Passage: John 14:28-31
The Cults use Jesus’ words, “The Father is greater than I” to dismiss Christ’s claims to deity. What do the words actually mean?
The Son’s Role In Redemption
Reply
Monthly Archives: August 2020
Public Worship Before Private
Article: Public Worship to be Preferred before Private by Eric Davis (original source – https://thecripplegate.com/public-worship-to-be-preferred-over-private/) – Eric is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wyoming. He and his team planted the church in 2008. He has been married for 18 years and has 3 children.
David Clarkson was puritan John Owen’s assistant minister at the end of his life. Clarkson published several works, and went on to pastor in Owen’s place after his death. On one occasion, he preached a roughly 80-minute sermon from Psalm 87:2, “The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.” The title of the sermon is Public Worship to be Preferred before Private.
The following is a summary of Clarkson’s sermon.
Public worship involves three elements: ordinances, an assembly, and an officer.
1. Ordinances include prayer, praises, the word read, expounded, or preached, and the administration of the sacraments.
2. There must be an assembly; a congregation joined in the use of these ordinances. We cannot put a number on it. However, one or two people, or a family, is to be considered private (not a church), but is not public worship.
3. There must be an officer. He must be set apart by the Lord, biblically qualified, and affirmed by a church.
Here are 12 reasons why public worship is preferred over private worship; why my quiet time is not a substitute for biblical corporate worship; why a devotional with friends or family is not an acceptable substitute for God’s kind of corporate gathering.
1. The Lord is more glorified by public worship than private.
God is glorified by us when we acknowledge that he is glorious. And he is most glorified when this acknowledgment is most public. A public acknowledgment of the worth and excellency of someone tends more to his honor than that which is private or secret. David was more honored by the public celebration of his victory than if it were in private (1 Sam. 18:7). Seeking to render God the most glory, the psalmist summons all the earth to praise him (Ps. 96:1-3).
2. There is more of the Lord’s presence in public worship than in private.
We understand that God is omnipresent. He is present with his people in private. However, he is present with his people in the use of public ordinances in a more extraordinary manner; more effectually, constantly, and intimately. After the Lord instructed on public worship, he adds, “In every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you” (Exod. 20:24).
The Lord has engaged to be with every particular saint, but when the particulars are joined in public worship, there are all the engagements united together. The Lord engages himself to let forth as it were, a stream of his comfortable, quickening presence to every particular person that fears him, but when many of these particulars join together to worship God, then these several streams are united and meet in one. Thus, the presence of God, which, enjoyed in private, is but a stream, in public becomes a river, a river that makes glad the city of God. The Lord has a dish for every particular soul that truly serves him; but when many particulars meet together, there is a variety, a confluence, a multitude of dishes. The presence of the Lord in public worship makes it a spiritual feast, and so it is expressed (cf. Isa. 25:6).
3. God manifests himself more in public worship than in private.
David saw as much of God in secret as could then be expected, but he expected more in public. Not satisfied with his private enjoyments as much as public, he longed after public ordinances, for this reason, that he might have clearer discoveries of the Lord: “One thing I have asked from the Lord, that I shall seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to meditate in His temple” (Ps. 27:4).
Why was this one thing above all desirable? Why, but to behold the beauty of the Lord? As in Psalm 63:1-2, David was in a wilderness; a dry and thirsty land, where was no water, yet he did not so much thirst after outward refreshments as after the public ordinances; and why? “To see Your power and Your glory” (Ps. 63:2).
4. There is more spiritual advantage in the use of public ordinances than in private.
Whatever spiritual benefit is to be found in private duties, that, and much more, may be expected from public worship. There is more spiritual light and life; more strength and growth; more comfort and soul refreshment. When the church inquires of Christ where she might find comfort and soul nourishment, food and rest, he directs her to public ordinances.
Shepherds are pastors or teachers, those to whom the Lord has committed the administration of his public ordinances. To them is the church directed for food and rest, for spiritual comfort and nourishment; and it is commended to her as the known way of the whole flock; that flock whereof Christ is chief shepherd.
