Brief Reflections upon Re-reading the Westminster Larger Catechism

I have just recently finished a third reading of this monumental work in the P&R edition with a commentary by Johannes Vos.

What can be said of this work? It is truly a profound and detailed survey of Christian doctrine as well as practice. Once again, I am overwhelmed by the comprehensiveness of the work along with its obvious piety and reverence for our God. This is not to say that I agree without reservation with everything the catechism declares. I disagree with some important doctrinal statements made by the catechism, but I feel that this in no way diminishes the work itself.

On this reading, I have been most profoundly moved by two of its sections in particular: the Ten Commandments and the use of prayer. The section on God’s law (summarized by the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments) begins with question 91 in chapter eleven and ends with question 149 in chapter thirteen. The use of prayer begins with question 178 in chapter seventeen and ends with question 196 of the same chapter.

I won’t address at length why I have been so moved by these two sections. Suffice to say that I have been going through some spiritual trials that seem to hinge on these two issues. In any event, I can’t help thinking how valuable this document is to all believers, especially those of the Reformed persuasion. This I believe because of the comprehensive nature of the Catechism itself but also because of the profound and solidly biblical truth it conveys to our sinful hearts. Indeed, it is precisely because of sin in my life that this past reading has been so powerful and so full of meaning and significance. In the section on God’s law, I saw my image reflected back to me as if in a perfect and flawless mirror and not as if through a glass “darkly” to quote the AV. In the elucidation of God’s law and its requirements, I have come to see with fresh eyes just how poor a sinner I really am and how hopeless it is to assume that my own righteousness can cover my sins and my sin nature. Truly, the Catechism not only shows us the depth of our depravity it also witnesses to our inability to even understand that depravity by ourselves, let alone overcome it. It teaches us that we not only “feel guilty" because of our sin, but that we “are truly guilty" in a very real, objective way before the eyes of God for every infraction we have ever committed or will commit as well as for our very sinful nature, which causes particular sins to manifest.

When I first read this section of the Catechism, I was upset and angry. I felt, and as some have said, that the Catechism was more biblical than the Bible. I was angered by what I thought then was more a Pharisaic approach to true piety and spirituality, than a truly Christian one. I thought the Catechism enumerated and expounded our sinfulness with such over-bearing exactitude that the inevitable conclusion could only be an overwhelming sense of our guilt before a perfectly holy and righteous God. I thought this was unfair and excessive. I've since come to realize that this is exactly what the Catechism meant to do. Using the example of biblical exegesis of Scripture given to us by the Lord in His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapter five, where Christ explains the ramifications of disobedience to the Ten Commandments (especially in the cases of murder and adultery) I have come to see that the Catechism is in no manner exhaustive in its enumeration of our sins but that each example given is merely representative of our true sinfulness.

The Catechism has shown me the error of thinking that my sin is not just as repugnant to God now, even after my salvation, as it was before. Now that I understand the law better and more acutely, my sin increases, it does not diminish! Now, I am in even greater need of a Saviour and Redeemer, but thanks be to God He has provided for my need!


The other section, that on prayer, was instructive for me on a number of levels, but with my most recent reading, the use of prayer for Christian decision-making seems to be in the forefront of my concerns. I've written a similar post (read it here) about this issue before my most recent reading of the Catechism. My position then was that while prayer is extremely important for the believer, and is something (as a means of grace) we cannot do without, it is nevertheless not to be used as a method or means for making decisions. Since re-reading the Catechism, my position has become even more firm. Nowhere in the Catechism is prayer held up as an means for arriving at a God-decreed or ordained decision. The basis for misunderstanding this is the notion that God has a separate or "individual" will for each and every person. I see evidence of this belief all around in what I have personally come to describe as the "New Pietism." This new pietism seeks to establish that because God loves us and cares for us individually, He therefore has a "will" for each of us alone. This is completely unbiblical, and as Friesen and Maxson have proven (conclusively, in my opinion) in their ground-breaking book Decision Making and the Will of God, there is no basis for believing in such a notion.

The Catechism certainly supports my own view. Using the so-called Lord's Prayer as its model, the Catechism explains not only what prayer is to be used for, but also how it is to be used. Of course, all this must be seen in its true relationship to the Bible. The Catechism is a subordinate standard and must never be understood separated from Scripture. To do this is to elevate the Catechism (or any other similar documents) to the same level as the Bible. And to do this is to fall into grave error. There is much about prayer that the Catechism does not address, but it never leaves the reader with false ideas about its subject matter, including prayer.

I will be spending much reflective time chewing over what I've re-learnt from this most recent foray into the Catechism and thank God that, in His wisdom, He has seen fit to provide such a wonderful instruction manual when He had already given us that most perfect and inerrant book, the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Decision-making and the Will of God

(Sorry for the long hiatus between postings. I've had some fairly serious health issues to contend with over the last several months.)

Person:
One (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.

I have been giving a lot of thought of late to the question of decision-making and how that relates to the will of God. In other words, how do we, as Christians, make decisions? Do we make them on our own, without guidance? If so, should we be doing it that way, or should we be actively seeking to know God’s will for us in any given set of circumstances or when conditions arise that force us to make (conscious) choices?

Now, I’m quite engaged with this question as it relates to individuals. But as well, I’m reflecting on whether the same underlying principles affect how corporate bodies make decisions, hence the definition of the word “person” at the beginning of this post. (I understand that this definition may not be very good, but it will serve my purposes for now.)

I’m currently re-reading a book entitled Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen and Robin Maxsen. The main thesis of the book is that the commonly accepted (i. e. traditional) notion that God has a personal or individual will for each person is unbiblical and therefore untrue. The book upholds the theological ideas of God’s sovereign will and His moral will but puts to rest (quite handily, I must admit) the idea that we can discover God’s personal will for each us from various sources (including Scripture).

Before going on, let me give the four foundational principles of what the authors of the book call the way of wisdom:

1. Where God commands, [i.e. in His moral will] we must obey;
2. Where there is no command, God gives us freedom (and responsibility) to choose [i.e. make a decision];
3. Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose;
4. When we have chosen what is moral and wise, we must trust the sovereign God to work out all the details together for good.

(To me, this sounds a lot like the Normative Principle of Worship [NPW] being applied in a broader context than just worship. Unlike the Regulative Principle of Worship [RPW] which really only applies to worship and so has limited application, the NP can seemingly be applied to any number of situations.)

The emphasis of the way of wisdom (outlined in these four points) is on individuals; single unique persons. However, I’m intrigued by the idea that if what the authors say is true (and false) for single unique persons then, given the way that cohesive, consistent, interconnected groups such as Christian congregations behave, perhaps the same could be said for them. In other words, if God sees each and every congregation as a (more or less) holistic entity whose constituent members act (more or less) in concert with one another (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor 12:20, 27; Eph 4:12, 25), should not the same hypothesis be true for them as for a person?

Put another way, if God’s sovereign will applies to individuals, could it not also apply to corporate entities acting in personal ways? Now we know that both God’s sovereign will and His moral will apply right across the board, without exception. A qualifying difference however, is that God’s sovereign will can never be known (except through prophesy) until after it has been accomplished, while God’s moral will has already been revealed in totality by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

Now this is all very well and good but what can we learn about corporate decision-making from all this? Well, maybe nothing if my own hypothesis is wrong and there is no correlation or relationship involved in how individual persons make decisions and how corporate persons such as Christian congregations make them. On the other hand, if there is a kind of correspondence, then this could have important ramifications for group decision-making in congregations.

For instance, if a congregation is faced with the necessity of deciding a course of action and seeks—from the common assumptions, motivations, doubts, fears, confidence, assurance etc. of its constituent members—to know what the personal (corporate) will of God is by various means such as open doors, impressions, prayer, and so on, it will find the process difficult to impossible since there is no actual personal divine will, there is only God’s sovereign will and His moral will. So if the congregation, for instance, engages to know if God wants it to find or build its own building, it will be of no avail to ask God in prayer, “Do you want the [name of congregation] to find a new building or would you have us build one instead?” because this is to presumptuously assume that God will reveal His hidden, sovereign will through a means that runs contrary to His revealed moral will. (While we can ask for anything in prayer that God has indicated by His Word as valid, we are not to ask for anything which runs contrary to His will as it is revealed in and by Scripture.) If the congregation “waits on the Lord” and by this is meant it waits for an “open door” or subjective impressions, or the leading of the Holy Spirit and so on, then perhaps it is waiting in vain. For one thing, such “means” can give us no objective proof that what we are asking for is in fact part of God’s sovereign will (The question itself must be part of this sovereign will, else it would not have been asked in the first place, but the answer to the question will remain a secret until such time as God sees fit to make His will known.)

