Via media (i.e. middle way) arguments are bad because they are too accommodating. :-)
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
J. Michael Theological Books
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
5:38 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Dr. David Hall: On the 38th General Assembly
The 38th General Assembly of the PCA will probably neither prove to be the disastrous abyss that some think nor the inauguration of the eschaton expected by others. When measured by a longer perspective, it may prove to have been a fairly normal interaction between the grass roots and those who wish to manicure those stubborn shoots. It may also exhibit unintended consequences for the good.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
4:45 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Patriotism that Concerns Me
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
2:11 PM
1 comments
Links to this post
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Miscellanies 25: On Self-Justification
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
12:18 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Wes White: An Explanation of the Proposed Strategic Plan
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
11:06 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Dr. Clark: On Images of Christ
We confess what we do because we believe that is what God teaches us to think. There’s no encouragement in the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures whatever to picture God. There is no encouragement in the Greek NT to picture God incarnate.This is why Bullinger said what he said: God the Son did not become incarnate to make work for carvers and artisans.Why not take a moment to read Danny Hyde’s book.If you want a more academic treatment see David VanDrunen’s excellent essay on this question:“Iconoclasm, Incarnation and Eschatology: Toward a Catholic Understanding of the Reformed Doctrine of the ‘Second’ Commandment” in the International Journal of Systematic Theology 6.2 (2004): 130 – 147.There are two divinely authorized pictures of Jesus:Holy communion.Holy baptism.These have direct, positive sanction in God’s Word.The empty imaginations of sinful humans about how Jesus might have looked are exactly contrary to God’s revealed will. They are necessarily idolatrous. You don’t know how Jesus appeared. You don’t know what height he was. You don’t know how much he weighed. You can’t possibly represent him accurately. Thus any representation of him is mere symbol. So now we’re down to dueling symbols. You have man-made symbols and I offer two divinely authorized symbols, no, three: Word, baptism, and supper.Your symbols come out of your or some other artist’s imagination. Now, imagination is a good thing and a gift from God but in the history of redemption he took a pretty dim view of the use of the imagination in the representation of himself.Do we have a different God? Are we Marcionites? No.So the only real question left is this: how does gold taste? I don’t want to find out.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:53 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Monday, June 14, 2010
Dr. Darryl Hart: On the Problem with Ecumenism Based on Confessional Minimalism
Ortlund’s post is standard fare among evangelicals who look for a lowest-common-denominator approach to Christian unity and so regard sticklers for doctrine and practice – like the Reformed – as sticks in the mud and unloving sectarians to boot. (Ortlund fails to remark that Baptists, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans, who insist on the correctness of their distinct teachings and practices, are also would-be Judaizers.) Rather than acknowledge that differences exist within the church because different parts of the visible church interpret the Bible differently, Ortlund, like many a pietist before him, disregards actual differences and chalks up resistance to unity as a lack of love – for both Christ and for other Christians. As the Church Lady might say, “isn’t that charitable?”
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:58 AM
2
comments
Links to this post
Word's of Institution for the Lord's Supper
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:29 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Monday, June 7, 2010
Dr. R. Scott Clark: On the Consequent Realism of Reformed Theology
We do not live in a universe where God acts and speaks according to some extrinsic standard, by which both he and we can judge his speech-acts. Rather, we live in a world in which God acts and speaks according to his own nature. His speech-acts are creative, constitutive, and nominative. In this universe, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to those who are not intrinsically and fully sanctified is no more a legal fiction than was God's fiat lux (Gen. 1:3) or naming of the first creation (1:5) or the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). God's powerful word makes things so. Reformed thology has typically taught a sort of consequent realism. Having willed to justify his people on the basis of Christ's righteousness, God grounds his declaration in the highest expression of his will, an actual, earned righteousness whereby justice was, in time and space, satisfied by the obedience and death of Jesus (Institutes 3.23.2). It is that actual righteousness that is imputed (Rom. 5:12-19) to believers, and on that basis believers gain a right to eternal life. It is a gift to us, but that gift was earned by the obedience of our Savior (4:4-5) (258-59).
Also, regarding the objection that the imputation of active obedience leads to antinomianism, Dr. Clark writes:
Those who confess the imputation of active obedience should find this criticism encouraging. It is, after all, the same criticism Paul faced (Rom. 6:1). Regarding justification, "we are not under law, but under grace" (6:14). We know the terrible and righteous demands of the law. It does not say "try," but "do." Christians confess that Christ has "done" for us (253).
