must be followed by the Church, even though not in the theocratic form of stoning to death but rather in the form appropriate to the non-theocratic, non-national spiritual entity that the Church is in distinction from the Israel of the OT. Here the apostle takes account of the difference that fulfillment has brought about and at the same time maintains the principle of continuity for the instruction as it relates to the Church, and in doing so he also has “written for our instruction. (p. 10)”

Michael Horton has followed up his study of the problem with contemporary American evangelical religion, Christless Christianity, with this new release from Baker Books entitled The Gospel Driven Life, which can be obtained here.  In this sequel Horton discusses the answer to the problem diagnosed in Christless Christianity.  The problem, religion that is a mere “moralistic therapeutic deism” (an expression first coined by Christian Smith in his book Soul Searching) can only be answered with the proclamation of the gospel and a consideration of the community that is birthed by the gospel, the church.  Like most of Horton’s books, this one will surely give us food for thought.

Those of you who are in pastoral ministry will find this site particularly helpful. Ed Eubanks Jr. and Richard Burguet, have been working on it for a while now. Their purpose is to get helpful resources into the hands of pastors for the purpose of building up the church. One of the significant contributions they make is the Covenant Discipleship Communicant’s Curriculum. You can get a feel for where they will take you by checking out the Leadership Guide online.Ed and Richard are also committed to helping make transitions in pastoral ministry easier. It is for this reason that they have amassed, what I am sure you will find to be, helpful resources. Doulos Resources has also reprinted James M. Chaney’s William the Baptist–a 19th Century explanation for Reformed and Covenantal Baptism. If you have some time, please take a look at some of the resources these men are making available.

There is a series of sermons on the Eric Alexander website on the Doctrine of the Church. You can find and download them here.

Join Christ the Center Wednesday, September 23 at 9PM Eastern live as they discuss Ezra-Nehemiah and restoration prophecy with Matthew Patton.  Matthew is a PhD student in OT at Wheaton Graduate School.  Several people have requested we devote more time to topics in biblical studies and we couldn’t agree more.  Here’s your chance to interact live.  More details about the live discussion are available here.

Don’t forget to call us with your questions or comments: 440-97FORUM.

If you haven’t already discovered it, I would like to direct your attention to the website dedicated to quotes from the late J.C. Ryle. There is almost no one from the 19th Century whose writings were so true to Scripture and full of devotional riches. I hope you will visit this site and read the many Ryle books that have been reprinted.

Meditation is the first step toward conversion. The depraved heart, says Fenner, does not reflect on original sin or evaluate the true nature of God’s grace. This is the only difference: everyone complains of their guilt and depression but not all go to God for forgiveness. Fenner’s solution for removing guilt and its spiritual paralysis is to aggravate sin by reflecting on its circumstances. It is possible, says Fenner, to realize the full extent and character of sin in ourselves when we examine the circumstances of any given sin. Fenner takes his biblical example from a notoriously sticky passage.

The AV renders Mark 14:72, When he thought thereon, he wept. A brief glance at Metzger’s TC and the NA27s apparatus demonstrates that rendering kai epibalon eklaien is fairly difficult; some manuscripts trade the aorist epiobalon with hezato to harmonize ‘bitter weeping’ with the other Gospels. In short, Mark’s idiomatic phrase does not express ‘burst into tears’ as Luke and Matthew render it plainly. Fenner’s paraphrase he cast all these things one upon another agrees with one very good possibility: when he set his mind to think on the matter, he wept (ALGNT. cf. BDAG). Fenner takes the idiom and works from the immediate paragraph to cast Peter’s uncontrollable weeping into a moving soliloquy:

Wretch that I was, [says Peter,] Christ was my master, and yet I denyed him; such a good master, that he called me before any of my fellow-Apostles, and yet I denyed him; I was ready to sink once, he denyed not me: I was to be damned once, he denyed not my soul, and yet I denyed him; he told me of this sin before hand, that I might take heed of it, and yet I denyed him. I said, I will not commit, nor forsake him, and yet I denyed him: yea, this very night, no longer ago, did I say and say again, I would not deny him, and yet I denyed him; yea, I said, though all others denyed him, yet would not I; and yet worse than all others, I denyed him with a witness before a maid, before a damsel … nay more, all this evill did I, not above five or six strides from my Lord and Saviour: nay more, even then, when if ever I should have stood for him, I should have done it then, when all the world did forsake him. O wretch that I was, I denyed him! [Peter] cast up all these circumstances together, and meditating on them, he went out and wept bitterly. (Fenner, 1657, 21)

There are several interesting details in the account of Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus, in John 2:23-3:15. First, the text itself, is a continuation of what John introduces in John 2:23-25. There we read, “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.” This is a statement of fact. Jesus knows that man’s heart is full of sin and darkness. Man is fallen and corrupt. John reminded his readers of this very thing in chapter 1 when he said of Jesus, “The Light shines in darkness and the darkness does not overcome it…He was the  true Light that brings light to every man who was in the world.” Now, John says in John 3:1, ” There was a man…” This particular man was the model of religious commitment and intelligence, sits before Jesus as a model of everyone in this world–self-confident and self-righteous, yet fallen and full of darkness.

(more…)

I know this may come across as a shameless plug, but I want to encourage our readers to check out this rich new resource of apologetics texts from the whole history of the Christian church.  The first volume of a multi-volume set has been released from Crossway Books and is entitled Christian Apologetics: Past & Present and can be found here.  The handsome and useful volume has been ably edited by William Edgar and Scott Oliphint, esteemed professors of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.  I had the privilege of assisting the editors with the production of the book prior to its submission to the publishers.  And we just finished work on what will be the second (and possibly the third) volume of the set.  Vol. 1 takes the reader from the New Testament right up to the cusp of the Reformation.  The book includes introductions to each of the authors included in the text and helpful overviews of the period and thoughtful diagnostic questions.  There really is nothing quite like this in the English language.

