Green Baggins

One last thing

2006-09-30T13:43:00.000-05:00

One last thing on this blog: would everyone who has linked to my blog be so kind as to change their link to my new blog? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your kindness.

Moving my blog

2006-09-30T12:26:00.000-05:00

I have decided that I am going to move. I like the category feature so much (and could not find a satisfactory category hack for blogger), and the ease of use, that I am going to switch. There are some features that I don't particularly like (one cannot edit the template at all). However, that is not really a problem for me. I have a feeling that a great deal of flexibility will appear once I get to know it a bit better. So here is the new blogsite: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/ Or, you can just link to it here. I will start indexing there my blog entries here, so that nothing will be lost, and there will be complete reciprocity between the two blogs.

Experiment

2006-09-27T11:32:00.000-05:00

I am experimenting with WordPress as a possible new blog. I would very much appreciate comments on the new blog, if you like it better than my blogger blog. I am not satisfied with blogger anymore, and so I am test-driving WordPress. I am not totally committed to moving, yet, either. I have many blog posts on blogger. Please, please just drop a line to tell me what you think.

Final Judgment

2006-09-26T11:19:00.000-05:00

Christ shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead. This is creedal, and it is biblical. the book of Revelation amply testifies to it, as do many other passages of Scripture. The one issue that I wish to deal with is the future aspect of justification. There are many today who would say that our present justification is on the basis of works, and that future justification is on the basis of a life well-lived. In doing so, they make justification again to depend on our works. Scripture never says that the future aspect of justification is based on works. We must note here that LC 90 does indeed say that there is an open acknowledgment and acquittal on the final day of judgment. Hence, there is a future aspect to justification which in no way whatsoever competes with or diminishes the present finality of justification. We will never be more innocent or more "saved" than we are right now, if we be united to Christ. The future aspect is merely a public acknowledgment of what has already happened on the basis of Christ's work. That judgment in the future has already been brought into the present in all its finality. There is nothing uncertain about our standing before Christ if we be justified now. We are not going to plead our own works on the day of judgment as the reason why we should be openly acquitted. See, the operative word there in LC 90 is "open." Justification as it is in its present aspect, is a private acquittal in God's court-room. But the whole world does not know about it. On Judgment Day, believers will come before the judgment seat of Christ, and Christ will say, "This person was justified by faith alone in his lifetime: does the world need proof of this? Then look at the fruit that came from it." The fruit is the evidence of justification. Therefore, the fruit will function as a witness that we were in fact justified. The fruit will not function as the basis for future justification (which is Christ's righteousness), but as the evidence for it. We need to avoid any intimation whatsoever that we are not completely justified in this life if we be united to Christ. Otherwise, Romans 8:1 will have zero force: "There is now therefore no condemnation..." If there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, then they have nothing to fear on Judgment Day, and hence are utterly and completely justified right now. However, that fact is not evident to all the world, which is what the future aspect to justification addresses. Scripture uses the language that the future judgment will be according to works, not on the basis of works. The phrase "according to" has evidentiary force (Romans 2:6). Romans 2 must be interpreted in the light of chapters 5-8. Paul does not contradict himself. A further point must be noted in Romans 2: we can say that judgment is according to each person's works: it is Jesus Christ's works by which he will be judged! Furthermore, degrees of reward (and punishment) will be in accordance with each person's own works. Only this understanding does justice to all of Paul's teaching. This brings up a profound problem in N.T. Wright's theology. He claims that justification is the verdict of the final day brought into the present (he says this: I'm not going to look it up right now, Todd: you do it). And he says that that is by faith (although he has problems with that, too: his other theology negates that claim). But then he says that future justification is on the basis of a life lived in service to God, or words to that effect. This is a deep contradiction that he has not even begun to resolve. The only way I can see for him to resolve it is to say that faith and works can inhabit the same sphere of basis. But that is to confuse faith and works, the very thing that the Roman Catholic Church did at Trent.

How Not to Pray

2006-09-26T10:23:00.000-05:00

Matthew 6:5-8 Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer once told a story about prayer. It seems that a certain minister was in the habit of profound prayers, oftentimes using words that the people didn't know. This went on week after week, to the dismay and frustration of the congregation. At last, a small Scottish woman in the choir ventured to take the matter in hand. On a given Sunday, as the minister was waxing his most eloquently verbose, the little woman reached across the curtain separating the choir from the pulpit. Taking a firm grasp on the frock tail of the minister, she gave it a yank, and was heard to whisper, “Jes' call Him Fether, and ask 'im for somethin'.” Now, that is a story about a minister. What about us? Do we do certain things to try to make sure that our prayers are heard? I think we do. But let's look at our passage to see what Jesus tells us. What Jesus tells us here is how not to pray. There are two dangers in prayer about which Jesus tells us. The first danger is hypocrisy: doing prayer so that other people will notice how pious we are. This is given to us in verses 5-6. The second danger Jesus tells us to avoid is meaningless jabbering. Let us examines these one by one. First of all, we must notice that we are now in the second of three examples. Jesus has told us in verse one of this chapter that we are not to practice our righteousness before other men in order to be seen by them. Then Jesus gives three examples of how our righteousness should be private: alms, prayer, and fasting. We are going to spend some time on prayer, at least several weeks. Well, what is this hypocrisy about which Jesus warns us? Hypocrites love to be noticed in their piety. I just saw a picture the other day of Hilary Clinton praying in front of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. There were all sorts of cameras there taking pictures of her. My guess is that she was doing anything but praying to the Lord God. What she was doing was sheer politics. She everyone to see that she was praying. In the first century, hypocrisy was down to a fine art, as it is today. What they would do is time their business just right, so that when the time came for the scheduled prayers of the day, they would just happen to be in a great spot to be noticed by just about as many people as possible. They were ostentatious in their display of piety. But they were not praying to God. Instead, they were praying to other people. Another story: a man went to a church in Boston, and heard a very erudite preacher pray in his congregation. It was a very long-winded prayer that did not take people up to the throne of grace, as a pastoral prayer should, but rather tried to impress the people with his knowledge. The man remarked, “That was the best prayer I ever heard offerred to a church in Boston.” Prayer needs to be directed solely to God, not to anyone else. That is why Jesus says that they have received their reward. Again, we have that word that means “paid in full.” There is no further payment to be expected. Furthermore, what Jesus says here implies that it wasn't really prayer at all, in fact. Prayer is by definition directed to God, not to people. That is why Jesus tells us what the remedy is for hypocritical prayer: it is to engage in prayer in a place where we cannot possibly be seen by anyone. And, of course, it does no good for us to somehow let someone know that we have to go pray now. We can sometimes say, “Last night while I was praying,” or “The Lord showed me while I was praying.” These expressions can often be used as subtle hints that we are quite holy and pious. One is reminded of the story of Pharisee and the tax-collector. The Pharisee stands upright in the middle of the Temple area, and publicly thanks God that he is not like this tax-collector. But the tax-collector was the one unable to face God. He simply beat his breast and called to God to have mercy on him. Jesus tells us that it was the tax-collector, not the Pharisee, who went home justified. Now, it is important to recognize that Jesus is not condemning public prayer. If He was, then the early disciples surely misunderstood Him badly when they prayed together in their meetings in church. Jesus is talking about our private prayers, those prayers that should only exist between God and yourself. He is not talking about public worship, and so we cannot read His statements here as condemning public prayer. Well, what kind of place does Jesus recommend? He recommends the most private place you can find. In those days, the only real privacy you could have among other people was in a private store-room that could be locked. That is the room Jesus is talking about here. You see, Jews of those days thought that the only acceptable place to pray was the Temple. So, in one sentence, Jesus tells us that the most Holy place in which we can pray, is the room most likely viewed as the least holy place. We might think this way today about the church. “I can only really pray in church, because it is more solemn there.” The fact is that you can pray anywhere. But if you are going to pray when other people are around, and there occasions when we must do so, then we should pray in our hearts. Now, what about prayer meetings? Is Jesus condemning those? Well, no, He is not. But He would condemn prayer meetings where people pray to other people rather than to God. If you are in a prayer meeting, or are in a place where other people are going to pray, say, family night, or Ladies' Aid, then beware lest your prayers turn into a performance for the other people there. What you must do instead is lift the people to the very throne room of God. You are not on display for other people, but are rather to be talking with God. For that is the most basic definition of prayer: talking with God. God talks to us in Scripture. We talk to God in prayer. Both are necessary, and both complement the other. This is a good segue into the second danger that Jesus warns us about: long-windedness. We've all probably experienced some time in our lives, someone praying, and we just wish that person would shut up. Probably some of you have thought that about some of the pastoral prayers that I have offered! Well, long-windedness is not very acceptable to people. What makes us think it is more acceptable to God? For it is often the case that the very same people who would object to hearing long-windedness in others will do the very same thing themselves! What does Jesus mean here? Well, we must understand the background to Jesus' statement. Pagans of that time were very fond of long prayers. They would call on every deity they knew (for most of them were polytheists), and after a lengthy recitation of gods' names (along with all the various attributes they thought the gods had), then, and only then, would they start actually talking to the gods. They thought that you had to address God in a very particular way, or that god would be offended. In fact, they would often include a catch-all phrase at the end of the gods' names, lest they had forgotten one. What they would then do is to pile up meaningless phrase after meaningless phrase, thinking that the gods would only hear you if they really thought you were sincere because of your long-windedness. This is sometimes true in the Roman Catholic tradition, where they will say the Hail Mary and the Our Father about 100 times, thinking that God will hear them only after they have said that many times. But what about ourselves? It is easy to point to something like that and say that it doesn't affect us. Do we use an exalted style of language to talk to God, thinking that God will only listen to us if we use King James English? I'm not saying that it is wrong to use such language. However, we must ask ourselves this question: why do we do that? Do we do it out of true reverence? Or do we do it only when other people are around, so that they will think that we are reverent and pious? How often do we think about what we say when we pray the Lord's Prayer? Is it just another meaningless repetition of the Lord's Prayer? Just mouthing the words? Or do we mean it every time we say it? Do we understand it? That is one reason why we are (Lord-willing) going to go rather slowly through the Lord's Prayer. It is so familiar, that we don't listen to it anymore, oftentimes. We need to hear the Lord's Prayer afresh, or we will wind up turning the Lord's Prayer into the very thing that Jesus here condemns: meaningless words! Now, let's clarify what Jesus is NOT saying. He is not saying that repetition is necessarily bad. Jesus himself did it in the High Priestly Prayer in John 17, where He stresses the unity between Father, Son, and church very many times. Jesus is also not condemning length in prayers, for He Himself would often pray all night. He certainly did the night He was arrested, when He prayed in Gethsemane. Well then, what is Jesus condemning? He condemns meaningless repetition. Repetition done so that God will hear better. Why is this? Why are we not to meaninglessly repeat things in our prayer? Jesus gives us the reason in verse 8: God already knows what we need before we even ask Him. You might remember the parable of the unjust judge. There, the woman kept on coming back and coming back to the judge, demanding justice from him, until finally the judge gave in, simply to get this old woman off his hands. Jesus is there arguing that if such persistance is required with an unjust judge, then how much more will God hear us, when He is not unjust, and hurries to fulfill His children's requests? We should not give up, simply because God seems slow to us. God's time runs differently from ours, much like Narnia time runs differently from England time, in C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. God calls all times soon. And so we should not be impatient in our prayers, thinking that God does not hear. One is reminded of the story of the prophets of Baal versus Elijah the prophet. Those Baal prophets cried out from morning to night on the name of their god, who did not answer. The silence was deafening. Elijah makes one simple, short, direct, and fervent prayer to God, and does God ever answer him! Martin Luther said that our prayers should be “brief, frequent, and intense.” We pray when we need to pray, which is far more often than we normally pray. This brings up another issue in regards to prayer: how often should we pray? If we are not praying morning, noon, and night, then are we inferior Christians? That is rather a difficult question. On the one hand, it is certainly true that our whole lives should be one long prayer to God. On the other hand, we often use such a thought as an excuse not really to pray at all. There should definitely be set times when we come before our Heavenly Father in prayer. Morning is probably the best time, since we are not immediately thinking about the events of the day, like we are at night. On the other hand, night-time is the best time for talking with God about the events of the day. Sometimes we also need prayer in the middle of the day, so that God would help us to accomplish the task at hand. Our lives are to be characterized by prayer. That is what Paul means when he says, “Pray without ceasing.” He does not mean that we are only to pray, and do nothing besides. But it does mean that we are to be characterized by prayer. We should remember in all this that we cannot come to the throne of grace without a Mediator. Jesus is here telling us that we need Him as a Mediator. We don't use the opinion of other people as a Mediator, which is what hypocrites do. Nor do we use many words as our Mediator. No, we simply have Christ as our Mediator. He is our High Priest in the heavens, listening to our prayers, and pleading for us, on our behalf, to the Father. Do you want to know if God hears your prayers? Do you have a Mediator? The answer to that question answers the other question. If you have Jesus as a Mediator, then God hears your prayers. That is an absolute promise in Scripture. If you do not have Jesus, then it doesn't matter how many people see you pray, and it doesn't matter how long you pray, or how many meaningless phrases you pile up, God will not hear your prayer. A final word on the efficacy of prayer. What does it accomplish? James tells us that the prayer of a righteous man avails much. That is, it is effectual. We like to think sometimes that the only thing it changes is us. That is true. God does not change because of our prayers. However, there is a danger in thinking that way. We can start to think that because prayer doesn't change God, that therefore God doesn't care about our prayers, and then we are tempted to give it up altogether. What we must know is that God uses our prayers to accomplish His purposes. Yes, even our weak, unfaithful, lapsed prayers are tools God uses to accomplish His will. That is an amazing idea, isn't it? Why should God use me, a sinner? And yet, He does. So, pray to the Father. “Call 'im Fether, and ask 'im for somethin'.” He is a loving Father, who desires to give all good gifts to His children.

The Intermediate State

2006-09-25T10:33:00.000-05:00

When a believer dies, his soul goes to be with God, though his body turns to dust. The soul does not sleep. This is proved by Hebrews 12:1, among other passages. The body awaits the resurrection, of which Christ's resurrection is the first-fruits. I would like to focus for a bit on how to minister to the dying and the bereaved. This is a vitally important ministry, and is misunderstood by many. Firstly, there is no need to be especially talkative to such people, unless they really want to talk. Often, it is the presence, the aura of peace that you bring that is especially helpful. Secondly, it is not about the dead that people really wish to talk. Bereaved people really wish to know other things. This is why it is not really helpful to say, "Well, that person is in a better place now." That's great for the dead person. And it's true, if the deceased by a believer. But how does that help the living person? It is much more helpful to say, "You will see that person again (in the case of talking to a believer about a believer's death), talk to them again, touch them again, hug them again. There is resurrection, and you will know them again. You will recognize them (a question often asked, by the way)." They do want to know about the intermediate state, but the reality is that the pain is very much on a physical level: it is the physical presence that is missed. It is the person as he existed in the body who is missed. If you can utter nothing but platitudes, then it is better by far to say nothing. They will not misunderstand you if you utter platitudes (that is, they will assume that you mean well), but they will not derive much comfort from your being there, if you utter platitudes. Instead, if you cannot think of anything to say, just be there, comfortable with silence. This is ministry, too. Do not think that you must say something. For many people, they would simply prefer you be there, but be silent. It can be helpful to ask them whether or not they wish to talk. Make yourself available for the form of comfort in which they are interested. Do not ever underestimate the power of touch to comfort. They miss the person on a physical level very much. Comfort, then, on a physical level can be very helpful, especially holding their hand and hugging. Do not be ashamed or uncomfortable if they start crying. Cry with them. Passages for bereaved people are: Psalm 23, Job 19, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, John 11, Revelation 21-22 For the dying person, the Gospel is the focus, especially the resurrection aspect of it. Dying believers really need to know that this is not the end, but rather the beginning of victory. They need to know that Christ's resurrection has turned death from defeat into victory. They need to know about the resurrection body. This gives inestimable comfort. 1 Cor 15 is key here.

True Repentance

2006-09-25T09:44:00.000-05:00

Genesis 42 In his book I Surrender, Patrick Morley writes that the church's integrity problem is in the mis- conception "that we can add Christ to our lives, but not subtract sin. It is a change in belief without a change in behavior." He goes on to say, "It is revival without reformation, without repentance." How do you know if true repentance has taken place? You can find out by looking at the fruit of repentance: a changed life, a permanently changed life. Charles Hodge said this, “The sure test of the quality of any supposed change of heart will be found in its permanent effects. 'By their fruits you shall know them' is as applicable to the right method of judging ourselves as of judging others. Whatever, therefore, may have been our inward experience, whatever joy or sorrow we may have felt, unless we bring forth fruits meet for repentance, our experience will profit us nothing. Repentance is incomplete unless it leads to confession and restitution in cases of injury; unless it causes us to forsake not merely outward sins, which others notice, but those which lie concealed in the heart; unless it makes us choose the service of God and live not for ourselves but for Him. There is no duty which is either more obvious in itself, or more frequently asserted in the Word of God, than that of repentance.” What Joseph is doing in this chapter is finding out if the brothers have truly changed. All his actions are directed towards reconciliation. However, reconciliation cannot happen unless true repentance has taken place on the part of the brothers. In the same way, God wants reconciliation with us. But He will not do it unless He has first enabled repentance to take place in our lives. It is therefore vital to describe what repentance is, and what it is not. Repentance is not merely a confession of sin. That is required, of course, but it is not the full definition of repentance. Repentance means a complete turn-around in a person's life. One poor pastor said once that repentance is a complete 360 degree turn around from sin. You can see that math is sometimes important to know! I think 180 degrees would be a much more helpful way of putting it. Well, what does repentance mean for Joseph's brothers? It means that they will not treat Benjamin the same way they treated Joseph. We start off the chapter with Jacob finding out that there is grain in Egypt. So, he sends off his brothers, all except Benjamin. Verse 4 seems to indicate to us that Jacob didn't really trust the brothers. The last time he sent off one of Rachel's offspring to the brothers, Joseph got killed (at least in his own mind). So, he wasn't taking any chances with what would surely be a fairly dangerous journey. He keeps Benjamin close by him. That probably had the unwitting effect of arousing the slumbering consciences of the brothers. They would have been reminded of Joseph by Jacob's actions. They have that on which to ponder as they make their way slowly down to Egypt, the place where they knew that Joseph had been sold as a slave. Never in their wildest dreams did they think that Joseph would be in a position of power. It was in Joseph's wildest dreams, but not in theirs. Verse 6 shows us that the brothers cannot thwart the plan of God. Joseph's dream had been that his brothers' sheaves of grain (!) would bow down to his, signifying that they themselves would bow down to him. Now they do it quite unwittingly. Their grain being gone, they have to bow down to the seeming Egyptian, and his large store of grain. Probably Joseph didn't have a lot of time to react. He had to make a decision quickly: how was he going to treat them? Would he forgive and forget? Or would he try for something even deeper: reconciliation through the repentance of the brothers? He knew that he could drop the facade at any time. So he decides to try to find a way to see if they have really changed or not. He accuses them of being spies. Anyone accused of being a spy starts telling their accuser all sorts of interesting things. Joseph noticed that Jacob and Benjamin were not there with the brothers. He wanted to find out if they were still alive. After wearing them down with repeated accusations, Joseph does get them to tell him that Jacob and Benjamin are in fact still alive. Their answers to his accusations are a bit hurried and disjointed, as you might expect from people accused of a crime of which they know they are innocent, though the accusation was quite sudden and unexpected. That combination of factors helps to explain why they almost stutter with protestations of innocence. Joseph has the edge here, because he recognizes them, since they wore beards, and there were 10 of them. They hadn't changed nearly as much as he had. He was a smooth-shaven, well-dressed, powerful Egyptian, who used an interpreter, and spoke harsh Egyptian. No wonder they didn't recognize him! Now, Joseph's accusations are entirely ridiculous. Who ever heard of a spy ring consisting of ten brothers, all in the same place, with donkeys obviously brought for taking back food? It is not really credible. However, as was said, this accusation had the purpose of keeping them from recognizing him, and telling him what he wanted to know. Calvin has this to say: “it was to be feared lest they, keeping their father out of sight, and wishing to cast a veil over the detestable wickedness which they had committed, should only increase it by a new crime. There lurked, also, a not unreasonable suspicion concerning his brother Benjamin, lest they should attempt something perfidious and cruel against him. It was therefore important that they should be more thoroughly sifted.” And it was important that this happen while the brothers were ignorant of his real identity. Jesus would similarly sift the Jews of His day. He spoke in parables in order to sift them, to see if they would repent or not. Candlish says this, “In this respect he fitly represents a greater than himself, one raised to a higher glory, for a wider purpose of grace. Jesus is “exalted, a prince and a Savior, to give repentance unto Israel, and the remission of sins;” -not the remission of sins only- but repentance and the remission of sins together. Joseph could have no difficulty about giving his brothers remission of sins; he has forgiven them long ago in his heart, and right gladly would he assure them of that at once. But, acting under divine guidance, he must so deal with them as to force upon them a deep and salutary exercise of soul, which in the end is to be blessed for their more complete peace, -their more thorough unity and prosperity,- in the day when the full joy of reconciliation is to be experienced.” Joseph gives them a taste of their own medicine by putting them in prison for three days. This has at least two purposes: one is to give himself some time to think about how he will pursue this reconciliation. The other purpose is to make the brothers aware that this is exactly what they did to Joseph. In the book The Horse and His Boy, Aslan, the Christ figure, gives the main character five scratches, to help the main character know what someone else had gone through. Aslan's comment was this, “It was necessary that you should feel what this other person felt.” Joseph does exactly this, and the result is exactly that for which he had hoped. The brothers are thinking only about Joseph. We said earlier that their consciences had already been awakened. Now, their consciences are in full force. They all agree that it was because of their treatment of Joseph that they were going through this trial. Now, Joseph had required that one of the brothers go back and get Benjamin. Otherwise, he would not believe their story. In verse 20, Joseph tells them that their words will be verified only if they bring back Benjamin. Joseph knows that they will have to come back, since there is at least five more years of famine left. So, the brothers in prison are surely discussing which one of them will have to go back to tell Jacob that the youngest brother will have to go back if all the brothers are to survive. Reuben does not want to do it. That is the reason for his self-justifying comment here in verse 22. However, Reuben's comment is not so compelling. Reuben actually recommended that they throw Joseph into the pit. He is here claiming credit for his god intentions, though his good intentions were not strong enough to overturn the other brothers' bad intentions. However, it is a piece of information which Joseph had not known before. It is Reuben's comment that makes Joseph turn away and weep. He sees that the brothers are not completely hardened. It is also Reuben's comment that makes Joseph pass him by and instead take Simeon to be the hostage. Simeon will have to cool his heels in Joseph's prison until the brothers come back with Benjamin. As we will see, that is quite a long time. Well, the brothers are ready. After Joseph unexpectedly gives them leniency, and reverses the number of those who will go versus the number of those who will stay. Joseph unexpectedly gives them their money back. Probably, this had more than one motive as well. Joseph wanted to care for his brothers. He had long forgiven them in the past, as is very clear from his statement later on when he says that it was the Lord's doing. However, Joseph also wants to up the ante here. They are going to have to come back afraid, thinking that they would be labelled thieves in addition to the charge they already have of being spies. After the brothers tell their father about their encounter, selectively removing anything that appears bad, they empty their sacks, and discover that their money has been returned to them. Now, we have a difficulty here. Earlier the text says that one of the brothers opens his sack to find his money. And in chapter 43, verse 21, the brothers tell Joseph on their second trip that they all found out at the same time at the stopping place. How come chapter 42 seems to imply that only one of them found out at the stopping place, and that all the rest of them didn't find out until later? Liberal scholars say that the answer lies in the theory of two sources, and that there is no way to resolve the contradiction. I disagree. I believe that the reason has more to do with how good the brothers want to look to their father. Notice that they leave out the part of the one brother finding his money returned to him. Probably what happened is that they all found out at the stopping place. But they pretended that they had not found out. They wanted to have as much credibility with their father as possible. So they wait until they can all find out together, so that when Jacob found out (as he surely would), he wouldn't blame the brothers. This was a needless deception on the part of the brothers, but they did it anyway. The main point of this whole chapter has to do with guilt and repentance. That is Joseph's entire aim, as we have seen. And in this chapter, we have seen that the brothers have admitted their guilt before God. This is an essential step in the reconciliation process. However, as we said at the beginning, we need not only to confess our sin, but also to turn away from it. So, if you have faith, have you repented? That is, have you left behind your enslavement to sin? We admit, as good Reformed people, that only God can make us do that. But the call is to people: have you repented? It is impossible to say that you believe in God, and then to say that you can still live a life of sin. To quote Candlish again, “Thou art called to deep and salutary exercises of penitential sorrow. If instead relief for thy burdened conscience is granted, and he whom thou hast pierced utters at once the words, “Be of good cheer, it is I, thy sins be forgiven thee;”- with what a flood of tears shouldest thou be graciously mourning for these very forgiven sins? And if it should be otherwise with thee,- if it should seem as if this assured forgiveness were long of coming, and the prince, the Saviour, were long of showing himself,-surely thou canst not pretend that thou hast any right to complain. Thou canst no more take it amiss than Joseph's brothers could, that thou shouldest have bitter days and nights to spend in thinking over all thy heinous guilt.” Repentance is a sorrowing turn away from sin. It is sorrow that we have sinned against God, not merely sorrow for sin's consequences. Rather it is sorrow for sin itself. That is the message of repentance, and of our chapter.

The Sacraments

2006-09-24T14:45:00.001-05:00

Sacraments are signs and seals. As signs, they function like road markers that point to a city. "Minneapolis this way," a sign might say. The sign is connected to the city, assuming that no one has tampered with the sign. It points in the right direction. Baptism says "salvation is in Christ; go this way, and repent and believe." That function is slightly different, depending on whether the sign is administered before faith (in the case of infants) or after faith (presumed faith, in the case of adults). As seals, they function as God's statement "This person is engaged to me" (in the case of baptism), or "This person is in fellowship with me" (in the case of communion). With regard to baptism, we can give a further analogy: baptism functions like an engagement ring. The person is spoken for. But engagements can be broken. Baptism is not the wedding ring: that is faith. But it is like an engagement ring. 27.2 of the WCF is absolutely essential to understand, when surrounded by the debates in the PCA and elsewhere: "there is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." This means that sometimes the Bible uses the term "baptism" when it means to talk about the thing that baptism signifies. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 are good examples of this, as has been argued in a previous post and comments. The WCF is just as careful to avoid the "empty sign" theology of Zwingli, as it is to avoid baptismal regeneration. Since no one really disputes the former, I will focus on the latter. Indications that baptism does not automatically confer union with Christ: 27:3 "The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them...the word of instituation, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers." Emphasis mine. More on this in the next WCF post on baptism. Someone will probably immediately quote 28.6 to me, which says this (usually truncated by FV advocates): "Yet notwithstanding, by the right use of the ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost." What is missing, of course, is the very next essential qualifying statement: "to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." I have highlighted the importance of these two phrases: this grace does not belong unto those of the non-elect. And, the grace of baptism is conferred in God's own time (it is not limited to the time when baptism is administered).