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
8:15 PM
4
comments
Links to this post
Monday, May 31, 2010
Dr. Oliver Crisp Interviewed by Rev. Guy Davies
GD: I have sometimes heard Evangelical preachers say that Jesus became a human person at the incarnation. Do you think that Evangelicals are sufficiently aware of the creedal heritage of the Church?OC: No, I don't. The creedal heritage of the Church is very important. We cast it aside at our peril. Some evangelicals are very much embedded in the tradition (e.g. some Episcopalians or Lutherans or Presbyterians). But evangelicals in what we might loosely term 'non-confessional' traditions, such as some baptistic denominations, and charismatic/Pentecostal traditions tend to be less concerned about confessions, thinking they can simply leap over the tradition to Scripture. This is a mistake. We read Scripture in the household of faith, in company with the saints before us, not in isolation from them. And in so doing, we learn from our forebears (from their triumphs and their mistakes). It is folly and hubris to think one can set this great cloud of witnesses to one side in theologizing. Not that I think the fathers and Reformers of the Church trump Scripture. But they help us to understand Scripture better just as a teacher helps the student to understand matters that might be difficult to grasp were the student to be left alone with the class textbook. . . .GD: What is the most helpful work of theology that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...OC: Jonathan Edwards, The End of Creation in Paul Ramsey, ed. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 8, Ethical Writings (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). To my mind, this is surely the most sublime account of the motivation God has for creating the world ever penned by human hand. It is by turns intellectually stimulating and deeply moving as a piece of spiritual, as well as philosophical theology.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
11:51 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Miscellanies 24: On the Faith of Christians and the Faith of Prelapsarian Adam and Christ
- Is faith a virtue?
- Was faith required in prelapsarian (i.e. before the fall) Adam's obedience to the law?
- If so, was the faith of prelapsarian Adam the same as our faith?
- Was faith required in Jesus' obedience to the law?
- If so, was his faith the same as our faith?
- If "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12a), how then can we say that faith was required from prelapsarian Adam or Christ in the fulfillment of the law?
What is justifying faith?Answer: Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assents to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
What are the duties required in the first commandment?The duties required in the first commandment are . . . believing him; trusting . . . in him.
1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God,and had dominion over the creatures.
This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it.
How did Christ humble himself in his life?Christ humbled himself in his life, by subjecting himself to the law, which he perfectly fulfilled.
- Is faith a virtue? Yes. Faith, generally speaking, is a duty required by the law. Saving faith, which includes but is properly distinguished from justifying faith, is a virtue insofar as it includes our sincere obedience to the law (i.e. sanctification).
- Was faith required in prelapsarian Adam's obedience to the law? Yes. Faith is a duty required in the first commandment.
- If so, was the faith of prelapsarian Adam the same as our faith? Yes and no. While there is some unity between his faith and our faith in that the law to which all are bound to be conformed is the same, he did not need saving faith, which includes justifying faith (i.e. a receiving and resting in the work of another for justification).
- Was faith required in Jesus' obedience to the law? Yes. Faith is a duty required in the first commandment. Jesus had faith in the sense that prelapsarian Adam had faith.
- If so, was his faith the same as our faith? Yes and no. While there is some unity between his faith and our faith in that the law to which all are called to be conformed is the same, he did not need saving faith, which includes justifying faith (i.e. a receiving and resting in the work of another for justification).
- If "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12a), how then can we say that faith was required from prelapsarian Adam or Christ in the fulfillment of the law? This text is speaking of justifying faith specifically (i.e. a receiving and resting in the work of another for justification) not faith in general.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
1:11 PM
12
comments
Links to this post
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Rev. Tullian Tchividjian: On the Law and the Gospel
Do you believe in the so-called “third use of the law”?
Yes. I’m a staunch believer in the three uses of the law (pedagogical, civil, and didactic). The law sends us to Christ for justification (the first use—which is correct), but some would also say that Christ sends us back to law for sanctification (a misunderstanding of the third use). In other words, there’s a common misunderstanding in the church that while the law cannot justify us, it can sanctify us—not true. In Romans 7 Paul is speaking as a justified, rescued, regenerated Christian and he’s saying, “The law doesn’t have the power to change me. The law guides but it does not give any power to do what it says.” So, I would caution people from concluding that the third use of the law implies that it has power to change you. To say the law has no power to change us in no way reduces its ongoing role in the life of the Christian. And it in no way minimizes the importance of the law’s third use. We just have to understand the precise role that it plays for us today: the law serves us by making us thankful for Jesus when we break it and serves us by showing how to love God and others.How would you boil your concern down to one sentence?We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone, and God sanctifies us by constantly bringing us back to the reality of our justification.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
4:15 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
How Doth It Appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God (Westminster Larger Catechism Q.4).