Ephesians 4 proves this. Christ gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). The Lord wishes for our fullest edification: “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). These are the ends for which the Lord Jesus gave his church public officers and ordinances; and they will never fail of these ends if we fail not in the use of them.
Asaph had private helps as well as we, but his temptations were not conquered until he went into the sanctuary (Ps. 73:16-17). Thus there is more spiritual advantage in public worship than in private, and therefore it is to be preferred.
5. Public worship is more edifying than private.
In private you provide for your own good, but in public you do good both to yourselves and others. And that is a received rule, that good is best which is most diffusive, most communicative. “O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together” (Ps. 34:3).
Live coals, if separated, and lay them asunder, will quickly die; but while they are together, they serve to continue heat in one another. We may quicken one another, while we join in worshipping God; but deadness, coldness, or lukewarmness may seize upon the people of God, if they forsake the assembling of themselves together. It is more edifying, and therefore to be preferred.
6. Public ordinances are a better security against apostasy than private.
In times of compromise, this is especially pertinent. He that wants the public ordinances, whatever private means he enjoys, is in danger of apostasy (cf. Heb. 10:24-26). David was as much in the private duties of God’s worship as any, while he was in banishment; yet, because he was thereby deprived of the public ordinances, he looked upon himself as in great danger of idolatry: “…for they driven me out today so that I would have no attachment with the inheritance of the Lord, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods’” (1 Sam. 26:19).
We have many instances nearer home to confirm this. Is not the rejecting of public ordinances the great step to the woeful apostasies amongst us? Who is there falls off from the truth and holiness of the gospel into licentious opinions and practices, that has not first fallen off from the public ordinances? Who is there in these times that has made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, who has not first cast the public worship of God overboard? The sad issue of forsaking the public assemblies (too visible in the apostasy of divers professors) should teach us this truth, that public ordinances are the great security against apostasy, a greater security than private duties, and therefore to be preferred.
Public worship stabilizes us from being tossed to and fro (Eph. 4:14). No wonder if those that reject the means fall short of the end; no wonder if they be tossed to and fro, till they have nothing left but wind and froth. This was the means which Christ prescribed to the church, that she might not fall away.
7. The Lord does his greatest works through public worship.
The most wonderful things that are now done on earth are wrought in the public ordinances, though the commonness and spiritualness of them makes them seem less wonderful. Here the Lord speaks life unto dry bones, and raises dead souls out of the grave and sepulchre of sin, wherein they have lain putrefying many years. Here the dead hear the voice of the Son of God through his messengers, and those that hear do live. Here he gives sight to those that are born blind; it is the effect of the gospel preached to open the eyes of sinners, and to turn them from darkness to light. Here he cures diseased souls with a word, which are otherwise incurable by the utmost help of men and angels. He sends forth his word, and heals them; it is no more with him but speaking the word, and they are made whole. Here he dispossesses Satan, and casts unclean spirits out of the souls of sinners that have been long possessed by them. Here he overthrows principalities and powers, vanquishes the powers of darkness, and causes Satan to fall from heaven like lightning. Here he turns the whole course of nature in the souls of sinners, makes old things pass away, and all things become new.
The Lord has not confined himself to work these wonderful things only in public; yet the public ministry is the only ordinary means whereby he works them. And since his greatest works are wrought ordinarily by public ordinances, and not in private, therefore we should value and esteem the public ordinances before private duties.
8. Public worship is the nearest resemblance of heaven.
In heaven, so far as the Scripture describes it to us, there is nothing done in private; nothing in secret; and all the worship of that glorious company is public. The innumerable company of angels, and the church of the first-born, make up one general assembly in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22, 28). They make one glorious congregation, and so jointly together sing the praises of him that sits on the throne, and the praises of the Lamb, and continue employed in this public worship to eternity.