Now please don’t misunderstand me, I’m simply asking these questions. I’m not trying to defend the position of the authors of this book (although I’m in essential agreement with them). I merely pose the questions because they are of some concern to me right now. I can see the validity of the authors’ argument when applied to individuals. I’m not certain it applies to congregations when the members are acting in concert. Perhaps it does apply, perhaps not.

If it does apply then this should be a huge blessing to congregations in their decision-making which of course all but the most stagnant of congregations must engage in on a regular basis. From my own perspective (Reformed Presbyterian) the decision-making is essentially or largely the responsibility of the ruling Session (pastor and elders together). But again, this is a corporate structure. So even if the decision-making is accomplished by a small number of men acting in concert, all that can really be asked for or expected are qualities such as wisdom, discernment of the truth and perhaps courage to apply the truth once a decision has been arrived at.

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I will however continue to pray that the Session of my own congregation will seek to obtain the wisdom, discernment, courage and—last, but certainly not least—the power, to carry out the right course of action once a decision has been made.

I’ll probably have more to say on this subject when I finish re-reading this book.

Soli Deo Gloria

Some Thoughts on Developing a Christian Worldview

I’ve been doing some thinking about—or rather some reflecting on—just how one develops a worldview. And since my own “coming out” as a Christian almost a decade ago, I now ask myself how my own Christian worldview has developed. What follows are just a few random ideas strung together as a kind of exploration of how I think it has come about in my own case and how it might come about in the case of others.

Firstly, one must take for granted that there is a God and that He is described both in His creation and in the Bible (or rather, He describes Himself, His attributes, His character and His plans and purposes, in the Bible). Eventually, one must come to a settled conclusion about this. I absolutely believe this settled conclusion must admit the following: that God’s existence is self-proving and self-evident. God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge—especially in a Post-Modern, Post-Christian Neo-Pagan, syncretistic society such as ours. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual confusion if not ruin. I can’t stress this point too strongly; read the history of God’s OT people for authentication! A Christian worldview begins and ends with God’s sovereignty, self-existence and self-authentication. To go anywhere else (such as the sciences) to prove the existence of God is to posit a higher authority than God and so is self-defeating.

In view of what we have just said, the obvious must also be true and fundamental, that God’s revelation of Himself can only be understood by us through our faith and faith alone. We do not believe in God because we can prove He exists. We prove He exists (apologetics) because we believe He does (exist).

Secondly, one must be grounded in God’s Word. And by that I mean the Bible, pure and simple. This second point is really just an extension of the first point: if God is sovereign, then so must be His Word. This is so because there can be no difference between God's truth and His being. God's truth can only be an expression of who God truly and surely is. Therefore the Bible is, like God Himself, self-authenticating and self-confirming. There is no other standard by or to which it may be compared or confirmed. Yet some argue that there is much in the Bible that is difficult to understand or that flies in the face of reality (usually as defined by modern science). But any parts of the Bible which we as individuals are unable to understand or that seem to be contradictory or impossible are simply parts that have not been revealed to us either because of our own ignorance and sin or because the sovereign God has, for His own inscrutable reasons, willed not to reveal those parts to us until such a time as He sees fit. For instance, many people today cannot come to accept many of the miracles of God described in the Bible. One example that comes to mind is the turning back of the shadow on the stairs in King Hezekiah's palace (2 Kings 20:9-11) which modern people consider to be impossible because it contravenes several physical laws of the universe. Yet Christians must see the turning back of the shadow as a thing perfectly possible for a sovereign God, whether we completely understand it or not. And why should we expect to understand everything there is to know about this sovereign God? If we understood everything about Him, we would be standing in His place: exactly the sin of Lucifer, who wanted to take the place of God in His arrogance and pride!

Yet even if we seek to confirm the Bible by physics, archaeology, history or the like, we are in effect admitting there is a secondary source of information which is equal to, on a par with, the Bible itself. Even though we use such "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible, in doing so, we are acknowledging that the Bible is not supreme in its self-revelation and that another source is just as important as the Bible. This is in effect to destroy the supremacy of the Bible or at least to cast doubt upon the truthfulness of its revelation. No, either we believe in the ultimate authority and sufficiency of the Bible or we do not. There is no middle ground! It is either sola Scriptura or it is nothing.

But don’t get hung up on which is the “right” version of the Bible at this point. (However, please take my advice on this and stick to essentially word-for-word translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), or even the King James Version (KJV, AV). The Bible is just what it purports to be—God’s Word. And it is a living Word, not dead. If God lives eternally, then so must His Word, which is a reflection of God’s very being. The Bible must become our own personal living word, relevant for our every need. Saturate yourself with it. But here it is wise to proceed with some caution. How are we to interpret God's Word and so understand it rightly? Is it up to each individual, unassisted, to determine for him or herself what is the truth of Scripture alone? This could easily lead to what one writer has called Solo Scriptura which is a private interpretation. For more on this please read this article (and read the third set of comments next).

Thirdly, read Christian historical documents and creeds (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith for instance) as well as a good history of the Church.

Fourthly, read from the related works and classics from men such as Josephus and Philo. The works of these men are largely contemporaneous with the NT accounts and letters and will tend to confirm what the Bible states as fact (yet be cautioned by our previous remarks regarding biblical authority and sufficiency).

Fifthly, read various theologians and their works of Systematic Theology. I recommend the works of such men (in no particular order of precedence or importance) as John Calvin, especially his “Institutes” and other Reformers, John Murray, the Hodges, Robert Reymond, Bruce Demerest, DA Carson, the Puritans, Thomas Boston, J. Greshem Machen, Wayne Grudem, JM Boice and so on. This is just a small taste of the riches that await.

Sixthly, begin to study philosophy and logic. These disciplines will teach you how to think critically so as not to be easily influenced or persuaded by competing ideas.

Seventhly, learn Greek and Hebrew so that you can read the Bible in the original languages.

And lastly: associate with godly people. Take fellowship with those who are also Christian and with whom you can explore your Christian values and ideas in an atmosphere of understanding, support and encouragement. At the same time avoid religious or theological discussions with those who are not equal to the task or who, worse, are not even Christian. To do this is to invite syncretism into your life and to potentially create confusion and uncertainty which are the two qualities you are trying to eradicate in the first place.

In this regard, imperative to keep in mind are the words of the apostle Paul: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).

If you are diligent in your pursuit, these several starting tips should serve you well.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Love of the World?

I’ve recently been meditating on 1 John2:15-16 in the context of how Christians should “be” in the world. This is partly due to the sermon preached for my little congregation last Lord’s Day.

As I meditated on God’s Word I observed that while we must live disciplined lives, repudiating what we know to be wrong and living out what we know to be right, we must also walk with caution between the Law and Grace. I think that we must be prudent in what we consider evil and worthy of rejection and what is in fact good and a blessing for us as we sojourn through this essentially foreign land we call earth or the world.

In the verses from 1 John 2, it is easy to hear that we must reject the world—indeed isn’t that what John forthrightly tells us: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world” (1 John 15a)? So far, no problem. But here we must be careful to understand what exactly John is referring to when he speaks of the world. So we read in verse 16 that by “the world” (or more exactly the "things of the world") John really means or intends certain characteristics: the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. These are the things we must be on guard against, not the world as part of God’s creation, fallen though it certainly is.