Here is the link to a recent interview we had with Dr. Tom Schreiner concerning his book New Testament Theology.

David Steinmitz’s article “The Superiority of Pre-modern Exegesis” has me and Nick Batzig thinking. Was there any valid exegesis prior to 1990? We hope so. We are beginning a series of posts dedicated to a consideration of several members of the Westminster Assembly, with regard to their exegesis of various portions of Scripture. The first Puritan we consider is William Fenner.

In A Sermon for Spirituall Mortification, William Fenner (1600 – 1640) urges his listeners, those interested in participating in Christ’s resurrected life, to sever the inner-motives of sin (Col. 3:5). Sin should not be ‘civilized’ or taken as a mere formality. This assumes that sin is something either the human race gradually evolves out of, or youthful defects that die out naturally with age and life experience, contrary to the biblical view of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Formality in religion never applies Christ’s forgiveness of sins to the heart, and never fully appreciates the worship of God either in heaven or on earth.

To illustrate the potentially devastating effects of natural indifference to worship Fenner appeals to the fallen angels in Jude 6. He paraphrases the KJV, They left their first habitation with they flung it [i.e. position/dominion] from them meaning,

As soone as they had sinned against God, and changed their natures, away they went, heaven was no place for them, they thrust themselves out … for having changed their natures, they changed their delights, and therefore to praise and yeeld glory unto God, was death unto them, they being now corrupted through sinne. (XXIX Sermons, 1657: p. 399)

Pride corrupted these heavenly beings so that service and worship to God was something they considered deplorable. Taking his queue from the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible, Augustine as well as Aquinas,[1] Fenner turns the moral onto formal worship: if one truly despises worship, prayer, and fellowship, they will really hate it in the immediate presence of God. Is Fenner’s exegesis correct?

The NA27 says yes. Apolipontas means, ‘to desert, abandon, lose, or, fail to hold onto.’ The angels aspired to higher status than servants of God in heaven, and since the verb is active it means they were not banished but left as deserters (UBS Translators handbook). Fenner’s vivid illustration of the aorist active is right on the money.

Is anyone weary of service to God? asks Fenner, Let him know that he can never endure the Kingdom of Heaven; for if he be weary of little, what will he do when he shall come into a place where there shall be nothing but continual praising of God?

Many of the works of the 19th Century Southern Presbyterians have been long forgotten. Thankfully some have not. I had the privilege of reading many of them during my time in seminary, and am glad to see that some of the lesser known volumes are still in print. Here is a list of Southern Presbyterian works that I know you will benefit from. You will find that many of these are links to free PDF versions of the books!

1. Writings of Thomas Peck (Peck’s “Notes on the Apocalypse” are especially helpful chapters, as are his lectures on the book of Acts)

(more…)

At least from the Christian position, tracing the boundaries of philosophy and theology has proven to be quite difficult.  This is due in part to the fact that classic theological loci have so much to say about philosophy’s subject matter.  Cornelius Van Til once remarked that if one’s philosophy was Calvinistic, then it isn’t philosophy anymore – it is theology.  Herein lies the difficulty.  If the philosopher consciously presupposes the Triune God of the Bible in his system and presents Him as the foundation for epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, what distinguishes the philosophic discipline from the theological? (more…)

There is a sermon series on 2 Timothy at the Eric Alexander website. You can download and listen here.

There seems to be a typological prediction of Christ’s cleansing of the Temple in the life of Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 13 we read of Nehemiah finding Tobiah living in the Temple, specifically in the room where the money was stored. Nehemiah throws Tobiah out, together with his furniture. There seems to be a parallel in the first Temple cleansing in the ministry of Jesus (John 2:12-22). Jesus finds those who are making the house of God into a financial enterprise, so he drives them out and turns over their furniture.  But it is also interesting to note that Nehemiah gives the Temple a second cleansing after he drives Tobiah and his furniture out. This could be a type of the second Temple cleansing recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, or it could be a type of the real cleansing of the Temple in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In John 2, Jesus says, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will rebuild it.” John tells us, “He was speaking of the Temple of His body.”  In the death of Jesus the true Temple is destroyed. The sin of the people who He has raised up to be the New Covenant Temple were laid on Him, and in His death He has cleansed them from their sins. The beauty of the greater Nehemiah is that He continually cleanses the Temple, as He sanctifies His people through that death and resurrection.

I have frequently heard well meaning ministers and theologians discourage young theological students by insisting that they must understand that they are not of the caliber of the great theologians of church history. While I understand that they are well-meaning–in that they are wanting to guard young men from the all pervasive temptations to pride and self-aggrandizement–should they not also be seeking to promote the gifts that God has given them for the edification and growth of the church? John Calvin was only 27 when he published his first edition of the Institutes, and he had been a Christian for just one year. If we say, “Yes, but that was John Calvin,” are we not trusting the man rather than to the One who gives gifts to men? Young men must be humble, but, by all means, they must use the gifts God has given them for the building up of the church. The apostle Paul certainly taught accordingly when he wrote to Timothy, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity (1 Tim 4:12).” It is incumbent upon older ministers and theologians to actively promote the gifts they see, however seemingly small they may be, in younger ministers.

