Monthly Archives: May 2012

We all wear glasses

Posted on by
Reply

When outlining the central truths of the Reformation (the five solas and the doctrines of grace), preventing them from even looking into the Scriptures on such vital matters.

I wrote the following as a response to someone articulating this issue earlier today:

Nothing is “shrugged off” or excused but we also must at least try to understand the historical times rather than simply looking back at them through anachronistic glasses (through a 21st century lens). That is not always easy to do, but to understand the people and events of history, we must also seek to understand the thinking that governed hearts and minds at the time.

We don’t have heresy trials in our day for the simple reason that today’s society does not view doctrinal heresy as a problem at all. Cults and false religion can exist without any fear of persecution. While I for one very much appreciate the freedom of religion in our day, the down side is the thinking that often goes with that, namely that it does not matter what a person believes, as long as they are “sincere.” However, this concept was not in anyone’s thinking in the 16th century. All society actually believed in heaven and hell and that individuals actually go to one of those two places, and that heresy was a terrible blight on society. People on both sides (Protestant and Roman Catholic) believed that heresy was a high crime against both God and the people, equivalent to treason. If we understand that, and also look at the facts rather than the hyped up inaccurate vitriol that is so often pervasive, while not in any way excusing the excesses, we can at least begin to have an understanding of the times in which these things occured and have some measure of sympathy. If we do not, then we will come to the false and sad conclusion that no one in the 16th century has anything worthwhile to teach us.

Corporate Election – Is it Biblical?

Posted on by
Reply

In seeking to dismiss Reformed theology concerning personal and Sovereign election, some promote the idea that God simply elects a group of nameless individuals to be “in Christ.” However, this concept cannot stand up to biblical scutiny. Though lengthy, if this is in any way a concern for you, I hope you will take the time to view this detailed exegesis of Ephesians 1 and 2 Thess 2:13 by Dr. James White:

A Bridge Not Far Enough…

Posted on by
8

“We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists—and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired), we are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not.

The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men?

They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular?

They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation.

We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He?

You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody.

We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.

Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this.

General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody.

Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.”

– C. H. Spurgeon

Ascension Day

Posted on by
2

Ascension Day – Thursday, May 17th, 2012

“Many of us do not observe Ascension Day, do we? We are a little inconsistent in this: we observe Christmas, Good Friday and Easter Sunday! We observe Whit Sunday, but we do not observe Ascension Day, and it is a very essential part in all this movement of God’s plan.” – Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Saved in Eternity

Time Lapse Map of European History

Posted on by
Reply

(1) Here is a time lapse map of the history of Europe showing the shifting borders, alliances, unions, territories, occupied land, etc. from around 1000 AD until the 21st Century.
Software: Centennia
Music: Inception OST

(2) Here is an slower annotated version of the time lapse map of Europe – more zoomed in on the Continent, showing years and some important events.
Music: Inception OST
Software: Centennia

Well Done Phil!

Posted on by
Reply

This is a repost but something we should all be reminded of:

I loved reading Phil Johnson’s response to a comment at his Pyromaniacs blog site who wrote…

Your identity as a “Baptist”; your endless quotations from Charles Spurgeon; your faithful devotion to John MacArthur; and especially your willingness to call yourself a “Calvinist” are all huge red flags that tell me something is seriously wrong with your theology. Why do you teach a system of doctrine that is named after a mere man? Why are you following human teachers instead of going to the Bible alone? After all, 1 John 2:27 says, decease “The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you.” We ought to go to Scripture alone to establish our doctrine! The truth is in God’s Holy word, not in any theological system or theology textbook developed by mere men. Isn’t that principle what the Reformation was originally about? Sola Scriptura? Didn’t even Calvin himself go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Calvin himself wrote for this blog, he would point people to the truth in God’s Holy word, not to a theology developed by some other man.

Phil’s reply: You have seriously misunderstood sola Scriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Reformers (including Calvin) often cited the works of Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others-ranging from the early church fathers through Aquinas. They didn’t follow any of them slavishly, of course, but they certainly took them seriously. Not one of the major Reformers would have tolerated the claim that because the Church Fathers were mere men they were therefore irrelevant or incapable of shedding any helpful light on tough theological questions.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. It is an affirmation that “the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture” and that “nothing at any time is to be added [to the Bible], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” It recognizes that there is ultimately no higher spiritual authority than God’s Word, so “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture . . . it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

But none of that means we’re obliged to discard the wisdom of godly men from ages past and require each man to try to discern truth from scratch by reading nothing but Scripture by himself.

As for Calvin, he certainly did “point people to the truth in God’s Holy Word”-but one thing he did not do was steer people away from the important theologians of the past. In fact, Calvin’s works are filled with references to the Church Fathers-Augustine in particular. Calvin knew it was important to demonstrate that he was proposing nothing wholly novel and that his theology was in the doctrinal lineage of the greatest theologians of the church. He regarded himself as Augustinian, in precisely the same way many today think of themselves as “Calvinists.”