9. The examples of the most renowned servants of God have preferred public worship before private.
It was so in the judgment of those who were guided by an infallible Spirit; those who had most converse with God, and knew most of the mind of God; and those who had experience of both, and were in all respects the best, the most competent judges. This was David’s heart (Ps. 84:1-2). Longing, nothing else could satisfy. Fainting, it was his life; he was ready to faint; to die, for want of it. “For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Ps 84:10).
David was at this time a king, either actually or at least anointed. Yet, he professes he had rather be a doorkeeper where he might enjoy God in public, than a king where deprived of public worship. He would choose rather to sit at the threshold, as the original is, than to sit on a throne in the tents of wickedness; in those wicked, heathenish places where God was not publicly worshipped.
Hezekiah and Josiah were the two kings of Judah of highest esteem with God, as he has made it known to the world by his testimony of them. Now what was their eminency but their zeal for God? And where did their zeal appear, but for the public worship of God? (2 Chron. 29:2, 8; 34; 35).
The apostles also, and early Christians bear record of this. How careful were they of taking all opportunities that the word might be preached, and the Lord worshipped in public! How many hazards did they run; how many dangers; how many deaths did they expose themselves to by attempting to preach Christ in public! Their safety, their liberty, and their lives were not so dear to them as the public worship; whereas, if they would have been contented to have served the Lord in secret, it is probable they might have enjoyed themselves in peace and safety. The Lord, how much soever above us, did not think himself above ordinances, though he knew them then expiring; nor did he withdraw from public worship, though then corrupted. Nay, he exhorts his disciples to hear them who publicly taught in Moses’s chair, though they had himself, a far better teacher. You find him frequently in the synagogues, in the temple, and always at the Passover. His zeal for public worship was such, as they apply that of the psalmist to him, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”
10. Public worship is the most available for the procuring of the greatest mercies, and preventing and removing the greatest judgments.
The greatest mercies are those that are most available and of most benefit to an entire nation or church. Public worship is the most effective in declaring the Lord’s mercies, for example, in diverting corporate calamities. An example of this is Joel 2:15-16.
Jehoshaphat also serves as an example (2 Chron. 20:4, 9, 15, 28). A corporate declaration was made, seeking the Lord’s mercy. And a corporate mercy was granted. The Lord provided an extensive corporate mercy to Nineveh in response to the preaching of Jonah to the nation (Jonah 3:4-5, 10). Peter was spared by the mercies of God through the corporate prayer of the church (Acts 12:5). The church received an animated corporate blessing in response to their corporate prayer (Acts 4:31).
11. The precious blood of Christ is most interested in public worship, and that must needs be most valuable which has most interest in that which is of infinite value.
The grace of Christ’s finished work on the cross seems to have higher influence on public worship than private. In corporate worship, Christ is uniquely recalled as crucified before our eyes (e.g. in preaching and the Lord’s Supper). As such, we are reminded that we are the purchased of Christ, and thus the gifts of his triumph over sin and Satan. In Ephesians 4, Paul pulls from the idea that triumphant conquerors would distribute gifts among the citizens. Those gifts, in the church, are public officers, and consequently public ordinances to be administered by those officers (vv. 11-12). How valuable are those ordinances, which are the purchase of that precious blood, and which are the gifts Christ reserved for the glory of his triumph!
12. The promises of God are more to public worship than to private.
Scripture gives several examples of how this is true. The Lord promises his presence in the places before claimed (Exod. 20:24). Protection and direction are promised (Isa. 4:5). The Lord was to the assemblies of his people as a pillar of cloud and fire (Exod. 13:21). His presence shall be as much effectually to his people now as those pillars were then. As formerly in the wilderness, the Lord, having filled the inside of the tabernacle with his glory, covered the outside of it with a thick cloud (Exod. 40:34), so will he secure his people and their glorious enjoyments in public worship. His presence within shall be as the appearance of his glory, to refresh them; his presence without shall be as a thick cloud to secure them.
We are promised light, life, and joy in abundance (Ps. 36:8-9); life and blessedness (Prov.. 8:34-35); spiritual communion and nourishment (Rev. 3:20). Grace and glory, yea, all things that are good are promised. There is not a more full and comprehensive promise in the Scripture than in Psalm 84:11: “No good thing will be withhold from them that walk uprightly.”
