Dr. Ligon Duncan, in a Gospel Coalition address entitled “The Reformed Tradition Beyond Calvin” discusses some of the lesser known but nonetheless major movers and shakers in the 16th century Protestant Reformation.
[Session 7] Ligon Duncan – “The Reformed Tradition Beyond Calvin” from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.
Original source: https://www.monergism.com/corporate-confession-sin-and-assurance-pardon
Corporate worship, as our local church understands it, is a time of joyful covenantal renewal which includes confession of sin, assurance of pardon, responsive prayers, corporate song, the preaching of the gospel and the covenantal climax of communion in the Lord’s Supper. To be frank, I previously never thought I would find liturgy to be a meaningful form of worship in a church, but after experiencing it, I have found it to be a much more meaningful form of worship because of its connection to Scripture, history, the corporate body and the depth of its ability to illumine the covenant. Many churches have put aside the corporate confession in favor of only music but the church has historically made the corporate confession central to worship. For most it makes the time of worship more authentic and joyful for it strikes a blow against self-righteousness and humbles us before God as we say what we know to be true of ourselves and the only Lord who saves us. It reminds us that we are not better than others and that it is only grace (an alien righteousness) which makes us what we are. God remembers, in the covenant in Christ’s blood, not to treat us as our sins deserve. In it we pray for personal sin, for the sins of our local church, our local community, our nation and world.
But Corporate confession of sin, by itself, would bring only despair were it not for our knowledge of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promise, His forgiveness and mercy. It is dangerous to dwell on ourselves and our sin if we do not also rememeber that God delights in forgiving us. So I personally deeply appreciate when the pastor declares the following after we have confessed: “…but if your faith is in Jesus Christ, then I can assure you, based on the sure promise of the Word, that your sins are forgiven….” Praise God for that for corporate confession is really simply only a reminder of the gospel as a way to begin each service..
Here are some of the confessions we have used:
To enrich me will not diminish your fullness;
All your lovingkindness is in your Son,
I bring him to you in the arms of faith,
I urge his saving name as the one who died for me,
I plead his blood to pay for my debts of wrong.
Accept his worthiness for my unworthiness
his sinlessness for my transgression,
his purity for my uncleanness,
his sincerity for my guile,
his truth for my deceits,
his meekness for my pride,
his constancy for my backslidings,
his love for my enmity,
his fullness for my emptiness,
his faithfulness for my treachery,
his obedience for my lawlessness,
his glory for my shame,
his devotedness for my waywardness,
his holy life for my unchaste ways,
his righteousness for my dead works,
his death for my life. Amen.
Minister: Blessed Jesus,
you offered us all your blessings when you announced
Blessed are the poor in spirit
People: but we have been rich in pride.
Minister: Blessed are those who mourn
People: but we have not known much sorrow for our sin.
Minister: Blessed are the meek
People: but we are a stiff-necked people.
Minister: Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
People: but we are filled to the full with other things.
Minister: Blessed are the merciful”
People: but we are harsh and impatient.
Minister: Blessed are the pure in heart
People: but we have impure hearts.
Minister: Blessed are the peacemakers
People: but we have not sought reconciliation.
Minister: Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness
People: but our lives do not challenge the world.
Minister: Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you
and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me
People: but we have hardly made it known that we are yours.
Minister: Your Law is holy and your benedictions are perfect,
but they are both too great for us.
You alone are blessed.
People: We plead with you to forgive our sins
and give us the blessing of your righteousness. Continue reading
The History of Astronomy by Dr. Jason Lisle (original source here)
The development of astronomy throughout history is a magnificent confirmation of biblical authority. The Bible is God’s inerrant, propositional revelation to man. As such, the Bible is absolutely correct in everything it affirms. This naturally includes its claims about the universe. When the Bible touches on the topic of astronomy, it is absolutely correct. The history of astronomy confirms this.
Secularists claim that the Bible is not the Word of God, but merely a man-made collection that documents the primitive thinking of the ancient Hebrews. As such, secularists believe that the Bible has countless mistakes, and therefore repudiate the idea that it should be used as a foundation for scientific research. This is not a new view. Ancient astronomers also largely rejected biblical authority, opting to form opinions of the universe while ignoring the inerrant history recorded in God’s Word. Yet, the Bible has been vindicated time and again with each new discovery.