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:37 AM
6
comments
Links to this post
Rev. Jason Stellman: On the Tu Quoque Objection to Roman Catholic Apologetics
So in conclusion, the Catholic’s point that his criterion is objective while ours is subjective is only true if you don’t start the clock until after he has finished doing all the subjective stuff in order to figure out what his criterion is in the first place.When it comes to the most crucial part of the church-choosing process, therefore, the Catholic is indeed subject to the Protestant’s tu quoque objection, for before he surrenders his interpretive authority to the Magisterium he must work out from the Bible and church history what the proper criterion is for locating the true church.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:05 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Dr. Darryl Hart: On Social Justice and the Church
The church’s mission is not social justice if, by such equity we mean the punishment of wickedness and the reward of virtue. . . .If by social justice, like the way that Peter Lillback used it on the Glenn Beck show, one means various ways to improve a person’s material circumstances, such as education for the ignorant, relief for orphans, welfare for the poor, food for the hungry, and medicine for the sick, the matter of the church’s duties is contested. Word and deed advocates insist that the church carries out such work indiscriminately, that is, it provides welfare to everyone irrespective of their standing within the church (no matter whether a given congregation has the capacity to provide medical or educational assistance). Word and sacrament advocates in contrast hold that diaconal work is an important and necessary ministry but that the church’s role in alleviating misery extends only to the saints (except in extraordinary circumstances). Even then, the diaconate’s commission is not nearly as broad as the welfare state’s. Diaconal work is not an excuse, then, for the church to establish hospitals, orphanages, schools, and kitchens under the oversight of the church. The doctrine of sphere-sovereignty has long put limits on the church and given many of these functions to the family.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
2:25 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Rev. Roland Barnes: On Biblical Church Growth
It is the conviction of this writer that all efforts to plant and grow the church must be founded upon these two fundamental ingredients of ministry: prayer and the ministry of the word.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
12:23 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Monday, May 24, 2010
Dr. Guy Waters: On the Catholicity of Reformed Churches
You may be asking, "How do you reconcile your claim to 'catholicity' with the Roman Catholic Church's claim that she alone is the one true church?" Since the time of the Reformation, Reformed churches, in line with John Calvin, have argued that Rome is schismatic and that confessional Protestants are the true catholics. Such Protestants endeavor to hold fast to the pattern of sound words that Christ, the only King and Head of the church, has given to the whole church through His apostles (2 Tim. 1:13). Rome has departed in fundamental ways from this pattern. The claim to catholicity, these Protestants maintain, is valid only when it is attached to the reality of apostolicity. It is in this sense that Reformed churches are truly catholic (xv).
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:39 PM
2
comments
Links to this post
Overture from Northwest Georgia Presbytery: "An Alternative Plan for PCA Renewal"
Dear friends, the remedy to our denominational maladies is not the implementation of what some see as a fairly complex, mildly therapeutic, sociologically savvy strategic vision. Rather, what the PCA needs - in fact, what every NAPARC denomination always needs - is a clear, uncompromising call to biblical and confessional renewal, renewal that is on God’s terms, not man’s. It really is that simple. Indeed, God intended it to be. This way, when the elect are converted, sanctified (renewed) and comforted by the primary means of 1) faithful preaching, 2) biblical administration of the sacraments, and 3) steadfast prayer, then God gets all the glory. “Therefore, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord’” (I Corinthians 1:31; see also WSC Q. 88).