The following post was written by my good friend Matt Holst:

Like Nick, I recently preached a sermon on John 2:1-11, the account of the first miracle of our Lord. It was a fascinating and rewarding experience for me. One thing in particular struck me with regard to John’s intention in gospel-writing. He wants his reader to believe that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and believing Him you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). He demonstrates this point by a selective (20:30) record of Christ’s signs (and teachings). John tells us that Christ manifests his glory (2:11) in His performance of signs and wonders.

In John 2:1-11 we have the first demonstration of Christ’s glory being made manifest. This was done, in part, by a demonstration of the old being replaced by the new. Yet within the gospels there is a fine line between that which was “by right and requirement old”, and that which was “by perversion old”. By this distinction I mean that which was objectively to do with the Mosaic law (as given by God) and that which the law became at the hands of the Jews. It seems to me that many in the church are moving, fudging or unclear where that line is drawn.

First, Christ himself observed all things which “by right and requirement” were part of the law of Moses. In Mk 1:44 our Lord tells the leper to offer a gift according to the law of Moses. Again in Matt 7:12 Christ tells his listeners that the to observe the standard of the Law and Prophets by doing to men what you would have them do to you. It is clear that Christ had the highest regard for God’s law, and we are eternally thankful he did!

Our Lord also speaks of the sufficiency of the Law and Prophets for salvation (SHOCK HORROR!). When telling the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Christ tells us that the rich man wanted Lazarus to return from the dead to witness to his five brothers of the reality of heaven and hell. Abraham, yes ABRAHAM (interesting choice of representative!) rejects the request of the rich man on the basis that “they have Moses and the prophets” (Lk 16:19-31).

How then are the Law and Prophets sufficient for salvation? Because “by right and requirement” the Law of God is an aspect of His gracious relationship with his people, and though while not able to save a man itself (it was never intended to – Gal 3:21), it is part of the covenant by which Christ is apprehended by old covenant saints. Yes! Old Covenant saints were enabled to enjoy soteriological realities, even in the Old Covenant era! Here’s how:

Our Lord tells us the sum of the Law and Prophets “to love the Lord your God with all your heart” (Matt 22:37) – the same law as given to the old covenant saints in Deut 6:4. In Matt 5:17 our Lord states that he came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. This, it seems to me, is an important distinction. He has not come to annul, destroy or diminish the law as if it were something contrary to man or promise (Gal 3:21). He was not in opposition to the Law as God gave it. He came to fulfill the righteous requirement of that law.Observance of the Law, according to our Lord was always a matter of an internal relationship of love and faith, not a matter of keeping externals alone. That is why old covenant saints could enjoy the realities of being saved, by Christ, under the Old Covenant.

Additionally John tells us, that Phillip wanted Nathanael to meet the one “of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote” (1:45) Furthermore Christ himself cited Moses and the Prophets to show his disciples how HE was the one to whom the Scriptures pointed and of whom they spoke! That is why the Law “by right and requirement” was sufficient for salvation – not by the observance of its works or ceremonies (NEVER its intention), but because it pointed to the perfect worker (active obedience) – the 2^nd Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ.

But some want to stop at the law pointing to Christ’s as the one who kept the law perfectly. He was also our sacrifice (passive obedience), satisfying the wrath of God. He was the fulfillment of all the gracious sacrificial and access-to-God laws of the old covenant. We need to remember both aspects of Christ’s work and their corresponding types in the Old Covenant! The old covenant was one of physical types and shadows behind which lay a real, but somewhat hidden experience of the spiritual realities. With the advent of Christ and the establishing of the new covenant, we see many of those physical elements disappear, and their spiritual realities become evident for the people of God.

But Christ also differentiates between the “by right and requirement” law of Moses and the “perversion”. And this is important. To read all of the references to “Moses” or “law” in the New Testament through the lens of “law by right and requirement” will only lead to pastoral chaos, doctrinal confusion and a demeaning of the “by right” Law of God.

Here’s where we work our way back to John. Was our Lord destroying the “by right” Law of God when he changed the water to wine – was he setting in opposition this law to His activity and life? Certainly he was signifying the concept of newness in Him – cleansing, perfect cleansing is found in him alone (John 13). Indeed John is about to give a series of events that represent the “newness” of the New Covenant: the New Temple (2:19); the new birth (3:3); new water (life) (4:14) and new or true worship (4:22). So clearly John is emphasising the issue of newness. But new compared to what?

Again the answer is somewhat nuanced and not monolithic as some would have us believe. The newness of the water to wine miracle is found in the replacing of the “perversion of the law” rather than the “law by right”. For nowhere in the law of Moses is found the requirement to ceremonially wash prior to eating. No! This was according to the “purification of the Jews” not according to the “Law by right”. Mark makes this abundantly clear in his gospel in Ch 7:3 “For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, according to the tradition of the elders” THERE WAS SIMPLY NO REQUIRMENT TO WASH BEFORE EATING IN THE MOSAIC COVENANT! Furthermore Christ affirms the continuance in the law of Moses in the same passage, Mk 7:10 where he sets Moses and the Pharisees in opposition! Here then is evidence that we need to read the references to the righteous Law of Moses and the many perversions of it with a much more discerning eye!

So Christ, though he fulfills the righteous requirement of the law of cleansings (which is better seen in his act of John 13), does not do it in John 2! He demonstrates that the old of John 2 :1-11 was not the old “by right” but the old “by perversion”. Christ treats the perversion of the law with contempt “Hypocrites … ‘this people honors me with their lips but their hearts are far from me, and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ ”. (Mk 7:6)

The perversion is not the reality. Let’s not make it so. To equate the two is a grave misreading of God’s Word and does great injury to God, His Law and our understanding of the duty God requires of us. This distinction is true in both the gospels AND the epistles.