The Spherical Nature of Earth
Sometimes evolutionists make the silly claim that believing in biblical creation is like believing in a flat earth. The irony is that the Bible taught a round earth long before secular thinkers came to accept the idea – at a time when they still believed the Earth was flat. One hint is found in Isaiah 40:22 in which the “circle of the earth” is mentioned. The Hebrew word translated “circle” here is ‘chug’ which refers to a circle or a circuit; something that begins where it ends and has the general sense of roundness such as a sphere. Of course, this isn’t conclusive proof of a round earth because a flat disk might also be described as a “circle.” Furthermore, some people have suggested that the circle or “circuit” of the Earth is actually a reference to Earth’s annual orbit around the sun, which would be remarkable confirmation of the heliocentric solar system long before any secular naturalist stumbled onto the idea.
For a more conclusive passage, consider Job 26:10. Here we read that God “has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness.” The same Hebrew word ‘chug’ is used in verb form indicating that God has drawn a circle on the surface of Earth’s oceans that separates light and darkness. Astronomers refer to this boundary as the terminator, because light stops there. People at Earth’s terminator are experiencing either a sunrise or a sunset. The terminator occurs primarily over the “waters” (oceans) because Earth’s surface is primarily water. The only way the terminator can always be a circle is if the Earth’s shape is spherical. No other shape will produce a circular terminator regardless of the position of the light source. We now have photographs of Earth from space that confirm a circular terminator.
Perhaps the earliest biblical confirmation of a spherical Earth is implied in Genesis 6-8. Here we read about a worldwide flood in which all the high hills under the entire sky were covered with water (Genesis 7:19). This would be impossible on a flat earth; the water would either run off the edge, or the edges would be raised so as to trap the water, in which case the edge itself would not be flooded and would constitute a hill that was not under water. A global flood is only possible on a globe.
Interestingly, all these passages were written at a time when the secular scholars of the day believed that the Earth was flat. Isaiah was written around 700 B.C. Job was written around 2000 B.C. Moses wrote Genesis around 1500 B.C. However, there is internal evidence that Moses used historical documents that were previously written by eyewitnesses as source material under divine guidance (e.g. Genesis 5:1, 6:9, 11:10). In any case, the Bible’s references to a spherical Earth predate the oldest secular reference.
Generally, the Greek mathematician Pythagoras is credited with being the first secular scholar to propose that the Earth is round. His argument for this (if he had one) is not recorded. But Pythagoras lived around 500 B.C., long after the biblical references to a round Earth had been written. Aristotle is generally credited with being the first secularist to demonstrate that the Earth is round from such lines of evidence as lunar eclipses. The Earth’s shadow on the moon is always circular regardless of the orientation of the sun and moon relative to Earth – this is only possible for a spherical planet. Aristotle lived during the 300s B.C.
So we see that the Bible recorded a round Earth long before the secular scholars of the day. It is almost as if the Hebrews had some divine insight into the issue. How about that! It follows that there was a time when the secular scholars of the day would have claimed that the Bible is wrong in its assertion that the Earth is round. But today, the Bible has been vindicated.
Earth Floats in Space
In a time when the secular experts believed the Earth to be flat and floating in water, the Bible teaches that God “hangs the Earth on nothing” (Job 26:7). This verse poetically describes the fact that Earth floats in space and is suspended on nothing. This cosmic fact is remarkably counterintuitive and may have been hard to believe when it was recorded. After all, everyday experience informs our senses that things fall unless they are suspended on something. The ancient idea that Earth is flat and floats in water is far more intuitive; we have seen that some things do float in water. But to suspend to the Earth on nothing may have seemed ridiculous. But today, the Bible has been vindicated. The Earth indeed hangs on nothing, and we now have pictures that confirm this. Continue reading
Dr. John MacArthur (source):
More than once I have been asked why my sermons focus so much on biblical interpretation and not as much on personal application. In a similar vein, verse-by-verse Bible teaching and an emphasis on doctrine are sometimes criticized as being irrelevant and impractical.