Overture from Northwest Georgia Presbytery: "An Alternative Plan for PCA Renewal"Whereas, the “PCA Strategic Plan” is a well-intentioned effort by the Cooperative Ministries Committee to address some of the perceived downward trends in the Presbyterian Church in America; andWhereas, these apparent problems include a decline in membership, disunity and non-cooperation, and a lack of vision for twenty-first century missions; andWhereas, the framers of this “Strategic Plan” have worked diligently to set forth a proposal that they believe will make the PCA a stronger, healthier denomination; andWhereas, many will join with us in believing that the “PCA Strategic Plan” is misguided in its program for spiritual renewal, and view the downward trends in our denomination as having less to do with the various factors described in the “Strategic Plan,” and more a consequence of our unwillingness, as elders, to give ourselves wholeheartedly to what God, in His Word, has promised to bless for the health and extension of His kingdom; andWhereas, the “PCA Strategic Plan,” among other things, seeks to cultivate spiritual renewal in the PCA by promoting “safe places” for theological discussion, “more seats at the table” of denominational development for women, young people, and minorities, and a closer working relationship with the “Global Church” in the area of missions; andWhereas, while some may view these strategic proposals as leading the PCA towards a stronger future, many others will be uncomfortable with this strategy, believing that lasting spiritual renewal can come only through the outwardly foolish and weak means to which God has attached His saving promises; andWhereas, the various committees already have the ability to sponsor “safe” discussions (these have been occurring for years in General Assembly and presbytery forums and seminars), and the nominating process has an adequate method of recommending seats at various tables; thus, short of specific BCO amendments, any merited aspects of these targets may already be pursued; andWhereas, presbyteries, sessions, and other regional conferences—instead of by a top-down committee process—are the prime places for healthy discussion and for the generation of methods to improve our corporate life, and frequently do so with less vested interests; andWhereas, some believe this “Strategic Plan” will create even further division in the PCA; andWhereas, the greatest and most urgent need of the Presbyterian Church in America is not a complex strategy, but a clarion call to renew our avowed commitment to the Biblical, Reformed, Confessional, and Presbyterian Faith - a system of doctrine which has, for centuries, cultivated God-glorifying unity, humility, worship, spiritual/numerical growth, mission, service, sacrifice, giving, and cooperation all over the world; andWhereas, our present need as a denomination is to rekindle our commitment to foundational Reformed doctrine and practice, reflected, in part, in the seventeen points listed below; andWhereas, it is our conviction that a faithful implementation of these biblical doctrines and practices into the life and ministry of our presbyteries and churches will yield an abundance of spiritual fruit; andWhereas, renewal on God’s terms cannot - and will not - fail;Therefore, the Northwest Georgia Presbytery overtures the 38th General Assembly to call all its congregations and presbyteries to this simple, straightforward, unambiguously biblical call for renewal as an alternative to the complex and potentially divisive “PCA Strategic Plan,” except for the funding proposal already presented by the Administrative Committee, which this overture wishes neither to condemn nor support. And let us trust that in the coming years God will enable us, by His Spirit, to faithfully employ the spiritual means that He Himself has already provided us.17 Points for PCA RenewalA renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained, efficacious means of exegetical, Christ-centered, application-filled, expository preaching (Is. 55:10-11; Ez. 37:1-10; Jn. 21:15-17 Mk. 1:38; Acts 2:42; 20:26-27; I Cor. 1:22-25; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; WLC 67, 154-5).A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained, efficacious means of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Gen. 17:9-11; Ex. 12; Mt. 26:26-29; 28:19; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:17-34; Col. 2:11-15; I Pet. 3:21; Rev. 19:6-9; WLC 154; 161-177).A renewed commitment to the centrality of the God-ordained means of private, family and corporate prayer (Ps. 63; Mt. 6:5-15; Mk. 1:35; Acts 6:4; Eph. 1:15-23; Phil. 1:9-11; I Thess. 5:17; I Tim. 2:1; WLC 154; 178-196).A renewed commitment to - and delight in - the Lord’s Day (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Is. 58:13-14; Mk. 2:23-28; Jn. 20:1;19; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10; WCF 21).A renewed commitment to worship on God’s terms, according to Scripture (Ex. 20:4-6; Lev. 10:1-3; Deut. 12:32; Jn. 4:23-24; Acts 2:42; Col. 2:18-23; Heb. 10:24-25; 12:28-29; WCF 21.1).A renewed commitment to private, family, and public worship (Ps. 63; Mt. 6:6, 16-18; Neh. 1:4-11; Dan. 9:3-4; Deut. 6:4-6; Eph. 6:1-4; Ps. 100:4; Acts 2:42; Heb. 10: 24-25; WCF 21.5-6).A renewed commitment to wed our missiology to Reformed ecclesiology (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 14:19-23; 15:1-41; 20:17, 28; I Cor. 11:17-34; The Pastoral Epistles; Titus 1:5; WCF 25; 30-31).A renewed commitment to loving, Word and Spirit-dependent, prayerful and courageous evangelism (Mt. 5:13-16; 28:18-20; Acts 4:1-13; I Peter 3:15-16; WLC 154-7).A renewed commitment to biblical church discipline (Mt. 18:15-20; I Cor. 5:1-13; 11:27-29; II Thess. 3:6, 14-15; I Tim. 5:20; WLC 45; WCF 30).A renewed commitment to biblical diaconal ministry (Acts 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8-13).A renewed commitment to catechize our covenant children in our homes and churches (Deut. 6:4-6; Prov. 22:6; Mk. 10:13-16; Eph. 4:12-13; 6:1-4; WSC).A renewed commitment to biblical masculinity and femininity (Gen. 2:18-25; Deut. 31:6-7; Prov. 31:10-31; I Cor. 16:13; I Peter 3:1-7; Eph. 5:22-33; I Tim. 2:11-15; WLC 17).A renewed commitment to entrust the leadership of the Church into the hands of the ordained leadership (Jn. 21:15-17; I Tim. 5:17; Heb.13:17; I Pet. 5:1-3; WLC 45).A renewed commitment to the Reformed Confession which we have avowed, before God and men, to promote and defend as our system of doctrine (I Tim. 6:12; Heb. 4:14; 10:23; Jude 3; Westminster Standards).A renewed commitment to the mortification of sin and worldliness (Rom. 6:11-14; 8:13; 12:1-2; I Cor. 6:12; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:20-24; I John 2:15-17; Gal. 6:14; WLC 76-7).A renewed commitment to the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from works of the law (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 4:1-5; 5:1; Gal. 2:15-16; 3:10-14; Phil. 3:1-11; WCF 11).A renewed commitment to rest, by faith, in Christ alone for salvation, without minimizing Gospel obedience (i.e. the third use of the law) / (Rom. 1:5; 6:1-2; 8:5-8; II Cor. 7:1; Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:1; 5:1-21; Phil. 3:12; I Thess. 