But what is this to public worship? The whole psalm speaks of public worship; and therefore, we must take this as promised to sincere walking with God in public worship. The word “for” (v. 11) connecting verses 10 and 11 explain why David had such a high esteem of public worship; why he preferred one day in God’s house before a thousand; and therefore this promise must have reference to public worship, else there is no reason to use this as a reason.
For these reasons, public worship is to be preferred before private worship.
The full transcript of Clarkson’s sermon can be viewed here.
Origins of the Protestant Bible
Edmon L. Gallagher is Associate Professor of Christian Scripture at Heritage Christian University. John D. Meade is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Phoenix Seminary. They are the authors of The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity.
One of the side effects of the Protestant Reformation was intense scrutiny of the biblical canon and its contents. Martin Luther did not broach the issue in his 95 Theses, but not long after he drove that fateful nail into the door of the Wittenberg chapel, it became clear that the exact contents of the biblical canon would need to be addressed. Luther increasingly claimed that Christian doctrine should rest on biblical authority, a proposition made somewhat difficult if there is disagreement on which books can confer “biblical authority.” (Consider, e.g., the role of 2 Maccabees at the Leipzig Debate.) There was disagreement—and there had been disagreement for a millennium or more beforehand. Almost always, the sixteenth-century disputants pointed back to Christian authors in the fourth century or thereabouts for authoritative statements on the content of the Bible.
But fourth-century Christians themselves disagreed on precisely which books constituted God’s authentic revelation. Especially with regard to the books most in dispute in the sixteenth century—the so-called deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament—the fourth century could provide no assured guide because even those ancient luminaries, St. Jerome and St. Augustine, disagreed particularly on the status of these books.
The deuterocanonical books—as they would come to be called by Sixtus of Siena in 1566—are essentially those portions of Scripture that form part of the Roman Catholic Bible, but not the Protestant Bible. (Sixtus had a slightly wider definition of the term “deuterocanonical.”) In this sense, there are seven deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1–2 Maccabees. There are also two books with deuterocanonical portions: Daniel and Esther.
In the sixteenth century, it was not clear whether these books belonged in the Bible or not; different theologians and church authorities took different positions on the matter, and there had never been a council that settled the issue for the entire church. While these books appeared in biblical manuscripts and printed Bibles, it was not uncommon in the Latin Church to question their status. For instance, one of the great publishing ventures of the early part of the century was the Complutensian Polyglot, a Bible printed in multiple languages in the Spanish town of Alcalá (Latin name: Complutum), produced under the oversight of the Roman Catholic Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros and granted permission for publication by Pope Leo X in 1520. While this Bible includes the deuterocanonical books, Cardinal Jiménez explains in a preface that they “are books outside the canon which the Church has received more for the edification of the people than for the authoritative confirmation of ecclesiastical dogmas.”
When Martin Luther debated Johann Eck at Leipzig in 1519 on various Catholic doctrines that Luther rejected, Luther probably did not feel that he was stirring controversy by disputing the canonicity of 2 Maccabees, since Catholic Cardinals in full communion with Rome were doing the same thing at the time. Such a position became unacceptable for a Roman Catholic only after the Council of Trent in 1546 declared all of the deuterocanonical books to be fully canonical, a position that made many Protestants more vehement in their rejection of these books. But the earlier Protestant position had valued these books for Christian edification. When Luther translated them as part of his German translation of the entire Bible, he sounded much like Cardinal Jiménez in describing them as “books that do not belong to Holy Scripture but are useful and good to read.”
Both Protestants and Catholics pointed to earlier times, especially the fourth century, as confirming their own views.
They were both right.
The origins of the Bible stretch back a long way before the Common Era, but the fourth century CE was an important time for the Bible. One could say that the Bible was invented in the fourth century, since for the first time all of Scripture could be—and was—contained in a single cover (see Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), rather than in small codices or scrolls that included only a few biblical books. It was also a time when some Christians were interested in clarifying which books counted as revelation from God, and which books didn’t. They composed lists of the books of the Bible: these lists were very similar to one another, but they also differed in important ways.