My response to that is simple—and may sound familiar to you because I communicate the principle at every opportunity. The meaning of Scripture is the Scripture. If you don’t have the true meaning of the text, you don’t have the Word of God. That’s why exegesis (a linguistically and historically sound interpretation of the text) is the absolute and primary essential in every sermon.
So my priority and driving passion is to make the truth of Scripture known. I want to help people know what God’s Word says. I’m confident that if I can help men and women understand the implications of the Bible―to feel the full weight and meaning of divine truth―the Holy Spirit will guide them in the application of that truth to their individual lives and circumstances.
Yes, some biblical principles may seem more practical or more immediately applicable than others. But all Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Teaching people what the Bible means is inherently practical. In fact, until a person understands the implications of a verse or passage, no sound application can be made.
It is the work of the Holy Spirit to make the most personal, individual applications of the truth of Scripture in the heart of the hearer—and He does that infallibly, in a way that I as a preacher cannot. He instructs and directs us in how to put God’s Word to work in our lives.
We see the evidence of that in the responses we receive from the people Grace to You is reaching. Every day we hear from men and women around the world, describing how the Lord is working in their lives through His Word and thanking us for our doctrinally focused resources. They bear witness to the practical value and universal relevance of the doctrine we teach. In fact, not long ago we received a long letter from a woman named Sandra. Here’s a portion of what she had to say:
I grew up in a home with loving Christian parents, but I rebelled against Christ during my teenage years. I took pride in my academic accomplishments and was generally a very proud individual. I was confident that I would become a successful attorney someday and live a life of affluence. My childhood upbringing kept me from rejecting God’s existence, but although I knew He existed, I did not have a relationship with Him.
God’s mercy and grace were poured on me one day as I drove from school to my afternoon job during the first year of my undergraduate studies. I switched my car radio from one station to another, searching for something fun, when I tuned in to a Christian station my father had preset. I had made a habit to simply skip over that station, but on this particular day I heard your familiar voice before I had the chance to change it. You were teaching on the subject of predestination. I continued listening with the sole intent of finding weaknesses in the argument, but the Lord used that message to bring me to repentance. That message was not sugarcoated. You did not mince words—you did not make me feel good. No, instead your message brought me to tears. The Lord used you through your faithful teaching of the Word of God to humble an angry, ungrateful, and proud sinner and to bring me to repentance and eternal life.
While I know that your service is not for the praise of anyone, I simply hope you are encouraged in knowing that the Lord has used you, through the teaching of His Word, to save souls and minister to people you were not even aware existed.
Every day, people like Sandra are tuning in on radio or looking to our website and finding biblical truth that speaks directly to their spiritual needs and circumstances. The Lord puts the teaching of His Word in a position to convict, rebuke, instruct, comfort, and encourage His people when and where He chooses.
And while we affirm God’s sovereignty over whom He reaches and how He works in lives, there is still a significant, human component. You and I have roles to fulfill, responsibilities to discharge, and blessings of a spiritual harvest in which to share.
Brothers I am troubled!
There’s no doubt that John Piper is one of the people God has used to impact my theological journey in a significant way. Much could be said about that. This blog is filled with many references to John Piper’s works.
However, in recent days I have become increasingly concerned about what Dr. Piper is teaching. He makes a distinction between initial justification and entering heaven, to the point that the gospel is confused, and some would even say, denied.
It is because I have greatly admired Dr. Piper that I have really tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I really have. But the more I have read and the more I have re-read Piper’s material, the more troubled I have become. I would have expected the opposite to be true – that the more I read of his, the more clarity I would find to set my concerns aside. However, that is not the case in any way at all.
I am deeply troubled. John Piper is abundantly clear in what he is saying and that is what bothers me greatly.
Here’s a video by Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, Kingsport, Tennessee, responding to Piper in his own words.
Update: Since this video was made, Dr. Piper has posted the following article: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no-love-lost
I shared this article with Pastor Hines (the maker of the above video) and here is his reply:
Pastor Hines: The vast majority of what he says is, again, very biblical and sound. The problem is this: “There is no final salvation without the confirmation of justification in a life of holiness (2 Peter 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13).” & “In our conversations with Roman Catholics, it will always be wise to emphasize how seriously we regard the necessity of sanctification for final salvation. It will not be surprising if they are puzzled.