If Calvin wrote for this blog and someone responded to one of his posts by refusing to read what Augustine wrote, Calvin would probably write that person off as arrogant and unteachable.

Incidentally, 1 John 2:20, 27 is the apostle John’s response to an early outbreak of gnostic-flavored spiritual elitism. He was refuting some false teachers (he called them “antichrists”) who insisted that real truth is a deep secret, different from the apostolic message, into which people must be initiated by some anointed swami. The Holy Spirit indwells and anoints each believer, and He is the One who truly enlightens and enables us to understand truth. But He also gifts certain people with a particular ability to teach others (Romans 12:6-7; Ephesians 4:11). So while John was condemning the notion of enlightened masters in the style of Freemasonry and gnosticism, he was not making a blanket condemnation of teachers. He himself was a teacher.

Bonus (from Phil):
A follow-up message asks if I am suggesting it’s wrong for someone to abandon all books and human teachers and rely only on what he can glean from the Bible for himself. Answer: yes, I think that’s wrong because it’s arrogant and reflects a sinful kind of unteachability. This is my whole point: sola Scriptura doesn’t rule out the valid role of teaching in the church.

Furthermore, it is simply not the case that any common, unskilled, unschooled individual, sitting down with his Bible and no other tools, can expect to come to a full and mature understanding of Scripture without any help from godly teachers who understand some things better than he will ever get it on his own. Here’s Bernard Ramm’s famous response to the arrogance reflected in such a perversion of sola Scriptura:

It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself.” This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.

But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.

First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like [Athanasius,] Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule…

Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholarship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalalhashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary. [from Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), pp. 17-18.]

A Cult or a False Church?

Posted on by
Reply

Is the Coptic Orthodox Church a cult?

This is a Reformed Blog and so obviously, you will find a Reformed position outlined here. In Evangelical and Reformed circles historically, the word “cult” has denoted groups, organizations and churches that deny the catholic (or universal) creeds of the church concerning the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity – there is one God, eternally existent in three Divine Persons who are co-equal and co-eternal; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Protestant Reformers would not use the word “cult” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church because unlike the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and groups like them, the RCC does indeed affirm orthodox doctrine on the essentials mentioned above.

However, it must be said that no true Christianity can exist without the Gospel. The entire New Testament book of Galatians affirms this. Therefore, despite their orthodoxy on the doctrine of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Reformers would declare Rome to be a “false church” because of its strong denial and pronouncement of an anathema (eternal curse) on anyone who believes sola fide (justification by faith alone), which is of course, the very heart of the gospel of grace – justification being “the article upon which the church stands or falls” (Luther).

Let me therefore answer your question with a question – what is the official position of the Coptic Orthodox Church concerning the doctrines of the full humanity and full deity of Christ, the Trinity and justification by faith alone? Answer this clearly from their official documents, affirmations and declarations and you will have your answer. More than that, what is true concerning the Coptic Orthodox Church is true for any group or Church?

The Ministry of Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

Preaching takes great courage… If you are called to preach, know this ahead of time, and as an ambassador of Christ, proclaim His word as one of the King’s heralds.

I have gained much from Bryan Chapell’s book, “Christ Centered Preaching.” There he points out, amongst many other things that in 2 Tim. 4:1, 2, the word “preach” is the word for herald or announce or proclaim. It is not a simple word for teaching or explaining. It is what a town crier did when he cried out: “Hear ye, Hear ye, Hear ye!!” It was a message that demanded attention. As the King’s herald we are to proclaim, “The King has a proclamation of good news for all those who swear allegiance to his throne. Be it known to you that he will give eternal life to all who trust and love his Son.” That is exactly the kind of message we are called to preach.

Preaching is a public exultation. It is not disinterested or cool or neutral. It is passionate about what it says. Yet this heralding contains teaching. We can see this clearly as we look back to 2 Timothy 3:16, where we are told that the Scripture (which gives rise to preaching) is profitable for “teaching.” We can see it also as we look ahead to the rest of 2 Timothy 4:2, where it says, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” So preaching is expository. True preaching is not the opinions of a mere man. It is the faithful exposition of God’s Word.

Luke 24:27 – And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

John 5:39, 40 – You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life.

It is possible to have a high view of the Bible’s authority and miss the entire point of the Bible. Scripture is not telling us what we must do to complete ourselves or make ourselves acceptable to God. The Bible is not a Self Help Book. All the Scriptures are about one organic message – Christ Himself.

If people are simply told that something they DO will fix their problem – that’s not just SUB-Christian but ANTI-Christian. The Gospel is not DO BETTER! To proclaim the “Thou shalt nots” without the Source that enables their accomplishment, or His atoning work for us when we fail, is to HIJACK the biblical message.