Back in April, Feeding on Christ, posted a link to a series of audio messages from Grace Presbyterian Church’s Reformation Heritage Conference.  From October 30-November 1, Grace Presbyterian Church, in Douglasville, GA, and Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs, GA, will be hosting this year’s Reformation Heritage Conference with Dr. Paul S. Jones. The conference will be held  at Midway Presbyterian Church. The cost is only $10.00 for anyone over  the age of 18. Child care is included! Dr. Jones is the Organist and Music Director at the historic Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He will be speaking on Music, Singing and the Protestant Reformation. I had the privilege of working with Paul Jones when I was at Tenth Presbyterian and know that he is one of the finest musicians working in the church and an outstanding hymn writer. You will not want to miss this if you are interested in broadening your horizons in regard to music and Reformed worship. For the sake of promoting this year’s Conference, I am re-posting the April post below:

“Dr. Jon Payne, minister of Grace Presbyterian Church in Douglasville, Ga, has been bringing in excellent preachers and speakers for the past 5 years for their Reformation Heritage Conference. In 2004, Derek Thomas came and gave a series of lectures on Calvin, Geneva and Reformed Worship. Darryl Hart spoke in 2005 on American Reformation Heritage. Iain Murray came in 2006 and spoke on The Scottish Reformation. In 2007 Carl Trueman spoke on the German Reformation; and in 2008 Michael Horton gave a series of lectures on the Reformation and the Means of Grace.

Upcoming Conference speakers include Paul Jones, Joel Beeke, and Carl Trueman. Jones will be speaking on “The Music of the Protestant Reformation” in 2009. Dr. Beeke will be lecturing on “The Dutch Reformation” in 2010; and Dr. Trueman will focus on”The English Reformation.”

This really is a well thought out Conference. There are not many Conferences that focus on a nation by nation contribution to the Reformation. If you are not familiar with Dr. Jon Payne, I want to encourage you to look out for the forthcoming Christ the Center episode where I talk with Jon about Reformed Worship. Jon has authored two books : John Owen on the Lord’s Supper and In the Splendor of Holiness .”

The Together for the Gospel blog is promising some exciting new posts. The first of these is an interview with Kevin DeYoung. You can find it here.

While the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the most central truths of the Christian faith (and have the greatest impact on our lives, since the “message of the cross is the wisdom and power of God”) I sometimes fear that we are overlooking the stepping stone from the problems created by sin, to the solution at the cross, without considering the all-important step of the incarnation.

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes, not only the supreme importance of the once-for-all propitiatory death of Jesus on the cross but also the importance of the incarnation in the mediatorial work of Jesus. In chapter 1 the writer explains the eternal nature of the Son of God. In chapter 2, he deals with the importance of the incarnation. For instance, he says “since the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same…” Now, it is clear from the rest of the passage that He shared in flesh and blood so that His flesh might be broken and His blood shed for our salvation and the destruction of the evil one. But in chapter 4 we are reminded, “we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weakness, but one who has been tempted in every way, even as we are, yet without sin…” It is not just His sympathy on account of His experience of being tempted in all points as we are that exhausts the importance of the incarnation. There is another truth, as deep and profound, that does not appear on the surface as clearly as the application in Hebrews.

Having a proper understanding of the nature of sin and the solution provided by Christ is essential to understanding the  full significance of the incarnation. The first epistle of John ends with some unusual words, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” It’s unusual because the whole book has been about sin, the incarnation and loving God and neighbor. Idols have not been mentioned once. It seems to me that John gives this warning at the end of the letter–having already focused so much on the all important fact of the incarnation–because he realized that in the incarnation God had provided the solution for sin.

The nature of sin, according to the apostle Paul in Romans 1, is that it is idolatry. Paul explains that men “exchanged the truth of God for the lie,” and “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things;” they “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Now this, it seems to me, is simply saying that sin is idolatry. Of course, that is also taught in Colossians 3:5, where we are told, “covetousness..is idolatry.” So if all sin is idolatry, how can misdirected worship, as well as the guilt and corruption of sin, be cured? The answer is in the incarnation. Jesus is the eternal Son of God. He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Since man’s great problem was worshiping the creature rather than the Creator, the Creator created a human soul and body for Himself (without ceasing to be God, of course) and came and dwelt among us. God was essentially saying in the incarnation, “Since you are so weak as to worship the creature rather than the Creator, I will add a created nature to my divine nature. God condescends to help us in the area of our greatest weakness. On account of the incarnation we may now worship–the God-Man Jesus Christ. This does not mean, of course, that we do not need the atoning death of Jesus to remove the guilt and corruption of our nature. We will not worship Him (as is evidenced by all the men and women who rejected Him in the days of His flesh and continue to do so to this very day) until He pays the price for our sins and propitiates the wrath of God for us. But He remains the God-man forever. We will worship the God-Man, Jesus Christ, for all eternity. In God’s wisdom, the solution to the problem of our worshiping and serving the creature, is the incarnation.