The Resurrection and Ascension and Joseph

2006-09-24T14:45:00.000-05:00

Genesis 41 Robert Dick Wilson, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary before it went liberal, once heard one of his students preach. Afterward, he came up to the man and said this: “If you come back again, I will not come to hear you preach. I only come once. I am glad that you are a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see if they are big-godders or little-godders, and then I know what their ministry will be.” His former student asked him to explain, and he replied, “Well, some men have a little god, and they are always in trouble with him. He can't do any miracles. He can't take care of the inspiration and transmission of the Scripture to us. He doesn't intervene on behalf of his people. They have a little god and I call them little-godders. Then, there are those who have a great God. He speaks and it is done. He commands and it stands fast. He knows how to show himself strong on behalf of them that fear him. You have a great God; and he will bless your ministry.” He paused a moment, smiled, said, “God bless you,” and turned and walked out. Joseph was a big-godder. He had a massive conception of who God was, and so must we. One of the biggest things about God that is important is that He has brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, and given Him the name that is above every name. But that great event in history is not the only time that God has done something like that. Even to the OT believers, God gave them a picture of what Jesus would look like. God gave them Joseph. That is why I have entitled this sermon “The Resurrection and Ascension of Joseph.” It is truly a great God that we serve, and that is proved over and over again in the pages of Holy Scripture. God's providence is evident in a particular way in the beginning of our story. For Joseph is made to wait two whole years before he is delivered from prison. This had a two-fold reason. One reason God did this is so that Joseph would be made perfect through suffering, just as Jesus Christ was. The second reason is that God wanted the perfect timing for the cupbearer to remember. If the cupbearer had remembered earlier, then very little good would have come out of it. But now, a great good will come out of it, nothing less that the salvation of the entire world from starvation. In a similar way, Jesus would endure two days in the grave, but on the third day, Jesus would rise again. If Joseph's resurrection meant a physical salvation of the world, then Jesus' resurrection means a spiritual resurrection, and then a bodily resurrection for His people. The occasion of this great act of God was a dream on Pharaoh's part. This dream was very scary to Pharaoh for a number of reasons. The first is that the Nile river was the source of life for Egyptians. That is what they believed. However, here the Nile is putting forth bad cows and bad corn. The Nile failed in the dream. That was also a failure of the god of the Nile, whose name was Hapi. The first part of the dream had to do with cows. Cows were sacred animals in Egypt, and symbolized Egypt itself. So Pharaoh knew that something very bad was going to happen, when he started seeing these cannibal cows. He will say later on that the cannibal cows, after eating the fat cows, didn't even look any better than they were before. And then, after having awoken because of the vividness of the dream, he fell asleep and dreamed another very similar dream. In fact, the two dreams are so alike that Pharaoh thought of them as one. In verse 8, most modern translations say that Pharaoh told his dreams plural to the wise men. Actually, the KJV translates it accurately: he told his dream singular to the wise men. He saw it as one dream. But the interpreters thought of them as two dreams. That is why it says that there was no one to interpret them to Pharaoh. He wasn't satisfied with any of their interpretations, because they thought of his one dream as two dreams. So the wise men of Egypt cannot interpret for Pharaoh, and they cannot even count right! Pharaoh knew they were really one dream, because there was the element of seven, the element of the later bad things destroying the earlier good things, and the completeness of the “victory” of the bad things. In this whole process, the cupbearer suddenly remembers Joseph. He tells Pharaoh about Joseph, especially the fact that Joseph had interpreted the dreams correctly. That gets Pharaoh very excited, and all of a sudden, Joseph finds himself brought out, shaved, dressed in new clothes, and brought before Pharaoh. One little interesting detail here: the Hebrew men always wore beards, but the Egyptians never wore them. That is why Joseph had to be shaved. Otherwise, he would not have been presentable to Pharaoh. Pharaoh is so excited that here is one who can interpret dreams. However, Joseph quickly, though gently, corrects the Pharaoh. Joseph tells the Pharaoh that the interpretation belongs to God. It is the same thing that he told to the baker and the cupbearer in the previous chapter. In one word in Hebrew, Joseph disavows any claim to the wisdom necessary to understand dreams, and says instead that God gave it to him. It is vitally important to give God all the glory for any and all gifts that we have, any skills that we have. After having given a particularly devout and moving sermon one Sunday morning, Charles Spurgeon was greeted by members of his congregation. One man said to him, “Sir, that was the greatest sermon I have ever heard and that you have ever preached?” Spurgeon turned to him and said, “Yes, the devil told me that ten minutes ago” But Joseph here takes great care that the arrow should not point to him, but to God. The same thing was true with Jesus Christ. He did not point the arrow at Himself, but rather let His Heavenly Father proclaim what a good Son He had. Joseph interprets the dream for Pharaoh. Finally, here was someone who could count. Joseph insists that the “two” dreams are really one and the same. The only they came in a two-fold manner was to emphasize how certain would be the fulfillment of this one dream. Joseph tells Pharaoh that God has revealed what He is about to do. The future is not in the hands of Pharaoh, you see, but rather in the hands of Almighty God. However, after Joseph finishes interpreting the dream, he gives a solution. The dream presents quite a problem for Pharaoh. Joseph knows this, and so has compassion on the Egyptians, and presents them not only with the proper interpretation of the dream, but also with a solution to the problem. Joseph is not thinking of himself here as he describes what this discerning and wise person is to do. He is not jockeying for position. Joseph just wants to get out of prison! He has no idea of himself being the one chosen. That is quite important, because he did grasp after authority like Adam did. Rather, he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking on him the form of a servant. As a result of this humiliation, God exalted him above every other name that can be named. Only in regard to the throne would Pharaoh be higher than Joseph. That also is reflected in Christ's experience, as described in 1 Corinthians 15:27, which says this: “For 'God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says, 'all things are put in subjection,' it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.” God the Father is not subject to the Son. Neither is the Son subject to the Father. They are equal, unlike Pharaoh and Joseph in that respect. Pharaoh reasons very well here. He thinks that since Joseph not only interpreted the dream correctly, but also provided a solution to the problem, there could be no one better qualified to do this thing than Joseph himself. And so Pharaoh promotes Joseph beyond any other minister in the kingdom. He is the vizier. That is the term used here. Now is fulfilled one of Joseph's own dreams. He dreamed that the sun, moon, and stars would bow down to him. That refers to the largest superpower of the ancient world, Egypt. Now it is a reality. It is only a matter of time now before the other dream will come true, since the famine will be severe not only in Egypt, but in the rest of the world as well. The seven years of plenty follow immediately, and Egypt and Joseph are both fruitful and multiplying. Joseph gets married into one of the highest social circles of the land. Priests were very well respected in those days. Joseph has two sons by her: Manasseh and Ephraim. These years are fairly uneventful otherwise, and so we pass on to the years of famine. The people come to Pharaoh, who immediately directs them to Joseph, who is the only one who can give to them the Bread of Life. So also, Jesus is the only one to whom we can go for the Bread of Life. Verse 57 paves the way for the brothers to come, since the famine was severe in all the lands, not just in Egypt. However, because of Joseph's wise policy of taxation, there was grain in Egypt. Joseph probably did not sell grain to the Egyptians until later years. He was actually rationing it carefully, so as to have enough grain for seven whole years. So what can we take away from this story? Well, we have seen that Joseph prefigures Jesus Christ in many ways. So also, he prefigures the church. Therefore, the Joseph story also applies to us through Jesus Christ. For instance, do we take credit for a gift or a skill that we have? It should rather be used for the good of others, and to the honor and glory of God alone. We are NEVER to use our gifts and skills for our own self-aggrandizement. We are never to puff up ourselves, thinking ourselves so great, when everything we have is a gift from God. Joseph could have taken credit for his interpretation of the dream, but he did not do so. Instead, he used his skill for the good of the world, and, as it turned out, for the good of the OT church. It is important to head off at the pass an incorrect application of this passage. This passage is not telling us today that we should follow our dreams, to have them interpreted. Hebrews 1 is very clear about this: in the OT, says Hebrews, God revealed Himself in many different ways and at various times. In these NT last days, He has revealed Himself to us in His Son. We need no other revelation than Jesus Christ, as recorded for us in Scripture. If you want to have guidance for your life, then look to Scripture, not to dreams, and not to magic, like horoscopes. The Egyptian magicians were always shown to be incorrect in their interpretations, and incomplete in their knowledge. They couldn't interpret this dream of Pharaoh's properly at all. That kind of thing is the way of darkness and confusion. If we want light, then we must go to Scripture, and pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. Furthermore, when we have the opportunity to do something great in front of someone else, we should not do it with an eye towards our own interests. This follows closely from what I said before. However, it certainly bears repeating. We are not to be interested in self. We are rather to have the same mind as Christ Jesus, who did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, making Himself nothing, taking the form of a servant. That is what Joseph did, and it is what we should do. So, do the thing that no one else wants to do because it is too low. Jesus washed His disciples' feet, and in the very process showed them what they must do for each other. Maybe you don't want to take care of your elderly parents or grandparents. But shouldn't you give them that service? Maybe you don't want to help your neighbor out with something. Shouldn't you volunteer? Maybe you don't want to shovel manure and clean out someone's cow stalls. Shouldn't you do that very thing anyway? We should never think that any kind of service to others is beneath us. For Jesus Christ humiliated Himself far more than we ever even could humiliate ourselves. He did that for us so that we could be saved from the wrath of God. Then He tells us to go out and do likewise. And then, we should not forget God's providence in bad times. For two years, Joseph could have cursed God for having forgotten him. But God did not forget him. He is a great God. He never forgets, unless it be our sin, when we repent of it and turn away from it. But He never forgets His people. Our trust must be the same as Joseph. He trusted that God would bring him out of his dark and low circumstances. Do you have a big God or a little god? Are you a big-Godder or a little-godder? Being a big-Godder means that you will experience resurrection and ascension, just as Joseph and Jesus did. God resurrects His people to new life and a place that is above every place that can be named.

Great sermon on Islam and Christianity

2006-09-24T14:44:00.003-05:00

Go here for a great sermon. There are some real eye-openers here.

Interesting typology

2006-09-24T14:44:00.002-05:00

Here is an interesting interpretation of Genesis 41:56-57, from Hamilton's commentary, volume 2, pg 513: "Joseph is an antitype of Noah, building storehouses just as Noah built his ark. The storehouses of Joseph, however, are for the survival of the masses. The ark of Noah was for the survival of one man and his family." What do ya'll think?

Hurricane

2006-09-24T14:44:00.001-05:00

It is very odd to share a name with a hurricane.

Romans 6 and baptism

2006-09-24T14:44:00.000-05:00

First, a word about sacramental language. Oftentimes in Scripture, what is said of the sign actually refers to the thing signified (WCF 27.2). This is often missed in FV discussions, and in many discussions of Romans 6. For what Romans 6 is talking about is the thing signified by baptism, not so much the sign. This is evident, because the benefits described here are elsewhere attributed to the time-point of faith. For instance, faith-union with the risen Christ is described as being united with Christ in His resurrection in Colossians 2:5 together with 3:1 (and the entire passage in between is talking about the state of faith, not of baptism). Philippians 3 is even more clear: to be found in Him (vs 9) is functionally equivalent to faith in Christ (vs 9-10), which is functionally equivalent to participating in Christ's death and resurrection (vs 10-11). Now, I do not want to draw too sharp a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Certainly, faith and regeneration can happen at the time-point of baptism. But I would argue that if it does, it is because faith is also present. Therefore, baptism all by itself, that is, the sign all by itself does not confer the blessings. This is clear from the language of the WCF 27:3, wherein there is a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. That implies by necessity that there is no promise of benefit to unworthy receivers. That follows logically and indisputably. As a matter of fact, baptism becomes condemnation to unworthy receivers. Of course, it is understood that we are all unworthy receivers of baptism, and can only be made worthy by God, just as faith also is a gift. The point of my argument here is that sacramental language (of ascribing the thing signified to the sign) does NOT mean that the thing signified actually occurs at the time point of the sign. It occurs when the baptism is improved, which can be simultaneous, but does not have to be. It should also be noted that faith is clearly in the context of Romans 6 in 5:17, where receiving the free gift of righteousness has to be defined by the time-point of faith. Then also, the main point of Romans 6 is sanctification, as is clear from verses 12ff, which no longer speak of baptism. Baptism then has a function in sanctification. I trust no one would deny this. However, in order for baptism to have its effect, it must be joined with faith, as 5:17 demonstrates. I should also say a word about Galatians 3:27, which has also been quoted as saying that baptism puts us into union with Christ. Again, this is sacramental language that must also be interpreted in the immediate context. The immediately preceding verses all mention faith in its two-fold definition: the references in verse 23 and 25 refer to THE faith, as in the Christian religion in its eschatological revealing. That definition of faith, however, is closely connected to the personal definition of faith, which we see in verses 24 and 26, where we are said to be justified by faith, and that we are said to be sons of God (note especially the plural here) by faith. So faith most certainly qualifies the statement about baptism, since verse 27 is explicitly connected with what comes before by the particle gar. Baptism (the thing signified, not the bare sign) is then defined by faith. So, contrary to Todd Harris's assertion (which was given without any exegesis at all), neither of these passages encourages the FV, but they both support the traditional Reformed view of baptism in its relationship to faith.

True Love

2006-09-24T14:43:00.002-05:00

Matthew 5:27-30 C.S. Lewis once stated this profound thought: “The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust them; it was not IN them, it only came THROUGH them, and what came through them was longing. These things-the beauty, the memory of our own past- are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune which we have not heard, news from a country we have not visited.” Someone else has said that when a man knocks on the door of a prostitute’s house, he is really searching for God. Jesus knows what real love is. That is the solution to the sin problem. What sexual temptation shows us is that we have longings in our hearts that can only be filled by God Himself. Our longing is for Him. That is what we are really looking for. Jesus has given us now the inspired God-given interpretation of the sixth commandment. He now moves on to the seventh commandment, which states: You shall not commit adultery. As Jesus did with the sixth commandment, so also He does with the seventh. If you will, the heart of the seventh commandment has to do with what is in the heart of a person. The background to this is that the world constantly says things like this: “You can look but you can’t touch.” The world thinks that you are okay as long as you don’t actually engage in adultery itself, the physical act. What they fail to realize is that adultery is a matter of the heart. In fact, it is a heart idolatry. All sin is the result of some idol in the heart. As C.S. Lewis noticed, the physical things that lure us into sin are but the shadows of the real thing. They are twisted ones at that, if they are sinful. But we idolize them, both in the culture and even in the church. So what does Jesus say here? Well, he says that adultery is not merely a matter of outward disobedience, but of inward. Adultery starts long before the actual physical act. It starts in the heart, even before a person looks with lustful intent. Verse 28 is very interesting in this regard: He says, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In Greek grammar, there is a way to express that this is what you intend to do. That is what we have here. The sentence could paraphrased this way: if someone looks at a woman in order to lust after her, he has committed adultery. In other words, the lust is already in the heart before he even looks with lustful eyes. That greatly helps to explain what Jesus means in the next few verses. Jesus is not teaching that we should mutilate ourselves. In any case, that would not get rid of the problem. One of the early church fathers tried it. His name was Origin. He did not understand that Jesus was using hyperbole, and that what Jesus really meant was, “Deal with sin as drastically as possible.” It is a fact that blind men can still lust. Remember that we said that lust begins in the heart. It was his intent to look on the woman with lustful eyes. That was the problem. So what does Jesus’ command cover? Well, the Heidelberg catechism again helps us here: Q 108: What is God’s will for us in the seventh commandment? A. God condemns all unchastely. We should therefore thoroughly detest it and, married or single, live decent and chaste lives. 109: Does God, in this commandment, forbid only such scandalous sins as adultery? A. We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and holy. That is why he forbids everything which incites unchastely, whether it be actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires. The WLC says this: 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment? The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behaviour; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labour in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment? A. the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing tolerating, keeping of brothels, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company, lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others. Well, that was a mouthful. What does it all mean? Anything that hinders us from the duties required of the seventh commandment is a sin. Anything that eggs us on to engaging in the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment is a sin. That is why drunkenness and gluttony are listed here. They often lead to other sins. That is why drunkenness is a violation of the seventh commandment. So men, since we are visually oriented, what does that mean specifically for us? It means that we must give up that favorite sin of ours. We must give up looking a woman up and down. We must give up certain movies and books, magazines and internet sites. That is what it means to cut out your right eye. Cutting your right eye out would be extremely painful. William Gurnall says this, “Soul, take thy lust, thy only lust, which is the child of thy dearest love, thy Isaac, the sin which has caused most joy and laughter, from which thou hast promised thyself the greatest return of pleasure or profit; as ever thou lookest to see my face with comfort, lay hands on it and offer it up: pour out the blood of it before me, run the sacrificing knife of mortification into the very heart of it, and this freely, joyfully, for it is no pleasing sacrifice that is offered with a countenance cast down- and all this now before thou hast one embrace more from it.” Men, who is sufficient for this task? Are we sufficient? The moment that we think that we are is the moment that we fall. I’m sure that most of know that feeling of horror when we think that we have left that sin behind once and for all, only to fall prey to it that very same day. What Jesus would have us do is to remember before we are tempted to sin that we must deal with sin as drastically as possible. We must deal with the temptation to sin as drastically as possible. What does that mean? If your TV causes you to sin, smash it up and throw it away. If your computer causes you to sin, smash it up and throw it away. It is better for you to have no entertainment at all in your house, than to have entertainment in your house, and go to hell. Get rid of temptations wherever they occur. If you cannot go into a bookstore like Barnes and Noble without going to the magazine rack, then avoid Barnes and Noble, or take someone along with you, preferably your wife. If you can’t use a computer without visited sites that you shouldn’t, then get protection. There is a great program that I use called Covenant Eyes that monitors everywhere a person goes on the internet, and reports it to the accountability partner, whoever you choose that to be. Every computer should have some form of protection, whether it is Covenant Eyes, or a filter of some sort. If you choose to go with a filter, then you should not get what is called a negative filter. A negative filter merely screens off bad sites. The problem is that hundreds of new web-sites are launched every day. A negative filter cannot keep up with all those. A positive filter, on the other hand, keeps a list of web-sites that are okay, and you can only go to those. That is a much better filter. If you have sons in your house, or even if you have men off to college or out in the work force, you need to question them about this, and work with them in a compassionate manner. The reason I say “a compassionate manner” is because there is no worse time to live in with respect to sexual temptation than in our own age. You can’t even go to most grocery stores these days without there being some form of visual temptation. Women, there are two main things that you can do. The first is to be compassionate toward your husband. You have to realize just how bad the temptations are. Many husbands will not confess secret sexual sin to their wives precisely because they fear that their wives will divorce them if they find out. If you feel that a man can jolly well take care of himself without your help, then you are on the fast-track to a divorce, or at least disillusionment. He needs your help if he is going to make it. Women, there are temptations for you too, aren’t there? What about what you wear? You might say that a man should control himself. Yes, he should. But how much harder is it when all the women around him are almost dressed? This is especially prevalent in today’s youth culture, where it is hard even to find modest clothes that aren’t dorky. But that is a quest that is essential if you are to minister to those men around you. Don’t be a source of provocation. The question here is not about fashion, but about intent. Why do you wear what you wear? Women, what about romance novels? Those are dangerous. Even some so-called Christian romance novels are but thinly disguised emotional pornography. If men are visually oriented, women tend to be emotionally oriented, when it comes to temptation. If a man other than your husband makes you feel a certain way, then don’t be around him. If certain books are a problem, then don’t read them. If you have a problem, the place to go is not within yourself. You will never find strength within yourself for fighting this battle. You don’t have the strength. I don’t care how much of a cowboy you are, you still don’t have the strength. You need to find your strength in God. But another place you can find strength is in other believers. Now, you shouldn’t go confess your sin to just anyone. However, sexual sin in particular thrives in the darkness. As long as someone else doesn’t know about it, it will thrive, just like cancer. Cancer cannot survive in the presence of oxygen. It cannot survive out in the open. So also is lust. What you need to do is to find a compassionate, wise, older Christian who knows what this struggle is like. You need to hold one another accountable. James 5:16 says this, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” We have this unnatural fear of our community. We think that if anyone knows any of our dirty little secrets, then everyone will know. What we need to do is to trust God, find that discreet person, and confess our sin to that person. It takes bravery. But the results are worth it. Now, again, who is sufficient for these things? No one is sufficient. There is no one who can come even close to honoring the seventh commandment all the way, no matter what our age. And older people can be just as susceptible as younger people. Hugh Heffner, manager of Playboy magazine, is in his seventies. Do not think you are immune just because you are older. There is no one sufficient. The key here is to realize what we are really looking for. We are really looking for Jesus. Lust is a parody of love. Lust is a twisted version of love. What we are really looking for is love. That can only be found in God Himself, through Jesus Christ, who loved us with an everlasting love. That is true love.

Muller's thesis

2006-09-24T14:43:00.001-05:00

A description of the task that Muller has set himself is explicit on page 37: "The underlying theses of the present study concern the continuities and discontinuities in Reformed theology during the eras of the Reformation and Orthodoxy, running Chronologicaly from approximately 1520 to approximately 1725." Then he says, on page 38: "An operating assumption of the work has consistently been that the theology of the Reformers is not utterly identical to the theology of their orthodoxy successors, and that continuity between the theologies of the two eras is not to be equated with identity, nor discontinuity with development and variation." He lists a few more of his targets on the bottom of page 38 and the top of page 39: the belief that Protestant scholasticism is rationalistic, and the view that Protestant Scholasticism is based on a few central dogmas (such as election, as will become clear later on). He argues that such claims "are fundamentally anachronistic" (pg 39). "They have looked down the well of history and seen their own faces reflected: those who have found central docmas in the older theology have typically not been historians but theologians and, as such, advocates of central doctrinal pivots in their own dogmatic systems" (39). He argues that "The very method of their (that is, the Protestant Scholastics) theology, the gathering of topics or loci drawn out of their exegetical work, stands in the way of such models for theological system" (39). And then, on page 40, he argues specifically for an exegetical continuity between the Reformers and the orthodox: "The history of exegesis marks one of the clearest indicators to the nature and character of the continuity in thought between the Reformation and orthodoxy."

Adam's merit

2006-09-24T14:43:00.000-05:00

I really cannot believe that Mark Horne thinks that Jim Jordan is somehow on target here. I am not going to argue the merit issue itself, since I have already done so here and here. But the Reformed idea of merit is hardly new. Here is Thomas Boston to directly, explicitly, and indubitably tear Jim Jordan's argument to shreds (volume X, pg 376): "Proper merit is what arises from the intrinsic worth of the thing done, fully proportioned to the reward. Such is the merit of Christ's obedience and death. But no such merit can be in our (post-conversion, LK) works; for there is no proportion between our obedience and eternal life, whatever the papists pretend...Improper merit is what arises from paction ensuring such a reward on such a work as the condition thereof; so that the work being performed, the reward becomes a debt. So Adam's perfect obedience would have been meritorious, namely, by paction." Is this new, Mr. Jordan? Is this not merit? Notice that my definition of the merit of Adam is *precisely* the same as Boston's, namely, merit by pact. So Jordan and Horne at least need to retract their statement that this is new. It is nothing of the sort. Here is Calvin to tear Jim Jordan's argument to shreds even more: Inst. 2.17.1: "There are certain...men who-even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ-cannot bear to hear the word "merit," for they think that it obscures God's grace. Hence, they would have Christ as a mere instrument or minister." In 2.17.3, he says, "By his obedience, however, Christ truly acquired and merited grace for us with his Father...then he acquired salvation for us by his righteousness,which is tantamount to deserving it."

Is Islam violent?

2006-09-24T14:42:00.000-05:00

Here is a remarkable instance of political maneuvering by Islamic states. If any other religion is caricatured, or ridiculed, or laughed at, nothing really severe happens. But if Islam gets a taste of that, even if they misinterpret the Pope's statements, then they are outraged. Quite frankly, the Muslim world needs to grow up, and be able to laugh at itself. Its outrage at this recent incident (in addition to the absolutely ludicrous reaction to the Dutch cartoons) only proves how insecure Islam is in the world. They will only alienate themselves to the Western world by posturing themselves in this way. But this raises some important questions. Is Islam a violent religion? The answer to that can only be that, at the very least, it has been in the past. People will usually point the finger at Christians for the Crusades. However, we need a much more nuanced version of history here. I would recommend the Runciman history of the Crusades for an extremely thorough, detailed history of the Crusades. The upshot, I believe, is that both sides were at fault. The fact of the matter, though, is that the Muslims struck first, as even the Wikipedia article implicitly acknowledges, when it says that the Muslims had been conquering most of Africa, and that the First Crusade was a response to that. Second question: does the Koran teach Jihad? 9:123 seems to be broad enough in its scope: "O you who believe! Fight such of the disbeleivers as dwell near to you and let them find firmness in you and know that Allah is with those who become secure against evil." See this post for more, though some of the quotations there do not seem to be as absolute as would be necessary for the argument. See Chris's excellent comment at the end of the comments section, as well.

Some quotes

2006-09-23T15:07:00.000-05:00

Here are two quotes that I found compelling: 1. One pastor once said that repentance involves a complete 360 degree turn from sin. Hmm. I guess knowing your math could be helpful in preaching! 2. From Martin Luther: "God divided the hands into fingers so that money could slip through."

Why Presbyterianism?

2006-09-23T10:28:00.000-05:00

It is usually objected by the congre- gationalists that Acts 15 doesn't really prescribe a normative behavior. After all, if we are not to imitate the church in regard to having all things in common, then ought we to imitate them in regard to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15? To answer this challenge, we must go back to the lower levels of church government. First of all, we realize that elders are called by the church to serve. In the local church, then, the pastor must not be alone. This was true not only of the church in Acts, but also in the following generations, wherein Paul does instruct Timothy and Titus about the continuation of the church. In those epistles it is simply assumed that there will be elders to carry on the work of the church. This continues the wisdom principle found in Proverbs 11:14. There can be no objection, therefore, to the local church having a Presbyterian form of government, since elders and deacons are prescribed by the NT for the church. Presbyterians argue that it is good and necessary consequence that churches are connectional. There is, after all, one holy catholic and apostolic church. Therefore, the church is connectional by definition. Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians 12 about the one body surely has this implication of connectedness. This is why the PCA, for instance, is part of NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches): we believe that we should unite as much as possible with other like-minded believers. There should be great evidence of the ultimate unity of the body. Furthermore, there are the passages in which we see that we ought to hold one another accountable. This is surely true of local churches as well. Churches ought to hold one another accountable. Finally, Acts 15 does lend support to the Presbyterian position, since there will always be issues that need to be addressed by the larger church. Who decides, for instance, who is going to be ordained? If it is a larger body than the local church, then you have Presbyterianism, if even in a smaller, more analogical form. I have seen this work in a Baptist setting. They have a larger body of pastors come together to examine a candidate for ministry. What is the real difference between that and what Presbyterians do? Furthermore, Presbyterianism allows for greater interchange of prayer for other local churches; it allows for greater inter-communication among pastors, and greater networking, such that churches can better exercise church discipline. At any rate, Presbyterianism cannot be called contrary to the Bible. It is in direct harmony with the principles laid out for the church in the NT. There is also the root of Presbyterianism, which can be found in the OT, in Exodus 18. There, the entire OT church is divided into sections, with men in charge of certain groups. There is always a higher court of appeal, if necessary. Now, certain objections must be answered. What about red tape? That is certainly a danger. However, the less centralized the power is, the better. Yes, there is a heiarchy of power. But the power never resides in just one person. You might object, "What about Moses?" Moses was a special case, since he was actually the mediator of the people, prefiguring Christ. We have our greater Moses even now, Jesus Christ, in whom is focused all wisdom and power. But, of course, in Jesus' case, centralization of power is a wonderful thing. The only reason it doesn't work so well here on earth, is because of Lord Acton's dictum: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is why power must be decentralized, and in the hands of more than one person. Our civil government is set up along the lines of Presbyterianism. It is only as it has gotten away from that, the Supreme Court taking too much power for itself, the president doing things without approval of Congress, that things have gone bad. The original form of government worked very well. It was set up by Presbyterians, in fact. The British even called this war (besides calling it the Rebellion) "that Presbyterian war." In short, I would argue that Presbyterian Puritans are the people who have made our country great. They are the single greatest influence on our country's foundation and independence. It should be noted that Presbyterianism is a temporary arrangement. In heaven, as I hope all churches agree, the government there is a strict monarchy, the Monarch being Jesus Christ!

Watch Me!