In the West, the biblical canon lists usually (not always) agreed completely on the books of the New Testament. In the East, the New Testament was, again, usually very similar across the lists, though the Book of Revelation was long disputed. But the status of the Old Testament deuterocanonical books in both the East and the West proved challenging. The fourth-century lists in the East—composed by such figures as Origen of Alexandria/Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Nazianzus—omitted almost all of them, but these books found a warmer welcome in the West.
Here we come to Jerome and Augustine, the greatest biblical scholar and the greatest theologian, respectively, in the early Latin church. These two churchmen composed lists of Old Testament books within a few years of each other, during the last decade of the fourth century. As for the deuterocanonical books, Augustine did not even mention the issue within his discussion of the canon; he quietly listed all these books in their respective sections of the Bible.
Jerome, the primary translator of the Latin Vulgate, took the opposite path. Not only did he exclude the deuterocanonical books from his biblical canon, but he was far from silent on the issue. In his most well-known statement on the matter—a preface to his translation of the books of Samuel and Kings—Jerome listed all the books of the Old Testament in (what he took to be) the order of the Jewish Bible, thus without the deuterocanonical books. Then he brought up the issue, asserting that the books we call deuterocanonical are actually “apocrypha” and should be excluded from the Bible.
Like the Protestants and their Catholic opponents, neither Jerome nor Augustine were coming up with a new teaching on the biblical canon—they were both passing along what they took to be Christian tradition as they had received it. Augustine was right that for many Christians, particularly in the West, the deuterocanonical books had functioned as Scripture and appeared in canon lists for decades before the late fourth century. Jerome was right that for many Christians, particularly in the East and those Latin-speakers influenced by the East, the deuterocanonical books had not been considered on par with the other books of the Bible and had consequently been omitted from many biblical canon lists.
Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles today because of the disputes of the sixteenth century, when the opposing sides each claimed that the early church supported their own views.
The bottom line is: they were both right.
Myths About Nicea and the Canon
Article: No, Nicaea Didn’t Create the Canon by John D. Meade (original source – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nicaea-canon/)
John D. Meade is associate professor of Old Testament and director of the Text & Canon Institute at Phoenix Seminary. He has edited the materials for A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job 22–42 (Peeters, 2020).
Ideas have consequences. One idea that has yielded dangerous consequences is the notion that the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), under the authority of Roman emperor Constantine, established the Christian biblical canon.
Did the Bible originate from a few elite bishops selecting which books to include? Should we credit a Roman emperor with creating the Bible? No. This falsehood has been used to cast suspicion on the origins of the canon, which undermines the Bible’s authority.
Dan Brown’s 2003 bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, planted this idea in our culture, and many now think Constantine or Nicaea established the Bible. But Brown didn’t invent this story. He only perpetuated it through his fiction. (Same goes for popular spy novelist Daniel Silva’s latest book, The Order. He admits in an author’s note: “Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy will no doubt take issue with my description of who the evangelists were and how their Gospels came to be written.”)
Nicaea and the Canon in History
There is no historical basis for the idea that Nicaea established the canon and created the Bible. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity and other early evidence show that Christians disputed the boundaries of the biblical canon before and after Nicaea. For example, even lists from pro-Nicaean fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. AD 350) and Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. AD 367) don’t agree on the inclusion of Revelation. None of the early records from the council, nor eyewitness attendees (Eusebius or Athanasius, for example), mentions any conciliar decision that established the canon.
In the preface to his Latin translation of Judith, Jerome wrote:
But since the Nicene Council is considered (legitur lit. “is read”) to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!).
Could Jerome be referring to a formal decision to include Judith in the canon? That’s unlikely.