There is a further profundity involved in the incarnation, namely, the truth that natural and supernatural revelation are brought back together in the incarnate Christ. When Satan came to tempt our first parents, his chief design was to get Adam to separate the revelation of God in nature (i.e. understanding the significance of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) from the supernatural revelation of God (i.e. God’s command concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). Satan achieved his design, and since the fall everyone descended from Adam, by ordinary generation, has constantly done so in every area of life. Man, himself, is part of the natural revelation of God. He is the Imago Dei. No matter how corrupt and depraved he may be, man is nevertheless, part of the revelation of God by nature. So, in the incarnation the Living Word of God becomes the  Imago Dei as man. Natural revelation and supernatural revelation are brought back together in the Person of Christ. In a very real sense, natural and supernatural revelation will also be brought back together in the new heavens and new earth–part of the benefit of the consummated work of Christ on the cross. But we need to understand that God’s intention for the fullest revelation of Himself to man is brought together in the incarnation of the Son of God. Jesus solves the greatest problems in this fallen world. The wisdom of God is manifestly displayed in the incarnation of His Son. There is, of course, no  greater place than at the cross where this wisdom is so magnificently displayed, but we must always remember the words of the apostle Paul, “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ (i.e. His Person) and Him crucified (i.e. His work). May God impress these truths on our hearts as we worship the God-Man today.

I am glad to see that this book is still in print. Martin Downes explains the significance of it here. If you have not read the Marrow of Modern Divinity you really must make it a priority. Edward Fisher is the supposed author. The book had an enormous impact on the life and ministry of such men as Thomas Boston, Ralph Erskine, and Ebenezer Erskine–to name a few. Sinclair Ferguson gave a series of lectures a while back on the history of the Marrow controversy. You can listen to them here.

Iain Campbell has posted a link to a series of sermons that Edward Donnelly preached on the Ten Commandments. I know of no one better suited to pursuade you of the applicability of the commandments in the New Covenant. In a day when there is great disregard for the Law of God (especially for the second and fourth commandments) Rev. Donnelly explains the deep significance of the law of God in the life of the Christian.

Rev. Donnelly is the pastor of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland. He is also Principal and Professor of New Testament at the Reformed Theological College, Belfast. I have personally benefited from his preaching as much as I have from any other. He is a passionate, experiential and faithful minister of the Gospel. You will also find his series of lectures on baptism to be some of the best out there. You can find them here. They are well worth the time!

There are several conferences coming up in October in Southeast Georgia and Florida that would be well worth attending. The first is Ortega Presbyterian Church’s fall conference John Calvin: His Life and Legacy. Ortega is located in Jacksonville, FL. The speaker will be Dr. Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Trueman is one of the best church historians alive. You can find out more details about the conference here.

The second upcoming conference in the Coastal Empire will be held at Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, GA. Independent is having their Calvin 500 celebration, October 10th and 11th. The Rev. Dr. David Hall, the tireless organizer of Calvin 500 and author of several books on Calvin, will be bringing the messages commemorating Calvin’s life and ministry. This should be a profitable conference to attend.

The third upcoming conference is Ligonier Ministries’ Leadership Ministry Conference to be held on October 20-22 in Sanford, FL (just above Orlando) at St. Andrews Chapel. The speakers include Sinclair Ferguson, Ligon Duncan, Steve Lawson and R.C. Sproul.

I hope to make it to some part of all three of these conferences, since they are are in close proximity to Richmond Hill. If you can attend I would love to see you there!

One of the most significant things that my father ever said to me was, “When you come to candidate for a church, remember, the elders actually candidate for you.” This is something that every pastor, or aspiring pastor, should take to heart. Along these lines, Colin Adams–over at Unashamed Workman–has posted a list of questions that are extremely helpful, if only somewhat modified, for a man considering a call to a particular church. You can read it here.

A.W. Pink wrote a wonderful little book titled Satan and His Gospel in which he noted:

In contradiction to the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of Satan teaches salvation by works. It includes justification before God on the grounds of human merits. Its sacramental phrase is “Be good and do good;” but it fails to recognize that in the flesh there dwelleth no good thing. It announces salvation by character, which reverses the order of God’s word–character by, as the fruit of, salvation. Its various ramifications and organizations are manifold. Temperance Reform movements, “Christian Socialists Leagues,” ethical culture societies, “Peace Congresses,” are all employed, perhaps unconsciously, in proclaiming this Gospel of Satan–salvation by works. the pledge card is substituted for Christ; social purity for individual regeneration, and politics and philosophy, for doctrine and prophecy. The cultivation of the old man is considered more practical than the creation of the new man in Christ Jesus; whilst universal peace is looked for apart from the interposition and return of the Prince of Peace.

The apostles of Satan are not saloon keepers and white-salve traffikers, but are, for the most part, ordained ministers. Thousands of those who occupy our modern pulpits are no longer engaged in presenting the fundamentals of the Christian faith, but have turned aside from the truth and given heed to fables. Instead of magnifying the enormity of sin and setting forth its eternal consequences, they minimize it by declaring that sin is mere ignorance or the absence of good. Instead of warning their hearers to “flee from the wrath to come,” they make God a liar by declaring that He is too loving and merciful to send any of His own creatures eternal torment. Instead of declaring that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” they merely hold up Christ as the great Exemplar and exhort their hearers to “follow in His steps.”1

The Irish Calvinst has a post titled What I Would Do to the Evangelical Church if I were Satan that includes a similar quote by Michael Horton.

1. A. W. Pink Satan and His Gospel (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1917) p. 52-53

Last year R. Scott Clark posted a link to The Outlook a magazine of the Reformed Fellowship, Inc. I have viewed and read several of the articles listed on the site. This looks like a worthwhile magazine. I hope you will take some time to look through the archive.

This year at the Calvin 21 conference I ran into Rev. Bart Elshout, translator of Brakel’s Christian’s Reasonable Service. He’s good people. I asked his thoughts on the great theme running through á Brakel and received two memorable answers: “Christ is so lovely, that believers come back to him a thousand times.” Speaking on our perspective of God in faith and prayer, “we are always going out of our way to beg God to be gracious. On the contrary, says á Brakel, God goes out of his way to prove he is gracious to us.”