2006-09-23T09:59:00.000-05:00

Matthew 6:1-4 There are few things that a child needs or wants more than to be noticed by their parents. They want their parents' attention almost more than food. Especially when they learn something new, they want to impress their parents. They will say, “Watch me, watch me!” This is a perfectly natural impulse on the part of children. The thing is that we never really lose that impulse. We always want our Heavenly Father to be watching when we learn something new, or when we help someone. The problem comes when we try to substitute other people for our Heavenly Father. We very often want our generosity to be noticed by other people. We want our alms to be noticed. We want our prayer to be noticed, and we want our fasting (if we even do that anymore!) to be noticed. It is important to realize that verse 1 here is a heading for the first 18 verses of chapter 6. There are three issues that should not be out in the open: our generosity, our prayers, and our fasting. They should be done in secret. If someone finds out, fine, but the point is not do it in order that people may see it and say, “Oh, what a good Christian you are!” The first issue that Jesus talks about is alms-giving. Another word for it is charity. It is giving to the poor. Now, what often happened in those days was that there was a big horn-shaped opening to the treasure-box in the Temple. People would come in and put their money in that treasure-box. It was quite easy then to make it rattle all the way down so that other people would see that you put a lot of money in the box. The way we might do it today would be to somehow let is slip out to your really close friend that you don't know whether you can make it financially or not, because you gave too much to the church this month or year. Or, you might make sure that your generous extra donation gets put in the bulletin so that everyone can see. We are not to do this sort of thing. Now right away, we have to deal with a difficulty. Here Jesus says that we are not to do our righteousness in order to be seen by people. But in 5:16, we are told to let our light shine before men so that they may see your good works. Is there a contradiction here? No, there is not. The question is one of motivation. In 5:16, the all important qualifying clause is added, “and give glory to your Father who is in heave.” The glory is to go to God, not to us. Light by its very nature does not draw attention to itself, but to that upon which it shines. Furthermore, the particular actions that Jesus is talking about in chapter 6 are private acts of piety. They are not like sharing the Gospel, which obviously must be done in front of other people. Instead, Jesus is talking about those things that should be done privately. We should not sound the trumpet before us when we give to someone. This is a rather vivid image. Imagine someone considering about giving some alms to people. He says to himself, “Where is my trumpeter today? I can't go and give this money without someone knowing about it!” It is an utterly ridiculous picture that Jesus paints in our minds. And yet, how often is it that someone will give a gigantic sum of money to construct something, and then insist that the building be named after them. That is no different than what Jesus is talking about here. Those who give alms in order to be seen by others are not actually giving anything away. They are actually purchasing something. And that something is a reputation, or an image. They buy an image of themselves as the perfect Christian, but that is all they have. It doesn't buy them happiness, or salvation, or any reward in heaven. That is what Jesus says in verse 1: “If you do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them, then you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” Why? Because you have already received your reward. There is a great word in verse 2 that describes this reward: it is a receipt. They have received their reward. That word “received” is the word used in receipts in those days. It meant “paid in full.” They purchased image: image they have received. Great donors are honored by all men as being philanthropists. But when they come before the judgment seat of God, and expect to be paid again for their good works, Jesus will say to them: “Depart from Me, I never knew you. You tried to buy your way into heaven, when all you purchased by all your generosity was a good image there on earth.” Doing righteousness before others is just what most people in the world do, in fact. That is the connection between chapter 5 and chapter 6. We are asked to love more than the world does. Anyone in the world loves the one who loves them. But we are required to love those who do not love us. We need to have a greater righteousness. That is exactly true here as well. We need to do our righteousness so that it surpasses the righteousness of the Pharisees. That is a tall order, since the Pharisees were known for being sticklers when it came to the law. However, the Pharisees often did their righteousness in order to be seen by others. The fringes on their garments were longer than other people's fringes. They tithed even the herbs that grew in their garden. They must have hovered over the groun about two inches, since they were holier than anyone else. Jesus calls them hypocrites. Now, this is a very interesting word. It comes from ancient Greek theater. In theater, you often had to put on a mask in order to play your part, since you usually had to play more than one part. If you were one of those kinds of performers, then you were called a “hypocrite,” literally “one who wears a mask.” That is a very clear picture of what a hypocrite is. A hypocrite is someone who wears the mask of piety and holiness, while underneath is pure evil. The church is always full of hypocrites. In fact, we are all hypocrites. There is no one in this room who is not a hypocrite. How many times have you given the impression to someone else that you are better than you really are? How many times have you given so that someone else may tell you that you are such a good Christian? Then you pat yourself on the back, and just go your way. It's like the man who sat through a church service and then on the way home he fussed about the sermon, he fussed about the traffic, he fussed about the heat, and he fussed about the lateness of the meal being served. Then he bowed and prayed. His son was watching him all the way through this post-church experience. Just as they were beginning to pass the food, he said, “Daddy, did God hear you when we left the church and you started fussin' about the sermon and about the traffic and about the heat?” The father sort of blushed and said, “Well, yes, son, He heard me.” “Well, Daddy, did God hear you when you just prayed for this food right now?” And he said, “Well, yes son, He...He...He heard me.” “So, well, Daddy, which one did God believe?” Or like this: There was a man who made free use of religious vocabulary. He talked about the blessing of the Almighty God and the Christian confessions that would be the supporting pillars of the new government. He assumed the earnestness of a man weighed down by historical rsponsibility. He handed out pious stories to the press, especially to the church papers. He showed his tattered Bible and declared that he drew his strength for his great work from it as scores of pious people welcomed him as a man sent from God. Indeed, Adolf Hitler had a great show of outward religiosity without any inward reality! Or, as Mark Twain puts it: “We are like the moon: we all have a dark side that we don't want anyone else to see.” The actor Robert Redford was once approached by a woman who asked him, “Are you the real Robert Redford?” He answered, “Only when I am alone.” As these illustrations show, hypocrisy takes many shapes and forms. And it can be extremely subtle. We could give something and not be very careful about letting it out into the open. Sometimes we even want someone to accidentally discover our generosity so that we can be praised for our saintly secrecy. It doesn't get more subtle than that! How sinful our human heart is! How much we want the approbation of other people, when what we should really want is the approbation of God Himself. It is not wrong to want a reward. We are built that way. But God tells us that we should seek our reward from Him, and not from other people. Jesus tells us that in order for us to receive our reward from God the Father, we are to be secretive that we are not to let one hand know what the other is doing. Normally we use our hands at the same time. We use both hands together rather a lot. So, when we are supposed to do it so secretly that one hand doesn't even know about it, Jesus is using exaggeration to get the point across. We should not even try to remember our own generosity. Some scholars think that this metaphor has to do with not letting even our closest friends in on the secret. That is quite possible: not letting our closest friends know is certainly included in Jesus' statement. I hope that we have all realized that we are all hypocrites. There is no one among us who has not done hypocritical things to look better than we are. Isn't there someone to whom you tell everything? Isn't there someone with whom you can share the burdens that are on your heart? I know from experience that it is a great relief that someone knows of my struggles. And someone does. I don't have to be a hypocrite if someone knows just how bad I am. Fortunately, god is in the business of saving hypocrites. Jesus wore the mask of death, that we might wear the mask of His righteousness, so that when God looks at us, instead of seeing our dirt and filth, He sees Christ's righteousness. The difference between that truth and hypocrisy is that God is rewriting our lives to make the inside look like the outside. We must be clay in the hands of the Potter. How hard are you? Have you dried up in your life so that God cannot work with you anymore? Or are you fresh, young, clay, that God can mold to the image of the Son? May God the Holy Spirit mold us into the image of God the Son, by the direction of God the Father. Amen.

Be Perfect

2006-09-22T13:32:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:43-48 Your enemy may not be who you think it is. You may have grown up thinking that that person is your enemy; that you are not to even talk with him; that you are not going to lift a finger to help him if he is in distress. But is he really your enemy? The Bible says that hose people we would call enemies in one sense, are really our neighbors in another sense. We might have personal animosity towards some people. They may be exceedingly unattractive in many ways. However, they are our neighbors. That is the substance of what Jesus is communicating to us in this portion of His Holy Word. The first verse presents us with a difficulty. We find written in many parts of Scripture that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. That is evident. However, nowhere in Scripture does it tell us to hate our enemies. Now, you might bring up the example of the Israelites having to expel the people of Canaan. Wasn’t that an example of hating your enemy? The answer is that it is not an example of hating one’s enemy, since God told the Israelites that they were God’s instrument to punish the wickedness of all those people. And certainly, no Israelite was to have any personal animosity against any of the inhabitants of the land, even though they were supposed to wipe them out completely. Well, what about the imprecatory Psalms, which speak of dashing the babies of the enemy against a rock? Again, those Psalms are directed toward God’s judgment of people that had opposed God. We can distinguish between praying for God’s judgment to come upon all unbelief, on the one hand, and personal resentment against wrongs committed against us, on the other. Well, if those are not examples of hating our enemies, then what is Jesus talking about when He says that people have heard it said that they should hate their enemies? Well, first we have to notice that Jesus says that we heard it said. He does not say that it was written. The reality is that it was the rabbis that said this. The OT talks about the individual Israelite being kind to his neighbor. What the Jews did was to narrow their definition of “neighbor” so that only Israelites were their neighbors. Then they would limit the application of the laws of the land so that no law would apply to outsiders. The result of this narrowing was that no Gentile was to be treated with the same respect and honor that an Israelite could expect from his neighbor. The real question, then, is this: “Who is our neighbor?” There was once a man who asked Jesus this question. Jesus responded by telling a scandalous story about a man who was attacked by bandits and left for dead. Two Israelites, who should have known better, passed by on the other side of the road, while a Samaritan, of all people, came to the aid of the Israelite. Samaritans were enemies of Israel at the time that Jesus said this. The point of what Jesus was saying in that everyone in the world is our neighbor, if even our bitterest enemy can be defined as our neighbor. Why should we think this way? Why should we treat even our bitterest enemy like a neighbor? The reason is given in verse 45. Jesus says that if we do that, then we will be like our Father in heaven. We should show the family resemblance, in other words. Like father, like son. Our Father in heaven does the same thing for His enemies that He requires us to do for our enemies. Notice the extent of this love. It is not saving grace that Jesus is talking about here. Instead, it is what theologians call “Common Grace.” Common grace is that unmerited blessing that God gives to absolutely everyone in the world. No one lacks these kinds of blessings. One could list such blessings: rain, sunshine, the presence of the church on earth, food, shelter, clothes, natural abilities, such as brilliant minds, artistic sensibilities, philanthropy, and all creation given to them as a witness. These are gifts that God gives not only to the just, but also to the unjust. Common grace, by the way, is the reason why we can listen to unbelievers, and take some good things from them for our own good. We Reformed people say that all people are depraved. That is certainly true. However, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean that everyone on this earth is as bad as they could possibly be. I’m sure that we could all name some people we know who are unbelievers, and yet they are what we would call “good people.” They live a relatively clean life, and often put Christians to shame with their morality. There are still sparks of that original gift given from God, even if those gifts are never used by an unregenerate man for God’s glory. Such morality can never save them, since they exercise even their morality in a sinful way. They think to be let into heaven on the basis of their good deeds, and yet there is nothing that they can offer to God, that God should repay them. So, the motivation for what we do with people who are our enemies is that God treats them with a degree of love. It is written in Scripture that God does not take delight in the death and destruction of the ungodly. We are to do what God does. The example of God is truly amazing. Jesus is not telling us to do anything that He does not do Himself. Jesus is the perfect (!) example of loving His enemies. Even while hung on the cross, He petitioned the Father to forgive those who were crucifying them, since they knew not what they were doing. Furthermore, we must remember that we were all enemies of God at one time. Paul says that in Romans, where he says that Christ died for us even while we were still sinners, and had enmity towards God. Even in that state, Christ died for us. That is the amazing thing. So, if God sent His Son to die for us while we were still sinners, then we shouldn’t have any difficulty treating our enemies the way God does. And yet, how difficult we find that to do! How difficult it is to see an enemy as a neighbor. It is clear that when it comes to how we treat enemies, we have something of a litmus test for Christians. How do you know that someone is a real Christian? You know because that Christian will not treat his enemies the same way that the world does. The world tells us to hate our enemies with passion, because that is strong. Jesus tells us that the world’s way of thinking is actually weak. It is weak because it only results in more anger, whereas what Jesus tells us results in more peace. Here is a challenge for us: how often do we pray for our enemies? It tells us here to pray for them. How often do we remember in our prayers that our enemies need our prayers even more than those people who are not our enemies? If we are going to pray for them, we need to see them as God sees them. How does God see them? He sees them as desperately needy sinners, just like us. That is how we should see them. How can we have the ability to see them that way? Ultimately, only God can help us to see our enemies that way. Therefore, we should pray to God that He will help us to see our enemies as He sees them. Still, even though it is God alone who can strengthen us to see our enemies this way, there are some practical ways, some practical thought patterns that can help us. Thomas Boston says it this way: “We must bear up in our hearts a deep sense of our own sinfulness, with the faith that our sinfulness has been pardoned…A sense of our own sinfulness against God, will blunt the edge of the enmity of others against us, so that it will not pierce so deep with us, as with the proud unhumbled sinner. So, to keep a firm view of our sinfulness and of God’s grace in forgiving our sinfulness, that will keep us from having anger in our hearts toward anyone, but especially our enemies." Furthermore, we should beware lest the faults of others and their blemishes blind our eyes to their beauties and excellencies. It is not right among us who have no beauty in ourselves that is without some kind of blemish, as Boston again says. In other words, just because there are many problems and blemishes in our enemies, we should strive to see what is good there, rather than constantly being a critic. It is in this very deed that we show ourselves to be Christians. As Jesus goes on to say in our passage, the idea of loving our neighbors is a thoroughly secular idea. There is absolute nothing special or distinctive about it. Even IRS agents do that. Even the most odious sinner in the entire world could equal what we do if we only love those who love us. There is nothing above and beyond the call of duty in loving those who love us. Anyone does that. The question is this: will we love those are our enemies. Jesus gives us a concrete example when it comes to greeting people. Now, by greeting people, Jesus is talking about our warm greetings, not jus those “Hello” kind of greetings that we might give everyone. Jesus is talking about those greetings that actually convince someone that you care about them. As Bruner says, what we tend to do is this: “We meet people all day long and, as we know from experience, we reserve our specially warm greetings for our especially close friends, and we calibrate our greetings down a very exact calculus from friend to foe.” According to the degree that we like that person, we greet them. This is not the correct attitude to have towards our enemies. Instead, our greetings are to be like the rain that God showers down on the just and the unjust. Obviously, we should treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with real affection. However, we should not think of the body of Christ as a body meant to keep people away from us. Instead, we should be attractive to people. People should want to say, “I really want to be a part of this, because I know that real love is being showed here.” What do you think people would say about our church? Would they say that our church is warm and inviting, or cold and cliquish? We should think about that question. And the very next question should be this, “How do I treat the person who comes in to our church? Do I greet that person with a warmth and invitation, or do I only really talk with those people I already know?” I would challenge us to give especially warm greetings to those people we do not know, when they come to our church. They are uncomfortable enough as it is, usually. We do not and should not make them even more so. If all we do is greet those who are friendly with us, then we are not doing anything more than unbelievers do. Jesus says here that we can do more than they do. In fact, Jesus expects that we will do more than unbelievers. That is definitely true if we are believers, since it is Christ who works in us to work and to do His good pleasure. That leads us to the final verse. We need to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. That is a hard saying that we would normally just skip over, since we know we can’t be perfect. Not so fast. This statement is meant to give us a goal to strive after. Even if we know that we can’t there until we die, we should still strive for that perfection of morality. We should never give up the fight against sin. We should never give up loving our enemy as God loved us while we were enemies. We should never give up period. That is what it means to persevere. That is God’s will for us. There is no one who is not our neighbor. All people are our neighbors. That is what Jesus tells us. That is what we are to do.

On the road to Pietism?

2006-09-22T09:11:00.000-05:00

Peter Leithart has a very interesting article here. He argues that the recent fuss over baptismal regeneration is really the fuss about Presbyterians going in a Pietist direction. However, one is puzzled by his method of argumentation: is he arguing that since the German Pietists argued for baptismal regeneration that therefore those who are opposed to the FV are not really in the tradition of Pietism? That is, is he trying to take the rug out from under Lig Duncan, Rick Phillips, etc? This would seem to be his method of argumentation. If it is, then he has forgotten one all-important fact: the language of sacraments. What I mean by this is what WCF 27.2 "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." And even in Leithart's previous post about Chemnitz, we can see Chemnitz's care in making faith integral to the effect of what baptism signifies. Duncan, Phillips, etc. would agree whole-heartedly with the idea that when baptism is improved by faith, regeneration occurs. They would merely deny that it occurs always at the time-point of baptism regardless of whether faith is present. That is my position, as well. So, Leithart has failed to take the rug out from under Duncan, Phillips, etc.

Church discipline

2006-09-21T14:10:00.000-05:00

Church discipline is the single biggest problem in the church today. There is nothing more serious that the lack of serious commitment to the keys of the kingdom. Many churches have decent Word and Sacrament. But they fall flat on their face with regard to church discipline. As a result, Christ's name is dragged through the mud, and serious offences are overlooked, or dealt with in an atrocious way. If church discipline does happen, then many people will cry foul, especially if there is hypocrisy involved. This is understandable, but not warranted. If the church officers are so brave as to actually enforce church discipline, then the parishioner should abide by it, and take their lumps, and, most importantly, repent! One thing that countless parishioners forget is that church officers must give an account to God for their actions, especially in how they maintain the purity and peace of the flock. That includes the spiritual well-being of the people in the church. What is usually more difficult to accept, as a parishioner, is that the action of the session is warranted (when it is warranted). Everyone who undergoes church censure thinks that they are innocent, or in some way not deserving of the church censure. This is always the case. However, the fact of the matter is that offending brothers and sisters need that discipline for their spiritual well-being. We should then be encouraging our church officers when they have the guts to enforce spiritual discipline, rather than reproaching them for "being unkind." After all, you wouldn't reproach a doctor for cutting into you to remove a cancerous tumor. That is not unloving, but rather loving in the extreme. If the church council does not love their parishioners, then discipline will not occur. If they do love their parishioners, then discipline will occur. It is that simple. Do we love our parishioners enough to exercise church discipline on them? And then the question is how this should be done. It is a fact that some exercises of discipline are unloving because they have not gone through the proper steps, as laid out in Matthew 18. They might skip a step or two, and then the parishioner is left wondering where this came from. Instead, gentle but firm admonition is the first step, by oneself (unless there is a history of misbehavior before, or if it is a case of a man and a woman who are not married confronting each other; then there should be a witness, one who is impartial and friend to both sides). If that does not work, then bring someone along. If that does not work, then it should be brought before the session. There are steps before excommunication, as well. There is suspension from the Lord's Supper, and maybe even an excommunication that is temporary. Every chance should be given to the offender to repent and come back, since that is the entire and sole purpose of discipline anyway. Only then can it be said that the church did everything possible, and the offender refused to listen.

Self-rights or Others' Rights?

2006-09-21T12:32:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:38-42 In 1878, Floyd Hatfield had a pig. But Randolph McCoy said it was his. The courts decided in favor of Floyd Hatfield because of the testimony of Bill Staton, a relative of both families. Staton was murdered by two of the McCoy brothers, who were eventually acquitted on account of self-defense. Then Roseanna McCoy decided to have an affair with Johnse Hatfield. Johnse was kidnapped by the McCoys and had to be rescued by the Hatfields. Then, in 1882, Ellison Hatfield was murdered by three McCoys, who were murdered in turn by the Hatfields. The vendetta escalated until more than a dozen members of these two families had been killed. The vendetta didn't end until the Supreme Court stepped in, as well as the National Guard, called in by the governors of Kentucky and West Virginia. The feud finally ended in 1891. It is commemorated in the TV show “Family Feud,” in which the winner got a symbolic pig. The show was started with descendents of the Hatfields and the McCoys. This kind of revengeful attitude is everywhere. You see in bumper stickers (“I don't get mad; I get even”). You see it in the slogan, “Fight fire with fire.” This kind of attitude has one thing at its heart: the self. As long as the self reigns supreme on the throne of the human heart, then revenge will always be a problem. We want to stand up for our rights. We are even told by the US Bill of Rights that we have certain unalienable rights. But as long as we are so concerned about our own rights, then we will continue to view our own rights as more important than the rights of others. That kind of thinking is precisely what Jesus is challenging here in this portion of His Holy Word. What Jesus gives us is a practical application of the seventh Beatitude, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” We are to give up our lawful rights, even when the retribution would have been just. We are to fight fire with water, not with fire. If we fight fire with fire, then we increase the fire. Instead of looking out for our best interests, we should be looking out for the interests of others. Now it is vital to state at the outset that this passage does not refer to the government. As Paul says in Romans 13, the government is there to punish evildoers. They are there to give “tit for tat.” But Jesus is talking to Christians as individuals. Some people have interpreted this passage to mean that there should be no police force at all. Leo Tolstoy, the Russian author believed this, as well did Mahatma Ghandi. They have not interpreted this text correctly. This passage is addressed to Christ's disciples. Besides, what is true of one person within a group is not necessarily true of the group as a whole. The authority given to government is not given to individuals. This is very important to keep in mind. Jesus starts by reminding us of OT law. This law was called the “lex talionis,” or “law of the claw.” This is given for us in Exodus 21:23-25: But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. We must be aware of the fact that this law was given to the government of Israel, NOT to individuals. The law was given to prevent private revenge. It was also given to limit revenge. It was given to prevent something like the Hatfield-McCoy feud. Instead of one person killing another for a relatively small injury, they were to go to the court, where the judge would pronounce a public verdict, making the punishment fit the crime. However, Jews had taken this to mean that they should take private revenge, and that they should always take this revenge, and that the courts did not need to be involved. That is the background for what Jesus says to us. The first thing that Jesus tells us to avoid is retribution. That is what is meant by “resist.” It could mean that we don't take the person to court. It also means that we don't seek immediate retribution by hitting the other person back. How hard that is! And yet, as Joseph Caryl the great Puritan said, “When ye have received one wrong, be ye not meditating how to revenge that but be ye preparing how to receive a second.” The first example Jesus gives is that of personal insult. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, and they are facing you, then that means they must have used the backside of their hand (assuming they were right-handed). To slap someone with the back of the hand was regarded as one of the most insulting things you could do. The rabbis instituted a very heavy fine for doing so. This is what they said, “If someone slaps his fellow, he must pay him 200 days' wages. If he slaps him with the back of the hand, then it is 400 days' wages.” So Jesus is saying here that retaliation has no place at all in the Christian life! We often say, “Don't just stand there, do something!” Well Jesus says, “Don't just do something, stand there!” This is all about dying to our self. As one writer puts it, if we are already justified before God, then we can endure any kind of unjustifiable behavior from others. Martyn Lloyd-Jones put it this way, “This morbid sensitiveness, this whole condition in which self is 'on edge' and so delicately and sinsitively poised and balanced that the slightest disturbance can upset its equilibrium, must be got rid of.” we often are so sensitive for the rights and interests of ourselves that the slightest insult can put us completely over the edge. That kind of attitude has no place at all in the Christian life. Lloyd-Jones goes on to say, “Self is the main cause of unhappiness in life. 'Ah,' you say, 'but it is not my fault; it is what someone else has done.' All right; analyse yourself and the other person, and you will find the other person probably acted as he did because of self, and you are really feeling it for the same reason.” Often we get this idea that what we do is determined by what the other guy does. “Well, he struck first.” Instead of blindly striking back, we need to go through a much more deliberate procedure: we need to identify what it is that the other person has done. Then we need to examine how that action made us feel. Then we need to examine the various options for a reply. Only then should we respond. Someone else's sin NEVER forces us to sin. If we say that, then we are just passing the buck along to someone else. Notice something truly amazing about this example. Jesus says that the person is evil who is insulting you. In other words, this is a true provocation. In human terms, you would have a right to retaliation. You would have a right to the court-room. Jesus says that we are to forgo even a righteous vengeance. The other person is clearly called a sinner. In fact, the language suggests that Satan himself is egging on the other person. That person truly sinned against you. Your sense of justice is correct if you think that retribution must come. However, the vengeance belongs to the Lord. It is NEVER for us to exact this vengeance. Again, remember that we have been justified by faith. If that is so, then we can be treated as unjustifiably as possible: God will vindicate us. The fact that the person is evil indicates to us that he will be judged. But he will be judged publically before the whole world. Jesus is not telling us to eliminate our sense of justice. He is asking for us to get the big picture of the final judgment day. The second example involves the law-court. It was not lawful for anyone to sue someone for their outer cloak. That was specifically forbidden in OT law in Exodus 22:26 and Deuteronomy which both command the return of the cloak before sunset so that the poor man can sleep in his cloak. In other words, the OT itself says that every man has a right to his outer cloak. Jesus says that we should not even stand on a right given to us in the OT. William Barclay says this, “The Christian thinks not of his rights, but of his duties; not of his privileges, but of his responsibilities.” If one literally did what Jesus said, then he woud be standing in the court without any clothes on at all! That is precisely Jesus' point: we should consider worldly honor to be very important. The world is always throwing mud at Christians. We should not be like that. We should not stand on our rights or clutch at our privileges. Instead, we should have the mind of Christ Jesus, Philippians 2:6-11 “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Our premier example of this kind of self-abasement is Jesus Himself, who washed His disciples' feet, stood still before those who mocked Him, was led like a lamb to the slaughter, like a sheep before its shearers was silent. The third example concerns an oppressive government. This vers is where we get our phrase, “Go the extra mile.” However, we usually mean by that merely that we give 110%. That is not what Jesus is talking about. He is talking about government. Roman soldiers had the right to compel someon to carry something for a certain distance, here a mile. This actually happened in the NT when the Roman authorities compelled Symon of Cyrene to carry the cross of Christ. That was the compulsion that Jesus was talking about. This was an extremely irritating thing that the Roman governement could do, and the Jews hated it. But as T.W. Manson said so eloquently, “The first mile renders to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The second mile renders to God the things that are God's.” Going the second mile also indicates that you are not a slave inside, even if you are one outside. You are free from inner oppression, since you have been set free by Jesus Christ Himself. That is what He did on the cross, becoming subject to the power of death, that He might conquer it completely. Ultimately, Rome would bow before the power of the cross, and so will all worldly governement. Jesus implies that we must do it graciously. William Barclay says, “A man can do the irreducible minimum and not a stroke more; he can do it in such a way that he makes it clear that he hates the whole thing; he can do it with the barest minimum of efficiency and no more; or he can do it with a smile, with a gracious courtesy, with a determination, not only to do this thing, but to do it well and graciously.” This means that when the governement asks us to do something that is irksome, like pay our taxes, we should comply. We need to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. When the governement asks us to go a certain speed on the road, we should comply. I know that I am often guilty of that one. But should we not go the speed limit? What difference does it make as to whether the police officers don't enforce the rule as strictly as they should? If we think that way, then what we are really doing is asking how much we get away with. We should obey the laws of the land. This verse also has application to all that we do. We can wash dishes to the glory of God, shovel manure for the glory of God, take out the trash for the glory of God. We can do the most demeaning, humble things imaginable. If you do that with a cheerful heart as unto the Lord, He will not forget it. Jesus did the most demeaning thing ever done, and was glorified for it. If you do something to the glory of God, it does not matter how little it may be, you will not lose your reward. In verse 42 we see the same principle applied to someone who has not offended us. In the previous examples, our dying to self was in reference to those who were hurting us in some way. Here, however, we see that the same principle applies to the situation in which we find ourselves asked by someone in need to do something or give something. Augustine noticed something important about this passage: this does not say, “give everything to him who asks,” but “give to everyone who asks.” Give to the person what they really need. If they need gas in their car, then go fill their tank. If they need food, then feed them. If they need a place to stay for the night, then arrange it. This is wisdom. Someone might ask you for money on the street. This used to happen all the time in Philadelphia. The church we were attending told us not to give money to people who asked you on the street, since you don't know what they are going to spend that money on. However, if they say that they need food, then you go buy them a meal. You will know whether they truly need food or not by their response. If they reject you because you wouldn't give them money, then you know that they would have spent the money on drugs or alcohol. But if they accept your generosity, then you know that they really needed that. Give what is really needed, if it is in your power. This is also part of dying to self. Other people's needs come before our convenience. All four examples then, teach us to die to self, and rise to God. This cannot happen but by the grace of God in Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ is the One who always gave more than what was required. He didn't have to come down to earth and die. He could have just stayed up there in heaven. But He did not. He humbled Himself for our sake. He gives us grace to believe in Him that He has saved us from our sins. He also gives us the grace to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and to be generous with those in need.

Blog problems

2006-09-21T09:32:00.000-05:00

I am having a blogger problem. I cannot load up the main page of my blog from either of my browsers. I have backed up all my posts, but can't seem to find a way to get at the main page. Suggestions for why this is happening?

The Lord's Supper

2006-09-20T13:28:00.000-05:00

In chapter 29, we find laid out for us the WCF's teaching on the Lord's Supper. Most of this in not controversial in Reformed circles, except for paedo-communion, which we will discuss briefly. There are four general views of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. There is the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation. In this view, though the outward elements remain the same, when the priest blesses the bread and wine, they become inwardly (according to essence) the actual physical body and blood of Jesus. This view is based on a misapprehension of Aristotle. Aristotle did distinguish between the accidents (outward elements) and the essence of something. However, he also said that they always correspond to each other. It would certainly have been foreign to Aristotle's mind to have the outward elements of one thing, and the inward essence of something entirely different. The second major view is the Lutheran view. This view is in many ways similar to the Roman Catholic view. They both believe in a physical presence at the time-point of blessing. But the Lutherans say that instead of the essence/element distinction, Christ's body is in, around, and through the elements of the bread and wine. The distinction is parallel to the distinction between pantheism (wherein God equals the world) and panentheism (wherein God is in the world). I am not saying that Lutheranism or Catholicism equates to either of these pagan thought-patterns. It is merely an illustration. The third major view of the presence of the Lord in the Lord's Supper is the complete absence of the Lord from the table. This is the Zwinglian view. That view is that the table is a mere remembrance of what Jesus did, but nothing more than that. The Reformed position is that Christ is present spiritually at the table. That is, the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ is present. Just as the bread and wine nourish our physical bodies, so also does the Holy Spirit nourish our souls. Ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements, but not the thing signified. One could draw parallels between this aspect of the Lord's Supper and the misapprehension of baptism in the Federal Vision. Wicked men and apostates do not receive the thing signified by baptism at any time. Paedo-communion is rejected in the Westminster Standards clearly in LC 171, wherein the duties listed for preparation cannot possibly be engaged in by infants, and in LC 177, which is about as clear as it gets, and in 29.8, where ignorant persons are not to come to the table. The exclusion of infants from the table is based on a differentiation in the body of Christ between those who are baptized, and those who have professed their faith to the congregation. To this differentiation is applied the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11, which requires a "man to examine himself," and then to "discern the body." Since these are the key phrases, we will examine them in some depth. The first phrase is found in verse 28. The verb is "dokimazo," which, according to BDAG lexicon, means "to make a critical examination of something to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine," and lists 1 Cor 11:28 as one of the examples of this usage. I take the verb to be expounded by the phrase "discern the body." Namely, the one taking the Lord's Supper should examine himself to see if he is discerning the body of Christ. Thiselton, in his commentary (page 894) argues that the phrase "discern the body" means "know what characterizes the body as different (from the world)." The verb in the second phrase is "diakrino," which BDAG lists as meaning here "judge." The point is that the examination of oneself and discerning or judging the body is not an ability which infants possess.