This “love of the world” we must reject or wake up to is illustrated well by the reaction of those neighbours and other contemporaries of Noah after he had been instructed by God that the earth—the world—was about to be destroyed by a flood (Gen. 6:13). We read in Matthew, “in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away” (Matt. 24:38-39). Now “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” are not in themselves sinful and do not act as examples of the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. It was the unthinking reaction to Noah and the looming reality of which he was the herald that illustrates the attitude of those who love the world. The description of Noah’s friends and contemporaries illustrates a kind of dependant stupor. They were oblivious—they “did not understand”—what was about to befall them or the reasons for it. It illustrates the need for a shift in one’s conscious awareness, a paradigm shift of extreme magnitude. The friends of Noah were on "auto-pilot" and could not understand that they needed an "attitude adjustment."

And it is here we must tread lightly. Too often it is the world as such—that is, the physical, tangible, and touchable created place we call the earth or the world—that we are warned against as being evil and worthy of rejection, rather than those qualities found within it as a result of Adam’s sin and subsequent fall and the cursing of the earth/world by God as a penalty for such disobedience. It is easy to think that we must employ our powers of discipline to reject the world—and many of the pleasures it yet affords—in order to be “good” Christians. One problem with this is that if we are not more critical in our thinking, we could easily be slipping into a quasi-Gnostic dichotomy of “physical equals evil; spiritual equals good.” Therein lies the real danger. The earth (and our physical bodies which are part and parcel of the earth) has been given to us as the venue in which we are to work out our salvation (with fear and trembling, knowing the dangers) and so we must be ever mindful of the implications of this fact. God did not remove His people from the earth or her temptations, rather He has put us here and has purposefully left us here so that through being in the world, we may, following in Christ (John 17:13-19), overcome it for our good. That we are to be in this world is God's will for us. To reject wholesale the world He has given for our sanctification is to reject His will and good purpose for His sons and daughters.

The world, we must always remember, was created by God. It was created “good, very good.” And while it has been cursed as a result of sin, it is nevertheless the world created by God and will be the only world until after the Judgment and the emergence of the new (Rev. 21).

To reject the world as such is a mistake for it is not itself evil and we are still blessed by God as an aspect of common grace (Ecc. 5:18; Matt. 5:45) but it is rather the heart of each and every person who has not understood the Fundamental Reality behind all appearances that is the real problem and from it proceed all the evils we must be on guard against.

Soli Deo Gloria.

The Self-Revelation of God

Recuperating as I am from another physical ailment (sigh), I’ve been doing a lot of reading of late. Most recently has been Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology, chapter six, p. 129, in which he discusses the various approaches apologists (Turretin, Hodge, Dabney and Berkhof et. al) have used to prove the existence of God; and how he considers all of them “unsound”, or at least incomplete and ultimately incapable of proof. Instead he says that evidence for God’s existence is self-proving and self-evident, (although obviously not to everyone). I concur.

I bring this up now, after reading a story from the TimesOnline regarding the latest heretical ideas exploding from the apostate minds of many from within Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.

It would seem from the article that the core problem facing Anglicanism is in fact the willful refusal of these people to accept the entire Bible as the Revealed Word of God (and as argued, for instance by men such as Reymond, not to mention the Apostle Paul, of course).

I’m not going to enter the fray as I am too far removed from the dialogue to add anything of importance or relevance. However, I use this article to add my own voice to support the traditional, Reformed view that God is self-existent, self-disclosing and self-revelatory.

God cannot be “proven” by recourse to any other authority but Himself alone. This is huge--especially in a Post-Modern, Post--Christian society. To deviate from this position is, inevitably, to lead to spiritual ruin (as is obvious to me in the case of the current state of the Anglican Communion in the west.) Remember, the watchword of the Reformation was—and still is—Sola Scriptura.

It seems that the defining issue facing the Anglican Communion is homosexuality, or more comprehensively, liberalism and the Normative Principle of Worship (NPR) as opposed to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) of the Reformed tradition. Satan says, using the liberal branch (the apostate church) and the words of the Bishop of Armagh,

“Let us be clear on this. It has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural. If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church….It would be very strange if, with the same level of information about issues to do with homosexuality, we were not to incorporate that into our understanding of creation itself.”

This from the good bishop in spite of God's warning in Matthew that ""It is written, `MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD' " (Matt. 4:4).

In his world-view, the Bishop merely validates Paul’s analysis of the fallen human condition in Romans, chapters 1-3, which essentially describes the entire, complete and abiding condition of unregenerate humanity.

I cannot add anything to this argument which would not simply be comments on stupidity. Enough stupidity (and apostasy) has been expressed by Bishop Harper and his ilk within the Anglican Communion. To say more would be merely to guild the lily. Read what Bishop Harper has to say and decide for yourself.

Soli Deo Gloria.

This Pastor Has Guts

As I spend time recuperating from yet another health issue, I recieved the following as a circular letter from a relative and brother in Christ. It seems prayer still upsets some people. Please read....

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the newSession of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they heard:

"Heavenly Father, We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good' but that is exactly what we have done.

"We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

"We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

"We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech and expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

"Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Amen!"

Soli Deo Gloria

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Doing the Will of God

Recently, I have been thinking more about the Holy Spirit. In two earlier posts (January 15, 2008 and January 21, 2008) I wrote of the Holy Spirit and His role in the Church. These posts were concerned with identifying the activities of the Spirit in the Church and specifically His manifestation within congregations and in the individual lives of believers. In the posts I argued that if we indeed, as Christ’s Church and as individual believers, truly do have the indwelling Holy Spirit, there should be tangible evidence to that effect. I also argued that if there is an obvious lack of His presence, then it is not because He has been withheld or withdrawn from the Church but rather that we, in some way, have rejected Him. I still maintain this belief.
However, this post is concerned with something slightly different. It is more concerned with the relationship of prayer, the Spirit and the revealed will of God: prayer without the Spirit is useless for the furtherance of the will of God, since the will of God is not to be discovered through prayer but through the serious study of and obedience to the Word of God which is a complete and sufficient expression of God’s will for His people, both collectively and personally.

But first, we should know how we are to pray. What are some marks that characterize Godly prayer?

We are to pray with humility in ourselves (James 4:6, 10; 1 Peter 5:5) but with boldness in Christ (John 15:7; Heb.4:15-16). We are to pray trusting that our prayers are heard, and not with a doubting attitude (Matt. 21:22; Mark 11:24; James 1:5-8; 5:14-15). We are to pray in the name of—or by the authority of—Jesus Christ (1 John 5:14-15) and by the efforts of the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), not by our own efforts. Therefore, if we are grieving the Spirit (Eph 4:30) or quenching him, we can be assured our prayers will be of less or no effect. (See also Romans 8:26-27; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; others: Rev. 1:10; Luke 10:21; Acts 19:21; Rom. 9:1; Eph. 2:18; Col. 1:8.)

In the fourth volume of his expositional commentary on the Gospel of John (BakerBooks, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 1,312) James Montgomery Boice has this to say about the Holy Spirit and prayer (in the context of living a holy life or the experience of sanctification):

“A …way in which we will not find holiness is through prayer or still less, through prayer meetings. Prayer is important, and the Christian who is growing in the Christian life will inevitably find that times of prayer, both public and private, are increasingly precious to him or her. But however valuable prayer is, it is not the God-ordained means for growth in holiness. Prayer is preparation for such growth. But at what point in prayer does God actually speak to us and direct us in the way we should go? It is only when God the Holy Spirit brings the words of Scripture to our minds or directs us to the Bible for the direction we need. Apart from this corresponding reflection on the Word of God prayer is merely a monologue. As such, it may relieve our personal anxieties, but it does not provide direction. On the contrary, when we study the Word and pray over it, God leads us clearly and keeps us from the suggestions of Satan or the kinds of autosuggestion (or wish fulfillment) that all too frequently pass for divine guidance in the lives of some Christians” (emphasis added).

From a slightly different perspective, Ray Stedman has written:

“… the brutal fact is that, though every true Christian has the Spirit of Truth, thousands walk in darkness and understand no more about themselves than the most blind pagan around. Though we have the Spirit available to us, we are as deluded and as blinded as any worldling living next door. Though we have the potential he does not have, we are not getting into it. We may be Bible-taught, but we are not Spirit-taught. Why not? Because Jesus says "... he dwells with you, and he will be in you," and there is a vital distinction there.