5:23; Heb. 12:14; I John 5:3; WCF 19.5-7).Furthermore, rather than having the Cooperative Ministries Committee propose additional structural changes, let us adopt this plan for renewal (reflected in the seventeen points above) asking our presbyteries and sessions, who are the best originators of denominational change, to study, discuss and implement it.Accordingly, this overture asks our appropriate elected leaders to represent and publicize this to our churches in writing or in counsel as the action of the 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. By taking this action, we, as elders, intend to send a clear and simple message to our churches, presbyteries, General Assembly, and the world, that the PCA will seek spiritual renewal on God’s terms, trusting solely in His sovereign wisdom and grace.Humbly and Respectfully Submitted by:The Northwest Georgia PresbyteryMay 22, 2010
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
2:39 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Geerhardus Vos: "Legalism" Diminishes the Law
Inasmuch as condemnation presupposes sin, no reflection is cast on the law itself or the forensic relationship between God and man regulated by it. On the contrary, the very conception of the curse of the law enforced by God involves the full recognition and maintenance on the apostle's part of the forensic relation of accountability and inevitable liability to punishment in case of sin, as the broad fundamental plane on which God and man religiously meet. Ritschl has in vain tried to prove that Paul conceives of the curse of the law as detached or detachable from God. And if it is God's curse, then the mere fact of Paul's insistence on it stamps the whole scheme of man's treatment by God on the forensic basis with the apostle's approval. For it should not be overlooked, that the right of God to curse in case of transgression of the law is, from Paul's point of view, after all but the reverse side of His prerogative to bless and reward with the gift of eternal life where the law is obeyed. The apostle's doctrine of sin and the curse, therefore, is sufficient to prove his staunch adherence to the principle in question, as a primary principle of divine procedure. When he speaks contemptuously of the law method as a thing that is weak, that is no more than a letter that can but curse, these very expressions of contempt are based on the axiom that the legal relationship of man to God must have effect. It would be too little to say that the criticism of Jewish legalism involved in them is consistent with a high regard for the forensic principle in the abstract; in reality, it is the direct outcome of the latter. Because Paul is supremely concerned about the absolute necessity of meeting in some real way the legal demands of God, he pours contempt on the futile efforts of Judaism in this direction ("Legalism" in Paul's Doctrine of Justification, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, 389-90).
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
6:54 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Attempted Axiom: On the Church and the Gospel
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
11:03 PM
2
comments
Links to this post
Friday, May 21, 2010
Dr. Darryl Hart: On Machen, the Church, and Social Justice
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
11:28 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Monday, May 17, 2010
Zac Smith: To God Be the Glory
Zac Smith is with Jesus. He fought the good fight of faith. He finished the race. He kept the faith. He’s entered into the joy of his Master. He didn’t waste his life, and he didn’t waste his cancer.
The Story of Zac Smith from NewSpring Media on Vimeo.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
9:02 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Wes White: On Love's Basis
Thus, often what people think is love is not love. If we are not seeking people's true good, then we are not really loving them. Conversely, it is very often the case that true love is not recognized for what it is. The child may not view it as love that he or she cannot have ice cream every night for supper, but this certainly does not mean that the parent who gives them meat and vegetables is not loving. In fact, if that parent were to give in to their child's desires, they would not be loving at all.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:24 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
The Big Picture Story Bible
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
9:21 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Francis Turretin: On the Difference between the Natural Law and the Decalogue
If it is asked how this natural law agrees with or differs from the moral law, the answer is easy. It agrees as to substance and with regard to principles, but differs as to accidents and with regard to conclusions. The same duties (both toward God and toward our neighbor) prescribed by the moral law are also contained in the natural law. The difference is with regard to the mode of delivery. In the moral law, these duties are clearly, distinctly and fully declared; while in the natural law they are obscurely and imperfectly declared both because many intimations have been lost and obliterated by sin and because it has been variously corrupted by the vanity and wickedness of men (Rom. 1:20-22). Not to mention other differences: as that the natural law was engraven upon the hearts of men, the moral on stony tables; the former pertains to all universally, the latter only to those called by the word; the former contains nothing except morality, the latter has also certain ceremonials mingled in it.Hence is easily gathered the reason why God wished to recall that law by Moses, to deliver it to his people viva voce, and proclaimed it in a solemn manner, committing it to writing and comprehending it in the decalogue. For although in upright nature there was no need of such promulgation, still (after sin) so great was the blindness of mind, such the perversity of will and disturbance of the affections that only remains of this law survived in the hearts of all (like rubbed pictures of the same, which on that account ought to be retouched by the voice and hand of God as by a new brush) (11.1.22-23a).