Speaking to regeneration, Bavinck said that hope characterizes the Christian life. He then thunders down the line rounding up Pelagians. Á Brakel picks up where Bavinck leaves off: hope has certainty, a special perspective and usefulness for everyday life.

Hope is a propensity, á Brakel writes, a principle character given by the Spirit in regeneration. Hope is improved by experience. When it comes to contradictions, roadblocks, hurdles, and the drudgery of the mundane hope is no worse for the wear. God foreknows we need hope and gives it as freely as wisdom (James 1:5, 12). There are many spiritual benefits for exercising hope (against taking the attitude of unbelief and worry) but how are the believer’s goals certain if the ‘means’ are obscure?

Á Brakel says hope gains certainty and confidence in God’s promises of eternal life, salvation (temporal deliverance), and future benefits as represented in scripture. Some ministers might add to the promises a new car, home, happy marriage, and other stuff to the list which materially would solidify God’s salvation. Á Brakel might ask, with scripture, how can anything else compare with the true knowledge of God and his eternal glory (Psalm 73)? Compare anything in life next to experiencing the certainty of salvation and you discover the logic of faith to be correct, God to be true. Á Brakel believes that hope attains the right way of communion with God: “the result of hope is holy industry.”*

There are many examples of faith overcoming all odds, but hope often seems to be a missing element from the stories. Joseph was enslaved and imprisoned in ancient Egypt. The Apostles returned to Galilee not knowing what to expect. Rev. Elshout was locked in a basement for five years translating á Brakel. Faith touches reason, but hope is included as well, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).

___

* This is not to disparage prayer for daily needs. Brakel’s treatment of prayer is very generous. Here Brakel confines his view of hope in direct relation to God’s glory in revealing himself and providing eternal salvation.

It has become commonplace to read about “Two Kingdoms theology” in the Reformed churches of today. This is a phrase that is neither entirely new or entirely undesirable. Augustine’s City of God is certainly a massive attempt to explain the distinction between the city of God and the city of man. The idea of two kingdoms runs through the Scriptures, from Gen. 3:15 to the end of the book of Revelation. The Kingdom of God is constantly set in contrast with Babylon, namely, the Kingdom of Satan. Everyone belongs in one of these two kingdoms. The apostle Paul explains that God has transferred us  from the kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of the Son of His love.

In the 19th Century the “spirituality doctrine of the church,” was commonplace, on account of the political situations that threatened the rights of states. The Southern Presbyterians championed this doctrine as they credited Andrew Melville, the protege of the great John Knox, as being the progenitor of it. The “spirituality doctrine,” as it came to be known, was a helpful way to distinguish between the work and sovereignty of the Church as over against the work of the State. In the days of Knox, it was developed as a theological stance concerning the influence the church was to have on the State, and not the other way around. In the days of the 19th century Southern Presbyterians it was used quite a bit differently.

As Southern Presbyterian ministers were being called to submit to the Federal government with regard to slavery, a position they believed threatened the right of the state and the freedom of the church, they began to write volumes defining and defending the substance of “the spirituality doctrine.” The way in which the “spirituality doctrine” was employed in 16th Century Scotland and 19th Century America was really quite different. Melville’s form of the “spirituality doctrine of the church,” which was not employed to defend a system of slavery, was more biblically consistent.  Two Kingdom theology seems to fall under the same rubric. There is a biblical and an unbiblical approach to this subject.

In contrast to the “spirituality doctrine” and “Two Kingdoms theology,” there is the Theonomic movement of the 1970′s. Theonomy was an attempt, albeit inaccurate, to apply Van Tillianism to the political sphere. Cornelius Van Til, the great Reformed apologist from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, boldly asserted that there was no such thing as “natural law,” rather there is only God’s law. He even went so far as to say “you are either autonomous or theonomist.” He did not mean what the movement says he meant. Van Til was simply asserting that God’s word is authoritative for every sphere of life. What the theonomists miss in Van Til’s theology is the role of common grace in regard to the moral law and politics. Van Til constantly pointed out the fact that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, were written on the heart of all men by nature. While men hate the fact that they are the Imago Dei, they can never escape the implications of the fact that they descended from Adam and had a conscience that bore witness to the law of God (Romans 2:15). How could ungodly governements enacted righteous laws throughout the centuries? This is where Van Til’s empahsis on common grace comes in. Paul could say of Nero that he was God’s minister to punish evil and reward good–not because he was reading the Bible and implementing the Old Covenant civil law, but because he was made int he image of God and by common grace acknowledged to some extent right and wrong in God’s world. What Van Til had in mind when he said there was no such thing as natural law was the theology of  “natural law” developed by the Roman Catholic church. The Church of Rome has for centuries asserted that there is authoritative natural law that men can ascertain by their reason. This, in fact, denies the noetic effects of sin, and gives man an element of autonomy that the Bible emphatically denies.

Men like Rousas John Rushdooney, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Gary Demar etc., on account of their commitment to Van Tillian theology and a strong postmillennial expectation, spearheaded the theonomic movement, also known as “Christian Reconstructionism.” The postmillennialism actually drove the theonomic movement as much or more than their commitment to Van Til. Implementing the civil law, given to Israel as a body politic in redemptive history, is a non-reality in pagan governments, therefore, theonomy as a movement is a non-reality unless the governments are first Christianized. There came to be an affinity, on the part of theonomists, for the “Christian America/God and Country” men like Pat Robertson. Theonomy flourished for a time in America, for obvious reasons. As an aside, Van Til was amillennial in his eschatology. This, it seems to me, had an enormous impact of his silence with regard to the political sphere.