“Now, please don't nail me to the mast for heresy. I know as well as you do that every believer, when he receives Jesus Christ, receives the indwelling Spirit of God; that He is in us from the beginning. We do not need later to pray for his coming. He is there right from the start. Historically, it was true that these disciples were not to receive the indwelling of the Spirit until the Day of Pentecost. He dwelt with them before but he was to be in them on the Day of Pentecost. But, having said all that, it is still true that, positionally, though the Spirit of God is dwelling in you, as far as you are concerned, experientially, it is as though he only dwelt with you. You are not laying hold of his indwelling life, and for all practical purposes he is not there, he is only with you.

“This is the explanation for the prevailing weakness in Christian living.

“The other night at our Board of Elders meeting we were wrestling with this problem. We were asking ourselves this question, "Why is it that though truth seems to be poured out continually in this place, through our teachers, in the pulpit and in so many ways, yet in many of our peoples' lives there is such a superficial shallowness? There is so little reflection of the truth our ears are hearing. Why is this? How is it that Christians can know so much and experience so little?" We were wrestling with this problem. I commented how disturbing it is to sit down with a group of people and mention some great promise of Scripture or Christian life that ought to be ours and to have everybody nod their head in agreement with it, and then to see the look of shock come into their eyes when you propose some action on it. They look amazed that you intend to take these words seriously, and act on them. As we talked about this, one of the young men who was with us said a very helpful and insightful thing. He said, "You know, I think I know what it is. I have found it in my own life. When I simply give up arguing back, and start obeying the Lord, I discover all these things begin to work. In my experience I have discovered it is possible to have God at arm's length, dwelling with me. And when he is out there, nothing works; but when I yield to his sovereign direction in my life, and I begin to act on what he says, then he is in me and things begin to happen." He put his finger right on the point. This is what Jesus says.

‘In you’ means that you are under the control of the Holy Spirit, and yielding obedience to his totalitarian sovereignty. It means the total collapse of all your rebellion against him.

‘Oh,’ you say, ‘I'm not in rebellion against the Spirit of God. Why, I'm a Christian. I don't rebel against him.’

“Let me ask you: ‘What kind of life are you living? Is it God-centered, or is it self-centered? Is it to please yourself that your activities are done and your desires aimed?’ Then you are in rebellion against the Spirit of God, and to have him dwelling in you means the total collapse of all that revolt until you are saying, ‘Lord Jesus, whatever you say, your word is my command. I am ready to obey.’

“It is not our relationship with Jesus Christ which counts before the world; it is our resemblance to him.”
(From The Holy Spirit and Prayer, an online Bible Study, emphasis added.)

Basically, Stedman says here what I have tried to say in my previous posts: the promises of the Spirit must be appropriated by us. If we grieve or quench the Spirit—the Spirit of Truth—by our disobedience and lack of trust, then we cannot legitimately expect to be blessed by Him. This holds true in all areas of our lives affected by Him, including our prayer life.

I believe both men are saying a similar thing from slightly different positions. The main point is, I think, that prayer is simply ineffective as a means for discovering God’s will (1 John 5:14-15) and that if we wish to know God’s will in order that we might be obedient to it, we must know God’s Word, for it is in His Word that God reveals His will.

(It is interesting to note, in this respect, how it is mentioned in the OT that it was the discovery of the Book of the law and the reading of it that God’s OT people discovered the deep error in which they lived and the kinds of conditions God had set out for their blessing. It always was a shock for them upon reading from the Book, just how fallen and sinful they had become. A good example of this is the discovery and the reading of Scripture as described in 2 Kings 22:8-13.)

So prayer is not given to us to determine God’s will. God’s sovereign will is hidden from us until after it has been worked out in temporal and spatial terms (Deut 29:29). God has given us the Canon of Scripture for us to determine His will. If we cannot determine what God’s will for us is by consulting Scripture, it means that we have the freedom to make choices as we see fit, dependant on our level of knowledge, wisdom, circumstance and experience. Everything we need to know about God and His will is evident in Scripture. To use prayer as a means for establishing just what His personal will is for use in any set of circumstances is an act of mistrust.

So then, prayer is not to be used as an excuse for not appropriating the promises God has made to us through faithful and trusting obedience. It is through just such obedience that the promises of God are made manifest as such in our lives. This is the obvious thrust of the OT passages of cursing and blessing, in which God specifies “if you do this, I will bless you. If you do that, I will curse you” (Deut. 30:15-20 for example).

(Sidebar: In this passage, God says do this that I "may bless" you. The use of the word "may" indicates that the required behaviour is in keeping with and is a reflection of God’s holy character and can therefore be a blessing. That is, God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing when the attitudes and behaviour of His people are in accord with His own character and nature. This of course is in no way to deny God’s covenantal graciousness in blessing His people in spite of the fact that they almost never were sincere in their efforts to be like Him.)

Now we are called to pray “in the Spirit” (Eph. 6:18) and we know that the Spirit helps us in our praying (Rom. 8:26). But if we are not obedient to the will of God, doing those things that He has clearly called us—as Christians—to do, what kind of prayer life should we expect to have? If, as Stedman describes, we merely have the Holy Spirit with us —experientially, not positionally—instead of in us experientially, can we live holy lives that are pleasing to God? I think not. It is not enough to simply pray. The Christian life is an active life of obedience to the revealed will of God. We must do. We must act. We must not be afraid. We must appropriate the promises and blessings of God by undertaking to do them.

When we have grieved the Holy Spirit, He must, by His very nature, remove himself from us in an opposite manner to the one of God being able to bless us, described in the sidebar paragraph noted above. When we, experientially, are in accord with the providential and revealed will of God, then as said above “God is almost forced by the constraints of His own holy and just character to give blessing.” But if we are not in accord—through the inner blessing of the Holy Spirit of Christ—with God’s will then how can we expect to have any of our prayers answered.

When we pray, our prayer is effective to the degree we pray in the authority of Christ (in His name) and in the power of the indwelling Spirit: “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:14), “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13), "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17), “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Let us go down on our knees in humble submission to God and be bold then, doubting nothing, going to Him in prayer to adore and praise Him, to seek His forgiveness for our sin, to offer up our heart-felt thanksgiving for all His blessings, to make our own petitions and to intercede on behalf of those whom we know are in need of His loving-kindness. But let us also be quick to then rise up, gird our loins and to undertake the task of obeying our God through obedience to His Word in the power and courage of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Thoughts on Obedience and Discipline

On July 10, 2007, I wrote an article on sharing one another’s burdens within the context of the Church. In the article, I tried to make it clear that obedience and discipline were needful, not because of church rules, bylaws, regulations, traditions and such like, but rather because according to the Bible, we are our own mutual support system: we belong one to another.

Recently, this issue has come up again with even greater force and this time has it has caused me to reflect more on the “discipline” aspect rather than on sharing burdens. At the outset, let me clarify that I am in no way a disciplinarian. I believe that discipline, when it becomes necessary, already is an indicator of failure; that something has gone seriously out of whack and should not have gotten to the point where discipline must be considered a solution. It may mean that the congregation has fallen down on its duty (and privilege) to support and assist an offending brother or sister or it could be that the unrepentant nature of the offender has made discipline the only option. But discipline, in my view, is always an indicator of a situation that has been allowed to grow and fester to the point where encouragement, gentle admonishment and even mild rebuke are no longer effective, as they should be.

Having said all that, I also believe that when discipline becomes necessary, it should be appropriate, just, decisive and swift.

Discipline is administered for three basic reasons: to restore the wayward offender; to prevent the sin/s from infecting others in the congregation; and to protect the purity of the Church and the honour of Christ. It should never be administered as punishment or as a response for anger or resentment caused by the offending person.