1 Cor. 2:2 – For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Christ is integral to every passage (understood in its proper biblical context). The message was NOT Jesus Christ and what a good guy He is, or that you and I should act like Him but Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Galatians 5:11 – But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

If what we preach would be acceptable in any synagogue, or mosque, or political party club meeting, there is something radically wrong with it! Moralism is not bad in and of itself, but if moralism is all that is communicated, it is a denial of the Christian Gospel. Our mission in preaching is not to offend, but true biblical preaching will offend some.

C. H. Spurgeon once commented, “There have been many destroyed by poisons, given to lull them to sleep; many have been ruined by the cry of “peace, peace,” when there is no peace; hearing gentle things, when they ought to be hearing things that convict their hearts. Cleopatra’s asp was brought in a basket of flowers; and men’s ruin often lurks in fair and sweet speeches. But the Holy Spirit’s comfort is safe, and you may rest on it. Let him speak the word, and there is a reality about it; let him give the cup of consolation, and you may drink it to the bottom; for in its depths there is no residue, nothing to intoxicate or ruin; it is completely safe.

Elsewhere he said, “Little is that ministry worth that never chides you. If God never uses his minister as a ROD, depend upon it he will never use him as a pot of manna, for the rod of Aaron and the pot of manna always go together, and he who is God’s true servant will be both to your soul… If you always enjoy sermons, the minister is not a good steward. He is not acting wisely who deals out NOTHING BUT SWEETS… Christ’s sheep will not be offended by Christ’s voice.”

The true ambassador for Christ feels that he himself stands before God and has to deal with souls in God’s stead as God’s servant, and stands in a solemn place – a place in which unfaithfulness is inhumanity to man as well as treason to God.

Note Paul’s attitude to preaching in his words recorded in 1 Cor 1: 22-24 – For JEWS DEMAND SIGNS and GREEKS SEEK WISDOM, but we preach Christ crucified, a STUMBLING BLOCK to JEWS and FOLLY to GENTILES, but to those who are CALLED, both Jews and Greeks, CHRIST the POWER of GOD and the WISDOM of GOD. (emphasis mine)

Paul did not take a survey of the region where he was about to preach to ask what it was that they wanted to hear. He knew exactly what they wanted to hear. He knew full well that the Jews in the area wanted to see signs and the Greeks wanted to hear wisdom, yet He wrote, “but we preach CHRIST CRUCIFIED.” What he preached was not something that was naturally desirable to the hearer. Yet for those with spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear, Christ indeed IS the true sign and in fact ultimate wisdom. In Christ are hidden all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge. Yet it would take the miracle of heart regeneration for anyone to to see the beauty of Christ and embrace Paul’s message concerning the cross of Christ. He knew long before he ever opened his mouth that what he said would be highly offensive – either a stumbling block or foolishness – to everyone who would ever hear him – except for the group known as “the called.” Here is reformed theology with a vengeance. But let us not miss the important insight Paul’s words here communicate to us. It is clear from this passage that for Paul, it was God Himself who determined what was preached and not rebel sinners!

John Calvin once remarked, “It is a singular privilege that God deigns to consecrate to himself the mouths and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them. Christ acts by his ministers in such a manner that he wishes their mouth to be reckoned as his mouth, and their lips as his lips.”

Brothers, this Lord’s Day, may the Lord Jesus Christ be center stage in our hearts, our minds, and our sermons. Let us be bold in proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ as heralds who accurately proclaim the message of the King as ones who will one day answer to Him as to how faithfully we carried out that task.

God’s Providence

Posted on by
Reply

by James Montgomery Boice

There is probably no point at which the Christian doctrine of God comes more into conflict with contemporary worldviews than in the matter of God’s providence. Providence means that God has not abandoned the world that he created, V, i). By contrast, the world at large, even if it will on occasion acknowledge God to have been the world’s Creator, is at least certain that he does not now intervene in human affairs. Many think that miracles do not happen, that prayer isn’t answered and that most things “fall out” according to the functioning of impersonal and unchangeable laws.

The world argues that evil abounds. How can evil be compatible with the concept of a good God who is actively ruling this world? There are natural disasters: fires, earthquakes, and floods. In the past, these have been called “acts of God.” Should we blame God for them? Isn’t it better to imagine that he simply has left the world to pursue its own course?

Such speculation can be answered on two levels. First, even from the secular perspective, such thinking is not as obvious as it seems. Second, it is not the teaching of the Bible.

A Universe on Its Own?

The idea of an absentee God is certainly not obvious in reference to nature, the first of the three major areas of God’s creation discussed earlier. The great question about nature, raised by even the earliest Greek philosophers as well as by contemporary scientists, is why there is a pattern to nature’s operations even though nature is constantly changing. Nothing is ever the same. Rivers flow, mountains rise and fall, flowers grow and die, the sea is in constant motion. Yet, in a sense everything remains the same. The experience of one generation with nature is akin to the experience of generations that have gone before.
Continue reading →