I'm sad to report that I've not read much Turretin. But I plan to remedy that soon.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
4:31 PM
2
comments
Links to this post
Friday, May 14, 2010
Rev. Wes White: On Monocovenantalism and the Federal Vision
What we are dealing with here, we shall call monocovenantalism, that is, one-covenantism. This does not mean that they believe that there are no differences between the pre-fall and post-fall covenants. Rather, the problem is that they believe that the fundamental structure of the covenants is the same.How do they do this? They generally do not come out and say that life is obtained by works before and after the fall. Instead, they say that there is no such thing as a works principle. For them, life has always been obtained by grace through faith both before and after the fall. As Norman Shepherd writes in his book The Way of Righteousness:The method of justification for Adam is exactly what it is for Paul as described in Romans 1:17, “The righteous will live by faith…” Justification now includes the forgiveness of sins, and faith is faith in the blood of Jesus. But the basic structure is the same: the righteous live by faith. It is true both before and after the fall that the righteous live by faith.This may sound good to Reformed ears at first. After all, aren’t we staunchly for grace and faith? Why speak of a works principle at all? It seems that this gives us a powerful tool in contending for a gracious salvation.However, what sounds good at first turns out to be the piper playing a song that leads us away from Biblical, Protestant theology. If the Bible does teach the works principle but we say that there is only a grace/faith principle, then we will end up turning the Biblical statements of the works principle into statements of the grace/faith principle. In other words, what the Bible calls law will now be called grace. What the Bible calls obedience will now be called faith. Works and grace will be confounded, and then grace will no longer be grace. Faith and law will be confused, and then the promise will be made of no effect.Ironically, those who cry, “grace, grace” for all covenant structures end up with “works, works” for all covenant structures. This is always the result when the grace/faith and law/works principles are confounded. They end up with nothing but a law/works principle.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
8:55 AM
2
comments
Links to this post
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Rev. Dr. Jon Payne: In the Splendor of Holiness
The design and focus of public worship has turned into a quest to satisfy our own felt needs rather than to glorify God. "Perverse modes of worship" [quoting from Calvin] characterize not only the sixteenth century Mass, but also much of twenty-first century evangelical worship. Drama and therapeutic messages have undermined the authoritative reading and preaching of the Word of God. Deep, affectionate, and substantial prayer has been pushed aside to make room for catchy announcements and personal testimonies. The best theologically rich, soul-stirring Psalmody, and hymnody has been replaced by shallow praise choruses. Baptism and the Lord's Supper have, in many quarters, been reduced to uninformed, sentimental rituals. To summarize, the means that God ordained and established for the salvation of his people (Word, sacraments, and prayer) have been, at best, minimized, and at worst, abandoned for something else entirely. A biblical liturgy, which sets forth and protects those means, must be recovered (17-18).