Restoration and Reconciliation
Since sin always causes division and strife within the congregation, it tends to destroy fellowship among believers. Without fellowship, reconciliation becomes virtually impossible. Consequently, a primary purpose of church discipline is to restore the offender to right behaviour (if not right attitudes) and to reconcile him with his brothers and sisters so that fellowship may again flourish. Often, it is only necessary for one person to discuss the matter with the offending party. If the situation is still in its infancy, it is relatively easy to show the offender the error of his ways and so restore a right relationship. (This is not usually possible in the case of egregious sin such as self-chosen adultery.) However, if brothers and sisters are not quick to see and evaluate the problem, there is a good chance it will grow to the point where discipline is required. This is one reason why our intersessory prayers for one another are so important. With prayer and loving, tangible concern, it is often the case that an erring brother or sister can be reconciled and restored. However, I must stress the tangible concern aspect. As James reminds us in a slightly different context, “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (James 2:15-17). Surely the same principle holds true for a brother’s suffering because of his sin as from a lack of food. And if this is so, then we are under the same constraints to do him well, not only through prayer, but through action motivated by love, working through faith.

Sinful Infection
“You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst….Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened” (1 Cor. 5:2, 6-7b).

There are two aspects to the prevention of sinful infection that need to be considered. First, there is the possibility that as a result of complacency or apathy within the congregation, the same sin affecting the original party, could, if left unchecked, infect others within the congregation causing them to sin in a similar fashion or degree, leading to a kind of tacit group approval to the sin and the consequent effects that grow from it. This often leads to an entrenched assumption that the original sin was not really so bad and that perhaps we (as a congregation) should just turn a blind eye to it and pretend that everything is alright and that we really are a biblically faithful church after all. This is terribly destructive and it is through such inaction caused by fear and apathy that Satan gets a firm grip on a group of believers, sowing discord and anger as he goes.

Purity and Honour
Even though we are fallen sinners and are not free of sin’s terrible effects, we must, as born-again believers and the people of God’s covenant, strive to bring honour and glory to Christ, and therefore to his Church. We do this through our praise and worship of Him, but we also do it through the protection of right doctrine and biblically warranted practice. When a so-called believer persists in evident sin, even to unbelievers, this brings dishonour to Christ. Did not Paul say, “…just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5: 25-27, emphasis added).

Christ did not die as a penal substitute upon the cross so that His Church could ignore His sacrifice for her and so defile this supreme act of compassion and love. He is the head of the Church, and her character reflects upon His character and reputation. How often has God chastised His people—the Church—for bringing dishonour to Him, “They will eat, but not have enough; They will play the harlot, but not increase, Because they have stopped giving heed to the LORD” (Hosea 4:10). Any congregation that is wayward in her duty to discipline an obviously erring brother or sister is inviting judgement and is as guilty of defaming Christ and His gospel as is the offending member.

Christ’s Church does not have choice of never using discipline. She must always be ready to administer discipline for her own self-preservation for if she is unable or unwilling to do so at need, she is guilty of watering down her standards, those standards which are her portion and inheritance from Christ and the Holy Spirit, who is the true author of the same scriptural standards (2 Tim 3:16). This has largely been the case with the Church in the modern west. As we get farther away from our belief in absolute standards, we automatically lose the courage and conviction to uphold those same standards. Before you know it, the congregation has become infected with worldliness and has lost her authority. How can anyone believe that such a state of affairs is honouring to God?

But what sin merits discipline? Basically, any sin, once outwardly or publicly known, merits the exercise of discipline to one degree or another because Christ has been dishonoured in the sin or in the complacency of the congregation in not dealing with it decisively (and perhaps courageously). In biblical churches, it is the responsibility of the elders to actually carry out the discipline. If they are not willing to do so, they become part of the problem and are then as guilty of dishonouring Christ’s name and reputation as the sinning member and themselves will become answerable (1 Tim. 5:19-21).

So may we allow for evident sin to flourish within our congregations? Absolutely not! It is our duty and privilege to uphold those standards of righteousness that have been given to us in the Church in order that we may bring honour and glory to Him who died on our behalf, so that we might be presented to Him without blemish or spot. Therefore “let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19:7).

Soli Deo Gloria

The Christian Hope.

The Basic Problem: God’s Standard of Righteousness (The Bad News)
“… the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…. “The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one” (Gen. 6:5; Psalm 14:2-3).

The Only Solution: Jesus Christ (The Good News)
[But] God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:16-17).

These are the extreme truths that make up the essence of Christian faith and hope. These are foundational truths that in themselves contain so much more, yet without these two extremes there can never be any real hope in life or after death.

And this is why HOPE is so important, because the hope we possess is not our own, nor is it dependant upon circumstances or conditions. We don’t depend on our own hope because we know that in ourselves we are completely incapable of changing anything; that we are in fact the problem and can never be, unassisted, part of the solution. We have no merit whatsoever in order to do good or become righteous. There is nothing in us that can guarantee even any reason to hope, let alone give us the assurance of hope.

Nor do we hope in circumstances, for we know that nothing in the world is certain; nothing unchangeable. In the world, all is nothing but shifting sand or chaff in the wind. Rather, our hope is founded upon the God of creation, Who is ever faithful and unchanging, and upon His inerrant Word. Because He is who He is and has accomplished everything necessary to guarantee our fulfillment in Him, we therefore are able to hope, knowing that with God nothing is impossible. The Bible says again “By grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, so that no one may boast.” It is the unmerited favour of God which is grace, received by us through our faith in Christ, that makes our hope possible. Christ and Christ alone is the ground and reason for our hope, and our hope is certain and sure and not merely a desperate wish for something better, because it is grounded in a faithful God who loves us and who has given us His very own Son as surety of the promise of our salvation.

If you are reading these words but have not yet surrendered yourself to Christ as your only and fully-sufficient saviour, you have no part in hope. Your lot is rather one of increasing despair and hopelessness. The best you can ever expect is wishing for something better. True Christian hope, which is not wishful but certain and trustworthy, will ever be beyond your reach. The only answer is clear and evident. God is confronting you even now, to give yourself to Him. Do not hold back, you have nothing to lose but your eternal salvation!

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.

Soli Deo Gloria

Earth, Our Home?

An issue that keeps coming back to irritate me like the proverbial “bad penny” is the notion that earth is our home.

Now this is of course a pagan notion. Non-Christians (including the Jewish people) have basically always believed this assumption (but ironically have rarely acted accordingly). Christians on the other hand, have been taught by the Bible that the earth is not their home. In 1 Peter 2:11 we are called “strangers and pilgrims” (AV); “aliens and strangers” (NASB); “sojourners and pilgrims” (NKJV). We are—that is God’s elect—told that the Kingdom for which we long and which has been promised us, is not of this world (John 18:36).

To care for the world as it is is not of primary concern—or at least should not be—for the Christian. This, of course, is an idea that runs completely counter to the prevailing non-Christian world view, but so it is.

Another related idea that runs against the underlying beliefs of the “green generation” is the idea of the creation ordinance of dominance. We are told in the bible to dominate the life around us in the world (Gen. 1:26-28 for instance). And the Hebrew words used for dominance make it very plain what is intended (subjugate, rule, tread down, make subservient, bring into bondage). There is no idea of a coddling stewardship here. Why? Because this earth was never intended by God as our final home! We have a new earth and a new City to look forward to. We have no interest in the current earth. Our home awaits us yet.

Does this give us a licence to flagrantly mistreat this earth? I would say no, but nevertheless we must guard ourselves against a maudlin attachment to this world, with the false notion that the earth itself constitutes our salvation and reward, instead of an all-sufficient Saviour, in Whom we must put our entire hope and faith.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Lie and The Truth!

This post is about the lie that the world and the devil use to lull people into spiritual somnambulance. Words from me cannot do justice. Here is what God Himself says:

Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams," says the LORD, "and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all," says the LORD.

Wake up! Pay attention! The truth confronts you!

(The first clip is from the site "A little Leaven", the second is doing the rounds on YouTube.)

Decide for yourself!



This is also what God has to say in His inerrant Word:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ....In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.



God Help you!

Thoughts on the "Social Gospel."

This is just going to be a short rant on the pejorative and thoughtless use of the term “social gospel.”

It is common among fundamentalists of today to use this term in ways which denigrate, in a passive/aggressive sort of way, all those for whom the betterment of society, the help of the downtrodden poor and generally the alleviation of unnecessary suffering or hardships are valid—albeit partial—expressions of their Christianity. This is unfortunate and, in my view, dishonouring to Christ.