The earliest adopters of Nicene orthodoxy—from Athanasius to Gregory of Nazianzus to Hilary of Poitiers to Jerome himself—don’t include Judith in their canon lists. If a decision was made at Nicaea on the canonicity of Judith, the earliest adopters would’ve listed it among the canonical books. But they don’t. Rather, Jerome is probably describing discussions in which some fathers may have referred to Judith as scriptural. In any case, these discussions didn’t end in a formal conciliar decision on the canon’s boundaries. It seems Jerome’s statement, though, was later misunderstood to say that Nicaea decided on the canon, which leads us to the rest of the story.
Nicaea and the Canon in Legend
The source of this idea appears in a late-ninth-century Greek manuscript called the Synodicon Vetus, which purports to summarize the decisions of Greek councils up to that time (see pages 2–4 here). Andreas Darmasius brought this manuscript from Morea in the 16th century. John Pappus edited and published it in 1601 in Strasburg. Here’s the relevant section:
The council made manifest the canonical and apocryphal books in the following manner: placing them by the side of the divine table in the house of God, they prayed, entreating the Lord that the divinely inspired books might be found upon the table, and the spurious ones underneath; and it so happened.
According to this source, the church has its canon because of a miracle that occurred at Nicaea in which the Lord caused the canonical books to stay on the table and the apocryphal or spurious ones to be found underneath.
From Pappus’s edition of the Synodicon Vetus, this quotation circulated and was cited (sometimes as coming from Pappus himself, not the Greek manuscript he edited!), and eventually found its way into the work of prominent thinkers such as Voltaire (1694–1778). In volume 3 of his Philosophical Dictionary (English translation here) under “Councils” (sec. I), he writes:
It was by an expedient nearly similar, that the fathers of the same council distinguished the authentic from the apocryphal books of Scripture. Having placed them altogether upon the altar, the apocryphal books fell to the ground of themselves.
A little later in section III, Voltaire adds:
We have already said, that in the supplement to the Council of Nice it is related that the fathers, being much perplexed to find out which were the authentic and which the apocryphal books of the Old and the New Testament, laid them all upon an altar, and the books which they were to reject fell to the ground. What a pity that so fine an ordeal has been lost!
Voltaire earlier mentions that Constantine convened the council. At Nicaea, then, the fathers distinguished the canonical from the apocryphal books by prayer and a miracle. The publication of Pappus’s 1601 edition of Synodicon Vetus—and the subsequent citing of the miracle at Nicaea, especially by Voltaire in his Dictionary—appears to be the reason Dan Brown could narrate the events so colorfully and why many others continue to perpetuate this legend.
Matter of Authority
As our culture becomes increasingly secular, many will continue to cast doubt on the Bible’s origins and especially on early Christianity’s role in the canon’s formation. Although the history of the canon is a bit messy at junctures, there is no evidence it was established by a few Christian bishops and churches convened at Nicaea in 325.
Christians need to prepare their minds for action in this age and confidently assert that the biblical canon is the work of God, recognized by churches over many years’ time. In the vivid words of J. I. Packer, “The church no more gave us [the] canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity.”
Further Reading:
- Ed Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (OUP, 2018).
- F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (IVP, 1988).
- Timothy Paul Jones, How We Got the Bible (Rose Publishing, 2015). Interview with Timothy Paul Jones.
He Will Help You Remember
Greek Manuscripts
English Bible Translations
Rightly Ministering the Means of Grace
Article: More Than a Shibboleth by Nick Batzig – Original source: https://gospelreformation.net/more-than-a-shibboleth/
It has become increasingly common for many pastors in Reformed churches to speak of the importance of an “ordinary means of grace” ministry. Many ministers find it deeply reassuring when they meet other ministers who professes a commitment to the ordinary means of grace. After all, many (perhaps most?) local churches in North America are committed to what we might call, “the extraordinary means of human innovation” ministry. However, is it sufficient to profess adherence to an ordinary means of grace ministry? I would suggest that it is not. While professing a commitment to the God-ordained means of grace is right and good, it is altogether possible for pastors to neglect vital biblical nuances concerning the administration of the ordinary means. It is obligatory for us to be committed to a right administration of the ordinary means of grace, and not simply that we are committed to them. By neglecting to emphasize the right administration of the means of grace, we may allow error to fly under the radar of what becomes a mere Shibboleth.