A biblically-regulated liturgy preserves and promotes God-exalting, Christ-centered, Spirit-filled worship. Of course, even with a well-ordered liturgy it is possible for a person to merely go through the motions. But isn't this true of any style or form of worship? Whether a congregation is confessing a creed or singing an energetic praise song, there will inevitably be congregants who are insincere. Hence, the church's prescribed order of worship must not be ruled by whatever we think enlivens the heart--something we ultimately cannot control. Rather, the inspired and authoritative Word of God must be the source and substance of our liturgy, thereby setting forth the means that God has promised to bless the lives of His redeemed children (19).Theology, and not a pragmatic philosophy for church growth or the weekly quest for a mountaintop experience with God, must drive our worship (22).God requires worship that is both outwardly biblical in form and inwardly sincere through faith (23).No one's conscience should be bound in a worship service to do anything more or anything less than what God requires in Scripture (24).Here is the point: If we truly believe that the sovereign God is drawing the elect to Himself--from every tribe, tongue, and nation--by uniting them to Christ through the means of his life-giving Word, then God-centered, Word-driven, Christ-exalting worship services will not only glorify God by making Him the central focus, but they will also be an avenue through which the elect will be gloriously converted (27).Troubling in some of the more recent approaches to worship is the prominence given to music and singing. . . . Worship constitutes all the elements of the liturgy--from the call to worship to the benediction. Practically, this means that when the congregation is engaged in a corporate confession of faith, listening to an expository sermon, or receiving communion, they are worshiping God as much as when they are singing the final verse of It is Well with My Soul (28-29).Worship in all of life flows from biblically regulated worship on the Lord's Day, not vice versa (32).Family worship and personal worship are, no doubt, two of the best ways of daily preparing our hearts and minds for corporate worship on the Lord's Day (39).In an effort to appeal to the secular and youth cultures, many churches have capitulated to the musical trends of our day, trends that plainly lack the reverence and beauty of first-rate, sacred music (52).If taken to its logical conclusion, the "no creed but Christ" position is contrary to the Bible's mandate to sit under the teaching of Scripture by ordained men (see Timothy 2:1-2; 5:17; Hebrews 13:17).Peter's powerful confession in Matthew 16:15-16, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," sets forth the essence of the Christian faith. Creeds and confessions simply flesh out, in more detail, the meaning behind it (73).The pervasive spirit of our day, it could be argued, is anti-authoritarian, anti-intellectual, and anti-formalistic. We see these attitudes in society at every turn. In general, people do not want to receive authoritative exhortation, even from God. They do not want to think on a deeper level than what the shallow pop-culture offers. And outside of a funeral service, most folks today rarely view an occasion which warrants a formal, reverent, and dignified posture (85).Baptism is a means of grace, an instrument that the Holy Spirit employs not just once, but all throughout our lives to sanctify us and conform us more and more to the image of Christ (93).Christ is not dragged down from the right hand of God when we partake of the Supper. His human nature is not ubiquitous. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit--who unites us to Christ--lifts us up by faith to the heavenly places to nourish our souls upon the life-giving Christ (96).Today we see the effects of hard-core consumerism when we observe almost every strata of society busily working, buying, recreating and selling on the day that God established for worship and rest (108).
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:39 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Monday, May 10, 2010
CRITIQUING A CRITIQUE (Part 6): Dr. Stephen Wellum's "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants"
I. IntroductionII. The Covenantal Argument for Infant Baptism1. An Outline of the Argument2. The Nature of the "Covenant of Grace" and Infant Baptisma) The "Newness" of the New Covenantb) The Nature of the "Covenant of Grace": Conditional or Unconditional?
This present discussion raises two related issues that are crucial to understand why paedobaptists consider that the covenant of grace requires infant baptism. The first issue has to do with the nature of the covenant of grace. Even though it is difficult to define the exact meaning of the word “covenant,” most within covenant theology are pleased to define it somewhat as O. Palmer Robertson proposes: “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.”21
In a covenant, especially a biblical covenant, God promises to be our God by his own sovereign initiative and grace. In response to God’s grace, we promise to be faithful to the Lord in terms of covenant obligations, namely, repentance, faith, and obedience.
But this raises a thorny issue as to the nature of the covenant, especially whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional.On the one hand, covenant theology has rightly argued that the covenant is unconditional. God acts in a sovereign and unilateral fashion to establish the covenant. Furthermore, he not only sovereignly establishes the covenant relation but he maintains and fulfills completely the promises that he makes to his people. In the end, everything God demands of his people in terms of repentance, faith, and obedience, he graciously grants them by sovereign grace in Christ and by the power of the Spirit. As Cornelius Venema nicely summarizes:Not only are the covenant’s obligations preceded by God’s gracious promise, but these obligations are fulfilled for and in believers by the triune God— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in their respective operations. God’s demands are born of grace and fulfilled in us by grace. In these respects, the covenant of grace is unconditional, excluding every possible form of merit, whereby the faith and obedience of God’s people would be the basis for their obtaining life and salvation.22
On the other hand, covenant theology has also argued that the covenant is conditional in at least two senses. First, the blessings of the covenant are totally dependent upon the work of Christ, since the last Adam fulfilled the conditions of obedience first set down in the covenant of works as both the representative and substitute of his people. Second, in order to benefit from the covenant, we are obligated to believe and obey.
No doubt, these covenant obligations are not viewed as meritorious conditions; rather they are “necessary responses to the covenant’s promises” and, as such, are “instrumental to the enjoyment of the covenant’s blessings.”23 Most covenant theologians contend that the covenant of grace always involves a “conditional promise.” Thus, every biblical covenant, as part of the one covenant of grace, carries with it a conditional promise “with blessings for those who obey the conditions of the covenant and curses for those who disobey its conditions.”24 In other words, in principle every biblical covenant, including the new covenant, is conditional in the second sense described above and is thus breakable.25 It is precisely at this point that most covenant theologians argue for the “mixed” nature of the people in the covenant of grace. That is, the covenant community is comprised of both covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers.