Honesty

2006-09-20T11:18:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:33-37 One little boy was once asked, “What is a lie?” The boy answered, “A lie is an abomination to the Lord, but a very present help in time of need.” And then someone else said that the difference between someone who lies and someone who tells the truth is that the liar has to have the better memory. Our passage today talks a lot about oaths. But the root issue is that we need to tell the truth. Jesus has told us about how to interpret the sixth and seventh commandments so far in his exposition of the Beatitudes. Now, Jesus is going to tell us about both the third commandment and the ninth commandment. You will remember that the third commandment tells us not to misuse the name of the Lord. The ninth commandment tells us not to bear false witness: in other words, not to lie. We have seen that Jesus has told us about the inner, spiritual aspect of the various commands. Mere outward obedience is not sufficient for us who are now part of the kingdom of God. We have also seen that Jesus has not lowered the bar of obedience, but rather raised it. And now we come to this most interesting passage talking about oaths. What is an oath? An oath happens when someone swears that what he says is true. An oath is different from a vow. A vow happens when someone says that they will do something, or else something bad will happen to them. The difference can be illustrated from Scripture itself. Paul frequently has said something like this, “God bears me witness that I am telling you the truth.” That is an oath. A Nazarene took vows that they would never touch something dead, would never drink alcohol, and would never cut their hair. Do you see the difference? Well, Jesus here is actually talking about both oaths and vows. The primary thing that Jesus is dealing with is vows, actually. Oaths are included by implication. The Jews had long discussions of what was binding in a vow. They would say things like this, “If you swear by the name of the Lord, then your oath or vow is binding, but if you swear by heaven, then it is not binding.” However, some disagreed with that statement, and they said instead, “If you swear by heaven it is binding, but if you swear by earth, then it is not binding.” The Jews had a commentary on the OT called the Mishnah. One whole book of this Mishnah is devoted to the subject of oaths and vows. Jesus obviously disagreed with them all. For Jesus, the standard is much higher. But why? First we must see that oaths and vows are only necessary because of the Fall. Think of it: if mankind had never sinned, then there would be no need for an oath to make one believable, since all would tell the truth, and there would never be even a perceived need to lie. But since mankind fell into sin, there is lying going on all the time. Indeed, as we saw in our Genesis studies, Satan lied from the very beginning. Lying is from the devil. And of course, if someone were to come up to you and say, “You must believe me: I swear that I’m telling you the truth,” would you believe that person? Why do they need to swear? Isn’t it because they don’t have the necessary integrity to be believed? Our Fall into sin makes oaths necessary on occasion, such as in courts, where the truth must win out in the end if justice is to be served. Jesus disagrees with the Jews here. Jesus is saying here that our character should be so obviously honest, that there should be no need for oaths at all. People should know Christians to be of such thorough-going integrity that there is no cause for disbelieving them. Non-believers ought to be able to say of us, “That guy is a Christian: therefore you can believe everything he says.” Why is this? The reason why this should be the case is that God tells us the truth. It is said that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. The truth resides only in God Himself. Jesus gives us a true account of who the Father is. The Son has absolute integrity. Therefore, since the Son is the exact image of the Father, then we should be the exact image of the Son. We should look like our Savior. Satan wants us bound under lie after lie. Satan wants us to be dishonest constantly. If you hear yourself saying, “it is only a little money; why shouldn’t I keep it?” or, “My husband doesn’t really need to know that about me,” or “Why can’t I make things easier for us all by smoothing over that part of what happened?” or “Why don’t I just keep that information from that person: I know that it will not help them, but the good to be gained is so much more important.” These are all problems. And it doesn’t matter how small the issue is, it is still a problem. Jesus tells us there should be no need for oaths, because we should be honest people, people of integrity. Notice how Jesus gets to this point: first he tells us not to swear by heaven. Contrary to what the Jews thought, swearing by heaven doesn’t get you off the hook. Heaven is more connected to God than they thought. Any oath is binding. The same thing is true of the earth. That is God’s footstool. The earth is connected with God, and so any oath made using the earth is also binding. The same thing is even true of Jerusalem. That is connected with God. Any oath made on Jerusalem is also binding. Well, what’s left, you might ask. You might think that there is one thing that is not connected with God, by which you could swear and thus not be bound by swearing the oath, and that thing is your own person. Jesus even takes that away. Notice how the things sworn by get smaller and smaller. The idea was that if we swear by something that we can control, then the oath is not binding. But Jesus is saying that everything is controlled by God, and thus, if we swear by anything, then we are bound by that oath, whether we swear by God Himself, or by the least thing that God has created. We might think that we have control over our own body. Indeed, that is what culture would definitely tell us. However, we cannot even change the color on our head. Now, the first thing you will say is, “what about dying our hair?” What about it? Even dying your hair is only temporary. You cannot ultimately change the color of your hair. Only God can do that. God does that by aging us, by making us grow older. God even controls the rate at which our hair color changes. so it is useless for us to say that we have control over that. We don’t. And now we come to a rather difficult question indeed. The question is this, “Does Jesus here forbid all oaths and vows, or merely most oaths and vows?” The question is important. We can make it even more sharp by asking this question, “Can a Christian take an oath on the witness box in a courtroom?” Now, some Christians have thought that no oath is allowed. Many of the early Church fathers believe this. The Anabaptists during the time of the Reformation believe this. Nowadays, the Mennonites and the Amish, who are the spiritual descendants of the Anabaptists, believe this also. They will not take the oath in a court to tell the whole truth. However, most of the other writers in Christian history have said that Jesus is not forbidding all vows and oaths. This is the view that I hold, and it is the view that the Heidelberg Catechism holds to in question 101: But may we swear an oath in God’s name if we do it reverently? A. Yes, when the government demands it, or when necessity requires it, in order to maintain and promote truth and trustworthiness for God’s glory and our neighbor’s good. Such oaths are approved in God’s Word and were rightly used by OT and NT believers. The next question then states that we can swear by no creature, but only by calling on God as a witness. The WCF has a whole chapter on oaths and vows, in which it says the same thing as the Heidelberg catechism. The WCF also warns against rash vows and oaths. How are we to reconcile this view with this passage? Well, we must remember the context of this passage, specifically the historical context. Jesus was arguing against Jewish misinterpretations of the ninth commandment. In other words, the Jews were doing everything they could to manufacture oaths that were not binding. They wanted to say one thing and mean another. They wanted to be free from the real requirement of the law, which was to tell the truth always. Jesus is then saying that every word we speak must be the truth. Every oath we take must be honored, and every vow must be fulfilled. So Jesus is not forbidding all oaths here. He is only forbidding the kind of loophole finding that the Jews were doing. The reason that kind of loophole finding is forbidden to Christians is that that kind of loophole finding comes straight from the devil. Jesus says that anything more than this comes from the Evil One, from Satan himself. Satan was ever a master of lying and truth-twisting. He was a liar from the beginning. Jesus is saying here that our barest word ought to be binding to us. If we say that we are going to do something, then we ought to do it. There shouldn’t be any hemming and hawing about it. If we said we were going to do something, then we had better do it. Who is sufficient for this? No one is. Jesus is here telling us about the standard. He is the only one who has ever measured up to that standard. He is the truth itself. He is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. There is no question about Jesus telling the truth. He always told the truth. So, do we tell the truth? Do we fulfill our vows? What vows have we made? Most of use have made vows to the church, vows when we had our children baptized, vows when we got married. Those are the main times when we take vows. How well have honored them? Have we told the truth? Have we fulfilled our vows to the most high God? They are all binding. But then, what about our promises? We have made scads more of those, and do we keep them? Someone said that promises are like children’s drawings: often made, but rarely kept. Do we keep our promises? What about our bare word? Do we keep our word? And do we tell the truth? I think if we are honest, we would have to admit that there is a lot of room for us to grow in these areas. It is the fruit of the Spirit. We must strive for truthfulness in all our dealings with one another and with the world. Be very careful when and where you take a vow, or swear an oath. And Jesus also means to tell us that are not to swear frivolously. That means that we must not swear in everyday conversation. That is to make light of the truth. We must not do that, but be standard-bearers for the truth, as Jesus Himself was. Tell the truth. Be honest.

Baptism

2006-09-19T11:02:00.000-05:00

I have already talked a great deal about baptism here. What I want to do here is to note a few more rather important things that the WCF says about baptism. Baptism is said explicitly to admit the one baptized into the visible church (28.1). The divines were very careful here not to ascribe too much to baptism. They were also careful not to ascribe too little to baptism. However, that is not usually what is being attacked these days. These days, most of the attacks are coming from people ascribing too much to baptism. The nature of the grace "exhibited and conferred" is that of sign and seal. Sign and seal modify ALL the phrases in 28.1: "sign and seal of the covenant of grace, (sign and seal) of his ingrafting into Christ, (sign and seal) of regeneration, (sign and seal) of remission of sins, etc." Baptism is not necessarily the time-point of regeneration, as 28.5 confirms. It can be, but that would not be by the bare rite of baptism. One of the most helpful things that the WCF says is that "the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." Some have twisted this to mean that the WCF is saying that the efficacy starts at baptism, but is not tied down to it: that is, that it is not a one-time shot of grace. This is not what the WCF is saying. The WCF is saying that baptism's efficacy can be a "delayed reaction." This is clear from the "yet notwithstanding" right after the semi-colon, which indicates that the grace being exhibited and conferred might have been denied given the first phrase of 28.6. If that grace might have been denied given the first phrase of the section, then the first phrase cannot mean that the grace starts immediately at the time point of baptism, but is not tied down to that moment. Otherwise, the flow of argument would make no sense. Rather, it must mean that there can be a "delayed reaction." This is confirmed by the last phrase of the section "in His appointed time." The grace comes in His appointed time, if it comes. That it does not necessarily come is confirmed by the last part of 28.5: "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it...that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." This phrase is sometimes taken to mean that grace and salvation are normally annexed to it. However, this is an invalid inference, since the target against which this section aims is the belief that it is okay to neglect the ordinance of baptism. The target is not those who say that grace and salvation are always annexed to baptism. I take the word "so" in that phrase to mean "thus." It is not an indication of degree. A parallel would be the KJV translation of John 3:16: "For God so loved the world..." The word "so" there does not indicate that God loved the world this much. It indicates that God loved the world so, thusly. So also here (pun intended). A synonymous rendering would be "grace and salvation are not in such a way inseparably annexed unto it as that..." If we use the word "thus," however, we must be careful to note that the word would not have a "therefore" connotation, but rather the word would set the interpretation, as in the rendering I have adopted above.

Divorce

2006-09-19T10:35:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:31-32 One professional divorce lawyer in the US said this, “Death is less traumatic than divorce, because with death, it’s over. With divorce, it’s never over.” One in every two marriages in this country ends in divorce. Divorce is a worse epidemic than AIDS or abortion. Someone called divorce “the death of a small civilization.” Never in the entire history of the world has divorce been so prominent a feature of a culture. So let us listen carefully to what Jesus has to say us about this very important issue. Jesus has just finished talking about lust. Lust leads naturally to adultery, which is one of the main causes for divorce. And so we see that the previous passage leads very naturally into this one. But we find difficulties almost right away. Jesus seems to be contradicting what Moses said. Moses allowed divorce, but he said that the husband must give the wife a certificate of divorce. This was to prevent the husband from taking her back again after she had married and divorced again. This is the passage from Deuteronomy 24: “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.” What does this passage tell us about divorce? This case in Deuteronomy is about a man who divorces a wife; the wife marries another man, and then divorces her second husband. The first husband is NOT allowed to take her back again. That certificate means that it is final. There is no more argument about it. It’s done, never again to be undone. Now, there were two schools of thought on what constituted grounds for divorce in the Rabbinic thought. The one school was that of Rabbi Hillel. They were the loose ones. They thought that almost any reason would be sufficient for a man to divorce his wife, even if it was as trivial as burning his supper. The other school, the school of Shammai, was much more strict. They thought that the only acceptable reason for divorce was adultery. As we can see, Jesus sides with the school of Shammai very strongly. Hillel was wrong in Jesus’ opinion. The problem with Hillel was that they focused on the permission given by Moses, and they focused on the certificate. What they should have focused on instead was the institution of marriage itself. Jesus focused on marriage, on what it was, and why it was inviolable. To understand better what Jesus says here, let’s look at what he says later on in Matthew 19:1-12: "When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Here we see that marriage as originally created was what Jesus was talking about. He goes back to creation. Notice here that Moses did NOT command a divorce to occur. Moses was saying, “If a divorce happens, this is what should happen: there should be a certificate of divorce.” Some people were trying to make Moses say that he commanded a divorce in any case for whatever reason. But Jesus was trying to tell us about Himself and the church. That is really what marriage is all about. Listen to what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-33: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” There we have it: God has married the church to his Son, Jesus Christ. Is Jesus Christ going to divorce His church? No, even though there is plenty of provocation. Remember OT Israel and the many times they went astray? They went after other gods, and committed idolatry with them. That is spiritual adultery. And yet, even then, even after all that, even after the Exile, God still loved His people enough to send His Son Jesus to redeem us back from slavery to sin. Ultimately, avoiding divorce is all about the Gospel. God still loved us enough to pursue us, even after we had committed spiritual adultery. So if God is not going to divorce His church, then why should we divorce our spouse? What gives us the right? If marriage is supposed to look like God and His people, then why is there so much divorce in our day and age? The reason for it is that people do not understand what marriage is. Marriage is a covenant until death between man and wife. It is a commitment. It is not something that undergoes a trial period, and then the option remains open to can the whole thing. Divorce is not an option. That is what Jesus is saying here. There is one case, and one case only in Jesus teaching, whereby divorce is allowable, and that is when the marriage bond is completely destroyed by adultery. But even so, nowhere does Scripture command a divorce when adultery happens. I have read of countless cases where adultery happened, and yet forgiveness was there, too. If God can forgive us when we commit spiritual adultery, then surely we can forgive our spouse if they commit adultery. Forgiveness, however, should never be an excuse for sin. As William Bennett noted in his important book called _The Broken Hearth_, adultery is responsible for most divorces. Furthermore, if a couple is intimate before marriage, they are twice as likely to get a divorce after marriage. Why? Because they did not hold the marriage bond to be sacred. That is why. Sex before marriage, or sex after marriage with someone other than your spouse is what can break a marriage. That is why a prohibition of divorce falls under the seventh commandment. But all other things are to be worked through. Now, we are dealing here with a marriage between Christian and Christian. Paul has further instructions for those marriages where neither partner was a Christian, and then one of them converted. You can read about that in I Corinthians 7, which I am not going to read here. Jesus is talking to people who are in the Kingdom of God, who are in a covenant relationship with God. Those people are not to divorce for any reason other than adultery. I do not intend to focus too much on the exception, because Jesus does not focus on the exception, but on the general rule, which is: do not divorce your spouse. When marriage gets tough, that’s when forgiveness, and keeping short accounts comes into play, and is so vital to the health of a marriage. If your spouse has something against you, that’s when you go to your spouse and make things right. Don’t wait until tomorrow. You may not have a chance tomorrow. You need to keep short accounts. What about adultery? You need to take delight in your spouse. The Bible says on several occasions that you are to fully enjoy your spouse in marital intimacy. 1 Corinthians 7 says that neither the wife nor the husband is to deprive the other of marital intimacy. That is not permitted. Why? Because neither body belongs to just one person. That is a radical thought in our culture where everyone says, “This is my body, and I’ll do with it what I want.” That is directly opposed by Paul’s teaching, which says that the husband’s body belongs to his wife, and the wife’s body belongs to the husband. Don’t deprive the other person. Some people think that the Puritans were very prudish about these sorts of things. That is terribly unfair. There was one case in New England, where the wife came to the session of the church and complained that her husband was not giving her marital intimacy. After due process, and going through the pattern of church discipline, they excommunicated the husband for not giving marital intimacy to his wife. This is serious stuff. Do we see the connection between our marriages and the marriage between Christ and His church? If we saw that clearly, then we would understand with crystal clarity that statement of God in Malachi: “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God. God hates divorce, because it shatters something that is supposed to resemble Christ and the church. But a divorce can never do that. The command here then is not merely to avoid divorce, and everything that leads up to it, but to actively protect our marriages, and try to make them shine and reflect that wonderful marriage between Christ and the church.

The Formation of Orthodoxy

2006-09-18T17:58:00.000-05:00

The next major point in Muller's book has to do with the formation of orthodoxy. Was it, as some scholars say, a move from kerygma to dogma? Or was it a move from reform to codification? Muller affirms the latter and denies the former. Muller then goes on to delineate three problems in the way of asserting a fundamental discontinuity between the Reformation and the orthodox: 1. the intention of the Reformation was always to establish a universal orthodoxy, 2. the intra-confessional diversity of the Reformation carried over into the era of orthodoxy; 3. "the seventeenth-century identification of confessional orthodoxy neither stood in the way of doctrinal development nor created a monolithic theology duplicated and reduplicated among a host of thinkers" (41). In other words, the period of orthodoxy is not to be defined as a period of static, monolithic orthodoxy on all points. The confession provided the boundaries, but within those confessions was some variety and development.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

2006-09-15T10:24:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:21-26 Someone has said that when he gets into an argument with his wife, she doesn’t get hysterical, she gets historical. She simply recounts all his past misdeeds in his hearing so that the husband is shamed by his current behavior. She holds grudges, and is bitter against him because of all these past actions. We probably do the same thing. I dare say that when most of us look at the sixth commandment, which reads, “Thou shalt not kill,” we come with a sigh of relief. Most of us have not killed anyone. We haven’t murdered anyone. On to the next commandment. We allow room for those thoughts of anger to harbor themselves in our hearts.

That is exactly how the Jews thought. They thought that the worst offense against the sixth commandment was to actually murder someone in cold blood. So they added to the law. Jesus is quoting in the first verse not the OT law alone, but the OT law as it had been interpreted by the Jewish rabbis. The key part of this is the second half of the verse. There the Jewish rabbis said that the person who murders someone else is liable to judgment. That implies that the lesser sins are not liable to judgment. If murder IS liable to punishment, then anger is NOT. The Jewish rabbis thus lessened the punishment due to sin, because they misinterpreted the sixth commandment. Instead of misinterpreting the sixth commandment, we have to realize how to interpret them. The Ten commandments are meant to state the most severe case. Murder is obviously the most severe case covered under the sixth commandment. But all the lesser commands are included under it as well. Listen to what the Heidelberg catechism says in its questions concerning the sixth commandment: 105 Q. What is God’s will for you in the sixth commandment? A. I am not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor- not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds- and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge. I am not to harm to recklessly endanger myself either. Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword. 106 Q. Does this commandment refer only to killing? A. By forbidding murder God teaches us that he hates the root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness. In God’s sight all such are murder. 107 Q. Is it enough then that we do not kill our neighbor in any such way? A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly to them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies. The WCF has more to say. Not only do the Ten Commandments contain the severest forms, and therefore imply all the lesser sins, but also the opposite to murder is required. Q. 135: What are the dutes required in the sixth commandment? A. The dutes required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away of the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, medicine, sleep, labour, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peacable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing of the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarelling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any. So, just in case any of you thought for one minute that you have been keeping this commandment, I am here to tell you that you aren’t. All the lesser sins are condemned, and the opposite virtues are commanded. Jesus is here raising the standard of what the law requires. Remember, Jesus just finished saying that that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees. Otherwise, we will never enter the kingdom of God. Last time we discovered just what that meant. It meant that we need a perfect righteousness to clothe us before the infinitely holy God. But it also means that our actual behavior needs to be better than the scribes and the Pharisees. So Jesus goes on to say here that insults, and hatred is ALSO liable to punishment. In other words, it is no longer merely a matter of what happens in our behavior: it is a matter of the heart. Let me repeat that: it is no longer merely a matter of what happens in our behavior: it is a matter of the heart. Now, I am NOT saying that the OT is merely outward, and the NT is inward and spiritual. I am saying that the scribes and the Pharisees were more concerned about outward behavior, and neglected the inward aspect of the heart. The contrast is not between the OT and the NT, but between the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law, and Jesus’ interpretation of the law. In verse 23, we see the principle that applies to us especially in the Lord’s Supper. We no longer offer actual animals on the altar. Otherwise, we might get the irony in what Jesus says. How practical would it be to leave an animal on the altar, before you had even killed it, and go somewhere else to be reconciled with your brother? Jesus’ point here is that forgiveness is more important than sacrifice. You cannot be reconciled with God unless you reconciled with your brother. That is so important that I will say it again: you CANNOT be reconciled with God unless you are reconciled with your brother. Don’t come and offer tithes to God if you are angry with your brother. And don’t come to the Lord’s Supper if you have something against someone else. But Jesus required something more. Maybe you don’t have something against anyone else, but maybe they have something against you. In that case, you are ALSO to go to that person and ask their forgiveness before proper worship can take place. Now, verse 25 is usually taken to mean that we should reconcile with even non-believers before going to court. This is true. We are to do everything we can to live at peace with all people. However, there is a great deal more to say about this verse. This verse is really talking about the final judgment. The accuser is the law, and the court is God’s court, and the judgment is the final judgment. If we realize that what we owe is everything, then the last warning there should absolutely terrify those who are not justified before God. You will never get out until you pay the last penny. Hat means that you will never get out, because no one has the wherewithal to pay what they owe in hell. So this advice works on many levels. Be reconciled to your brother, be reconciled to your enemy, and be reconciled to the law. How does one do all this? We must go back to the cross. Jesus underwent the cross, because of God’s wrath against sin and against sinners. God’s anger, of course, is a righteous anger, because He is angry at sin, which is a breaking of God’s law. Any breaking of God’s law results in God’s holiness and perfection being attacked. God must answer if He is to be a just and holy God. And so He answered it with the death of His own son. He has put to death the enmity that existed between God and us. That is, Jesus propitiated God’s wrath. That is a big word. Let me explain it. God is wrathful against sin, because of the law. That wrath needs to be appeased somehow, if we are to be restored to fellowship with God. That is what Christ did. He propitiated God’s wrath. He appeased God’s wrath. This word is used several times in the NT, and so we need to aware of what it means. So do you trust in Christ’s work of propitiation? Do you trust that Jesus has made peace between God and you? Then you need to extend forgiveness, not anger to other people. How often do we insult other people. How do we do that? Well, we gossip. That is a terrible problem in our congregations. We call someone else a fool behind their back. Jesus’ command is not limited merely to calling someone a fool to their face: it also applies to gossip. We want to learn a dirty little secret of someone, and so we listen. We are all tempted. But that is killing someone. Gossip is a lesser form of murder. Do you think of gossip that way? Well you should. Another way this applies to us is that we tend to hold grudges against someone else. Holding a grudge is another way we kill someone. It doesn’t matter whether the grudge is long-standing or recent: either way, holding it is killing that person in your heart. What about protecting someone else’s good name. It is not the case that if you merely refrain from gossip that you have kept the Lord’s command. You must also actively seek to preserve someone else’s reputation. Just as to preserve someone else’s life is to obey the sixth commandment, so also to preserve someone else’s reputation is a matter of life and death. If you destroy someone’s good name, you have destroyed that person. This is a command to love as God has loved us. This is a command to take care of our anger as God took care of His anger against us. God is not asking us to do anything that He has not done Himself. The great difference between God’s anger and our anger is that God’s anger is completely justified. We totally deserve to be on the receiving end of God’s anger. However, our anger is usually not holy. And yet God takes care of His own anger anyway, even though we so richly deserve it. So cannot we take care of our anger, when it is usually unjustly bestowed? That is the question for us tonight. So this week, work on how you talk to your spouse, children, or siblings. Don’t cut them down, or insult them. Instead, build them up in love. When you work with your coworkers, don’t listen to gossip. Instead, you should stick up for the person who isn’t there to defend himself. Have the courage to do that. God will call you blessed. But above all, forgive someone else. After all, God has forgiven you more than you can ever repay. You can surely afford to forgive someone else. Indeed, there is great reward for those who forgive as God forgives. Look forward to it. That is what Jesus calls us to do today.

The Reformers and the Middle Ages

2006-09-13T10:00:00.000-05:00

Some scholars say that the Reformation took over its scholastic method from the Middle Ages. They write it almost with a sneer, as if that settles the question of whether or not the Reformed orthodox were even sane or not. Muller disarms this rather well, I think. The answer is yes, the scholastic method (which has to do with METHOD, not CONTENT) was a valid teaching tool for the school. "The Reformers, after all, assumed the truth of the larger body of received doctrine and attacked only what they perceived to be errors" (34). Let me repeat: the definition of scholasticism that Muller gives us is absolutely architectonic for the entire set: scholasticism describes a method, not a content. That method is the method of the school, of arranging systematicall the truths of the Christian religion according to various loci (topics). That being said, Muller does acknowledge that there were changes even in the method, as it transitioned from Middle Ages to Reformation. The change in method is brought about by the Reformation's indebtedness to the Rennaisance. Renaissance humanism (NOT modern secular humanism!) is a key influence here. The word "humanism" causes a knee-jerk reaction among some. However, in this context, it merely refers to the desire to read the original sources in the original language. "Ad fontes" (to the fount) was the cry of the Renaissance. They were tired of being told by someone else what so-and-so said. They wanted to find out for themselves. One more point for this post. On page 37, Muller describes the relationship of the first-generation Reformers with the later codifying Reformers: "Where the Reformers painted with a broad brush, their orthodox and scholastic successors strove to fill in the details of the picture."

The Communion of Saints

2006-09-13T09:45:00.000-05:00

We all too often blithely repeat the Apostles' Creed, without realizing that we say we believe in the communion of saints. What does it mean? If you say you believe in it, then you had better act on it, or you are breaking your promise to God and to whatever church in which you are a member. What does it mean? It means that we have fellowship with Christ in His sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension; and thus, being members of His body, we also have fellowship with one another, and share the same joys and trials. We are one body of Christ. As such, we have just as much obligation to minister to one another as the eye of the body has the obligation to help the hand and foot know where to go. THIS IS NOT OPTIONAL! I get really sick of hearing "me, the Bible, and God is all I need." Balderdash. That is like the eye saying to the rest of the body, "I don't need you." Just imagine for a moment a solitary, real, human eye-ball sitting on a table. Can it see without being connected to the rest of the body? Can it do what it is supposed to do? Such is the believer who decides he doesn't need the rest of the body of Christ. The WCF makes the point that communion is not communism. The instance of the early church was not meant to be normative, and is to be read in the context of the rest of Scripture, where Paul says that if a man does not work, he shall not eat, combined with the 8th commandment, and Acts 5:4 (which is even in the context of that same early church!).