The common response of these people is to create a “package” through an arbitrary and false dialectic of “either/or” which in turn allows him or her to isolate the whole idea, to allow him or her to begin applying hedges, warnings, restrictions and eventually prohibitions against what has come to be seen as something illegitimate and impure, “not the Gospel.”

But of course this process of isolation is only partially based in reality or the Bible. A case in point is the reliance on such verses as Deut. 15:11a “For the poor will never cease to be in the land;” and which Christ referred to in Matt. 26:11: The—false—sentiment behind these verses can only be maintained by reading such verses, and others like them, out of context and in so doing are to deny many other verses such as: Deut 15:7; 1 Sam. 2:7-8; Job 29:12; Psalm 72:13; Prov. 22:22; Matt. 19:21; Luke 18:22 (chosen almost at random!) that clearly indicate God’s greater and overarching concerns for the poor and the needy.

In fact, in order to maintain this dichotomous belief, one has to ignore entire sections of the Bible altogether, in both Testaments, but especially in the Gospels, Acts and one or two of the apostolic letters. (I’m thinking of the obvious passages such as Matthew 22, 25 and Luke 14 as well as others.)

To imply that a “social gospel” even exists is downright dishonest. The only ones who would be willing to defend such an idea are those for whom the complete and finished work of Christ has not been accomplished (i.e. liberals). There is only the Gospel. There is no “other Gospel” with which it must compete. The choice of the “true gospel” over against the “social gospel” is not—however much the fundamentalists among us would like to have it—an “either/or” choice. It has been presented to us that way of course, in an attempt to keep people from realizing the falseness of the whole idea. It is subterfuge, pure and simple. The choice is and always was a “both/and” choice. The Gospel is a call to fallen sinners to repent and believe in God’s one and only Son for salvation from the guilt and dominion of sin and from eternal destruction. There is no other Gospel. But this gospel is based on love; love for God and love for others. This fact simply cannot be denied by anyone claiming to be a Christian. The gospel includes a compassionate response from disciples of Christ even as He taught and exemplified. God’s loving-kindness for the suffering and ill-treated is evident in page after page of the Bible; God’s love of justice and fair-dealing is everywhere expressed. It seems to me that those who call themselves “Christian” cannot turn away from these truths without turning away from their Lord and King for whom these truths were self-evident.

Those among us in the Reformed tradition who tend towards the view that there are two competing gospels: the one “true gospel” and the other “social—read false—gospel” at the same time pride themselves on being the inheritors of the Reformation itself and those lofty ideas, doctrines and principles rediscovered in the Bible by men such as Zwingli, Beza, Bucer, Knox, Calvin and Luther and wrested from the grasping hands of those who had either forgotten or who deliberately chose to ignore those very things in favour of dark superstition, oppressive social and political control of the people or conversely a new humanism that would place man at the very centre of the universe.

But these same people forget their own history, or have never bothered to learn it. They forget, for instance that when John Calvin came to Geneva, that city was a cesspool of immorality and suffering and that it was largely his biblically-based program of social reform that made the city a silk purse out of what had hitherto been a sow’s ear.

Wherever the Protestant Reformation took hold, conditions of average people improved dramatically. To assume that a significant part of the “success” of the Reformation, and the spread of the Gospel was not due to social change brought about through various means (including a bent for republican democracy, universal education and social welfare for the disenfranchised) is simply to ignore history (and we all know what happens to those who ignore history).

Nor is this truth is not confined to the Reformation. Throughout the history of the Christian church during revival after revival, the spread of the Gospel and the improvement of average living conditions has gone hand in hand. I think now of the labours of such Christian men (some Calvinists, some not) as Samuel Rutherford, William Wilberforce, John Newton, George Whitefield, the Wesleys and so on. Again, to deny this simple fact is to deny the truth and to grieve the Holy Spirit as well, who was and is the actual agent of such change.

So let us hear no more charges against the “social gospel.” In fact, let the term drop from our vocabulary. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).

Soli Deo Gloria.

Experimentum!

In several posts over the last little while, I’ve been exploring ideas that for me are not settled or necessarily resolved once and for all. One of these ideas is the relationship that exists between the Testaments; that is, the idea of continuity verses discontinuity between them. I’ve even said that I’m flirting with New Covenant Theology (partly as a response to my examination of the testaments).

I’m afraid that in this I have been saying things that have concerned many people whom I love and respect. Rest assured brothers and sisters, I have not lost my moorings! This morning I came across an article written by Joel Beeke that actually explains what some of my underlying assumptions are, first and foremost as a Christian. I’d like to reproduce one paragraph from the article as a kind of creedal statement, if you will allow me the use of such language. It is my belief that these words should be true for every Christian but sadly are not. I believe that the Bereans, for instance, were representative of the attitude of Christian Experience and as such are modals to be emulated.

“Christian Experience. Calvin used experiential (experientia) and experimental (experimentum) interchangeably, since, from the perspective of biblical preaching, both words indicate the need for examining or testing experienced knowledge by the touchstone of Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). Experimental preaching stresses the need to know by experience the truths of the Word of God. It seeks to explain in terms of biblical truth, how matters ought to go, and how they do go, in the Christian life. It aims to apply divine truth to the whole range of the believer's experience: in his walk with God as well as his relationship with family, the church, and the world around him. We can learn much from the Puritans about this type of preaching. As Paul Helm writes: ‘The situation calls for preaching that will cover the full range of Christian experience, and a developed experimental theology. The preaching must give guidance and instruction to Christians in terms of their actual experience. It must not deal in unrealities or treat congregations as if they lived in a different century or in wholly different circumstances. This involves taking the full measure of our modern situation and entering with full sympathy into the actual experiences, the hopes and fears, of Christian people’”.

Mr. Beeke’s article is really focused on experimental preaching. But surely there is a direct connection between the experimental preaching of God’s Word and the experimental (or experiential) living out of it in the day-to-day life of every Christian. Well, that’s my belief at any rate. If all that is said and written about amounts to nothing more than words on paper or blog postings (this in reference to a recent valuable exchange of thoughts and comments over at the blogsite of friend Mark Jones at Thomas Goodwin) then I for one can do without it all as it won't help me to be salt and light as I am called to be and told that I am! The Christian life is an experienced life or else it is useless! Let's spend more time in the Word and prayer and less time worrying about whether so and so is an antinomian or worse.

As usual, your thoughts are always welcome.

Soli Deo Gloria.

An All-Sufficient Saviour?

In talking with many Christians today, I’m becoming increasingly alarmed at how a critical understanding seems to be lacking in the life of these Christians: Christ as an all sufficient saviour.

It seems to many that we have a Jesus who can save our souls but not our minds. He can enable us to be “spiritual” without enabling us to overcome physical affliction in this life. Is that all it means to be Christian? If it does then we’re no better off than anyone else, and for us Jesus is not an all-sufficient saviour!

What does it really mean to “believe in Jesus” and to call Him “Lord and Saviour?”

James Boice has an interesting discussion in the second volume of his commentary on the Gospel of John [The Gospel of John, Volume 2, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1999]. In it he discusses the issue in terms of the “bread of life” passage of Christ in John 6:48-59. The main thrust of his two chapters is that of “eating.” In a nutshell the point Boice makes is that believing in Christ is the same as “eating” Him; it means to feed upon Him. But this in turn is a mysterious concept. How is one to “feed upon Christ”?

Well, one way, according to Boice is through bible study. Through bible study we come into intimate contact with Christ, thus rendering Him available to be fed upon. But our feeding is only in proportion to our hunger. No hunger, no feeding. We must recognize our need for Him as well as the truth that we receive through our study of Him in the Bible: that He is not only sufficient for us but that He only is capable of taking away our hunger. But this involves appropriation. If we have a sumptuous meal set before us and do not partake personally, that is, do not appropriate for ourselves the food that alone takes away all hunger, then we shall never be full; we shall continue to experience lack.