Many evangelicals stumble over the claim that justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28), and yet final salvation has the prerequisite of holiness (Hebrews 12:14). But this is centuries-long Reformed teaching.” What does “prerequisite of holiness” mean? What does “final salvation” mean? How does “final salvation” differ from “justification?” Clearly, in Piper’s thinking, it does differ. The Reformers and their successors all taught that our justification IS what “finally gets us to heaven.” Our justification is that eschatological verdict brought back in time and once and for all eternity made concerning our status before God’s law.
John Piper is not a stupid man. But surely he is well aware of the fact that the way he is stating this is going to upset the apple-cart. He needs to define what he means by “final salvation” and “prerequisite of holiness.” He doesn’t – and hence the danger of this ambiguous teaching. One Reformer, John Calvin, taught us: “Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics.”
Remember also that in his sermon, he said that “it is the surveyors who are confused because they asked ‘How do you get into heaven?'” John, I seriously have to wonder what Piper’s answer to that surveyor’s question would be now. Based on what Piper said, “You don’t get into heaven by faith alone,” Piper would have to say in response to that question: “By putting sin to death and pursuing holiness.” And that’s the problem with all of this.
John Samson: I believe the key question that STILL needs to be answered (regarding Dr. Piper’s teaching) is this one – “will there be people who were justified who do not enter heaven at the final judgment?” Because Dr. Piper makes a big distinction between the two things, I am not sure how he would answer, and that is especially concerning.
(Gal. 1; Jude:3)
Update: Patrick Hines’ interchange with someone on facebook:
Here are a couple of posts I’ve (Patrick) done in response to someone who is defending John Piper:
No one is reducing “salvation” to only justification. However, the usages of the term “salvation” have to be determined by each context in which they are used. Romans 5:9, Ephesians 2:8-10 – these passages are clearly using the term “saved” in the context of what is the legal grounds upon which we are saved from God’s wrath – i.e. the legal grounds upon which we are justified before God and thus are not subject to the avenging wrath of God. True faith in Christ is never alone in those justified – never. It is always accompanied by all other saving graces. But those other saving graces – the new birth, repentance unto life, and progressive sanctification are not and never could be the legal grounds of “final salvation” – i.e. the legal grounds upon which the wrath of God does not come against us. That’s what Piper is violating.
People can fuss all day long about “salvation” is broader than merely justification. That’s true. However, when you look at the specific usages of “salvation” and “saved” in Scripture, when Paul uses the terms he is usually speaking of the legal grounds upon which the sinner is saved from God’s avenging wrath. That legal grounds cannot ever, ever be our works, our sanctification. That’s why Paul is clear: Romans 5:9 “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” Ephes. 2:8-10 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, [9] not of works, lest anyone should boast. [10] For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
Your criticisms here, Michael Foster, are not against me, they are against the way in which Paul himself speaks of how sinners are saved. I get the impression you’d say to Paul himself when you look at those two key texts, Romans 5:9 and Ephesians 2:8-10, “Paul, I refuse to reduce salvation down to justification.” Your argument really isn’t with us, it’s with Paul. “Salvation” in theological discourse does refer to all of the other graces God brings about in the life of the redeemed and justified sinner, but when people speak of “final salvation” as being NOT by faith alone, but rather by our works – they are, in point of fact, talking about the very same thing Paul is in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 5:9 – i.e. what it is that gets us past the judgment of God into heaven. And to say that we are saved from wrath NOT by Christ but by our works is a false gospel. That’s the problem here. And Piper needs to be denounced for it.
My opponent then asked: “Let me back away from the particulars of Piper’s statement for a moment to ask a clarifying question: Do you guys (Patrick & Rudy) believe that good works are necessary to salvation?”