Jesus and the Law

2006-09-13T09:25:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:17-20 There is a common miscon- ception out there about the OT. Probably some of us here have held to it from time to time. That miscon- ception goes like this: a particular command came from the OT. Since we are no longer living in the OT time period, therefore I do not have to obey that law. That is a misconception, and the words of our Lord Jesus here confirm that. Why is this important? Because God wants us to obey His holy law as part of being a good Christian. And the OT is where we find a good bit of that law. The OT is extremely valuable for knowing how God wants us to live. Jesus certainly valued the OT highly, and so should we. Jesus starts off by responding to an objection. Someone was looking at what he did on the Sabbath and was saying, “This guy wants to abolish the law and the prophets. He does nothing but upset all the OT law.” Jesus is here responding to such a person by saying that the law is something he upholds. In fact, far from abolishing the law and the prophets, Jesus came to fulfill them. What Jesus is against is not the law, but all the additions to the law that the Pharisees had added to the law. For instance, with regard to the Sabbath, the Pharisees had said that no one should walk outside their house more than 50 paces, unless it was to go to the synagogue. Burdens more than a certain weight were not to be carried. Both of these activities constituted work, according to the Pharisees. Now, what the Pharisees were trying to do, according to their own account, was to make the law doable. But what they actually succeeded in doing was to make the law impossible. They laid heavy burdens on the people, but did not lift up a single finger to help the people. So Jesus wants to strip all that away, and concentrate on the weightier matters of the law, if you will pardon the pun. So that is how Jesus objects to this imaginary persecutor. The second thing Jesus does here is to state what He actually came to do. Jesus here answers the question, “Why did Jesus come to earth? What is the reason for the incarnation?” The answer is that Jesus came to fulfill the law. Now, before we get into what exactly that means, we must note that it does NOT mean that Jesus came to fulfill and thus end the law. We know that from what He says immediately after this: not a jot or tittle (or, as the NIV says, “the least stroke of a pen”) shall pass away from the law until all is accomplished. Let me illustrate what Jesus is saying here. Turn to page 960 in your church Bible. Right over verse 73 is the Hebrew letter Yodh. That is what a “jot” means. The NIV translates it in Mat 5 as “the smallest letter.” This is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is the same letter in the Greek alphabet “iota,” which is the smallest letter in that alphabet as well. And now turn to page 959 in your church Bible. Right above verse 41, we see the Hebrew letter Waw written in Hebrew and English. Then, right over verse 49, we see the Hebrew letter Zayin. The difference between these two letters is a very small extension on the top of the letter Zayin. That small extension is called a tittle. That is what the NIV translates as “the least stroke of the pen.” Now, the Hebrews took extremely good care of the manuscripts of the OT. If any mistake was found in the manuscript, then that entire page had to be thrown away. They had ways of testing the accuracy of the text. For instance, they would make sure that the same word in the parent manuscript was on the same place in the copied manuscript. They would count the words on the page, and the same number of words had to be there in the parent and in the child manuscript. Well, that same level of care for the manuscript is what Jesus is talking about here. In no way will the smallest detail perish from the law until everything is accomplished. Notice the severity of the punishment that will come on those who teach that the law is no longer in effect. In verse 19, Jesus says that anyone who relaxes the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. There is a punishment that fits the crime. The law is so important that the smallest of the commands of the law carries a whopping punishment in the event of its being broken. The person who does it will be called least. Their status will match the law that they broke. Now, by this time, you are probably wondering to yourself whether or not we should bring back the sacrificial system which was so obviously part of OT law. And you might also be wondering about those OT laws that applied to OT Israel alone. Be patient, we’ll get there. But first, I want us to feel the weight of what Jesus is saying here. The law is NOT something that we can dump into the garbage and expect God to be happy about it. That simply cannot happen. Now, as Reformed folk, we need to realize a vital principle of how to interpret Scripture. And that principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture. What one Scripture says has to be laid alongside of another Scripture passage on the same topic. What happens when we do that? One Scripture tells us what the other Scripture means. This principle of interpretation is called the analogy of faith. Scripture interprets Scripture. A point of application here. If we do not know what Scripture means in a particular place, then we must go to other Scriptures that are more clear. We use those texts that are clear to interpret those texts that are not so clear. That being said, we know from other Scripture that the law is not all the same in how it applies to us. The sacrificial system is fulfilled and comes to an end in Christ. We no longer sacrifice. We know this for an absolute certainty from the book of Hebrews, which tells us that Christ made a sacrifice once and for all. The very purpose of the OT law concerning sacrifice was to point to Christ. Since the purpose of that is now fulfilled, that part of the law is no longer binding on us. Indeed, if we were to reintroduce sacrificing animals today, we would be spitting on Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. Instead, we are to offer a sacrifice of praise, to offer up our bodies as a living sacrifice. That is how we now fulfill the OT law of sacrifice. The OT sacrificial laws still apply to us, but they are filtered through Christ, as it were. The same is true of the national laws of Israel. Israel was to eat certain foods, and not other foods. From Acts, in the vision given to Peter in Acts 10, we learn that God has made all foods clean now. Those OT laws about not eating pork no longer apply the same way to us. We are not to eat food sacrificed to idols. That food is unclean. But pork is now clean. We can see that Acts 10 interprets the OT for us. But now we come to the Ten Commandments. Many people think that we can just put those Ten Commandments into the same category as the other two categories of sacrificial and national laws. In fact, some go so far as to say that these are now the Ten Suggestions, rather than the Ten Commandments. But what does Jesus do with the Ten Commandments? Does He not actually re-establish their application to us? Look at what he does to the Ten Commandments in the rest of Matthew 5. Jesus says that murder is bad, but hate is the same as murder. Jesus says that adultery is bad, but so also is lust. We need to notice here something about how Jesus is talking. It was common for Jewish rabbis to say, “It is written in the law,” or they would say, “Rabbi so-and-so says.” They would never take to themselves any authority. But Jesus is saying, “the law says this, but I say unto you.” Jesus is putting Himself on the same level as the law. We see that in verse 20. Verse 20 is quite remarkable. Jesus here is saying that His interpretation of the law will either allow a person into the kingdom, or shut them out of it. So Jesus claims ultimate authority here. So Jesus interprets the law for us. We will see in coming weeks just what that means about these laws. All of what Jesus says in the next couple of chapters relates to the Ten Commandments. Jesus does not abrogate ANY of the Ten Commandments. Now, I wish to focus just a little bit on one of the Ten Commandments that has been systematically abrogated in America, and that is the fourth commandment. I am talking about this one because Jesus does not address it directly in the Sermon on the Mount. There is this idea floating around out there, including some people in our very own churches, that the Sabbath was only an OT law. We are not in the OT period anymore, and so we do not have to honor that law anymore. Let’s take a look at what Jesus would say about that. First we notice that He heightens the requirements on all the other Commandments. So, in order to say that the Sabbath law is finished, we would have to say that all the Ten Commandments retain their force except this one. Surely, just because Jesus does not mention specifically the fourth commandment in the Sermon on the Mount does not mean that Jesus is abrogating it. We should interpret Jesus to be saying that what He says is representative of how all the Ten Commandments should be interpreted. That means that the Sabbath command is still in full force. I can hear you asking the next question, “Well then, why don’t we worship on Saturday?” That is a good question, not a stupid question. Let’s look a little bit at the reasons for the Sabbath command in the OT. We see in Exodus 20 that the reason given for the command is because God had created the world in six days. In Deuteronomy 5, the reason is that God brought them out of Egypt. In other words, there are two reasons for the Sabbath command, the creation reason and the redemption reason. In the NT, Jesus offers us a new creation, and a new redemption. 2 Cor. 5:17 says this, literally: “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation.” God brought order out of chaos both at creation and at the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the start of the new creation. Secondly, we are well aware that we are redeemed by Jesus from the power of sin and death by Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Do you see how this argument is shaping up? There were two reasons for the Sabbath: creation and redemption. There are two things that happened at Jesus’ resurrection: new creation and new redemption. Jesus’ resurrection happened on Sunday. Therefore Sunday is the new Sabbath day. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. Let me repeat that. Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. How is the day to be spent? In worship to our God, and in acts of mercy to other people, and in acts of necessity that we must do to live. Here again, the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture is helpful to us. Jesus and his disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath day, because they were hungry. One needs to eat on Sunday. Therefore, meal preparation, and things you need to do in order to live are entirely appropriate on Sunday. Jesus also says that helping another person in a life or death situation is appropriate on Sunday. He says that we can get out neighbor’s ox out of the ditch on Sunday. That is appropriate. What is not appropriate is normal work activities, unless they fall into the category of acts of mercy, such as working in the nursing home. Is recreation appropriate on Sunday? I do not think so. Here is why: Isaiah 58:13 says this: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken." Since we have already said that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, then this passage in Isaiah applies to Sunday today. Now, lest you think that Sunday is more about you can’t do than about what you can, let me say that there are many activities that we should be doing on Sunday that we are not. For instance, we should be visiting the sick and the elderly. We should be visiting other people in the congregation. We should be going into our community and talking to those people we know who don’t know Jesus. We should be reading the Bible and good Christian literature. There are a myriad of things to do on Sunday that honor the Fourth Commandment. However, we should not be approaching this commandment thinking to ourselves, “What can I get away with?” That is not the proper attitude. Instead, we should be thinking about how God would want us to honor the day. We have two worship services on Sunday in the summer time. We should attend both of those faithfully, since worship is the most important thing we do. So that is an example of how Jesus interprets the Ten Commandments. We use the information about how He interpreted the other Commandments, and then apply that to the Fourth commandment. Next time, we will see how Jesus interprets the other Commandments. If you have never thought of these things before, and now consider yourself to have broken the Sabbath Commandment countless times in your life, then join the group. We all sin and break God’s law. The point that we must remember now is that God forgives us on the basis of the perfect Sabbath-keeper, Jesus Christ, if we trust in Him. That is the good news for us.

The Study of Protestant Scholasticism

2006-09-12T10:58:00.000-05:00

Muller starts out the first chapter (my blog entry title is the same), by talking about historical assumptions. The period of Reformation orthodoxy hasnever been given the attention that the Reformers themselves have been given. However, this is unwarranted, since "The Reformation is incomplete without its confessional and doctrinal codification" (27). He further claims that the orthodoxy of the Reformation would have failed without the scholastic achievements of the period following the Reformation. Two vital insights (by way of definition) are to be found in the first several pages. the first is that the Reformed orthodoxy is a vast, international, and varied movement. This might seem like an obvious statement. However, there are those who put far too great a rift between continental Reformed and Puritan Reformed theology, for instance. There is variety, to be sure. However, there was an enormous amount of inter-communication among the various pockets of Reformed orthodox. This needs to mitigate the differences. The other vitally important definition is that of scholasticism. According to Muller, " 'scholastic' indicates an academic style and method of discourse, not a particular theology or philosophy" (30). This is a gauntlet thrown down against many scholars who view scholasticism as dry content influenced by Middle Ages theology. Reformed scholasticism refers much more to a theology that is taught in a school (that is what the term "scholastic" really means: it is the academic style and method of discourse appropriate to a school: Reformed orthodoxy needed to be taught). Muller rejects the term "Calvinist" in favor of the term "Reformed," since the term Calvinist is ambiguous and unhelpful in describing the theology and methodology of many who differ from Calvin. Muller then divides the period of Reformed orthodoxy into three main periods: early, high, and late. Early comes in two phases (1565-1618-1640). High also comes in two phases (1640-1685-1725). After 1725 is late. This is a good place to stop.

The Church

2006-09-12T10:39:00.000-05:00

The church is one of the most misunder- stood doctrines in the church today, especially in the so-called Federal Vision. The FV wants to erase the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. However, this distinction is quite biblical, as can be proved conclusively from Romans 9:6, where Paul makes a distinction between biological descent and the household of faith. It was God's purpose in election that the promises of the covenant always be by faith and not by sight. This is the fundamental error of the Federal Vision: they want their belief to be by sight and not by faith. That is why they want to see the people of God. That is so very important to them. You just have to be able to see the people of God in order for faith to work. This is why baptism is over-emphasized among FV advocates: baptism is something visible to which one could point to say that they are a Christian. Now, I am by no means denying that baptism is one of the means of grace. But it is that: one of the means of grace. It is not the means of grace. And no saving grace comes by it apart from faith. Baptism does not bring us into the state of salvation. This is where the distinction between visible and invisible is so crucial. Baptism brings us into the visible church. If it is accompanied by faith, then also into the invisible church. Apart from faith, our baptism becomes condemnation in the face of rejection of Christ, just as circumcision did in the OT if someone cut himself off from the people of God. Circumcision did not make one of the invisible Israel, as Paul would say in Romans 9. Neither does baptism automatically make us a member of the invisible church. Our assurance of salvation does not rest on baptism alone, for there are many baptized people who are cheerfully on their way to hell. According to the FV, heaven forbid that election might actually distinguish among people in the visible church before apostasy. They will usually say that the ontological distinction will only come about when people apostatize, and that there is no difference of any sort between the non-elect and the elect until the non-elect apostatize. Romans 9:6, quoted earlier, all by itself should have put the lid on such wanderings, but it doesn't seem to have phased them much. One needs to ask about apostate churches here. Are those who are baptized into an apostate church regenerated? Baptism is not fully realized (that is, the reality to which the sign points) until the time point of faith, which can occur before, during, or after baptism itself. More on baptism in a later post. That being said, it is important also to note that there is still only one church. The distinction of visible and invisible does not make two churches. This distinction is vitally important to maintain, but so also is the unity of the church. This is evident from the WCF 25, where both the visible aspect and the invisible aspect are both called catholic (not Roman Catholic, but universal, which is what the word actually means: hence Roman Catholic is a contradiction in terms: Rome being limiting, catholic being universal). The Head of the church is Jesus Christ. We need no other Mediator between God and man. We certainly need no pope. One of the most disturbing trends that I have seen in seminaries recently is a devaluing of the church. Professors are wanting to engage in academics not for the purpose of edifying the church, but for some other unstated purpose. They are not then in the business of training ministers, but academics. This should never be. Even academics, in the field of theology, should be wholly subordinated to the good of the church. Academics should not live and move and have its being outside of the church, but inside the church, subject to church discipline and oversight. Errors are much easier to correct in a seminary that way, than if the seminary considers itself autonomous, and beyond the criticism and oversight of the church. It breeds arrogance in the seminary.

Being Salt and Light

2006-09-12T10:05:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:13-16 Do you ever have the feeling that you would like to influence the world around you but you just don’t have the skill? Or that you would if you could, but you can’t so you won’t? Well, join the crowd. That is how most Christians feel about being salt and light in the world around them. They wonder if they even are salt and light. They wonder if God can use them, as frail and immature as they are. Jesus knew that such doubts would plague the church. And so He gives us this word of encouragement. You are salt and light.

Notice first of all that Jesus says that YOU are the salt and light. This is emphatic in the Greek. He is implying that you only are the light of the world, and that the Pharisees and scribes are not the light of the world, contrary to their own opinion of themselves. Jesus is saying that the Pharisees and scribes are unsalty darkness. The world always thinks of itself as having some sort of Enlightenment going on. This happened in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, where people thought that man’s reason and logic could conquer all things. This happened in the Renaissance, when people discovered old Greek manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle, and people thought that they knew everything. The fact is that the world is blind to both the problem and the solution. The world thinks that the problem is our environment, or other people. G.K. Chesterton dismissed this kind of thinking in two words. In an essay competition about what is wrong with the world, Chesterton wrote two words, “I am.” The world looks everywhere else except in their own sinful hearts for the problem. As a result, they don’t have the solution either. They think the solution is more entertainment, or more money, or more environmental studies, anywhere but in Christ. Only Christ’s disciples have the answers. Thus, only Christ’s disciples are truly salt and light in the world.

The second thing that I want us to see about this passage is that Jesus does NOT say, “You are to be salt and light.” Instead He says, “You ARE salt and light.” That is a very key thing to notice. Jesus is not saying that you have to change yourself from being meat or fruit to being salt and light. Jesus is saying that if you are truly His disciple, then God has changed into salt and light. This is not a command so much as a statement of fact, a statement about what is true about believers. We’ll get back to this once we have seen what Jesus means by salt and light.

The first image that Jesus uses to describe believers is salt. There was a saying in the Roman world that went like this: “There is nothing more useful than salt and light.” It is important for us to know what salt was and how it was used in the ancient world. We use it primarily to flavor our food. That was not its primary use in ancient times. People in ancient times used salt to keep food from going bad. They didn’t have refrigerators, they had salt. Salt keeps meat from spoiling. It slows down the aging process. Salt kills germs. Ancient people used it to keep food from going bad.

So what Jesus is saying here is that the disciples keep the world from going bad. This has several implications. The first is that the world cannot help going bad. Meat by itself will go bad. The world without Christians in it would soon become unbearably wicked. So when something really bad happens, like 9/11, of which today is the anniversary, the question we must ask ourselves is not, “How could people be so wicked?” People are wicked. That is their nature. Left to themselves, they will become brute animals. That should not really surprise us. The question we really should be asking ourselves is, “Where was the church?” Someone has said that if the church was what it was supposed to be for one single day, the world would be converted by nightfall.

But why isn’t this the case? Why isn’t the church what it is supposed to be? Because of the second implication, which is that salt isn’t always pure. In our day and age, we get salt that has been purified. There is nothing in your Morton salt container that is not sodium chloride, which is the chemical designation of salt. But in the ancient time period, salt was always mixed with other minerals. When you add to that fact another tidbit, namely that salt is easily dissolved in water, it then becomes clear what Jesus says in the second half of verse 13. The sodium chloride could wash away when it came into contact with water. What was left after the salt dissolved was little more than dirt. It had no salt left in it. That is “salt” that has become unsalty. It is important for us to realize this difference between ancient salt and modern salt, because sodium chloride by itself does not become something else. Our Morton salt cannot become unsalty. But ancient salt could become unsalty. And when it did, it was good for nothing but to be thrown out to be trampled upon by men. When Jesus says this, He is talking about the final judgment. If we lose our distinctiveness, then we are useless. The key thing about salt is that it is different from the meat or whatever food it comes into contact with. But if the salt washes away, then it is no longer different. It isn’t really anything.

Salt, in order to be useful as salt, needs to be in immediate contact with the food. If you have salt just a millimeter away from the food, the salt is still useless. If you want to preserve your food, or to make it tasty, then you have to actually put the salt on the food. So also, Christians who are not in contact with the world, are useless. God made us into salt. And if we are not preserving the world from becoming completely and utterly sinful, then we are not being salt. So, we cannot isolate ourselves from the community, and expect our church to have an impact. We have to be out and about, rubbing shoulders with people in Hague, Pollock, Strasburg, Linton, Bismark, Mobridge, and Westfield and Hull. There are people around us who do not know Christ. And the first step is for us to rub shoulders with them, We cannot and must not ignore them.

But the opposite is also true. Salt, in order to be effective, must remain salt. When the waters of persecution or worldliness wash over us, we cannot be dissolved away. We must stay in the mix. Usually, culture has two ways of trying to make us unsalty. The first way is by persecution. We just looked at this last week. Persecution shows us where our true loyalties lie. But the second way the world makes us to lose our saltiness is by inviting us to become just like them. But why would we want to become like rotting meat? What is attractive about that? We who have died to sin, how can we live in it any longer? No, we are the salt of the earth. And so we should be what we already are.

Jesus also says that we are the light of the world. Now, what is the difference between salt and light? Well, salt has the primarily negative function of preserving the world from utter corruption. Light has the more positive function of allowing things to be seen that could not be seen before. Notice that Jesus has these in a certain order. We are to pique people’s interest, because we are like salt: we are not like them in going the way of evil. In preserving the world from corruption, people will start to ask the question, “Why are they different?” That is the perfect opportunity for us to show them that they are living in terrible darkness. The fact that they even ask the question, “Why are they different?” is proof of the fact that they live in darkness. So what is darkness and what is light?

Here again, our modern understanding of what light is can get in the way of our understanding the text. They did not have electricity in those days. They had lamps. Furthermore, most houses in that time period has only one room. So, if you had a lamp, you put it in the best part of the one-room house, so that it would give light to all who were in the house. If you didn’t have a lamp, then you were in pitch blackness. I’m sure that some of us here have experienced what happens when we are in an area without any electric lights nearby. If it is a cloudy night, then you cannot see your hand even if you put it right in front of your face. It is total and utter darkness. That is exactly what the world is like. It is complete and utter darkness. We are the only light that is in this pitch black world of sin.

But we need to to know something of our own light. It is a reflected light. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world.” Here is a great example of the principle that Scripture needs to interpret Scripture. Jesus is like the sun. He is the source of the light. What Jesus does is light us, and so then we have light. But our light is like the light of the moon. The moon reflects the light of the sun. So also, we reflect the light of Jesus. Sometimes our light grows greater, and sometimes our light grows less. The point is that we are to shine as brightly as we can. Are you being salt and light? Or do you hide your light under a bushel? What Jesus is saying here is that for a light to be covered up is absurd. Why would light a lamp only to cover it up? That is absurd. But as one author put it, “If a light is put under a basket, then one of two things will happen: either the lamp will burn through the basket, or the lamp will burn out.” If you are a Christian, then your light will either shine or be put out. But to hide a lamp contradicts what a lamp is supposed to do.

Let me ask you tonight whether you are salt and light, or whether you are just rotting meat sitting in darkness. You are either one or the other. There is no middle ground. Come to Christ and have Him change you into salt and light. As the Romans said, “Nothing better than salt and light.”

If you are salt and light, then be what you already are. It is a contradiction for salt to be unsalty, or for light to be hidden. These are not optional extras. Ultimately Jesus is talking about missions here. This is a missionary passage. But we are missionaries to those around us. There is no such thing as a Christian who does not witness to his faith to unbelievers.

One last thing: the salt and light that Jesus talks about does exist for itself. Salt does not salt itself. Light does not exist for other light. Rather, salt exists for the purposes of preserving food. Light exists so that you can see other things in the house. That is the purpose of these things. We do not exist for ourselves. We exist for the purpose of bringing glory to God. When people see us, they should see Christ. When people see how we salt the world, they should see how Christ has preserved the world from utter ruin by His sacrifice on the cross. When people see us shining out in the world, they should Jesus, who is the Light of the world. Hey should us a reflection of Jesus.

New series of blogs on Muller

2006-09-11T12:38:00.000-05:00

I am going to start a summary of the excellent four-volume work entitles Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, written by Richard Muller, a professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. This may sound to some as though it will be a dry as dust study with zero warmth, and much scholastic aridity. That is what I thought I would find, too, as I first started reading Muller. Nothing could be further from the truth. Muller is insightful and interesting as a writer, and defines his terms well. Despite the forbidding title, the set is well worth reading, though one certainly has to be awake to do so. I also had the impression that it would be talking more about the theology that people were engaging in, and not really the theology of the Bible. Again I was wrong. Muller is engaging in theology as he studies these post-Reformation Reformers. In fact, Muller scales heights of theology that I had not even dreamed of before. He paints many a glorious picture of the intelligence and amazingly advanced thought of the period under discussion. These theologians put most moderns to absolute shame. I hope I will not be misread here as being some sort of reverse chronological snob. I believe that every era of church history has its brilliant scholars, even the modern era. The main purpose of the four volumes is to set out, under four loci (or topics), the theology of the post-Reformation (1520-1725 AD). The four loci are prolegomena, Scripture, the existence and attributes of God, and the Trinity. Muller's set has a particular polemical edge against a certain brand of scholars who have said that there is a profound disconnect between Calvin and those who came after him in the high orthodox period. This edge comes out many, many times in the first volume alone (I am a little more than half-way through the first volume). Prolegomena refers literally to "things spoken beforehand." That is, this refers to the foundations that must be laid for theology to take place. Such things include definitions of theology (and various kinds of theology), the divisions of theology, the method of theology, natural and supernatural theology, the goal of theology, theology's relationship to philosophy, and basic principles of theology. The introduction serves as an introduction to the entire set. It is 146 pages, and deals with the scope of the entire study, the eras to be studied, some general issues with regard to the method that the post-Reformation used, and, in depth, the consideration of wrong-headed views on the post-Reformation. This will have to do as a start. The next post will have more of what Muller actually is saying. Tags: Muller, post-Reformation, dogmatics, Reformed

Marriage and Divorce

2006-09-11T12:21:00.000-05:00

Marriage has as its roots the original creation of male and female and the assertion of God that it was not good that the man be alone. That is, Adam was incomplete. He needed someone who was like him, and yet different. so God created Eve (not Steve, as the saying goes!). The marriage of a believer is only to be with another believer. We are not to be unequally yoked, as Paul says. An interesting interpretation of kindred ties can be found in WCF 24.4, where the WCF interprets Scripture as forbidding a man from marrying the sister of his wife, for instance. It says literally that a man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, and likewise for the woman. Adultery and willful desertion that cannot be remedied by church or state are the only two reasons given as possibilities for divorce. WCF 24 concludes by saying that the persons involved are not to be left to their own will in this matter. That is important, since both the church and the state have a vested interest in marriage, and have laws that apply.

To Dream

2006-09-11T12:10:00.000-05:00

Genesis 40 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Senior, was a doctor. As such he was very interested in the use of ether. In order to know how his patients felt under its influence, he once had a dose admin- istered to himself. As he was going under, in a dreamy state, a profound thought came to him. He believed that he had suddenly grasped the key to all the mysteries of the universe. When he regained consciousness, however, he was unable to remember what the insight was. Because of the great importance this thought would be to mankind, Holmes arranged to have himself given either again. This time he had a stenographer present to take down the great thought. The either was administered, and sure enough, just before passing out the insight reappeared. He mumbled the words, the stenographer took them down, and he went to sleep confident in the knowledge that he had succeeded. Upon awakening, he turned eagerly to the stenographer and asked her to read what he had uttered. This is what she read: "The entire universe is permeated with a strong odor of turpentine." Profound thought indeed. We often have dreams that would seem to be significant, but turn out to be mothing more than that: a dream. However, this morning we see two dreams that are of the utmost significance for those who had them. In fact, their destiny had been revealed by God to them, though they were not able to interpret them. For that, they needed someone with wisdom from on high. They needed Joseph.

Joseph is in prison. He had been thrown in prison for a crime that he did not commit. But the Lord had been with Joseph, and had so impressed the keeper of the prison, that he had made Joseph to be in charge of all the prisoners. The Lord did this because there were some special prisoners who were coming Joseph's way. They were very important people in Egypt, for they had direct access to the king. In fact, these two officers were probably the two highest officials in the land. They needed to be trustworthy, since they dealt with what the Pharaoh ate and drank. The cupbearer was a person who was responsible for any wine that came before the king. He served the Pharaoh. He would taste anything before the Pharaoh did, in order that, if there was any poison in the cup, the cupbearer would die, and not the Pharaoh. The cupbearer had direct access to the Pharaoh, and thus was one of the Pharaoh's most trusted advisers. The baker had an equally important job: that of feeding the Pharaoh with bread. Bakery was a highly advanced art in ancient Egypt. Egyptians had 38 different varieties of cakes that they could make, and 57 different types of bread. So this baker was a very experienced cook in all matters dealing with flour. He was a gourmet chef.

However, these two important officers had committed some offense against Pharaoh. We are not told what it was that they had done. We are only told that they had done it. So, they came to the prison where the king's prisoners were kept, which happened to be the same prison where Joseph was kept. How providential. It is even more providential that Joseph was assigned to take special care of them. They were important men, and thus were given preferential treatment, even in prison.

They were not there long before they had dreams. Since they were in prison, they didn't have access to the dream interpreters of Egypt, and so they were troubled, since their dreams were so vivid that they remembered them. They seemed so significant to them, and yet they could not make out what they meant. Joseph notices the trouble right away, since it showed in their faces. He asked them why they were troubled, and they answered that they had had these dreams, but they had no one to interpret them for them. Joseph then makes a remarkable statement. He says that the interpretations come from the Lord. This is a direct slap in the face to Egyptian dream interpreters. Egyptian dream interpreters do not have access to the true meaning of dreams. Only God knows what the dreams mean, if they mean anything.

So the cupbearer tells his dream. This is a dream where events are compressed into a short time. Branches put forth blossoms, which ripen into grapes, and are made into wine. All of this occurs while the cupbearer is watching. But then, the cupbearer becomes active in the dream. He takes the grapes and puts them into Pharaoh's cup. This is vital to the dream, that the cupbearer is active in the dream.

Joseph then gives the interpretation. Notice that Joseph is utterly confident that the Lord has revealed to him the true meaning of the dream. The three branches are three days, after which the cupbearer will be restored to his old position of favor. Literally, his head will be lifted up.

It is important to see some of the significance of this interpretation in later biblical history. In verse 14, Joseph tells the cupbearer to remember the one who delivered him from his state of ignorance. In the same way, Jesus asks us to remember Him, since He has accomplished redemption for us. In fact, you could view the two officers of Pharaoh as a type of the two malefactors who hung on either side of Jesus at Golgotha. One of them will enter into paradise, will be restored to his original place of honor before the great God of the universe. The other will enter into hell, having rejected the only way out of his sin and misery.

When looking and considering this type, we should also remember the people of Israel. For the people of Israel, when under the rule of a later Pharaoh, also want to be remembered by their God, and taken out of the house of bondage, as Joseph says in verse 14. Surely, the Israelites listening to Moses would have made that connection.