The important thing to remember, as you seek to wade through these waters, is that the Two Kingdoms theology being promoted today is largely a response to the Theonomic movement/Christian Reconstructionism and the Christian America/God and Country influence. It is an overreaction to deviant theological movements. But, it is a reaction that is findamentally good and necessary. Theonomy is an aberrant theology that is not upheld by Scripture, a healthy biblical theology, or the Westminster Confession of Faith. The civil laws of the Old Testament were given to Israel in redemptive history. The Westminster Divines emphatically say that the civil laws were “abrogated” with the state of that people. In the Old Covenant Dispensation the Church was also the State. While theonomists will vehemently assert that there was a distinction between church and state, in Old Covenant Israel, due to the fact that there were separate ecclesiastical and civil offices, they cannot answer the question, “To whom was the Bible written?” The Bible was written to the church. This means that the civil laws of the Old Covenant were written to the church. Which in turn means that there was not as strong a distinction between church and state in the Old Covenant, as there is in the New. In the New Covenant, the church is said to be a spiritual nation (Matthew 21:43). It is here that proponents of Two Kingdom theology are correct with regard to their redemptive-historical emphasis. So where does “Two Kingdoms theology” fall short? The answer is found back in Van Til’s theology.

While proponents of Theonomy misrepresent Van Til in regard to the role of civil law for modern governments, they are correct to follow Van Til in regard to the Bible being authoritative for all of life. Since rulers are the Imago Dei, they are bound to enact righteous laws. The only way they can accurately discern those laws is by means of God’s special revelation–His written word. In his article “Nature and Scripture,” found in The Infallible Word–a symposium by the faculty of Westminister Theological Seminary–, Van Til persuasively argues that natural and supernatural revelation were meant to be together from the beginning. Adam was to interpret the world around him–a world that revealed the God who made him–by means of the word of God–the God who spoke to him. It was Satan who sought to lead Adam to separate natural and supernatural revelation. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was part of God’s natural revelation, but it was also the object of supernatural revelation. Satan told Adam that he could interpret the Tree apart from God’s word. In the sphere of redemption natural and supernatural revelation are brought back together again (Here it is interesting to note that Jesus created a body for Himself and brought natural and supernatural revelation back together. Man is natural revelation as the Imago Dei. The living Word of God became man to reconcile all things to Himself and to one day consummate His saving work in a New Heavens and New Earth wherein righteousness dwells.)

Someone may ask the question, “How does this come to bear on my life as a Christian?” While hundreds of applications could be set forth, the most fundamental applications have to do with ethics in the civil realm and the responsibility of the Christian as a citizen of a particular country. In America Christians have enormous privileges and responsibilities. We do not think that we will usher in the Kingdom of God through politics, but as the apostle Paul wrote, “as we have oppotunity, let us do good to all men, especially to the household of faith.” Voting for the most righteous political leader is a privilege and a responsibility. We have the privilege of voting for a President, voting for representatives from our particular states, influencing legislation, that will impact the lives of our neighbors and especially brethren in the church. Some proponents of a “Two Kingdoms theology” assert that it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, that the Bible does not speak to politicians as politicians, and that homosexual marriage in the civil realm is completely legitimate and should be embraced by Christians. To be fair, those who promote the later stance would say that homosexuality should be opposed in the church, but supported in the world.

This topic is too large to adequately tackle in a blog post, so I want to direct your attention to a series of articles by Nelson D. Kloosterman, published in Christian Renewal, titled “The Bible, the Church and the World: A Third Way.” Dr. Kloosterman is Professor of New Testament and Ethics at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyre, IN. The articles are written by a theologian with an ecclesiastical emphasis. They are clear, persuasive, carefully documented and scholarly. You can find them here.

There is so much rich symbolism in the Scripture, that we sometimes fail to see the depth to which the Holy Spirit will bring us if seek prayerfully and diligently enough. One such example is found in the first miracle of our Lord Jesus Christ at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. The shallow man might read this portion of Scripture and conclude that Jesus turned water into wine because He wanted to do something nice for the bride and groom; but Jesus is not interested in shallow interpretations of His word. No, there is rich symbolism here–first rooted in the Old Testament revelation, then realized in the New Covenant era. Sinclair Ferguson notes:

On the one hand, He was showing the inadequacy of the provisions of the old order. The sacrificial system could not bring the joy He offered. The old water gave only ceremonial forgiveness, and therefore short-lived and fading joy. But on the other hand, the Lord was demonstrating that in the gospel there is new wine that offers lasting joy (Isa. 55:1–3). Jesus Himself gives that wine (129).

It is certainly significant that John notes, “Now there were six stone water pots set there for the Jewish custom of  purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.” This was a Jewish wedding, at the point of the expectation of the coming One that John the Baptist had been preparing the way for through his own ritual custom of purification. Now, the coming One was present at this wedding. The water in the pots was intended for Jewish purification. It was a mark of the Old Covenant economy, with its typical, preparatory, and earthly representations and rituals. The Old Covenant era was ending and the New was being ushered in by Jesus Christ. Jesus was certainly doing something that was prophesied by the Old Testament prophets Amos and Isaiah. The very last words of the prophecy of Amos, looking forward to the fulfillment of the promises of God in the New Covenant, alluded to this very thing. Amos wrote, “‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD, ‘when the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; The mountains shall drip with sweet wine, And all the hills shall flow with it. I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up. From the land I have given them,’ Says the LORD your God (Amos 9:13-15).” This is the reason why He turned water into the best wine. The New Covenant is the time of the rich fulfillment of all the promises of God in Christ.