When addressing the subject of how the ordinary means should be carried out, we do not wish to focus on the forms by which the elements of worship are carried out (e.g., kneeling when praying or stretching out hands when receiving the benediction). Nor do we have the length or structure of a sermon in view. Rather, it refers to the content, context, and connection of the word, sacraments, and prayer.
It is equally possible for ministers to affirm an ordinary means of grace commitment to the sacraments while not carrying them out in accord with Scripture. One can speak of the importance of prayer while being redundant, flippant, or overly ritualistic in public prayer. How we minister the ordinary means of grace is every bit as important as confessing our commitment to them in the context of public worship.
The Word of God
In every church that acknowledges the importance of an ordinary means of grace ministry, there will be ministers who preach and teach the Scriptures. However, it is altogether possible for ministers to affirm the ordinary means of grace with regard to the ministry of the Word of God while misrepresenting the central message of Scripture. All Scripture points to the Person, work, and reward of Christ. The apostle Paul confessed that he determined not to know anything among the churches except Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Whatever subject the apostle Paul addressed, he related it to the death and resurrection of Jesus.
We can inadvertently deny the “gracious” nature of the ordinary means if we fail to proclaim and exalt the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross in our preaching and teaching. It is possible to emphasize the ethical teaching of Jesus in our preaching and teaching, in such a way as to give our hearers the sense that they can do what they are called to do apart from the saving work of Christ. Geerhardus Vos raised this warning over a century ago, when he wrote,
“It is possible, Sabbath after Sabbath and year after year, to preach things of which none can say that they are untrue and none can deny that in their proper place and time they may be important, and yet to forego telling people plainly and to forego giving them the distinct impression that they need forgiveness and salvation from sin through the cross of Christ…. This does not mean that every sermon which we preach must necessarily be what is technically called an evangelistic sermon. There may be frequent occasions when to do that would be out of place and when a discourse on some ethical or apologetic or social topic is distinctly called for. But whatever topic you preach on and whatever text you choose, there ought not to be in your whole repertoire a single sermon in which from beginning to end you do not convey to your hearers the impression that what you want to impart to them, you do not think it possible to impart to them in any other way than as a correlate and consequence of the eternal salvation of their souls through the blood of Christ, because in your own conviction that alone is the remedy which you can honestly offer to a sinful world.”[1]
The right preaching and teaching of God’s Word will keep things in proper biblical perspective. We will employ the requisite exegetical, systematic theology and biblical-theological aspects into our exposition of whatever text we preach. A truly biblical ordinary means of grace ministry will emphasize the right preaching of the Word and not simply that supposed expositions of the Word are preached. The apostle Paul charged Timothy with the following admonition: “devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching . . . . Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress” (1 Tim. 4:15). And, in his second letter to Timothy, Paul wrote, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
The Sacraments
Just as someone can profess an ordinary means of grace ministry while preaching a deficient message, a minister can misrepresent the sacraments in the worship service. This can occur by investing the sacraments with more or less significance than Scripture gives them.
It may be safe to conclude that most churches have improper views of the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace. On the one hand, many churches have too low a view of the Supper. This is demonstrable from the infrequency with which a church partakes, the casualness with which it is observed, and the lack of teaching about it as a means of grace for those who partake of it by faith. In such churches, the practice of fencing the table is frequently neglected. A right administration of the Supper involves a biblical explanation of its meaning, a call for believers to engage in self-examination, and a reminder of the promises and warnings attached to it (1 Cor. 11:17–34). On the other hand, there are churches that place too high a view on the sacrament. I have heard ministers speak of the Supper as the most important element in the worship service. Perhaps driven by overreaction to a downplaying of the importance of the Supper, certain ministers begin to treat the Supper as if it is more important than the ministry of the Word of God. In fact, as a means of grace, the Supper is dependent on the Word—and not vice versa. Vos explained this when he wrote,
“The Word is the beginning, middle, and end. If necessary, we can think of Word as a means of grace without sacrament, but it is impossible to think of sacrament as a means of grace without Word. The sacraments depend on Scripture, and the truth of Scripture speaks in and through them.”[1]
A proper view of the Supper as a means of grace will manifest itself in the centrality of a biblical exposition about its meaning and the right way to approach it. It will highlight the fact that there is real spiritual benefit to partaking of it by faith; and, it will result in a seriousness with which the warnings annexed to it are taught.