The baker sees that the interpretation of the cupbearer's dream is a good thing. That is, that the cupbearer's dream forecasts a favorable event. That makes him pluck up his courage to tell Joseph his dream. But the baker's dream is bad, and for several reasons. The first is that birds were eating what was supposed to get to Pharaoh's table. In fact, none of those fantastic breads and cakes ever made it to Pharaoh's table. The birds got them all. Probably the baskets were piled one on top of another. That is why verse 17 speaks of “the top basket.” Unlike Abraham, who drove away the birds from the sacrifice (you will remember that incident in the strange events of the covenant ceremony in chapter 15:11, where the birds of prey come to feed on the carcasses that Abraham had killed, but Abraham drives them off), the baker is unable to drive them away. Instead, he just stands there while the birds eat away the bread.

Joseph starts off his interpretation sounding very much like the previous dream. In fact, there is no difference until the words “lift up your head, from off you!” Even there, the words are the same, until the words “from off you.” Both servants will have their heads lifted up, as it says in verse 20. But one will have his head lifted up to favor, while the other will have his head lifted from off his body. In other words, he will be decapitated. Now, Joseph immediately then says that the baker will be hanged on a tree. How is that possible if the head is already been taken off? The answer is simple. By hanging, they don't mean what we usually mean by hanging. Rather, they mean that the body would be impaled on a stick. And then, to complete the picture, the birds would have their gourmet meal, feasting not on the bread, but on the body of the baker! Now, it is important to understand what that would mean to the baker. Egyptians believed that if the body was not properly buried, then the soul would never come to rest. So the baker had to look forward to being executed, and not even having his soul to be at rest! What a solemn picture of the judgment of the wicked! For the wicked are never at rest, but are eternally tormented by their own sin. This is not a popular thought among people today, even among Christians, that God would let anyone suffer in hell for eternity. However, this is the plain teaching of Scripture. Hell exists, and it is the place where those who do not honor God by believing in His Son will suffer for eternity.

Happily, there is another possibility. One can be received back into favor with God. We can receive the fulfillment of our dreams: dreams of being right with God, dreams of serving God forever, dreams of being important in God's sight, and, in fact, dreams of being God's children. How is this possible? It is possible by remembering and believing in our Deliverer, not Joseph, but Jesus Christ. It was in fact Jesus who was impaled on the tree, taking the punishment of the baker that we might have the favor of the cupbearer. Jesus was three days in the tomb, having suffered the pain of hell on the cross. This was all so that we might have our heads lifted up, that we might become the children of God.

Do you remember Christ? Do you remember Him when you are tempted to sin? What a great deterrent from sin, to remember that Christ suffered and died for us! He died so that we might have life. Why then should we engage in deathlike behavior again? If Christ has brought us out of the house of slavery to sin, out of the house of bondage to death, then why would we want to enter back into that house again? We have a new identity as the people of God. Our dreams have changed from being baker-like dreams to being cupbearer-like dreams. As Hamlet in Shakespear's play says, “A dream itself is but a shadow.” If the dream is the shadow, then the reality is Christ. Do you dream of the new heavens and the new earth? For that will surely come to pass.

I will close by relating something about dreams and shadows from Plato's works. Plato had a dream, in which there are prisoners who are chained in a cave. They can only see a wall. Behind these prisoners is a gigantic fire, which the prisoners cannot see. However, they can see the shadows of things that move in front of the fire, as they are reflected on the wall. Of course, these things reflected on the wall are not real. They are only the shadows of what is real. Then suppose someone is turned around to face the fire. He might be blinded at first by the bright light. But then, as he gets used to the light, he begins to see things as they really are. Then he wants to go back to his fellow prisoners and tell them about the fire and how things really are. But the prisoners are so used to looking at the wall that they won't turn around and look at the fire. Now, Plato did not intend this to be a picture of how Christianity is rejected, but it works very well as an analogy. We are blinded and shackled by our own sin, and cannot see the reality of things, the danger of our position. Instead, we only see shadows of things on the wall. These would be things like pleasure, money, power. They are not real happiness, but only the shadow of happiness. What we need is for someone to interpret the dream to us, to show us the source of all truth. We need Jesus to interpret the bright light of the Scriptures to us, so that we may see Jesus in all His glory. Then we will not need to worry about whether our dreams are as profound as turpentine. Rather, we will see Jesus face to face, for we shall be like Him, and see Him as He is. That is worth dreaming about.

Church and State

2006-09-08T09:42:00.000-05:00

Church and state are two distinct (though not necessarily separated) worlds. There is to be a cordial interaction between the two worlds. Christians are to obey all lawful authority that the state exercises. God has ordained whatever powers that be, even non-Christian powers. We are not exempt from obeying the civil magistrate, even if the civil magistrate is a non-believer. We are only to resist the civil magistrate if the magistrate commands us to do something contrary to God's law. If they command us not to preach Christ, for instance, we must obey God rather than men. But these days, the balance is still on the other side. That is, we are not likely to be commanded to do something against God's law. Unfortunately, hostility towards Christianity has been steadily growing over the last half-century. There is so much emphasis on the separation between church and state, that there is hardly any room left for connection. The separation was instituted so that there would be no state church. It was not instituted to eradicate Christianity entirely from the public arena, which is how most liberals interpret that separation these days. It is lawful for Christians to exercise the power of the magistrate. It is even lawful to wage war on a just cause. For instance, it is entirely right and good to fight a Hitler and a Mussolini. The WCF has an interesting take on the civil magistrate's duty. This take shows us just how far away from our Christian origins we have come. It says "that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hat power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." These are part of the duties of the civil magistrate. I wonder when was the last time any civil magistrate fulfilled these duties! We must pray for civil magistrates, that they do the right thing, and be endowed with wisdom from on high. Ecclesiastical power has no power over the civil magistrate. The power of the church is in the keys of the kingdom, which is not of this world. It is a spiritual kingdom. Therefore, the church is not to exercise civil power. However, that does not mean that the church is to be unconcerned with civil matters. The church has the right and the duty to advise and admonish the state in matters that concern the church.

The Persecuted Church

2006-09-08T09:15:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:10-12 Pine cones are an interesting phenomenon. Many trees in national forests are pine trees that have huge cones. These cones are as hard as a rock. Nothing seems to dent them. In fact, you could take a hammer to some of them, and it would accomplish nothing. They are impervious to everything save one. Heat. When a fire comes through the forest, the fire opens up the cone, and the seeds come out. A forest is reborn in that way. God designed the pine cone this way, so that a burned forest can be reborn. You can’t see what is in the pine cone until it has gone through the fire. Our faith is like that. Often you can’t tell if a faith is genuine or not until it has gone through the fires of persecution. Often, we are not even talking about trials and temptations. We are talking about real persecution.

Last time we saw that only the peacemakers are blessed by being called sons of God. We saw that we must make peace with God and with other people. However, no matter how much you strive to live at peace with those around you, you will not be able to live at peace with all of them. Some of them will persecute you. This persecution can be very subtle. But it will be there. Sometimes you will be left out of games or social functions. Sometimes you will get a dirty look. All the time, you will be talked about behind your back. People will call you a hypocrite. People will give you the cold shoulder.

But you might think to yourself, as everyone who is worldly thinks, “I don’t want persecution. Why should I suffer? I don’t deserve to suffer. I especially don’t deserve to suffer so much from other people.” The fact of the matter is, that there is always going to be persecution, whether you are a Christian or not. All people will undergo persecution. The Christian undergoes persecution in this life, and has blessedness awaiting him in the heavenly realm forever. The non-Christian has his blessings now, but will undergo persecution from God for eternity. This persecution is much worse, because it is just and according to the law. Everyone who undergoes that persecution will know that it is just and inescapable. So, the question for us is, “Do we want our lumps now or later? Do we want to undergo persecution now for the sake of Christ’s righteousness, or do we want our comfort now, and pay later?”

The world says that escaping persecution now is always the best policy. The world thinks that they can borrow on credit indefinitely. It is exactly the same thing as modern credit cards. You borrow now, and pay back later at a ridiculously high interest rate. It is usury. Often, the interest rates are as high as 24 or 25%. It is usually better never to use them, for that very reason. But they are just what the world likes. I can have my pleasure now, and put off to tomorrow the payment for it. But that is what God requires. If we have our sin now, God will require payment at a much higher interest rate than the world thinks. The world often denies that He even exists, much less that there is a law that must be obeyed. They think they can borrow and no one will require payment after all. They are much mistaken. God requires the highest interest rate of all, which is infinite payment, since God is infinitely holy. In fact, it is a payment that no one can actually pay. No one can pay what they owe to God.

That is why God sent someone to pay that infinitely high interest rate. Jesus Christ has infinite credit. He obeyed the law perfectly. And then he gave His credit to us after He had paid our debt in full. Not only is our infinite debt paid, but also we have eternal life, infinite credit, as it were. The call is for us to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. But we must humble ourselves. We must recognize that there is no way that we can pay it ourselves, for we are spiritually poor, as the first beatitude says. Come to Jesus to find your debt paid, and eternal life granted to you.

So why believe in Jesus if you are going to be persecuted? Well, first we must distinguish between good and bad persecution. The persecution that Jesus is talking about and for which believers are to “rejoice and be glad” is not the hostility that twill come to them from the world because they have made themselves a nuisance, insulted people they are trying to influence, or been rude, crude, or fanatical. It is because they have become like Christ in his righteousness and are therefore being hated for righteousness’ sake, as Jesus was. Albert Barnes, a great commentator of the nineteenth century, puts it this way, “We are not to seek persecution. We are not to provoke it by strange sentiments or conduct; by violating the laws of civil society, or by modes of speech that are unnecessarily offensive to others. But if, in the honest effort to be Christians, and to live the life of Christians, others persecute and revile us, we are to consider this as a blessing.” In other words, we are not to be weird just for the sake of being weird. Just because we are not of the world does not mean that we are to be out of this world. Yes, we are different because we are Christians. However, this does not mean that we are somehow inhuman. We are humans upon whom God has exercised His grace. In other words, we are not to be offensively Christian, unless that offense is the cross. When it comes to the cross, we are to present that cross to the world without apology, knowing that the world reviles the cross.

So we are not to be persecuted for being weird. Jesus says that we will only be persecuted for a good reason, if we are persecuted for “righteousness’ sake.” Notice that in the next verse, Jesus makes it personal: Blessed are you when you are persecuted on my account.” So, to be persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and to be persecuted for the sake of Jesus are the same thing. As another commentator says, “It is important that we get into trouble for the right reasons. How can we tell if persecution is for righteousness’ sake? By constantly checking our conduct with the word of God.”

Often people get into a “persecution complex.” They think that they are being snubbed or that offenses are being committed against them, when in fact they are reading into the situation that which is not there. This is not to be the case with us, especially when it comes to dealing with other Christians. We are not to assume that other Christians “have it in for us.” Can you read what is in another person’s heart? Then why do we often assume that we can? Is it not because we like the “martyr complex.” We want people to feel sorry for us. But what that is doing is making our identity to be based on what other people think of us. We should not do that. Instead, we should find our identity in Christ. He is the only person whose identity is worth sharing. We should be caring about what God thinks, not about what other people think. So that is dealing with a false persecution.

A true persecution comes under two conditions. The first condition is that what the unbeliever says about the Christian by way of accusation is false. It cannot be a true accusation for the persecution to be true persecution that God will honor. God never honors hypocrisy. We are to live blameless lives before the world. We need to know, though, that it is not our foibles that the world hates. The world never hates those, because they make them feel that we are just like them. No, what the world hates more than anything is a holy Christian. And just as much as the world hates a godly and holy Christian, in the same degree (actually in a much larger degree) does God love the holy Christian. They will tell you that it is the hypocrisy that they hate. That is not really true. They only really hate holiness. They grab hold of any little thing that will tell them that you aren’t really holy, and they will hold that up against the light. But what they really hate is a holy Christian.

The second condition for a persecution to be honored by God is that it is undergone for Jesus’ sake, or (which is the same thing) for righteousness’ sake. Jesus did NOT say, “Blessed are the persecuted.” He said, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” He did not say, “Blessed are those who suffer.” He said, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” On the one side, we are to avoid thinking that suffering is what life is all about. If we believe that sin was an intruder in this world, then suffering is an enemy, the biggest manifestation of which is death itself. So we are to fight suffering wherever we see it, such as in the hurricane victims in New Orleans.

However, we must not think, on the other hand, that suffering is to be avoided at all costs. Precisely because this is a sinful world we live in, suffering and persecution should never take us by surprise. Why not? Because Jesus said that this is what always happens to His prophets.

If you are being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, then you are in good company, because all of God’s prophets had to go through this exact same thing. You are not alone. People often think that when they are being persecuted, they are quite alone. That is fear talking. The truth is that when you are persecuted for the right reason, you are in very good company. In fact, you are in the company of Jesus Himself. Jesus told the truth, and got killed for it. Why? Because people hate people who tell the truth to them. It is sinful human nature to think that way. They want their deeds to remain in darkness. So they vilify the light and anyone connected with the light. In fact, suffering and persecution is a badge that you are one of God’s people. It is a badge of honor. Just as a soldier would show a scar to someone to prove that he had been in battle, so also our persecution is proof that we are in the great spiritual battle with Satan and his sidekicks. So what is the reward that Jesus speaks of? What is our ultimate reason for enduring under persecution? The answer is that the “reward” is far beyond anything which men could possibly attain by their goodness that the very word “reward” has something in the way of irony about it. The reward is the kingdom of heaven. Our thoughts and minds and hearts should be dominated by thoughts of heaven. Let me repeat that. Our thoughts and minds and hearts should be dominated by thoughts of heaven. When they are, we will find that persecution in this life is a very very very small price to pay for such a glorious result. Every stone thrown at us becomes a precious gemstone in our crown in heaven. Every name that we are called in derision will turn into a beautiful name that God gives us. The road of persecution becomes the road paved with gold. The fires of persecution take our dross away and leave us pure gold. The waters of persecution turn into the river of life. And the sour apple of bitter opposition in this life becomes the fruit of the tree of life. There is not one trial or persecution that we undergo for the sake of Christ that will not be paid back one-hundred fold in eternity. The reward is great. Won’t you come to Jesus today?

The Covenant of Works according to Thomas Ridgely

2006-09-07T12:15:00.000-05:00

I guess it all depends on the definition of grace. If grace be defined as something relating particularly to man's sinful state, then there is no doubt: the covenant of works has not a shred of grace attached to it. To put it another way, grace in this sense would be defined as relating not merely to unmerited favor, but rather to demerited favor. That is, not only are we neutral with regard to God's favor, but rather we have positively spurned it. Here is what Thomas Ridgely wrote about it: "Some call it, 'a Covenant of Innocency,' inasmuch as it was made with man while he was in a state of innocency. Others call it, 'a Covenant of Works,' because perfect obedience was enjoined, as the condition of it. In this light, it is opposed to the covenant of grace; as there was no provision made in it for any display of grace, as there is in that covenant which we are now under" (vol 1, pg 376). What needs to happen, then, is a full-orbed study of the Hebrew word groups hen and hesed, as well as the Greek word group charis. What we have here is nothing less than a redefinition of grace. Nowhere in Scripture is God's relationship with Adam described as being gracious, nor is what God gives to Adam described as being grace. I am perfectly willing to admit that God condescended to engage in relationship with Adam, and that Adam did not deserve such a relationship as a creature. However, Adam was sinless, and not in need of any grace in that sense whatsoever. I believe that grace is a concept belonging exclusively to the post-Fall world. Mark Horne, therefore, is full of rhetoric against the "meritists," but has hardly proven his point Scripturally.

Oaths and Vows

2006-09-07T11:52:00.000-05:00

See here for my sermon on Matthew 5:33-37, a highly important text for this discussion. The passage does not forbid all vows and oaths. This is because Jesus was directing his words toward the target of Pharisees and scribes, who were introducing all sorts of ridiculous casuistry about oaths (which were binding, depending on the wording, etc.). All oaths are binding, whether made to unbelievers or believers. They are to be used only with great care and caution, as the example of Jethro warns us. Oaths are not to be taken in order to do something that is contrary to God's Word. There are four common oaths taken today: in a courtroom, in a wedding, in a church service (baptism, membership, ordination), and public office. There is nothing to say that these vows are illegitimate. Matthew 5 cannot be taken in an absolute sense, since Jesus Himself takes an oath in front of the high priest that He is who He says He is. The WCF has an interesting note on this: "An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation." That last phrase I find very interesting. If we take an oath (such as marriage vows), we are not to hold a caviat in our minds that is not in the oath itself. We cannot say that we will love our spouse as long as our spouse is lovable. The vow says that we will love our spouse. Period.

oaths
vows

Peace, Peace

2006-09-07T09:23:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:9 Someone said that peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading. Indeed, Washington D.C. has lots of monuments to peace: we build one after every war. Someone else has said that all told, there has been about 200 years of peace since the beginning of our world. So what hope have we to gain peace in this world? Do we simply yell out “Peace, Peace,” when there is no peace? That is hardly helpful. Peace is not achieved when we deny that there is war. That is the path that Neville Chamberlain took with Nazi Germany. Neville Chamberlain was prime minister of Great Britain before Winston Churchill. Neville wanted peace at all costs. So when Hitler took part of Austria, Neville looked the other way. When Hitler took the rest of Austria, Neville looked the other way. When Hitler took Czechoslovakia, Neville looked the other way. At all costs, he wanted to avoid another world war, which war is what would happen (he thought), if he held Hitler accountable for breaking the Treaty of Versailles. As you all know, Neville Chamberlain was not very successful at avoiding war.

So what is the real answer to war and other forms of hostility? The peace of God, which passes understanding, is the answer. But the question is, how do we implement this? First and foremost, we must have peace with God. Peace with one another is impossible without first having peace with God. So when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” Jesus is also saying that we will be blessed if we make our peace with God. Are you at war with God? We all are in our sinful state. There is no desire for God in us. We want nothing to do with God. We would want God to stop existing, if that were possible. After all, God has seemingly done precious little to help me in my distress, so what good will God do me? However, instead of focusing on why we are angry with God, we really need to focus on why God would be angry with us. God made us for Himself. God made us in order that we would worship Him, and exist in close fellowship with God. And we disobeyed God, and forfeited that closeness that God wants for us. We are enemies of God. That means that we have broken God’s law. And that means that we face death and hell as punishment for our sins. That is bad news. Peace doesn’t look like it is anywhere on the horizon. However, there is hope. The Scripture says, “While we were still enemies, Christ died for us.” God wants peace between us and Him. And therefore, God took steps to eliminate that enmity between man and God. You see, Satan wants us to be in league with him, and therefore be at war with God. God wants us to be in league with God, and be at war with Satan. It is impossible to please both Satan and God. But God sent His Son to redeem us from Satan’s power. Jesus paid the penalty that our sins deserve. He suffered that hell that we so richly deserve. And that is so that we could be reconciled with God, that we could have peace with God. In a sense, God made war against His Only Son, when the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross. God the Father made war on the Son, so that He could have peace with us. That war did not last forever. The Son was resurrected from the dead. Satan thought that death was the final power on earth. But what he did not realize was that God could raise Jesus from the dead. And that seals the victory over sin and death. In this case, peace cannot exist if sin and death are not conquered. In the Roman world, there was such a thing as a pax Romana, or the “peace of Rome.” Rome had conquered all the known world at that time, and so everyone was at peace with Rome. Well now God has conquered every demon, God has conquered Satan, sin, and death. So now, there can be peace with God. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the already defeated dark forces of the world? That is senseless. The Bible tells us that we can be on the winning side, the side of Jesus, the conquering lamb. It is always best to be on the winning side. For if you are not, then you will forever be on a losing side, and will enjoy nothing evermore. But Jesus has already conquered. So we should trust in Him for the forgiveness of our sins. Then we will have peace with God. God is the very best peacemaker. No one has gone to such lengths to secure peace as God has done.

But maybe you have an idol in your heart that keeps you from coming to God to have peace with Him. Maybe you are too concerned about getting a fair slice of the pie. Jesus tells us to store up treasure in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy. You cannot serve two masters. If you serve money, then you will be at war with God. Maybe you want the finer things of life. But are the finer things the best things? Jesus says no. The best things are the kingdom of heaven. Seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness, then all these other things will be added. The secret to happiness is holiness. Peace with God means that you need to be righteous before God, since God hates sin. There is only one way for us to be righteous, and that is trusting in Jesus who is our righteousness. Jesus clothes us with His own righteousness, so that our sin will not be exposed for God to see. That clothing can only be given to us if we trust in Jesus, that is, if we have faith in Jesus. That is how to have peace with God. And peace with God is absolutely crucial to having peace with one another.

See, if God is the Great Peacemaker, then if we are peacemakers, we are like God. Indeed, that is why Jesus says that they shall be called “Sons of God.” If we make peace with God and with each other, then we can see the family resemblance. Like father, like son. Look at the world. Does it make peace?

People don’t really want peace, because they are always looking out for number one, themselves! If 7 billion people are all looking out for number one, then there is a lot of competition for number one! There are 7 billion candidates, and everyone else is going to lose, just so that I can get the number one spot. But we are so good at deceiving ourselves, aren’t we? We think that we don’t have to be number one in the world, we just have to be a little bit better than our neighbor, and that will satisfy us. The problem is, that is exactly what our neighbor thinks, too! So, if your neighbor gets a good combine, then you have to get a better one. If your neighbor gets some more land, then you have to get a little bit more than he does. Ladies, you are not immune from this competition either. If someone looks very well put together on Sunday morning, then you have look even more so. If someone looks like they are aging slowly, then you have to age even slower. If someone has fashionable clothes, then you have to outdo her. This is not conducive to peace. We think we have rights. We have no rights. Do we have rights before God? We deceive ourselves by remembering that humanity supposedly has “inalienable rights,” namely, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We can even say that these are given to us by God. That is utterly wrong. We lost all our rights when we disobeyed God in Adam. We have every right to be thrown into hell. So if we are not, and God gives us grace to make peace with God, then where does that leave us? It leaves us in the position of the servant who was forgiven ten thousand talents of gold. How is he going to treat his fellow servant?

So what happens when our fellow servant owes us something? Supposing someone is our debtor? Will we forgive them, even as we have been forgiven? Or will we hold grudges? Merely neglecting to bring something up with the person who has offended you does not constitute forgiveness. Thinking of that person as “the other guy” does not constitute forgiveness either. Peace takes a lot of work. In our community, we tend to let things go. If we are offended, we tend to let it go, hoping that the problem will go away. But it never does, does it? Why do we think that way? If someone has offended us, we need to go to that person, and gently tell them that that action offended us.

So here is a strategy for peacemaking. Let’s say that someone said something about you behind your back to someone else, and you hear about it. You can go to the person who said it, and say, “You know, I love you as a brother, but when you did this particular action, it offended me.” Notice that you should NOT say, “Every time you do that, it drives me nuts.” What is the difference? The better way is to limit the offense to a very particular action. Do not generalize about the other person, or they will feel like you are attacking them. It is good to avoid phrases such as, “You always” or “You never.” These will immediately put the other person on defense. They will feel that they need to defend themselves. Instead, if you say that the ACTION offended them, then you are giving them an opportunity to apologize without losing face. Because you are focused on the particular action, and not on the person, you have opened the door to an honest sincere apology that will not make the other person defensive.

But there are certain situations in which it would be good to ignore the offense. Ask yourself the question whether you know the motive behind what the person did or said. How can you know for sure? If someone trespasses on your property, should you not ask the person why? Suppose they had to rescue their little one from some danger, and they had to trespass. Are you so sure you know the reason why? Supposing someone “borrows” something from you without asking. We should not do that, but suppose it happens. Are you going to assume that the person meant to steal it? Jumping to conclusions about why a person did or said what they did or said is a most dangerous thing to do. It is very unwise. And it will be an obstacle to making peace, because you run the very serious risk of injuring someone else’s reputation, and committing a greater wrong against them than they did to you. Don’t assume that you know the reason why they think the way they do. It could be an obstacle in the way to true forgiveness.

And we are required to make peace. Again, as we have said before, these beatitudes imply the corresponding curse: cursed are those who do not make peace, for they will never be called sons of God. Do you refuse to make peace? Do you refuse to make it up with those on the other side? Why? There is no need for you to justify yourself if God will make all things right in the end. So make true peace with the other person. We often think of making peace as the art of getting the other person to come around to your way of thinking. That is not true peace, because that will often make the other person resent your efforts. Instead, true peace can be found only as the differences are brought to light without offending the other person in the process.

So what is the promise for those who make peace? They will be called sons of God. Ladies, do not feel left out. In fact, this passage has great joy for you, too. You see, sons were the only ones who inherited the estate. So sons were always the inheritors. What Jesus says here is that anyone who is a peacemaker, both in terms of making their peace with God, and also making peace with other, those people, whether male or female, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, will all have the inheritance rights. Notice that they will be called sons of God. That implies adoption into God’s family. We left our Father’s house. We were like the prodigal son. We had disinherited ourselves from the promise of the inheritance. But there is a way back. God can adopt us as sons, and we will have the full inheritance rights restored.

We have the down payment of the inheritance now, namely, the Holy Spirit. But that means that we have the full inheritance to look forward to, the inheritance of the new heavens and the new earth. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. I want to conclude with this beautiful prayer by Francis of Assisi:

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace! Where there is hatred, let me sow love; Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; Where there is sadness, joy. Oh, Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; It is in pardoning that we are pardoned; It is in dying that we are born to eternal life!

Thomas Ridgely on the Larger Catechism

2006-09-06T14:38:00.000-05:00

Here is proof enough that Thomas Ridgely believed the standard Reformed doctrine of the imputed active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ. From volume 2, pg 88: "We now proceed to observe that our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us, as our surety, by performing active and passive obedience, which is imputed to us for our justification."