To which I responded:
Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics. Necessary in what way? In the way Piper is teaching? As the legal grounds of our final salvation from God’s wrath? No. Do works necessarily accompany true faith? Yes. Because true faith is never alone in the person justified but is always and ever accompanied by all the other graces God brings about in the lives of His children: adoption, sanctification, the new birth, being conformed to the image of Christ. But those other saving graces are not the grounds upon which we are saved at the last judgment. You see, Piper is emphatic: “You don’t get into heaven by faith alone.” If he had said, “You don’t get into heaven having only been justified. You are also, if you have true faith, being renewed in the whole man after the image of God. God puts a beating heart of flesh in you in place of the heart of stone! God creates a hunger and thirst for righteousness. God starts a war in your against remaining indwelling sin! And that war will never end in this life. So, you don’t get into heaven having merely been justified. If you’ve been justified, that is the basis upon which you enter heaven – praise God. But God also conforms us to His image and makes us alive in Christ. And He does this without fail in every single person He justified by faith alone!” But, we both know, that’s not what the man said. He yelled, “You don’t get into heaven *by* faith alone,” which is to say, “You don’t get into heaven by the blood and righteousness of Christ alone.” And therein lies the problem.
Article by Director Thomas Purifoy Jr.: Six Reasons Reformed Christians Should Embrace Six-Day Creation (original source here)
When ‘Is Genesis History?’ opened in theaters last year, we had no idea it would be the top-grossing Christian documentary for 2017. We were even more surprised when our distributor said it was bringing it back to theaters on Feb 22, 2018, for an Anniversary Event.
Why did this film resonate so much with audiences? Perhaps it demonstrated that it’s intellectually reasonable for Christians to embrace 6-day creation.
By ‘6-day creation,’ I’m referring not just to one’s view of Genesis 1, but to an entire chronology of historical events. These include the immediate creation of everything in six normal days, a Fall that brought corruption and death into the universe, and a global Flood that destroyed the world. I recognize that among some Reformed Christians this is not a popular view of history. Instead, some have adopted the framework hypothesis, analogical days, or the cosmic-temple model to interpret Genesis 1.
They then accept the conventional chronology of universal history. This includes the slow formation of everything over billions of years starting with a Big Bang, the corruption, and death of trillions of creatures before the arrival of Adam and Eve, a Fall that introduced death only to mankind, and a local flood during the days of Noah.
I realize that intelligent and godly Reformed Christians hold to this model of Earth history. Nevertheless, many seem unaware of the actual events they must inevitably adopt when affirming a 13.8 billion-year-old universe. After all, one cannot extend history for billions of years without attaching new events to it. Those events have theological consequences. This is why Reformed thinkers like Geerhardus Vos, Louis Berkhof, and D. Martin Lloyd-Jones embraced 6-day creation. They understood it is the events included in 6-day creation that are essential for Christian theology.
Here are six theological reasons worth considering:
1. God’s Goodness Must Be Reflected in the Original Creation
Ligon Duncan observed in an interview for ‘The Gospel Coalition’ that affirming the goodness of the original creation is non-negotiable. As the Westminster Confession states, the goodness of the original creation is the manifestation of the glory of God’s own goodness. (WCF 4.1)
What does that goodness look like? It is full of life-giving power and bounty. This is what we see in Genesis 1. God pronounces His original creation ‘good’ and ‘very good.’ It was a world of plenty and beauty without animal carnivory (Gen 1:30) and without corruption and death (Rom 8:21).
Yet this picture of an artistically-designed, beautiful world only fits within the chronology of 6-day creation. If one adopts the conventional chronology, one must accept that the Earth was absent from the universe for its first 9 billion years. After a galactic cooling event, the Earth slowly formed through billions of years of uninhabitable environments. God eventually created the first complex marine life, then progressively created or evolved different types of organisms. These experienced death and massive extinction events that led to the destruction of trillions of living creatures. All this happened long before the appearance of Adam and Eve.
I realize that some Christians may not be interested in these sorts of details. Yet anyone who chooses to accept an old universe implicitly accepts the historical events that go with it. It is a history filled with lifelessness and death, not the goodness of God.
2. Adam’s Sin Resulted in Universal Corruption and Death
According to the conventional chronology, corruption has always been a part of the universe. This can be seen in the fossil record which supposedly represents 540 million years of animal suffering and death. It provides snapshots of a world often full of thorns and thistles. Continue reading