So the circle of the covenant community, whether in the old or new era, is wider and larger than the circle of election.26 Thus paedobaptists argue that, in principle, there is nothing objectionable in viewing unregenerate people as part of the covenant community and applying the covenant sign to them.27
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
8:37 PM
2
comments
Links to this post
Interesting Book Buying Stats from Tim Challies
Here.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
10:46 AM
0
comments
Links to this post
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Dr. Benjamin Shaw: On Church and Culture
The real question is not whether these things are real challenges (they are, and not for the church only), but in what way they are challenges for the church as church. For example, with regard to #25 (sex trafficking), I'm not sure that the church as church, whether considered as the PCA in particular, or the global church, has anything other to do than to proclaim the whole counsel of God, to wit that manstealing is not only a crime, it is a sin; that rape and sexual abuse of other persons is not only a crime, but a sin; and that all who practice such things will stand at the bar of a holy God to answer for them. It may well be that particular Christians, and even coalitions of Christians, are burdened to speak and act in the political realm regarding this issue. They are not only free to do so, they should be encouraged to do so. But it is not the calling of the church as church to enter into the political arena on this or on any similar issue. The same analysis applies to most of the rest of these items.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
12:02 PM
10
comments
Links to this post
Friday, May 7, 2010
Dr. Robert Letham: On the Need for Creeds
There are those who claim that we are entering an entirely new era requiring a massive paradigm shift in the church's thought and action. In this case, historical theology is merely a curiosity. It may have a part in an ongoing conversation but the debate has moved on. The past is effectively sidelined since a conversation, as it progresses in subtle and dynamic ways, renders obsolete and irrelevant comments made five minutes ago. Many voices praise the idea that the church will be freed from its captivity to Western Europe and North America. This misses the point that the foundations of the church were laid by Egyptians (Athanasius and Cyril), Turks (the Cappodocians, Maximus the Confessor), Tunisians (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), and a Syrian (John of Damascus), to say nothing of the apostles (Middle-Eastern Jews)--these hardly look like Western Europeans, let alone North Americans. This mantra is a coded message, indicating that its utterer wants to move away from the confining dogmas of the Reformation.Moreover, precisely because the Christian faith is global, the contributions of Western Europe and North America have their place alongside those of Egypt, Turkey, and Syria. If globalism prevails, these regions can hardly be excluded. However, to place the speculation of Anne Nasimiyu Wasike that in the African context Christ is to be regarded as a mother--since mothers are what Africa needs--alongside the historic declarations of the church of East and West that have stood for a millennium and a half as acknowledging the truth, and to see them both as equal partners in a dynamic and ongoing conversation, is to deal a fatal blow to the apostolicity of the church. The ecumenical creeds cannot be reduced to conversation partners at a global roundtable. Insights there may and will be from various parts of the world. But the nature of the ecumenical council was quite different--they simply confessed the truth and the church recognized what they confessed. They were acknowledging the apostolic faith, not bringing insights from their culture. The same principle applies to the teachings of the Reformation. As Richard John Neuhaus insisted, where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
9:08 PM
0
comments
Links to this post
Traditionalism v. Confessionalism
What is needed today is reform and recovery of confessionally Protestant worship in the liturgical tradition. Do we want true diversity in our midst? Then level the playing field by making worship Reformed according to Scripture where diverse social, cultural and political views can exist in submission to true worship instead of divvying us all up by forms of worship designed to divide by these same cultural value systems.Of course, worship is simply the outward expression (and perpetuation) of a theology. What the wanting categories of “contemporary/traditional” worship tell us is that at the heart of all the rankle of worship wars is a theology that is quite at odds with a historically and confessionally Reformed theology. In some quarters the spirit of war has waned and hands are joined over the phrase “blended worship” where Genevan psalms are set to Metallica riffs. Traditionalists look down their noses less at the contemporary, and vice versa, because all have agreed on one crucial thing: worship is about us, so do what pleases your inward tastes most. Some might think they have transcended the rankle by validating these categories and asking innocuous questions of worship like “is it godly worship; are the words biblical; is God glorified; is it done is spirit and in truth?” Words and phrases like these sound pious, of course, but what do any of those questions really mean other than to show that they merely lean hard on sentimentality and not theology?
Posted by
M. Jay Bennett
at
5:54 PM
0
comments
Links to this post