Part of the dilemma is that we have compartmentalized both the person and the work of Christ. We no longer see Him as the second person of the Godhead. We see Him and His work as essentially limited in scope. Yes, we think He saves our souls, but not our bodies. Yes He is our lord, but is not thought of as sufficient to actually be our LORD. We fail for instance to believe that a bodily resurrection is what He promises for all those who believe and (except in some quasi-Gnostic sort of way) which He will deliver! God saves entirely and completely. He leaves nothing behind or unsaved. He is God and God saves completely, wholly and perfectly. Nothing is left to be done. Our problem is that we do not take Christ at His word! We do not really believe Him at all! No wonder the church today is ineffective, weak and worldly!

God saves all of us, completely. He leaves nothing undone, nothing will be left behind. Regardless of what confronts us here and now, we have One who will wipe away every tear! Every means every. It doesn’t mean some. It doesn’t mean most. It doesn’t mean nine out of ten! Every single tear you have ever wept or ever will weep will be redeemed by Christ; perhaps not today, perhaps not even tomorrow. But someday. And why? Because in a sense it is already accomplished, though it may seem like not yet.

We can not be Christians and believe in Christ and…something else. It is not Christ and but Christ only: “Solus Christos.”

We cannot believe in Christ and…our cats and dogs.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our mothers and fathers.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our sons and daughters.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our bodies and health.
We cannot believe in Christ and…our psyche and our whatever.
We cannot even believe in Christ and…the law.

Such thinking and weak belief betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of our Faith and our knowledge of Christ. If we put dependence for fulfilment and happiness on anything (as the keeping of the Law, for instance) or anyone other than Christ we are not really Christian at all. And even this self-focussed attitude—my happiness, my life, my contentment, even my obedience—is really missing the entire point. It’s not about YOU or what Christ has done, can do or will do for you; it’s about what you have done, can do and will do for Him, to live a life worthy of the sacrifice of the cross. But this we must do in and through Him alone. He has fulfilled all the requirements including giving us the ability and the desire to love Him and to live in and for Him. So we must feed upon Him and Him alone. He is the bread of life, which if we eat, we will never be hungry for anything else.

Getting back to Boice, he summarizes his thoughts by reminding his readers that feeding on Christ, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, refers to what Christ has been speaking of all along in this important passage from John. He has said that people must “believe” in Him (John 6:29, 35, 47); must “come” to Him (v. 35); must “look” at Him (v. 40); must “listen” and “learn” from Him (v. 45). This is what constitutes our “eating and drinking” of Christ’s body and blood. Let me quote Boice to summarize this point:

“Have you committed yourself to Jesus Christ so that He has become as real to you as that [eating and drinking]? Is he [in His fullness] as real to you spiritually as something you can taste or handle? Is he as much a part of you as that which you eat? Do you think me blasphemous when I say that he must be as real and as useful to you as a hamburger and French fries. I say this because, although he is obviously far more real and useful than these, the unfortunate thing is that for many people he is much less.”

These are for many Christians strongly convicting words, or should be. They point out the inadequacies of our professions of faith and point directly at the real paucity of belief in the lives of so many Christians. It is because we do not eat and drink Christ, that we do not grow in sanctification.

It is Christ, all of Christ and nothing but Christ or else it is nothing at all.

Soli Deo Gloria!

A Couple of Random Seed Thoughts/Peregrinations

The Death of John the Baptist.
I’ve been going over in my mind the relationship that exists between the OT and the NT. It is something to which I return every so often because it is not perfectly clear to me even though I consider myself a believer in a single covenant of redemption. The (thorny) issue of the Christian and the Sabbath is one aspect of the relationship that leaves many uneasy. (For instance, I’ve come to the—tentative—conclusion that there is no Christian "Sabbath" and that the Lord’s Day should not be celebrated in the manner it was in the OT, as this is a form of legalism and a harking back to the old covenant. Further to that is the fear that I am rejecting the special, holy, commemorative, celebratory nature of the Lord’s Day; that somehow I am rejecting the commandment of such a day as well as the graceful blessing that this day brings when we celebrate it to God’s glory in a spirit of thankful remembrance and loving obedience to the person and work of Christ on our behalf. But this is simply not the case. What is in view here, is a "legalistic" or even "Pharisaical" observance instead of a joyful celebration.) But the relationship between the various classically defined elements of the whole Law: civil, ceremonial and moral is still an issue among Christians.

As I ponder these and other issues, I seem to be flirting with a position of “Christian Libertarianism” if not downright “New Covenantalism.” And central to this must surely be the confusion of John the Baptist over Christ’s identity and purpose while John was in prison. I believe John’s confusion was a portent of the ultimate fulfillment (though he did not comprehend it as such from his prison cell) and passing away of the old administration of God’s covenant with His people. According to Scripture, John was the last of the OT prophets (i.e. Mal 3:1). His death at the hands of Herod cannot be understood as an accident or a coincidence but must be understood as an integral part of God’s overall plan of redemption, in which Christ was and is the cornerstone. When John said to his disciples “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30) he was not merely proclaiming his humble devotion to Christ in a lucid moment. He was in fact uttering a prophetic statement; even his last. If that is the case, his statement is also the last statement from the OT to the people of God. John’s statement is in fact the testimony of the OT about itself: that the new covenant spoken of by earlier prophets (most notably by Jeremiah and Ezekiel) was now being fulfilled and that the old was passing away because it had been completely fulfilled through Christ. I think this is amazing! As the last OT prophet, John the Baptist is saying in effect that the old dispensation is no longer needed and he says this as its last and official representative (besides Christ).

Being Still or Being About God’s Business
Another question that pops up from time to time is the issue of waiting for things to happen and being actively involved in their unfolding. I’m a doer by nature. I have trouble sitting back and waiting for things to happen. But, being the good Calvinist that I am, I also believe that God works sovereignly and providentially in bringing about His good and perfect will. Yet I know from Scripture that He does this through secondary causes as well as directly through supernatural means.

The question that confronts me often is, “Am I trusting in God to bring this (whatever it might be) about in His own good way and in His own good time, or am I relying on my own knowledge, skills and abilities to force the desired results?” “Am I defining the problem and providing the solution?”

One aspect of this is prayer of course. I believe that prayer is necessary and desirable. But I do not believe that prayer, by itself, is the automatic solution to every problem. It must be an important component, but I don’t believe that it must be the exclusive component. We have been given God’s revelation in the Bible. We are told how we are to please God and given many examples to follow. We actually rarely need God’s supernatural intervention in revealing to us how He expects us to act in the world.

Do I just sit and pray about something and do nothing else but wait for God’s answer? Or do I become actively engaged in the situation or circumstances? I have always believed that to act is better than to refrain from acting. Perhaps the issue is governed more by personality than by theology. However, I have a strong sense that Scripture tells me to get off my duff and get doing.

On the one hand, we have the passage in John that tells us that the work of God is to believe in the one He has sent. This could mean that we don’t need to do anything else but believe. Christ has said as much over and again, in John 6:29 for instance. Then again we have passages such as James 2:20 that seem to be telling us that some degree of action is required.

Really, there is probably no definitive answer to be arrived at other than to accept a certain dynamic tension between the two positions. While we must believe in Christ (who He said He was and what He came to accomplish, and this by faith) we must also work to bring about the Kingdom (Matt. 25:14-46). It is a constant struggle that we must always be aware of. It seems to me the only way to know for certain is by constant reference to Scripture, prayer, and plain common sense. Indeed, perhaps the answer lies in such verses as Eph 2:10: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (emphasis added).”

Any helpful thoughts?

The Spirit of Power, Not Cowardice

“For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7, NASB).

NOTE: This post will not be concerned with the still somewhat controversial filoque issue. For a full discusion of that subject I would advise the reader to consult the section in SB Ferguson's exceptional work The Holy Spirit in Contours of Christian Theology, Gerald Bray, General Editor, IVP, Illinois, 1996.

In this second instalment of my own subjective peregrinations concerning the Holy Spirit, I’d like to consider the Holy Spirit in the Church from a primarily personal perspective; that is, in the walk of the believer, the born-again one. And I guess that I should be explicit about my underlying assumption: one not born again—of the Holy Spirit that is— will not walk in or by the Spirit, will not be transformed in any meaningful way by the presence or activities of the Spirit and so will in no wise be saved in spite of his or her behaviours and confession, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God … Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:3, 5-6). “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom. 8:9). “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).