The Sabbath

2006-09-06T11:02:00.000-05:00

The Sabbath is a creation ordinance. It is something that God put into this world at the very beginning. Therefore, it does not have the temporary character of the civil and ceremonial aspects of Israel's law. It is much more abiding than that. It is most definitely not abrogated at the coming of Christ. It is changed, but not abrogated. There are two reasons in Scripture given for keeping the Sabbath. They are found in the two passages dealing with the Sabbath observance: Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. In Exodus, the reason given for keeping the Sabbath is creation. The pattern of God working six days and resting the seventh is to be the pattern for us as well. The reason given in Deuteronomy 5 is redemption. It is because God has brought His people out of the land of Egypt, and thus has given them rest from all the hard labor they had while being slaves under the Egyptians- it is for this reason that the Israelites are to observe the Sabbath day. So there are two reasons: creation and redemption. In Jesus Christ, there is a new creation and a new redemption. That occurs on the first day of the week. Therefore, the day has changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. For more detailed argumentation proving this exegetically, see this article. The only remaining issue is the practical one of what is required/allowed on the Christian Sabbath. Primarily, this involves the idea of recreation. Is it allowed on the Sabbath? I would argue that it is not. The passage to go to here is Isaiah 58:13. So far, I have seen absolutely no exegesis of any kind from any Isaiah scholar that has dislodged the Puritan interpretation of that passage. J.A. Alexander is quite favorable to the Puritan interpretation there. The only remaining issue is whether this OT passage applies also to the NT situation. It must be remarked here that this is in the prophets, not in the Torah. Therefore, it cannot be said to be part of the civil or ceremonial law of Israel. To argue positively, there is warrant in the passage for holding the Puritan view, since the passage is eschatological in orientation (see vv. 6-11, which are full of promises for the future). So it applies to some time in the future, as well as to the Israelites to whom Isaiah is writing. Sabbath Sunday Saturday

Merciful Heavens

2006-09-06T10:50:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:7 Have you ever played the game “mercy?” This is the most mis-named game on the face of the planet. Two players clasp hands and try to make the other person wince in pain by bending back their hands to the point that their wrists almost snap. This is not a very merciful game. The only reason it is called mercy is because that is what the defeated person is supposed to say after he has been defeated, so as to stop the other person from completely destroying their hands. So what is real mercy? What is compassion? Let us begin by defining our terms. Mercy is defined in Webster’s dictionary like this: “compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one’s power.” In this we see two people. One of them owes something to someone else. The debtor cries out for mercy, and the other forgives. That is mercy. But it doesn’t have to show itself in that kind of a relationship either. The Good Samaritan showed mercy to the man on the side of the road. Jesus showed mercy to countless people by healing them and teaching them. So in the Beatitudes, we must see where we are to understand what mercy is. The first four of the Beatitudes are God-focused. The sixth Beatitude is also God-focused (blessed are the pure in heart). The rest are man-focused. First, we see that we must be poor in spirit. That means that we rely on God for salvation. We rely on God for riches. That will lead us to mourn over our own sin, for the very reason that we have nothing of our own to offer God. If we mourn over sin, we will become meek, realizing that our sin is so prevalent in our lives, that there can be no pride at all in our dealings with God and with man. We must therefore hunger and thirst for the righteousness that God gives. When we do all of this, we will realize that the only way to treat other people properly is with mercy. This means a lot of different things in different situations. First it means that we have compassion on people. Our motivation for this is that God has had mercy on us, though we do not deserve any of that mercy. If therefore, we have mercy, then it means that we are acting like God. God is a God who has mercy on people. First, He allows us to live. The great Puritan Thomas Brooks said that everything on this side of hell is mercy. Our very lives are God’s mercy. Secondly, He does not treat us as our sins deserve. Rather, He sends us a Savior to take care of our sin problem. God is like the Father in the story of the Prodigal Son. He is waiting for us to come home to Him. We have to come to our senses to realize this. We need to realize that we are eating among the pigs, and not even getting the quality of food that they got. We need to come to our senses, as the Prodigal Son did, and come back to our heavenly Father. When we come back to God, we realize that God is not the great cosmic kill-joy that we thought He was, but rather, the merciful Father waiting for us. The reason that we can come back is because of God’s Son Jesus. Jesus Christ came to earth to be a merciful high-priest on our behalf. We needed mercy, not justice. Anyone who says that they want God to treat them with justice is absolutely crazy. I certainly would never want God to treat me that way. Rather, I throw myself at the knees of Jesus, begging forgiveness because of what Jesus has done. I throw myself on the mercy of the court when I do that. Because I am in Christ Jesus, God mercifully declares me not guilty. So when we have compassion on others, we do that because that is how God treats us. So instead of exacting full payment every time, especially if someone is hard up, we let them pay back slower, or we cut back some of the interest, or forgive the interest entirely. It means that when we see a need, we go and meet it. We are a very can-do kind of congregation. That is, if there is something that needs to be done, we are quite capable of doing it. In fact, there are few churches of which I am aware that are as good as ours at this aspect of the church’s life. Our churches also give a fair amount of money to local and not-so-local charities. That is a great way to show mercy. But there are other ways to show compassion on people than merely giving money. Having mercy on someone may mean forgiveness of wrongs committed against you. This is an area that our churches are not so good at. We tend to hold grudges. We are very touchy when it comes to our reputation. Instead of being offended at something, we should try to think god thoughts about what the other person said. Instead of assuming that the other person’s motives are entirely against you, make the assumption that the other person has your best interests at heart. If that means that you don’t respond when someone criticizes you, so be it. Maybe it means that you should try to look for what is true about what the other person said, instead of seizing on the one thing that might be an exaggeration, or even untrue. Instead, take what is good from the criticism and try to use it. Be open to criticism. I have experienced around here that people are very closed to being criticized for almost anything. But it is my duty to correct people who are going astray. It is also my duty to receive criticism well myself, and make what use of it I can. Put the best face on what someone else says. Some people are so suspicious. You could even call them paranoid about what other people think about them. We cannot be that way. We should only be concerned about what God thinks. Above all, do not make assumptions about what the other person meant. Often those assumptions are wrong. Stick to what people say, and how they say it. But do not look for assumptions. I believe that many people have been misunderstood in our congregations, because of this very problem. The way to avoid it is to assume the best possible motive behind what the person said. That shows them mercy. Sometimes people say things they don’t mean. Don’t assume that they meant to hurt you. Another way to show compassion is to forgive long-standing grudges. I know that there are some among us. Maybe these go years back. Are you the one to punish that person? Would you like God to remember your sins forever? Has not God treated you with mercy? The Bible says that when we are forgiven, God throws away our sin and remembers it no more. Psalm 103 says this beautifully: “As far as the east is from the west, so far as he removed our transgressions from us.” Will you remove that hurt that the other person stung you with? Will you remove it as far as the east is from the west? Maybe they don’t even know that you have hurt them. Earlier in that Psalm, David says, “He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.” Is that not the very definition of mercy? So maybe your brother did sin against you. Have mercy on him. Maybe he deserves to be tarred and feathered. Maybe he deserves to be ridden out of town, never to be seen again. Maybe all that is true. Forgive him anyway. It really does not matter what that person has done. I guarantee you that he has not sinned against you more than you have sinned against God. Remember the parable of the Unforgiving Servant. He was forgiven 10,000 talents, which is millions of dollars, but could not forgive his fellow servant just a few days’ wages. If you have not forgiven your brother, why should God forgive you? If you are not forgiving, then isn’t that evidence that you are not forgiven? If we have been forgiven more than we could ever repay, then we ought to forgive someone of something that they could repay. Woe to us if we are not merciful. The opposite of this beatitude is also true. If we are not merciful, then we are under a curse. Listen to these scathing words in Psalm 109: “Appoint a wicked man against him; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him come forth guilty; let his prayer be counted as sin! May his days be few; may another take his office! May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow! May his children wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit! May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil! Let there be none to extend kindness to him, nor any to pity his fatherless children! May his posterity be cut off; may his name be blotted out in the second generation! May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out! Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth! For he did not remember to show kindness, but pursued the poor and needy and the brokenhearted, to put them to death.” The best example of someone who had no mercy was the man to whom this Psalm pointed: Judas Iscariot. You remember that when the woman broke the bottle of pure nard ointment and poured it over Jesus’ feet, Judas was indignant and asked why this was not sold and the money given to the poor. But Judas said that because he was a thief. He cared nothing for the poor, and therefore cared nothing about Jesus. Cruelty of this kind goes hand in hand with greed. If you are greedy, then you will have no compassion on those who need to keep their land. Instead, you will muscle in and take it. Being merciful also means being fair. Instead of trying to get an unreasonably low price on the land, you should pay a fair price for the land. The same thing is true of anything you buy. That is part of being merciful. No one deserves to have justice in this way. No one deserves a fair life. Anytime we are abiding by the law, that is actually a time of mercy. The promise is that mercy finds mercy. We who show mercy will be shown mercy. God exalts the humble, but humbles the exalted. If we are humble before the Lord, and acknowledge that we need mercy by our very giving of mercy to one another, then God will have mercy on us. If we are arrogant and proud, and refuse to give mercy to people, because we are better than they are, and because they don’t deserve it, then God will not have mercy on us. That is the choice before us. Blessing or cursing, mercy or no-mercy. Will you throw yourself on the mercy of the merciful heavens, namely, on God? mercy pity compassion Beatitudes grace forgiveness

Worship

2006-09-05T10:18:00.000-05:00

Worship of our God is so extremely important. In fact, it is the goal of our lives. What we do on Sunday mornings in church (and hopefully the rest of the week as well!) is more important than the entire rest of the week. For we were made to worship God. However, we cannot simply worship in any way we choose. God is to be approached and worshipped the way He tells us to do it. This principle is called the regulative principle of worship. That is, that we may only worship God in the way He has prescribed. No other way will do. Some people have misconceptions about this regulative principle. They think that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. This may be the Lutheran way of thinking about worship, but it is not the Reformed idea of worship. The Reformed understanding of worship is that whatever is not explicitly commanded is forbidden. This might sound strict. Well, it is. But it is also quite freeing, since we are not bound to the traditions of men. We only have to worship the way God has told us. Reformed theologians usually distinguish between the elements of worship and the circumstances of worship. The elements are non-negotiables. They are essential to worship, since they have been instituted by God. They include preaching of the Word, prayer, offerings, singing of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and sacraments. There are also more occasional things that may lawfully be added, such as religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings (WCF 21.5). These are elements of worship. The circumstances include whatever is extraneous to worship that is a matter of wisdom, such as the time and place of meeting, the use of instruments, the tunes used, clothing worn, things like that. It is important never to confuse the circumstances with the elements, or we will introduce destructive things to worship. Dancing and drama, for instance, are not circumstances, since they would be another way of preaching the Gospel than that of hearing the Word preached. It is important to realize here that there are some things that were commanded (or allowed) in the OT worship in the temple that are no longer binding in the NT. There is some dispute about where the lines of continuity and discontinuity lie here. For instance, those who favor Psalms-only singing without instruments will have quite a different take on Psalm 150 (with all its instruments) than someone who allowed instruments. There is room for disagreement here within the Reformed community. worship regulative principle elements of worship circumstances of worship

Starving for Righteousness

2006-09-05T09:55:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteous- ness, for they shall be satisfied." Do you know what it is to be really starving for food? I don’t even mean “really hungry.” I mean that if you don’t get food you will literally die. I mean that kind of hunger that cannot be satisfied by anything other than food. I think that if most of us were really honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that we have hardly ever, if ever, experienced that kind of hunger. At most, we have felt somewhat faint. But I dare say that none of us has gone 40 days without food. We have not tested the limit to our endurance.

Now, all of the first four Beatitudes present us with something that we need: we need God’s riches, because we have none of our own, we need comfort, and thus we need to mourn, we need meekness in order to inherit the earth, and now we need righteousness as much as we need food. Can we live without food and water? Then neither can we live without righteousness.

So what is this desire? I think that if we are again honest with ourselves, we will have to admit that we don’t often desire righteousness as much as we desire food and water. We go to the refrigerator all the time to get a little snack, or we go the freezer for ice cream, but we will not go to the Word of God. Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” That was during the temptation to turn stones into bread. Surely, when Christ was preaching this Sermon on the Mount, He had His own temptation in mind when He spoke this Beatitude. Jesus must have been nearly dead with hunger. And yet, He desired righteousness more than food. That is true desire.

There is a very clear group of people who do not desire righteousness in this way. That group of people are those people who think that they already have that righteousness. Let me read Luke 18:9-14: “He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: ‘Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.” But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.’” The Pharisee thought that he already had it. That was living proof that he did not. As Thomas Watson says, “There are none so empty of grace as he that thinks he is full. He has most need of righteousness that least wants it.” Alfred Plummer said this: “It is remarkable that it is the hunger and thirst for righteousness, and not the possession of it, that is pronounced blessed. To believe oneself to be in possession of righteousness, like the Pharisee in the parable, is fatal. To know oneself to be in want of it is not enough. One must feel the want of it, and have a passionate and persistent longing for it, in order to be accounted blessed by Christ.” Do we desire righteousness like a man dying of hunger desires food? Or do we desire a whole lot of other things more than righteousness?

The world tells us not to be fanatical about righteousness. “Don’t be a goody-two-shoes,” they will say. Don’t be a “Puritan,” with all the negative connotations that that word has. The world tells us to hunger after possessions, or pleasure, power, pride, or fame. These things the world desires as much as food. We are not to desire these things more than righteousness. We are to transfer our desire for these worldly things instead to God and to His righteousness. The world says “Don’t be a fanatic about righteousness.” Are we fanatic about food? Do we get grumpy if we don’t eat? Then why don’t we get grumpy if we are not righteous? The Bible says that we will die without righteousness, just as our physical body will die without food.

So how do we increase our appetite for righteousness? Well, we must eat. Just as eating more food will increase the appetite in the body, so also will eating more spiritual food increase our appetite for holiness and righteousness. How much do we read God’s Word? God loves to see His children hungrily feed on His Word, as if we cannot get enough of it.

Exercise also increases the appetite. Just as more exercise for the physical body means that we will need to eat more food, so also we need to exercise our spirituality more in order to increase our appetite. What does that mean? It means that we fight harder against sin in our lives. It means that we try to help others in their battle with sin. It means that we pray more. It means that we encourage other people. When we do that, God will give us a larger appetite.

Affliction can increase our appetite as well. We don’t have to look for it and pursue this one. However, when it comes, we must look for the good it will give to us, rather than complain about it. God sends us affliction in order to increase our appetite for God and His righteousness. We need to see that in order to see the silver lining in the cloud.

But now we must ask the question, “What is this righteousness for which we must hunger?” It means two things: imputed righteousness, and imparted righteousness. Let’s take these one at a time.

We must desire imputed righteousness. We are sinners who stand before an infinitely holy God. Our righteousness is like filthy rags. So if we are to stand before an infinitely holy God, we need a perfect righteousness. That righteousness that we need is Christ’s righteousness. Christ obeyed the law where we did not. Christ fulfilled every requirement of the law that we were supposed to fulfill. If we repent of our sin, and turn from it to Christ, then we will own Christ’s righteousness. It is like two books with removable covers. Our book has dirty pages on the inside, and a dirty cover, whereas Christ’s book is completely clean, inside and out. What happens is that the covers are switched, so that when God looks at our book, He sees the cover of the book of Jesus, instead of our cover. We are covered with the righteousness of Christ. That is imputed righteousness. That is Christ’s righteousness that is reckoned to our account. Instead of owing the bank millions of dollars that we could never repay, and having bounced checks all over the place, now we have Christ’s infinite wealth credited to our account. That is another analogy of imputed righteousness. We are united to Christ by faith. And in that union, we have a share in Christ, including a share in that righteousness which He earned. If any here do not believe in Jesus Christ, now is the time to realize that you need to hunger after that righteousness. It is not a righteousness that you can accomplish. It is only a righteousness that can be given to you. You need to trust in Jesus to receive that righteousness. Let the Holy Spirit quicken your dead heart. Dead people don’t need to eat, do they? But live people do. They need to feed on Christ. That is the first kind of righteousness. We must desire that righteousness more than anything else on earth. As Richard Baxter, a great Puritan, once said, “the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is not their desire to avoid hell. Most people desire that. The difference lies in the fact that although the non-believer would rather have heaven than hell, the believer would rather have heaven than earth.” Do we desire this righteousness more than we desire anything on earth?

The second kind of righteousness is the imparted righteousness. To go back to the book analogy, once we have the book cover of Christ covering over our sinful book, Christ immediately begins to rewrite our book to look like the cover. Christ begins to impart righteousness to us. How does God do this? He gives us the means of grace. He gives us prayer, the Word of God, the Sacraments and the church, which consists of other believers. We neglect any of these to our peril. The really great thing, though, is that the more we use the means of grace, the more our appetite for righteousness will grow.

Here are some practical ways to do this. If you are in your tractor, there are two things that you can do. The first is to pray for God’s people. You have hours and hours and hours on your hands to do this. I often pray when I am driving from one place to another. It is uninterrupted time with the Lord. That alone can transform our lives. The second thing we can do is to buy a Bible on tape. Most tractors these days can play tapes or cd’s. There are many recordings of the complete Bible on tape and on cd. If you would like to purchase one, let me know, and I can give you some options. Of course, Christian radio can have many good things as well. But Christian radio can also have many bad things. To spend time with Lord alone is an amazing experience when you have hours to do it in. Christian radio is not more valuable than prayer. You might consider first building up your endurance as a prayer warrior. First spend ten minutes in constant prayer, not letting your mind wander. Then increase it the next time, and so on until you spend hours in prayer. Of course, and this is almost heretical, I know, but you don’t even have to close your eyes to pray. In fact, a very well-respected Reformed scholar has written a book called, “Pray With Your Eyes Open.” We close our eyes in order not to be distracted. However, one cannot do that in a tractor. Pray for other people, pray that God’s glory would be the most important goal in your life. Pray that revival would sweep this land. Pray for opportunities to share the gospel. That will give you an enormous appetite for holiness and righteousness. That appetite is what Jesus calls blessed.

Do we avoid junk food? There are many things that seem to satisfy our needs and desires, but the fact is that they do not. Shallow self-help books on how to run your Christian life are not true spiritual food. We should be more interested in God-help books than self-help books. We do not run this race alone, however much energy God requires us to spend. “We are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, because it is God who works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure.” Anything else is junk food. Empty calories. I would say that most contemporary Christian music is junk food. I would say that most televangelists are junk food. Be discerning. Not all of them are bad. But we need to know instinctively whether someone is giving us real food or just junk food. If we eat junk food, we will only produce rotten fruit. In order for us to produce good fruit, we need good food. If we are not producing good fruit, we are not merely looking like inferior Christians. Rather, we are looking like non-Christians. So we need to pray to God that we would be made empty of our own righteousness, in order that God’s righteousness will prevail.

The promise is that we will be filled. This is a lovely promise indeed. What we really long for is the coming of the kingdom. When Jesus comes back, there will be a feast. Such a feast has never before been seen on earth, and it will never be equaled. God’s righteousness will win in the end over all unbelief. God will give famished souls the desires of their hearts. That thought of the new heavens and the new earth is to have an influence over every area of our lives. Knowing that we cannot be satisfied here on earth means that we look forward to the time when we will be satisfied. Our problem is that we are satisfied with far too little. We are too content here on earth with physical things. Our appetite needs to be reversed. We need to be content with our physical possessions, and profoundly discontent with our level of personal holiness. That means that we long for heaven and home. That is what it means to hunger and thirst after righteousness. That is what being full means.

starvation righteousness junk food imputation holiness hunger appetite grace

Great post on marriage and atonement

2006-09-04T16:08:00.000-05:00

Here is a great post on marriage in relationship to the atonement. marriage atonement

Christian liberty

2006-09-04T15:54:00.000-05:00

True liberty is freedom from sin. It is not the freedom to do whatever we want to do. Rather, when we are freed from sin and death, that delivers us into the freedom of being slaves to Christ, who is a much gentler task-master than sin and death. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. We are not subject any longer to the civil or ceremonial laws of Israel anymore. That means that we can eat pork, or any other animal that was deemed unclean before. Liberty does not translate into license, since there are boundaries to our liberty. For instance, the consciences of out brothers and sisters in Christ are a boundary to our liberty. If we drink alcohol, but it makes our recovering alcoholic brother stumble, then we have abused our Christian liberty. Another boundary to liberty is this thought: liberty is not to be used a cover-up for licence. Many times, people will say that they are free from the law because of Christian liberty. This is not the case. We are still obligated to the moral law, which is perpetually binding on the Christian. Jesus, far from abrogating the Ten Commandments, furthered the true understanding of them, and emphasized their continuing validity in the Sermon on the Mount. Let not the stronger brother condemn the weaker, or the weaker brother condemn the stronger. It is vital here that the consciences of both be respected by the other. That is the material principle. liberty conscience freedom

New blog link

2006-09-04T12:29:00.000-05:00

This is Mark Robinson, a friend of mine from seminary. You should all get to know him. He's African-American, a great pianist, and an all-around great guy. I have added his blog as a link.

Why Moses Struck Out

2006-09-04T12:12:00.000-05:00

Numbers 20:1-13

Have you ever had the feeling that God has put you through more than your fair share of suffering? Or have you ever felt that your life was shattered by a single event that has the feel of God punishing you unjustly? Maybe you’ve been diagnosed with an uncurable disease. Maybe someone stole all your possessions. Maybe a long string of misfortune as attended your way. I think Moses might very well have felt that way after God told him that he, Moses, who had brought the people out of Egypt, who had been a faithful mediator for the people, that he would not see the inside of the promised land. He had waited forty years for this. Forty years of wandering around in the desert, dealing with the rebellion of Israel against their God. Forty years of depending on the Lord’s provision. Forty years of depending on the Lord, who had been 100% dependable. And now, Moses was not to enter the promised land. That’s a bit rough, wouldn’t you say, and so many people have thought. After all, Moses’ sin doesn’t seem to be all that bad. Why did Moses strike out?

To learn this, let us look in some detail at our passage. We first have to realize that the people had been complaining for years about the lack of water, the lack of food, and then the lack of variety in their food, having had this lembas bread (I mean manna) for so long, that it was sticking in their throats. Do you ever feel like you are eating the same spiritual food all the time? “Why do I have to hear the Gospel again and again and again? Can’t I move past that now? Where’s the deep spiritual meat? I want some quail to supplement all this manna.”

The Gospel is what you need. It is always what you need. It applies to every situation you can possibly encounter. Do not try to supplement the Gospel, or you will take away from it. So, when the water ran out, and people duly pass on this fact to Moses’ attention, they are only doing what they have done probably thousands of times already. Moses and Aaron at first do the right thing, by going to the Lord. They fall on their faces, a sign of submission to God’s will. The Lord is very gracious to the people. He doesn’t tell Moses to stand aside, because the Lord is going to destroy the people. He tells Moses to meet the needs of the people. Moses is told to take the staff (probably Aaron’s staff, since it is the one that is located “before the presence of the Lord”), go to this rock, and preach it brother! This rock will then get so excited that it will react violently, giving its water. Moses obeys the first part of this command. Then, in verse 10, trouble comes. Moses told the people they were rebels, and why should I, Moses, do this for you? This question reveals Moses’ unwillingness to do this thing. He was aggravatingly tired of the people’s grumbling and complaining, and blaming everything on him. Notice the contrast between Moses’ reaction and God’s reaction. God is gracious, but Moses is not. Note one other thing about Moses’ statement. He speaks of Moses and Aaron bringing the water out of the rock, not God bringing water through them. And so, we see the first reason why God did not allow them into the promised land. Moses claimed for himself the miracle that would result. And he was ungracious where God was gracious. The second (or third, depending on how you’re counting) reason Moses struck out, was that he struck the rock, instead of preaching to it. Now, this becomes especially significant, when we look at the specific kind of rock that he struck. It was not the same kind of rock that he struck earlier at Maasah. You remember the very similar incident recorded in Exodus 17, where Moses strikes the rock, after the people file a lawsuit against Moses, and water comes out. Well here, the rock is a different kind of rock. A recent article in the Westminster Theological Journal gives us some light here. I am paraphrasing slightly: “Rainwater would dissolve chalk in the upper layers of limestone, and this mixture of water and chalk would settle further and further down the limestone layers until it came up against a harder rock layer. Then this mixture of water and chalk would travel sideways. The water would evaporate, leaving the chalk behind. This chalk would then build up, while water continued to build up behind it. All you would then need is a sharp blow in the right place, and the water would come out. So, in the other incident in Exodus 17, Moses was dealing with granite, a rock out of which you could not expect to get any water. So, when Moses struck that rock, it was a miracle to get water out of that rock. But here, Moses is dealing with this limestone, with deposits of chalk. If you knew where to look, and struck the right place, then you could expect to get water out of the rock. That is why God told Moses to preach to the rock. That is why Moses failed to maintain God’s holiness. Moses did not believe the Word of God spoken to him. Moses was guilty of lack of faith. So, Moses did sin. Let us not mince words here, or try to excuse him, if the Bible does not.

However, even if we understand Moses’ disobedience, we are still left with questions, aren’t we? The Israelites were guilty of far more than Moses’ lack of faith. They were guilty of outright idolatry. They had worshipped the golden calf. Why was Moses’ sin so bad? I do not think that the amount of guilt involved is the reason why God did not allow him into the promised land. Again, the level of Moses’ guilt is not the point at all. God is saying something bigger than that to us. God is saying that Moses is incomplete. Moses will not take us into the promised land. Moses does not do all things for our salvation. Moses is not sufficient for us. He is not everything we need to be right with God, to enter the promised land, to enter heaven. If Moses had taken the people into the promised land, then Moses would have been their Savior. Therefore, God did not allow him to do so, that His purpose for Israel might point us to Christ. You see, we need someone who can take us into the promised land. We need Joshua. Joshua took the Israelites into the promised land. Joshua’s name translated into Greek is Jesus. And Jesus takes us into the promised land of heaven, and sits us there at his right hand in glory. If you believe in Him, and have faith in Him. You see, we are always jealous of God’s grace given to other people. We think we are the only people who deserve it. But in this story, Moses needed God’s grace the most. God could have utterly rejected him as leader, but He didn’t. So it is we who most need God’s grace, because we are needy sinners, who don’t even know our own sin.

If you are not a Christian, and are here this morning, I invite you to consider your suffering in a new light. God is calling you to Himself. The Word of God is inviting you to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Only union with him can get you to heaven. There is no other way. But your suffering, is it not God knocking on your door, getting your attention? Submit to him. Surrender your life to Jesus.

If you are a Christian, your suffering can seem like God has abandoned you. Know from our passage this morning that God is there, and that He has a higher purpose for your suffering, whatever that suffering may be. Christ in the Gospel is still what you need to get through these periods of suffering. Do not ever tire of the manna of the Gospel. It is life! A pastor in New York that I know had an unusual kind of cancer. Treatment was very long, tiring, and scary. Many shots, radiations, everything you normally associate with cancer, only more so. He wondered what purpose there was in it all. He wondered if God had just abandoned him. Years later in the ministry, a girl in his church was diagnosed with the very same cancer that he had had. She went through the long gruesome treatment with all the shots and radiations. The pastor went to visit her in the hospital. She said that no one understands what it’s like, that no one cared, and especially that God did not care. The pastor said, “I know, and I understand. There is healing in the Gospel, and purpose for your suffering. God will not let anything happen that is meaningless.” She then made a profession of faith. Look forward to your redemption from suffering. It will come. But there are goals that God sets for your suffering to accomplish. Believe that. Believe that God cares for you, and believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior.

suffering Moses rock Joshua Jesus manna lembas unbelief

Meekness, Not Weakness

2006-09-02T10:01:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:5 On a television series of British comedy, a rich widow is very used to getting her own way, much to the discomfort of the local pastor. So he says to her, “As I never cease to remind you, blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Upon which, she says, “And as I never cease to remind you, rector, the meek don’t want it.” The old joke is that the meek will inherit the earth, if that’s okay with the rest of you. Now we laugh and find this funny precisely because we believe that meekness is weakness. First, we will explore what meekness is not, and then we will explore what it is.

Meakness is not weakness. It is not true that a truly meek person can be pushed over by a hard slap in the face from a wet noodle. Meekness is not spinelessness. The two best examples of meekness in the Bible are Moses and Jesus, neither of which could possibly be said to be spineless.

The world thinks of its hope as being in the strong men of the earth. The world thinks of meekness as being a doormat. The world thinks that it is okay to render evil for evil, as long as the other person started it. The world tells us to stick up for ourselves, because no one else will. Anyone who does not stick up for himself is automatically called a mouse. The world (and us, to a great extent) thinks that meekness means that the strong will get the best part of the pie, and the meek will get nothing at all. The world only has one problem with its way of thinking: they have left God out of the picture. If this is truly a dog-eat-dog kind of world, and there is no divine retribution waiting for the world at the end of time, then there is no reason to be meek. We should all claw our way to the top, stomping on everyone below us, and making sure that they cannot get up again, lest they do the same thing to us. We might as well see ourselves as the center of the universe. Never mind that 6 billion other people are suffering from the same delusion. That wouldn’t make communication difficult, now, would it? “One center of the universe calling another center of the universe…” This is a fairly complete description of what meekness is not. It is not what the world thinks it is.

Meekness can be defined as seeing ourselves truly and seeing God truly, and behaving in the light of that knowledge. If we saw ourselves truly, what would we see? We would see sinners. We would know who we truly are because we would see ourselves in the light of God’s Word. We were originally created to be like God, knowing good and evil. But we threw away that knowledge when we ate of the tree. We are wicked people now. Truly meek people know that they are far more wicked in their hearts than they ever dared to imagine. For instance, we would much rather hear God’s name taken in vain than our own. We might even say of ourselves that we are not perfect. But if someone else were to come along and say that, we would punch them in the nose! But if we saw ourselves truly, we would be on our knees. As John Bunyan says, “He who is already down does not need to be afraid of falling down.” The meek person can therefore accept criticism without getting defensive. I know that I especially have a problem with this. Anytime someone criticizes me, I am instantly on the defensive. But I should not be like that. A meek person knows that he deserves far more criticism than he ever gets. A truly meek person will then take what is true in such criticism and even thank the person who criticized him. A meek person sees himself truly.

The reason a truly meek person sees himself truly is that he sees God truly. What does he see? A God who is infinitely holy. A God who executes punishment on all those who disobey God’s law. A God who is angry with sinners. Some people think that God is only angry with sin, not with sinners. That may be a good way for us to act, but God does not send sin to hell, but sinners. It is with sinners that God is righteously angry. But a meek person will also see God’s grace. God had mercy on the world, when He sent His Son to be born of a woman. Jesus was the very meekest person on earth. When reviled, He did not revile in turn. When insulted, He did not respond in kind. Instead, Jesus loved His enemies by dying for them. The meek person realizes that Jesus is the answer for the wrath of God. God the Father loved us so much that He sent His meek Son. Truly meek people know that they are far more wicked in their hearts than they ever dared to imagine, but also they know that they are far more loved than they ever dared to hope. Meekness sees ourselves truly, because meekness sees God truly. This is a good place to read Psalm 37:1-13. Notice here that God is in the habit of vindicated the meek. The meek person realizes that this life is not the end. There is a salvation from the very presence of sin awaiting him at the end. Therefore, he does not fret himself over the evildoer. What a remarkable comfort that is to us. We cannot retaliate, because God is in the business of revenge. That is right, God will revenge us.

If we know this truth, then we will not need to be angry in our own defense ever again. If we are irritated at every little thing that bugs us, if we explode at every little injury done to us, then we will be at everyone’s mercy who wants to turn our crank. As someone said, “Anger is not the strongest thing there is. What controls anger; that is stronger.” If that is true, then we can receive criticism without getting defensive. Matthew Henry says that the person is truly meek who would rather forgive twenty injuries than revenge a single one. Meekness then implies a teachable spirit. We are to be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Meekness is a jewel polished by grace.