The Old Dispensation was represented by Moses, he mediator of the Old Covenant and the typical redeemer of the people of God. The New was represented by Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant and the only redeemer of God’s elect. There is, in the first miracle at the wedding in Cana, a contrast between the first miracle of Moses and the first miracle of Christ.

In the Old Testament Scriptures we read of “water turned into blood”–a deed of vengeance and of wrath; a judicial punishment upon a wicked king and a disobedient nation; a specimen too of the general character of the miracles of the old dispensation.

In the New Testament, however, we read of “water turned into wine;” the genial, generous, refreshing fruit of the vine;–emblem of the fullness, and blessing and peace which were to characterize the New Dispensation.

Moses’ miracles were the beginning of the plagues of Egypt; this miracle of Jesus was the beginning of the deeds of mercy which characterized the Son of Man. The one was transacted in blood; the sign of wrath even to death–the first Plague, a type and shadow of the last great Plague–the death of the firstborn. The other was transacted in the fruit of the vine; the sign of joy and gladness, and of nature’s fullness, and a type of the last great feast of the Passover, when Jesus did eat and drink with His disciples, and under the emblem of the fruit of the vine, “did institute and in His Gospel did command us to continue, the perpetual memory of His precious death, until His coming again.”2

It is on account of this period of fruitfulness that our minds are to be drawn as we see our Savior “manifest His glory,” so that His disciples, and we, would believe.

1. Sinclair Ferguson In Christ Alone (Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2007) p. 129

2. Robert Maguire The Miracles of Christ (London: Weeks and Co., 1863) p. 24

In his Calvin in the Public Square: Liberal Democracies, Rights, and Civil Liberties, David W. Hall lists several points regarding Calvin and Luther’s views on poverty and welfare.  Hall condenses Calvin’s general principles for welfare reform in Geneva on p. 113:

• It was only for the truly disadvantaged.
• Moral prerequisites accompanied assistance.
• Private or religious charity, not state largesse, was the vehicle for aid.
• Ordained officers managed and brought accountability.
• Theological underpinnings were normal.
• Productive work ethic was sought.
• Assistance was temporary.
• History is valuable in confirming practices.

Later in the book, Hall writes that “Calvin, Luther, Bucer, and Knox coalesced to form a consensual approach to the church’s role in social welfare.”  He then lists the consensual policy principles from the Reformation era. (p. 127)

• Theology guided practice.
• If one did not work, he was not assisted (2 Thess. 3:10).
• Each church was to administer a “common chest.”
• Welfare relief was temporary, with a long-term goal of industriousness.
• The family was the first rung of relief.
• A distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor was maintained.

These are very helpful principles for anyone thinking through diaconal ministry and even public policy.  I think all Christians should consider these points as they determine how they might assist the poor and needy in their own congregations through the diaconate and how they might support para-church (not quasi-church) organizations such as rescue missions.  I am delighted to mention that both rescue missions for whom my wife has worked incorporate several of these points into their programs.  Unfortunately, not every diaconate or organization considers these principles as they seek to help those in need.  The result is that those who are unwilling to find lasting help act as parasites by taking from those who are truly deserving.

For some time now I have wanted to post a link to the sermon that my friend Ed Verbeke preached at my wedding. Ed is a very special individual. I met Ed six years ago when I was traveling cross country to visit seminaries. As I made my way into Colorado Springs, I happened across a small RPCNA church that had Sunday evening service. I saw a small podium (approximately 2 1/2 feet tall) and a stool that was very close to the ground in the front of the room in which we were gathered to worship. I wondered whether this was some sort of weird regulative principle practice of sitting down for the reading and preaching of the word. (I have seen enough strange practices that this would not have surprised me!) Ed came walking in, canes in hand and talking to several individuals along the way. Ed has brittle bone disease, and has been in hospitals since he was a very young child. Nevertheless, Ed is a man who is greatly used by the Lord.

As he preached from Hebrews 4:14-16 I quickly realized that God’s hand was upon this man in a powerful way. I still remember the sermon and several of the major points to this day. After the service Ed and I spoke for a little while. He explained that he was a student at Sangre De Cristo Seminary–the school I was planning on visiting the next day.

Ed and I had a wonderful three days together at the school in the Sangre de Cristo mountain range of Westcliffe, CO. We sang hymns, prayed and talked about the Scripture the entire time. Ed and I bonded in a special way. He told me all the experiences he had as a missionary on an Indian reservation (much like Jonathan Edwards!), as well as in nursing homes and prisons.

I had a strange sense that I had heard Ed’s name before meeting him. As a new believer I had begun reading articles on the internet to help guide me through my theological studies. I had come across a very unique paper, in which the author had written a hypothetical debate between Dwight Pentecost and Jonathan Edwards. It was an incredibly creative and theologically rich paper. I had somehow remembered reading Ed’s name on the article.

Ed and I continued to stay in touch throughout the years. When I first met Anna, I was eager for her to get to know Ed as well. After talking with him on the phone, she quickly agreed that Ed should preach at our wedding. We flew Ed to Augusta, GA and spent a few days together prior to the wedding. We had a wonderful time together that week.

Ed preached from John 2:1-11 at our wedding. While this is a common portion of Scripture for weddings, Ed preached the text in his typical creative style. You can listen to it here.

When I was at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, we brought Ed in to do nursing home training videos for the nursing home ministry at Tenth. Ed had been the chaplain of the Reformed Presbyterian Retirement Home in Pittsburgh. He is uniquely gifted to minister to the physically and spiritually needy. You can watch those videos here.

I know you will be blessed by listening to the wedding sermon and watching the nursing home videos. There are not very many resources out there to guide ministers in these particular areas; and, there are not many men like Ed who instruct so well in them.