Prayer
Prayer is also a means of grace, and, as such, should have a central place in our worship services. Many Christians are unaccustomed to a pastoral prayer in worship. Too many Evangelical churches relegated prayer to a discussion about the role it ought to play in a believer’s personal life. However, in worship services, the briefest, most casual, and hurried prayers are offered. Samuel Miller, the second professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote a book titled, Thoughts on Public Prayer, in order to address the way in which ministers should approach prayer as a means of grace in the context of public worship. Among the numerous practical advice he offered, Miller stated, “Avoid too much rapidity and vehemence.” Miller explained that “words ‘few,’ ‘well considered’ and ‘well ordered,’ are the inspired characteristics of a good prayer.” He went on to note that when men pray too quickly or with too much excitment, it becomes a distraction to those he is trying to lead. Whatever else we may conclude about prayer as a means of grace in worship, of this much we can be sure—it ought to be evident that we are seeking to call the divine blessing down from our Father in heaven. To do anything less is to send a message that we can lay hold of the blessing of the means of grace in our own strength.
In all that we do in ministering the means of grace, we must remember that we are to be seeking the Christ of the means of grace and not the mere external administration of the means of grace. Richard Sibbes put this so well when he wrote,
“If a man trust God in the use of the means, his care will be to keep God his friend by repentance and daily exercises of religion, by making conscience of his duty. But if he trust the means and not God, he will be careless and weak in good duties, dull and slow.”[2]
The heart of Pharisaism was to trust in rituals—even God-ordained, biblical rituals—rather than in the God of the ritual. In one sense, the Pharisees were committed to the ordinary means of the Word of God; however, they perverted the teaching of the Word by denying the Christ of the Word. They were committed to fasting, praying, and giving; however, they did those things with self-righteous hearts and motives. They strictly observed the Passover while rejecting the One who was the true Passover Lamb. May we not fall into a ritualistic, Christless, and imbalanced approaches to the means of grace in our churches. How we minister the means of grace in the context of public worship is more important than simply professing to be “an ordinary means of grace church.” May the ordinary means of grace be more than a Shibboleth to us.
[1] An excerpt from Vos’ sermon “The Gracious Provision,” in Grace and Glory.
[2] Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 2 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet And Co.; W. Robertson, 1862), 283.
Lost Loved Ones & What’s the Point?
What Love Is
“The culture around us has little to no idea about what true love is. In fact, what is often celebrated in our day is the exact opposite of love – a twisted, self focused and ugly thing. This is seen in even the music of our time with the “I love you, I need you, I cannot get along without you” kind of lyrics being all pervasive. Sadly, worldly thinking about love infiltrates the modern Church, but such should never be the case. True love is always other-person focused, and results in activity that with deliberate intention, seeks the good, the nurture and the welfare of another, without consideration for self. This is true in all relationships – in friendships, in marriage and in the church. To say ‘I love my friend.. I love my husband… I love my wife… I love the Church’ but then act in ways that puts the interests of self ahead of what would benefit others, our spouse or the church, is not ‘love’ – in spite of claims to the contrary. Love asks, ‘what could I do that would be the greatest benefit to ___________ (fill in the blank)?’ Love answers the question rightly and then acts in accord with the answer.”
John 3:16 teaches us this: God’s love for the world was demonstrated in the (self-less) giving of His Son, with the purpose being that everyone who believes in Him would in no way perish, but contrary to that, have eternal life.
1 John 4: 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.