My good friend Gabriel Fluhrer has recently finished editing a series of lectures given by J.I. Packer, James Boice, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Sinclair Ferguson, John R. Dewitt and Alistair Begg on the atonement. You can order a copy here. I am sure this will be a very beneficial volume for anyone wanting to grow deeper in their knowledge of the Gospel.
Below is the video from the Sunday Morning worship service at New Covenant Presbyterian Church. The text was Acts 2:14-39 and the title is “Hear These Words.”
Chelsea Hauk, a reporter with Bryan County Now–a division of the Savannah Morning News, was kind enough to interview me today with regard to the work involved with planting New Covenant Presbyterian Church. Chelsea asked a really great question at the end of the interview. You can listen here.
There has been a fair bit of discussion about the so-called “two kingdoms” doctrine in Reformed circles of late. Two books have recently been released that get at the topic from a (theologically informed) historical vantage point. The first is by University of Chattanooga history professor William J. Wright and is entitled Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism and can be found here. Professor Wright seeks to untangle Luther’s doctrine from its associations with Christian passivity in the face of Hitler and the rise of National Socialism in Germany.
The second book is by Westminster Seminary California professor David VanDrunen and is entitled Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought and is obtainable here. Dr. VanDrunen seeks to explore the historical use of the two ideas within Reformed theology: natural law and two kingdoms. There is no doubt that both doctrines found a place within early stages of development in Reformed theological circles. So how do the doctrines function? If the idea of natural law is not merely a Roman Catholic or Enlightenment doctrine, how was the doctrine formulated and understood within Reformed circles? What accounts for its falling out of favor with Reformed theologians? The same kind of questions could be asked of the two [read more»]
John 10:36-38 Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.
Romans 1:4-7 And was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ should be boasted in as He is the Son of God – a divine member of the Trinity. No one has, or ever can use this term except Christ, because of the fact that He alone is the living Son of God. And this must be boasted in so that His supremacy is made even more glorious.
The Son’s relation to the Father is presented with the term “Son of God” to declare that the perfect revelation of the Father is now forever given to mankind. Jesus Christ is titled the Son of God in the sense that He is one of the members of the Trinity. This claim was made [read more»]
Dogmatics takes for its starting point the certainty of God’s existence. Everything else is details. For Bavinck the outset of Christian theology has one thing in common with the long history of critical reflection on God’s existence: he is unknowable. But nonattainability of the knowledge of God is not the same as nothing. As long as scripture remains objectively center we worship whom we know.
The greatest dangers to theology are words and a devaluation of mystery. If theology becomes an exercise of rhetoric or replaces its objective vision (revelation) for the subjective impression (positivism) theology degenerates into anthropology (Fichte). The evolutionary theory in Bavinck’s day, for example, held that YHWH was a Hittite mountain God adopted by the Hebrews and localized on Mt. Sinai. But God is represented as the Creator (Gen. 2:4b) and “descends” from heaven at the scene of Babel (Gen. 11:5, 7) and “accompanies” Abraham and Jacob on their journeys. Point is, concludes Bavinck, that Old Testament revelation is preparatory, external in nature, “it does indeed furnish true and reliable knowledge of God, but not a knowledge that exhaustively corresponds to his being.” Signs of his presence are darkness (Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11; 5:22; 1 Kg. 8:12; 2 Chron. 6:1) possibly to show that natural light does not represent his brilliance.
Who is lost in the [read more»]
It is commonplace, in many Reformed churches, for ministers to use Hebrews 13:20-21 as a benediction at the end of a worship service. It is perhaps my favorite of all the benedictions we use. But as is true with all Scripture, we sometimes have a tendency to read over–and even memorize–portions of Scripture thoughtlessly. Such was the case, in my experience, with the phrase in Hebrews 13:20: “Now, may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant, our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, make you complete…” What does it mean when the author of Hebrews says that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead through the blood of the covenant? John Owen, in his Exposition of Hebrews, gives one of the most satisfactory explanations of this all important phrase. He explains that the blood of the cross made the resurrection possible. Owen noted:
2. The blood of this covenant is the blood of Christ himself, so called in answer to the blood of the beasts, which was offered and sprinkled in the confirmation of the old covenant; whence it is by Moses called the blood of the covenant, Exod. xxiv. 8; Heb. ix. 20. See that place and the exposition. And it is called the blood of this covenant, because, as it was a sacrifice to God, it confirmed the covenant, and as it was to be sprinkled, it procured and communicated all the grace [read more»]
Below is the audio and video from the Sunday morning sermon preached at New Covenant Presbyterian Church in Richmond Hill, GA. The text was Acts 2:1-13 and the title was “When Jesus Shows Up at Pentecost.
When Jesus Comes to Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13) from Nicholas T. Batzig
Last Sunday Evening I preached a message on Romans 5:6-11 at New Covenant Presbyterian Church. The title of the sermon was “Much More Then.” Having gone back and listened to it I’ve come to realize that I did not preach the text as fully or carefully as I should have. Can you figure out what was left out? It is a lack of reference to a crucial part of Paul’s argument.
Much More Then (Romans 5:6-11) from Nicholas T. Batzig
Here is the link to the audio of my recent interview with Dr. Michael Haykin, concerning his book The Christian Lover. I believe that all Christian couples will benefit from the things that Dr. Haykin has to say and from this unique book.
Reformed Forum Podcasts