This should make my position clear. But to clarify further, if one is a covenant child and has inherited the benefits of the covenant, it is of absolutely no importance, for without the Spirit, you are dead. All the obedience, all the tithing, all the Sabbath-keeping and all other works of the Law in the world will avail you not in such a case (“Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you’” (Matt. 25:7-12).

This post will concentrate on the four qualities of the believer Paul enumerates for his protégé Timothy: timidity, power, love and discipline.

Timidity
Paul says that we are not given a spirit of timidity by the Holy Spirit. By contrast, he says we are given a spirit of power. The AV uses the word “fear” in place of the NASB’s “timidity.” I think it a much better rendering of the Greek. In fact, an even better one is “cowardice.” We are not to be cowards in Christ. Our lives as Christians cannot be marked by cowardice or fear, if they are, how then can we honestly believe we are indwelt by the Spirit? We are hypocrites.

But what exactly is meant by the words timidity, fear and cowardice, especially in the daily round of life as we live it in the world?

The opposite of the word cowardice is the word courage. So then, it must be fair to say the Spirit gives us courage. Courage for what purpose? Well, not just to feel brave, at least not only. It is to experience and fully live out, according to the filling we are given by the Spirit, those things we looked at in our last post: Spirit filled assurance, grace, love, mission, peace, praise, prayer, preaching, sanctification, and so on. All these things require us to be courageous in our commitment. We do not get this courage from ourselves. It is part of what the Holy Spirit provides in His role as Paraclete, the one who comes alongside to help, succour and assist. A frightened Christian is still a Christian but he is able, through the Spirit, to overcome His fear, believing in the words of our Lord and Saviour “…but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

A Christian who is motivated by fear is grieving the Holy Spirit by denying the very truth of the words spoken and promised by his Lord and King, Jesus. What kind of Christian is that? A Christian is ready to accept challenge, ready to be hurt, ready to take risks for Christ. He is not afraid of change, not afraid of being wrong, not afraid of being foolish, not afraid of making enemies if must be. The Spirit puts us out onto the “high seas” where danger abounds. He places us in dire straights for the sake of the Gospel and the salvation of lost souls.

The Church is like a boat. A boat sits in the water. It is not part of the water, yet without water, the purpose and meaning of the boat is lost. The boat is really properly known and understood in relation to the water in which it sits. But a boat is not meant to just sit in the water. No, it was meant to move through the water. A boat is a vessel. It is designed to not only be carried by the water—but also to carry through the water. She takes her cargo from place to place, harbour to harbour, resting betimes and unloading and reloading so that she may begin the journey all over again.

A boat that sits in the harbour is a safe boat, no doubt. Chances are, very little risk of harm will come to her. On the other hand, she will gradually become fouled with barnacles and weeds the longer she is prevented from moving out into open water. The barnacles and weeds will slow her down even to the point of preventing her from moving at all in carrying out her intended purpose.

Let this not be the fate of our congregations, nor of ourselves, through fear and timidity. We have a vessel made for salvation, let us man the oars and raise the sails, catching the wind of the Spirit in exuberant faith and assurance, knowing the very Spirit of God is our motive power and that our rudder is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Power
Where does the power within the church come from? It does not come from the Law, for as we read from one commentator (Adam Clarke) in referring to 1 Cor. 15:56, “The law of God forbids all transgression, and sentences those who commit it to temporal and eternal death. Sin has its controlling and binding power from the law. The law curses the transgressor, and provides no help for him; and if nothing else intervene, he must, through it, continue ever under the empire of death.” So the law has no power to save from death, it only condemns the sinner of his fault and at most enables the sinner to understand his terrible predicament. It offers no saving solution.

No, Paul makes it very plain that power comes to the Church (of all true believers) by and through the application of the Spirit (of Christ’s redeeming work, wrought for His elect on the cross and guaranteed for him by the Resurrection).

Do we have such power? Do you? Are you fearless in your defense of the Gospel? Are you ready to proclaim your faith openly in the face of hostile opposition? Are you ready to love those who are not saved, perhaps giving them solace, perhaps giving them food or clothing? Are you ready to take risk knowing that the will of the Spirit is what is motivating and empowering you to do so? These things are manifestations of the Spirit’s power in the Christian.

The Greek word, dunamis, refers primarily to a resident kind of enabling energy or force. That is, the force belongs to the cause of the force in an intimate connection by nature. It is in the nature of the Spirit to be powerful. The power does not come to the Spirit by another. It resides in Him as an aspect of His very nature and being, even as the wind is its own power. The power of the Spirit therefore is not alien to Him and is given to us as part of the ministry of Christ. If therefore we do not have the power of the Spirit, we then are grieving the Spirit by that degree.

A boat without power is useless. The power we receive comes to us from the wind in our sails. We hoist our sails through our assured faith, catching the power of the breath of God so that he may empower us for good, for “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” Eph 2:10).

Love
As I have stated elsewhere (7 November, 2007) I believe that love is one of the core constituents of the true church.

And we see from Paul that true Christian love comes to us from God and is part and parcel of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In fact, a yardstick by which we may measure our true Christianity and our walking in the fullness of the Spirit is the degree to which we are experiencing and expressing love in our Christian walk, under all situations and conditions.

If we hold on to our love, dispensing it only to those we believe are worthy to receive, are we really being children of God? Are we then no different than the priest and the Levite who could so easily pass by the man by the side of the road, even breaking their own law by doing so? We may be doctrinally pure, being well versed in theology as well as Church history, government and ecclesiology. Our worship may be refined to a biblical purity that is beyond reproach and we may even be respected leaders in our congregation, but all of that is worthless without love: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

Love is the reason the boat traverses the long passages through lonely waters and stormy weather; it is to bring a measure of bounty and blessing to those who are without the goods needed for fullness of life. Likewise, the boat of the Church and of the Christian is to bring the Good News to those suffering in want and misery, even the rich and powerful.

But it is also to express our loving-kindness to other Christians, brothers, sisters and loved ones with whom we have to do. It is not only a part of the spirit’s ministry to enable evangelism, teaching and the like, essential as these are. It is also part of His ministry to show us Jesus and His compassion for those who struggle in their own depraved falleness. The Holy Spirit calls to mind our own deplorable condition, always reminding us of our abiding depravity in and of ourselves as separated from the love and peace that we obtain only in God. When we are confronted with the effects of our own falleness—our fear, our anger, our depression, our hatred, our envy—regardless of the triggers of life that cause these things to raise themselves up, our only hope is the indwelling of the Spirit, reminding us that we are, in spite of our selves and our overpowering emotions, children of the Most High God and that He is working in us to do His good and perfect will for us, “For I know the plans that I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer. 29:11).

Discipline
The word behind the English is the Greek sophronismos. The word means an admonishing, calling or encouraging to soundness of mind, moderation and self-control. And of course, in the context, it can only be the Spirit who can give such an admonishing.

The word is similar to the word used in Gal. 5:23 which is egkrateia in Greek, meaning self-control of our passions and appetites (more on this aspect in my next post). This is not what Paul is hinting at in our verse from 2 Timothy. In our context I’m pretty sure he is saying that our consciences are pricked in such a way by the Holy Spirit, that while we have the courage, power and love of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit Himself will discourage us from being carried away uncontrolably by these strong spiritual forces. He will so order our understanding and its external expression that we will not be carried along on winds of subjective impressions, emotional outbursts or even maniacal ranting. This runs foul of most Charismatics and Pentecostals of course, but as I pointed out in a previous post (1 November, 2007) such ranting cannot be considered truly Christian in light of the whole counsel of God’s Word, and can only be considered as an aberration at best.


In this post, I have looked at the main points of the presence and work of the Spirit as given us in Paul’s letter to Timothy. So much more could—and must—be said. However, I think it is safe to say that the presence of the Spirit is something objective, real and to be desired and prayed for with all one’s mind, heart, soul and strength. The Spirit is the empowering of the Church as well as the individual believer. He is not only the same Spirit that brooded over the waters of Creation, and without whom creation would not have been, He is also the counselor and Helper of our souls, leading us to God and strengthening us in our sanctification and holiness. Without the Spirit our Christianity is nothing because it is the Spirit who applies the redemption won for us by Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.