Meekness certainly does not come to us by nature. But as Thomas Watson says, “to render evil for evil is like the animals, to render evil for good is devilish, but to render good for evil is Christian.” This is not possible for fallen man to do. Even if we forgive some offences, there are just a few that we want to hang onto. We can forgive our brother some things, but not all. That is just like nature, too, isn’t it. We even justify holding onto some grudges, since we have forgiven all the other ones. That is a half-way forgiveness. Is that how you want God to remember your sin? Do you want God to say, “Well, I will forgive your greed most of the time, but when you stole that bubble gum, I will remember that.” You might think to yourself, “That wouldn’t be so bad. At least only my little sins would be remembered.” The problem is that the least little sin can land us in hell, because God is infinitely holy and cannot tolerate the presence of the smallest sin in heaven. We are not safe from hell unless every last one of our sins has been forgiven, and our sinful nature changed. So do you want God to forgive you half-way? Then forgive your brother all the way.

The hidden fear we all have about being meek is that the meek will lose at the last. We saw that fear dealt with in Psalm 37. But Jesus, the meekest man who ever lived, says that the meek will win in the end. They will inherit the earth. The problem for us that we have no faith. We don’t believe that God will reverse the decision that the world made. The world decided that might was right. God will decide that blessed are the meek, for they, and only they, will inherit the earth.

What does it mean to inherit the earth? It means that the meek will not take it by force, will not invade the land, and will not earn it by their own efforts. They will inherit the land. The land will be deeded to them. God will give it to them. It means that we have to put off our expectation that God will reward us now. We have to be patient and kind to all. It does not mean that we will never be angry. There is such a thing as righteous anger.

Interestingly, the world denounces such anger as misplaced. For instance, if we protest the killing of innocent children in the womb, we are called fanatics. But if they needed to stick up for themselves, they will do it. See how inconsistent the world is? For the world, anger is only rightly placed when it for oneself. But for Jesus, we are only rightly to be angry when someone else’s right is at stake. It is a sad fact that most of the babies that we have tried to save since 1973 would have grown up to be worldly minded. We are trying to save the world’s babies. That is labeled fanaticism. But we call it righteous anger. The secret here is always to be angry at the right moment, and never to be angry at the wrong moment. What is the wrong moment? It is disciplining the children while you are angry. That should never happen. We need to ask the Lord to give us meekness to deal with that situation as it comes up.

The promise for us is that God will take vengeance on the world. God will reverse the world’s decision about meekness. Jesus, the meekest man who ever lived is also the world’s judge. It is for that reason that we can forbear to punish others. Before you let that snappy comment come out of your lips, consider whether you are being meek. What will that snappy comment gain you, except a guilty satisfaction? Forbear. It is much better to forgive twenty offenses against you, than to take revenge for a single one. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

That means the rights of the first-born. The only people who get to inherit the entire land of their fathers are those who are first-born. Jesus was the first-born from the dead. He, the meekest man who ever lived, inherits the nations. But somehow, we will all have that right as well, because we are united to Jesus Christ, the first-born, and so we will share in what Jesus has. That means the entire heavens and earth will be ours. Think of that the next time you are tempted to lash out in anger at someone. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Resources on Federal Vision

2006-09-02T09:25:00.000-05:00

Here are some resources on the Federal Vision theology, since some have asked what it is. For a one-stop place to go, one really cannot do better than this book. It is a collection of articles both for and against the Federal Vision (Federal Vision is synonymous with Auburn Avenue Theology). For web-sites, go here and here to hear them in their own words. Last, but not least, get this book for a thorough critique (despite the fact that the Federal Vision advocates absolutely hate this book, it is a good book). Basically, the Federal Vision is a loosely conglomerated group of individuals who seek to promote a certain understanding of the covenant. This understanding of the covenant is objective (outside of oneself). In their understanding, membership in the covenant is based on baptism, not on a faith-profession. You could call it a reaction against pietism and an overly self-focused Christianity, an overly individualistic Christianity. They usually hold to an undifferentiated understanding of the covenant. That is, there is no real difference between those who are elect and those who are not unless and until some apostatize. Baptism confers union with Christ, and all the benefits of being in union with Christ (perseverance is usually excepted here) are given at baptism. Federal Vision advocates offer an alternate understanding (they will usually say "non-competing") of certain systematic theological terms such as election. Federal Vision advocates are not generally pleased with systematic categories, actually. But with election, for instance, they will say that there is a corporate election of the church. When Paul addresses the church as elect, this is what he means: that everyone in the church is elect to the church, even though all may not be elect in the decretal sense. Critics argue that this introduces confusion, and that Paul presumes (but does not assert) the decretal election of believers when he addresses the church. It usually follows that Federal Vision advocates are also advocates of paedo-communion (infants partaking of the Lord's Supper). Certainly not all paedo-communion advocates are Federal Vision advocates. Critics of the Federal Vision (of which I classify myself) argue that the Federal Vision has gone too far in its reaction to individualism. Critics also will say that the Federal Vision has abandoned traditional understandings of the order of salvation (ordo salutis) by confusing the terminology. The order of salvation (by the way) is the way in which salvation comes to a believer, and includes such things as union with Christ, justification, sanctification, adoption, glorification, etc. Critics will also go so far as to say that the Federal Vision is a fundamentally Catholicizing (as in Roman Catholic) tendency. The tendency is to make the visible church equal to the invisible church (such a distinction between visible an invisible is distasteful to most Federal Vision advocates). It is important, finally, to realize that there is not one huge, monolithic movement here, and that many people associated with the Federal Vision do not hold all the beliefs of others in the movement. I have not said everything there is to say, but I think I have captured the main themes here.

One final change

2006-09-01T17:55:00.000-05:00

This is the last change in the blog for today. I have added a chat box to the sidebar. Visitors may chat with each other, or with me, if I am visiting at the same time. Toodles.

Women and the Evangelical Church

2006-09-01T16:43:00.000-05:00

This is an interesting article on women and the supposed patriarchal dominance of the church. The article explains why it is that the church has not actually been over-run with patriarchalism. This is at least food for thought, even if not all my readers will agree with him.

women
church

Poll on Federal Vision

2006-09-01T16:37:00.000-05:00

I have created a poll in the side-bar. I would be interested if you would vote on whether or not the Federal Vision is heretical or not.

Experiment in trackback.

2006-09-01T16:05:00.000-05:00

Just trying to see if I understand this trackback thing yet.

Author of Hebrews according to Origen

2006-09-01T13:22:00.000-05:00

I got this link from the OPC yahoo groups. Go to Thursday, Aug 31, and look at the 9:13 AM entry on Origen. Many people quote Origen as if he does not know who wrote Hebrews. From these quotations it is plain that Origen thought that Paul wrote Hebrews. The quote about "the truth God alone knows" refers to the penman (i.e., the amanuensis, the one to whom Paul dictated), not the author. author of Hebrews apostle Paul

Imputation and Union

2006-09-01T10:44:00.000-05:00

Here is a great post that says it all, when it comes to the relationship of imputation and union with Christ.

Purity

2006-09-01T09:47:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:5 US News and World Report did a study about television. That study showed that children on average will spend more than 20,000 hours before the television set, which is far more time than he will ever spend in a classroom. What do they see? Violence, perversion, lying, cheating, stealing, blackmail, embezzlement and other delights of our age. Violence, for instance, is so common on TV that it occurs five to nine times in on hour of prime-time television, and as often as thirty times in one hour during Saturday morning cartoons and after-school cartoons. Researchers have found clear evidence that “heavy TV watchers” are no longer shocked or horrified by violence. The report concludes in this way, “It will be difficult for the children who are raised in this era when they reach adult life to be decision-makers about right and wrong, because they have been without guidelines. They will have no idea what moral concepts are all about.” The date of this study? 1975. Has the situation gotten better or worse since then? Has it gotten better or worse in our community? What is purity of heart?

Often we think that purity is unattainable. We think that purity of heart is for those “super-Christians” out there who have got their act together. But Jesus says that only the pure in heart will see God. That means that we all need purity of heart.

Purity in heart comes in two sizes. The first one is purity of conversion. That means that when we come to union with Jesus Christ, we are clothed with righteousness. That is, while we are still sinners, Christ takes out our heart of stone, gives us a heart of flesh in regeneration. We are then clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. When God looks at us He sees Jesus’ righteousness.

By the way, if you do not know Jesus, now is the time to recognize that you are not pure in heart. None of us are really pure in heart. We need someone else’s purity to clothe us.

The second kind of purity is the process of purity. That happens throughout our lives and that is what Christ is mainly talking about here. Purity means unmixed holiness. When we say “pure gold” we mean that there is only gold there, nothing else. So when Jesus tells us that we need a pure heart, it means that our hearts need to be righteous without anything else in there. Thomas Watson says this, “A Christian’s great care should be to keep the heart pure, as one would especially preserve the spring from being poisoned. In a duel, a man will chiefly guard and fence his heart, so a wise Christian should above all things keep his heart pure. Take heed that the love of sin does not get in there, lest it prove mortal.”

When Jesus spoke the woes in chapter 23 that are the negative version of the blessings given here, one of the woes was spoken to the Pharisees. Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.” Jesus is talking about purity here. There needs to be purity not only on the outside, but also on the inside. It is not enough to say that we have not sinned outwardly. We also need to be sin-free on the inside, that part that no one can see.

But why? What reason is there to be pure in heart? First and foremost, because God will not tolerate impurity in His presence. What would God do with an unholy servant? Christ also says, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you shall by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Another reason for purity is that God dwells in us. You would not want to go live in a house that was incredibly unclean, with roaches, ants, termites, wasps, and filth all over the place, would you? Then why do we expect God to dwell in us, when we have such filth in our lives? Why would God want to come live inside a dirty, filthy, rotten hole like our hearts? If our body is to be the temple of the Holy Spirit, our heart is to be the Most Holy Place, where God Himself has set up His throne. Those are the reasons why we must be holy.

What purity of heart is not can be readily seen. We must not be content with outward purity. As Christ said, a person can be spick and span outside, but be full of murder, adultery, covetousness, and all manner of other sins on the inside. Christ said that out of the heart comes all these sins anyway. Let me just say a word here about behavior. Often we think that if a person changes their behavior, then they must be okay on the inside, too. That is a lot like a parable one of my professors told one day in class. His wife was upset that their apple tree was looking very ugly. It has brown ugly fruit on it, and wouldn’t the husband please do something about it. So the next Saturday, the wife looks out her window to see the husband with a ladder, a bushel of apples, and a staple-gun. About an hour later, she looks out again and sees a beautiful tree full of beautiful apples. How long will it last? As long as those apples last. Those apples, though, are not connected to the root. If they were connected to the root of that tree, then they wouldn’t be such beautiful apples. Those apples are just like our outward behavior, and the root of the tree is just like our heart. If the root of the tree is sound and healthy, then the apples that will be produced will be sound and healthy apples. However, if he root is rotten, then no amount of fresh apples will change that root. The problem will only be temporarily fixed. Eventually, those apples will shrivel up and drop off the tree. In this community especially, I see a focus on behavior. There is nothing wrong with that. We want to see behavior change and come into conformity with God’s Word. But without a pure heart, it will not ultimately change the behavior. Eventually, the “new behavior” will look just like the old behavior. We cannot be satisfied with outward change. We need to be concerned with issues of the heart.

Any issue of the heart that introduces impurity will always have an idolatry associated with it. You can think of any sin in the world, and I will tell you what idolatry is going along with it. For instance, covetousness, theft, and envy have a heart idolatry of wealth. Wealth is desired more than God, and so God is set aside in the heart. You cannot add anything to just God in the heart without an idolatry. Another example: adultery and lust have as their heart idolatry man itself, and finding pleasure and ultimate satisfaction in something other than God. There is no sin that is not idolatry. Idolatry is the very definition of impurity. Instead of being filled only with worship of God, we introduce a substitute, something impure. What Christ is really saying here is “Blessed are those who worship God alone, for they will see God.”

What are some things that contribute to heart idolatry? Ignorance is one. Sometimes we pride ourselves on saying something like this, “I may not know much, but my heart is pure.” That is a lot like saying, “I may be blind, but my eyes are doing well.” Ignorance of God and the Bible is opposite to love. You cannot love someone you do not know. Hollywood says something different, I know. They think it is possible to love at first sight. Hey still believe that after all these years. But the fact is that you cannot love someone you do not know. That means that the less we know of God, the less it is possible for us to love Him. Ignorant minds are impure minds. You cannot go to heaven in the dark.

Another thing that contributes to impurity is a sense of self-sufficiency. Those who say that they do not need purity are those very people who need it the most. If you have cancer, and you keep on saying that you do not have cancer, that denial is worse than the disease. Do not deny that you need purity. Do not deny that you are not there yet. Do not say that you have arrived, and those poor other people out there are much less holy than you are. That is proof of an impure heart.

Another impediment to purity of heart lies in sin itself. Sometimes we think that we can be pure while holding on to just one sin that we cannot let go. But Satan can hold on to a person by just one sin. Another way we do this is to plan sin in our lives. Sinners cater to their own desires. For instance, if you know that you have trouble wasting time on the TV, why do you not throw the TV away? Or if you know that a bad program is coming on the TV, why do you make sure that everything else is out of the way so that you can watch that bad program? If you eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. That is, if your TV causes you to sin, take out the plug of the TV and throw it away. There are far better things in life to do than to watch TV.

Instead of doing these things, desire purity. That is the first step. A good sign of a pure heart is that it desires purity. How much do we desire purity? Oftentimes we will avoid sin merely because we want to avoid sin’s consequences. In our community, how often do we avoid sin merely because our neighbor would catch us at it, and we would lose our standing in the community? Should we not rather desire purity for itself, and because God wants us to have it? Purity of heart means desiring purity of heart.

Purity of heart also means avoiding the appearance of evil. The reason we should be afraid to sin in front of other people is not because we will lose OUR standing, but because we might cause someone else to sin. Purity of heart then means selflessness, not selfishness. Peer pressure can be intense. “Everyone else is doing it” is a common plea to justify our sin. A pure heart looks at God’s Word, which is pure, and says, “This alone is my guide for right and wrong.”

With whom do you spend your time? Do you spend it with sinners or saints? Now I know, the first objection that will come out of your mouth to this is that because Jesus spent time with sinners wanting to make them pure, therefore we should do the same. However, we are not Jesus. It is true that we must evangelize. But in what setting? How much evangelization has ever happened in a bar, for instance? If you want to spend time with an unbeliever for the purposes of evangelization, then invite him into your home. Let him see what a difference Christ has made in your life. Rather, we should spend far more time with other believers than we do now. Those are the people who can encourage us. They can sharpen us. If we want to be pure, then we must walk with those who are pure.

What is the promise for those who are pure in heart? They shall see God. Do we even know what a privilege that is? That is what Moses wanted more than anything else. He said to the Lord, “Show me your glory.” The Lord said that no one could see God and live. But he showed Moses just the backside of His glory as he passed by. Just that one glimpse was enough to set Moses’ face glowing so much that the people down at the foot of the mountain were afraid. If we were to really examine our hearts, we would find that the thing we really want the most is to see God. For one thing, seeing God transforms us. It is pure joy to be a pure child of God seeing the pure God of the universe. When the thief was on the cross, Jesus said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise. Paradise is seeing God. This will not be like some earthly pleasure that grows old. God will make us desire Him ever more fully, and yet He will fill us to the very last drop. He will increase our desire for Him, and keep that desire completely filled. Maybe at some point in your life, you have “seen God” with the eyes of faith. You have had one of those “mountain-top” experiences. It might have come at a very odd moment in your life. Maybe it was while you were combining on a crisp gorgeous fall day, like yesterday. Maybe you went on a vacation and saw beauty that pierced your heart. Maybe you had a dream that was so beautiful that you always wanted to get back to that dream and enjoy it again. Those desires that awakened in you are really desires for heaven and to see God. That is what you will receive immediately upon quitting this life, if you are pure in heart. Jesus says also, “Cursed are the impure in heart, for they will never see God, except as judge.” Do not put off the pursuit of holiness, and of purity. Get rid of your heart idols. Have fellowship with others who also desire purity of heart. Look to God, for then you will see Him.

television purity conversion imputed righteousness righteousness hypocrisy behavioral change idolatry sin friends

Uploading pictures

2006-08-31T17:15:00.000-05:00

I have just discovered the problem I have been having uploading pictures for my sermons, and from my stash of pictures: Internet Explorer often puts up big roadblocks sometimes. So, I downloaded Mozilla Firefox. For some reason, Mozilla doesn't get in the way. And, it doesn't take up a whole lot of room. Internet Explorer is still better for some things. But Firefox does pictures better. I know that some of my readers would be interested in this information.

God's Law

2006-08-31T15:48:00.000-05:00

The law of God has its origin not in the Mosaic economy, but in the Covenant of Works. In fact, theWCF says that the law was given as a covenant of works (19.1). This is completely contrary to most proponents of the Federal Vision, who, if they acknowledge the covenant of works at all, will not say that the law is part of the covenant of works as the stipulations. They have this completely erroneous notion that because God condescended to make a covenant with Adam, that the inheritance of eternal life could not have been on the basis of merit. What these authors fail time and time again to realize is that there are more definitions of merit than absolute condign merit. Absolute, condign merit is not possible for any mere human to achieve, not even Adam. However, Christ, the God-man, did achieve this kind of merit, since He did not have to achieve it for Himself, but achieved it vicariously. But it is never this kind of merit that could be predicated of Adam. Instead, it is merit according to a pact. That is, God condescended to bind Himself to the fulfillment of the promises of the Covenant of Works, if Adam obeyed. Another vital point to consider here is the definition of grace. Grace is usually defined as unmerited favor given by God to sinful people. As a matter of fact, we have not merely "unmerited" God's favor, but we have positively "demerited" God's favor. That is, we have not merely been neutral with regard to God's favor. We have actively spurned it, and in thus doing, we have made ourselves worthy of nothing but judgment. So, Adam can be said to have merited eternal life, if it is understood that the merit being spoken of is the merit of obedience to the pact to which God bound Himself by condescension. The WCF says that it is this very law that is republished in the Sinai Covenant. It continued to be the perfect rule of righteousness, even if mankind was no longer going to inherit eternal life by doing the works of the law. What this means is that in the Sinai Covenant, though certainly part of the covenant of grace, the covenant of works still plays a part. There is an element of the covenant of works in the Mosaic economy. The one who does these things may live by them. But cursed is the one who does not continue in all the works of the law, to do them. If one performs circumcision with a view toward law-keeping and eternal life, then one is obligated to perform the whole law. All this leads us to the divines' interpretation of the law, which can be found in LC 99.4. This passage explains why it is that the divines interpret the law given to Adam as indicating that life was promised upon obedience, even if that promise is not explicitly stated. The flip side of any command or negation is implied. So, in the statement "Do not eat of the tree," what is implied there is trusting in the commandment of God, that God has defined good and evil, and that God is the ultimate authority in their lives. The opposite promise of life (to the threat of death) is also promised, according to the divines' interpretation in LC 99.4. The law of God as given at Mount Sinai can be divided into three parts: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law. Only the first part, the moral law (as comprehended in the Ten Commandments) is still binding on the Christian (though not for salvation, since we are no longer subject to the covenant of works. We are subject to it as a rule or guide for the Christian life). The second and third parts of the law are now expired. There are three uses of the law. The first use is to show us our sin and to point us to Christ. The second use is to restrain unbelievers from being as bad as they could be. The third use of the law is as a guide to the Christian life. Covenant works Mosaic law

Happy are the Unhappy

2006-08-31T09:50:00.000-05:00

Matthew 5:4 The child sees a horse and says, “That horse must be a Christian, because he has such a long face!” There are many misconceptions about what true mourning is. You can be a mourner, and yet not receive comfort. What does the world say? Be happy. If it feels good, do it. Seek pleasure, not sorrow. Jesus says differently. It is not true, however, that Jesus is counseling us here to be miserable. Jesus counsels mourning, not moping. Nor is true mourning merely a weeping over sin’s consequences. There is the case of the child who gets caught with the hand in the cookie jar. The child screams out his penitence, but only because he is sorry that he got caught, and wants to try to avoid the consequence. So what is true mourning? True mourning is a God-given sorrow over one’s own sin, and over the sin of other people.

First, we must mourn over our own sin. It is important to realize that there is a progression in the Beatitudes. The first Beatitude tells us that we have no righteousness of our own. Being poor in spirit means that we have to rely wholly on God. When we empty ourselves of our own righteousness, then we will come to realize that we are sinners. Once the blinders of our own sel-righteousness come off, we will recognize that the only thing we have to offer is our own sin. Being poor in spirit leads to mourning over one’s own sin.

David mentions that his sin is ever before him. We do not mourn only for sin’s consequences. We are tempted to do that often, however. We are tempted to think that we are sorry over our sin, when we are really only sorry that we got caught, or that we are sorry because of what happened after. That kind of mourning is really only mourning for oneself. It is mourning that is directed at me. True mourning, on the other hand, is directed toward God. We are sorry that we have offended our heavenly Father. We are sorry that we have broken God’s law. We are sorry that we have caused a rift in the relationship with God.

It is not mere generalities for which we must mourn. We need to mourn in general for sin, but that is not enough. We must also mourn because of specific sins. If we only mourn for sin in general, then we will automatically try to rationalize our sin away. We will try to excuse ourselves, because it is really only one small sin, after all. “Just one little sin.” That could be the motto for the road to hell: “just one little unrepented sin.”

Mourning means a turning away from that particular sin. Augustine once said, “He truly mourns the sins he has committed, who never again commits the sins he has mourned.” Mourning must be joined with a hatred of sin. We must hate and turn from that sin that keeps us from fellowship with God.

There is a sense in which we must mourn once for all. We must turn from sin to our Savior. There is a turning, a repenting that must take place. We must mourn here on earth temporarily, if we do not want to mourn eternally in hell.

The world says exactly the opposite of Jesus. The world tells us to be well, be happy, just do it, especially if it feels good. The world turns a blind eye to sin. But we must not be blind. Instead we must turn not a blind eye to sin, but turn away from sin. We must believe in what Jesus tells us here. We must believe in Jesus. Mourning over sin is appropriate. We must mourn the fact that we lost our place in the garden of Eden. We must mourn all the evil that has come into the world on account of sin. The world does not see this aspect of humanity. Conservatives will condemn sin, and liberals will excuse sin, but neither will mourn for sin unless God changes the heart.

If we do believe in Jesus, then we must mourn daily for sin. It does not mean that we always literally weep. That is not what mourning is. Mourning is an attitude of the heart that hates sin, and wants to do anything it can to prevent sin from taking more territory. Mourning is a good antidote to daily sin. It is hard to fall into the fire of temptation, when the fountain of the heart keeps the heart moist and wet. Mourning is a water to extinguish the fiery darts of the Evil One. This kind of mourning is not bitter. There is a sweetness to this kind of mourning. Compassion is born from it. That leads us to the second kind of mourning. The first was to weep for our own sin.

The second kind of mourning is to mourn for the sin of other people. These two kinds of mourning are connected. If we mourn over the sin of others, we are less likely to have sins of our own to mourn. But those who do not mourn the sins of others are probably not aware of their own sins. Do we mourn over other people’s sin? Or do we only mourn over another’s sin when it affects us? For instance, does it bother us when we hear foul language? Do we inwardly grieve, or do we think that that kind of language is somehow eloquent? This is especially true when someone uses the Lord’s name in vain. But if we do not mourn over someone else’s taking the Lord’s name in vain, are we honoring God’s name ourselves? To honor God’s name means more than not taking it in vain ourselves, it means that we want all people to honor it.

To take another example, what about greed? Suppose you see a shady business deal take place, or you see someone greedily snatch property. Does it grieve you to see it? Do you always remain silent, or will you say something? There is a time to remain silent, namely, when the injustice is done to us. But when injustice is done to others, woe to us if we remain silent! Are we to have a prophetic voice in this culture? Then we must denounce greed when we see it. If we do not, are we really concerned about the property of other people? If we see greed, we must mourn over it; we must speak the truth in love. All too often, we remain silent, because we fear rejection. We fear that the other person will never speak to us again. There is a way, however, to do this. That way is to speak the truth in love. Identify with the person by saying something like, “You know, I would tempted to do the very same thing.” Then you can say that you don’t believe that what the person is doing is right.

If we mourn truly over our own sin, and over the sin of others, then there is a precious promise waiting for us. We will receive comfort. Mourning is made on purpose to give comfort. Now, some people think that mourning causes joy. It is not the cause of joy, but rather the way to joy, just as the road is not the cause of my taking a trip, but is the way to get there. It is the only way to get there. Jesus tells us that only those who mourn for sin will receive this comfort. Those who treat sin lightly, or dismiss it by rationalizing, or by excusing, or by making fun of God’s law, or any number of other ways to lessen sin; those people will never receive the comfort about which Jesus is talking. One must dig deep in order to build high. Jesus is saying, “Happy are the unhappy.” That is how weird it might sound to our ears. But it is the only way to true happiness. Happiness is dependent on our relationship to God. That relationship is severed. Only by truly repenting of sin can we come into a right relationship with God.

Only by realizing that our sin put Jesus on the cross can we ever expect to receive the benefits of His death. It was our hand that nailed Jesus’ wrist to the cross-bar. It was our hand that nailed Jesus’ feet to the bottom of the cross.

If we know this, then we cannot love sin. Someone said that it is worse to love sin than to commit it. Remember that repentance must be accompanied by hatred for sin. If we have that hatred for sin, then we will be comforted.

Notice that the comfort will come. That means two things: it is certain that it will come, and it is in the future that it will come. This is talking primarily about the comfort that we will receive in the new heavens and the new earth. It is true that we receive comfort in this life as well. However, the most important thing to remember is that ultimately, every tear will be wiped from our eye. There is no mourning of crying in the new Jerusalem. There is no more separation, no more sorrow, no more sin, no more death. We have the down payment of that comfort now in the person of the Holy Spirit. We do not have all misery. We have the joy of the Holy Spirit. It is not true that those who truly mourn are those who mope around the house in utter misery all the time. There are many who weep who will not be comforted, because they do not truly mourn. They will not receive comfort. No, the Holy Spirit enters our lives, and gives us a certain hope that all will be made right, all wrongs will be righted, all sin punished. Those people who have the most joy are those people who truly mourn for sin. Let us not be satisfied with anything less than true mourning. It is not comfortable now, but it will be. We will have comfort. So often, however, we are satisfied with having as much comfort as possible now, not realizing that this life is not home to us. We are aliens and strangers here on this old earth. We need to wait for the new heavens and the new earth in order to receive the true comfort. As Abraham said to the rich man, “In this life you received your comforts, while Lazarus received only bad things. But now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.” Which person do we want to be? Do we want to mourn now, or later? We will do one or the other. The world wants to escape pain altogether. It is not possible. Do not make an idol out of comfort. The way to comfort is almost entirely in the opposite direction. It is like Alice in Alice in Wonderland. She wanted to get to the garden. However, the more she tried to get there, the further away she got. It was only when she tried to go in the opposite direction, that she made her way to the garden. If we make an idol out of comfort, and pursue it for its own sake, we will never find it. It is impossible. However, if we seek holiness rather than happiness, if we seek God rather than man, if we seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, then and only then will all these other things be added to us as well. That is the true meaning of mourning. Happy are the unhappy, for they will be happy.

Two Dangers in Evangelism

2006-08-30T10:44:00.000-05:00

There are two main dangers to be avoided in evangelism. The first is that, in sharing the Gospel, we do not love people enough. Beating someone over his head with the Bible is not especially helpful. Telling the truth is important. However, it must be done in love. There is a balance here that takes away every extraneous obstacle to the Gospel, and simply allows the Gospel to speak. The other danger is to water down the message of the Gospel to the point where there is no offense left in the Gospel. Scripture itself says that the cross is a stumbling block to Jews, and simply foolishness to the Gentiles. In fact, unbelievers don't like the Gospel. Mark Dever wisely warns us of the dangers here. I really appreciated his emphasis on clarity. Peter was very clear in Acts 2, a passage that Mark explains very well. Acts 2:36 "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Blaming those who are listening for the crucifixion of Christ is not exactly the thing most calculated to win the approbation of the masses. However, what happens? The Gospel cuts them to the very heart. In fact, 3,000 were added to their number that day. In short, there must no extra offense to the Gospel, whether it be that we are wierd, or unloving, or not good listeners, or whatever else there might be. How can we be sufficient for such things? Only by the grace of God. But we cannot take the edge out of evangelism. The Gospel has all the comfort for non-believers that a surgeon's scalpel does. It cuts. But the Gospel doesn't leave us there in a state of open-heart surgery. It also closes the wound with the healing balm of sins forgiven. Only by such surgery can the heart be made clean and fresh again.