OWEN ON COMMUNION WITH THE TRIUNE GOD

Due out soon is a new edited volume of John Owen's work Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Each Person Distinctly, in Love, Grace, and Consolation; Or, The Saints' Fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Unfolded. I think the new title, Communion with the Triune God fits todays culture a bit better--good editorial decision guys! I'm really looking forward to it. Here's the last few paragraphs of chapter one of Owen's work (Goold Edition) where he introduces both his subject and method of study:

Now, communion is the mutual communication of such good things as wherein the persons holding that communion are delighted, bottomed upon some union between them. So it was with Jonathan and David; their souls clave to one another (1 Sam. xx. 17) in love. There was the union of love between them; and then they really communicated all issues of love mutually. In spiritual things this is more eminent: those who enjoy this communion have the most excellent union for the foundation of it; and the issues of that union, which they mutually communicate, are the most precious and eminent. . . .

Our communion, then, with God consisteth in his communication of himself unto us, with our returnal unto him of that which he requireth and accepteth, flowing from that union which in Jesus Christ we have with him. And it is twofold:--1. Perfect and complete, in the full fruition of his glory and total giving up of ourselves to him, resting in him as out utmost end; which we shall enjoy when we see him as he is;--and, 2. Initial and incomplete, in the first-fruits and dawnings of that perfection which we have here in grace; which only I shall handle.

It is, then, I say, of that mutual communication in giving and receiving, after a most holy and spiritual manner, which is between God and the saints while they walk together in a covenant of peace, ratified in the blood of Jesus, whereof we are to treat. And this we shall do, if God permit; in the meantime praying the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath, of the riches of his grace, recovered us from a state of enmity into a condition of communion and fellowship with himself, that both he that writes, and they that read the words of his mercey, may have such a taste of his sweetness and excellencies therein, as to be stirred up to a farther longing after the fulness of his salvation, and the eternal fruition of him in glory.

(HT: JT)

DOES THE WORD EVANGELICAL MEAN ANYTHING ANYMORE?

Today I read a great post over at Tony Felich's blog Reepicheep. It is entitled "Liking the term 'Evangelical' less and less." Tony, a successful population control specialist, is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Overland Park, Kansas. His sermons are broadcast weekly (and accessible online) through a radio program called The Redeeming Factor. In today's post he evaluates the concept of evangelicalism in America today as prompted by the February 7, 2005 Time Magazine cover story, "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." Check it out. Here's an excerpt:

When I read who popular culture identifies as "Top Evangelicals", quite frankly, it saddens me. Evangelical has been reduced to having a big church, best selling self-help book, or seemingly great political influence and friends in "high" places. I'm none of those things, don't want to be, and never will be.

While popular with many (and hated by others), Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox weren't these things either. They did garner large crowds, distribute lots of books, and exert certain political influence, but they did so with a constant focus and emphasis on the glory of God, a commitment to the bible and teaching sound doctrine. I assure you, none of them got rich doing these things. They really believed the Scriptures were all we need for life and godliness. They believed faithful exposition of Scripture would be the catalyst for changing not only the Church, but the world. All were willing and ready to die for reformation. Why are names like Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Zacharias, and Mohler not mentioned in such a group? I think this is telling.

FREE HISTORICAL THEOLOGY COURSE

I just found an amazing free resource from Covenant Theological Seminary. Dr. David Calhoun, professor of church history, has a whole course on Reformation & Modern Church History online for free. It includes study guides (.pdf), class notes (.pdf), and lectures on audio files. For anyone wanting an introduction to the development of Christian thought since the Reformation this is a great way to go. Other courses are also available. Check it out.

(HT: JEC)

SMOKE, MOONLIGHT, AND A MEDITATION

Last night as I sat on my front porch reading and enjoying a smoke from my Duca Carlo, the clouds cleared for a moment revealing a bright, almost-full moon. Immediately I thought about my son. I thought about how I plan to buy a telescope when he gets older so that he and I can explore the wonders of the heavens together. What a joy that will be!

Then I thought, isn't that what our heavenly father does with us? He raises us up, growing us in righteousness through discipline, for the purpose of showing us more and more of his heavenly glory. Here is the gospel: In Christ, our heavenly Father delights to delight us with the beatific vision of himself forever! He looks forward to exploring the heavens with us as we come of age.

LIBRARY THING

For all you bibliophiles (that should include every pastor reading this), I would like to pass along a recommendation for Library Thing. My friend and soon to be colleague, Matt the Bradley, recommended the service a few days ago in a blog post. I haven't made it over to explore and utilize Library Thing yet but plan to soon. Check it out.

THE DIET OF WORMS AT LIFEWAY

I spoke with a lady while working the register at LifeWay tonight about Roman Catholicism (RC). She was RC and asked where our RC section was. I told her nicely that we didn't have one. She said, "Well, you know we're all Christian." To which I replied with a smile, "LifeWay is owned by Protestants." From there we got into a very interesting discussion in which I mentioned that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) teaches that, since its institution under Peter, there is no salvation outside the RC Church. She responded by saying, "We believe that when a person dies Jesus comes to that person and then they have a final opportunity to accept him." I smiled and said, "I believe that when a person dies they immediately enter into a state of judgment or blessedness. The Scriptures teach that before the creation of the world God elected who would and would not be saved in Christ." I mentioned that the recent conversion of Evangelical Theological Society president, Francis Beckwith, back to the RCC had sparked some conversation among friends. She responded, "He returned to the communion of the saints." I said, "Well, I don't know if I'd put it quite like that." She replied, "But you know the church was Roman Catholic for 1500 years prior to the Reformation." There were others in line, so we exchanged pleasantries and she made her way to the door.

As she left, I silently recalled Martin Luther's words at the Diet of Worms. There Luther was commanded to recant his "heretical" teachings against the Pope. An official church spokesman asked (and I paraphrase), "Martin Luther, who are you to contradict 1500 years of the church's teaching?" Behind the question is the assumption that RC doctrine enjoys the benefit of historical continuity stretching back to the time of Christ--the same assertion made by the LifeWay customer. If true, it would certainly be a devastating argument! Luther asked for a night to think about his answer and it was granted. The next day he wisely responded:

Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, not embellished: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradict themselves, I am bound to the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand. May God help me, Amen.

Immediately Luther became a marked man with a price on his head.

How did Luther respond to the RC assertion of historical continuity? Simple. Luther denied the assumption on which the question was based. There hadn't been 1500 years of consistent church teaching. Next question please!

WHY I AM NOT A BIBLE TEACHER

I just stumbled upon an excellent set of posts by a Free Church of Scotland minister at Life Towards God. The posts are in 2 parts called "Why I Am Not a Bible Teacher." Part 1 is a call for Christ-centered preaching, a call I think todays generation of preachers needs to hear badly. Part 2 is a helpful response to a good question left in the comments of part 1. Here's an excerpt from pt. 1:

Here’s the thing. I am a preacher. Every Sunday I stand up and open up the Bible to the congregation. More than anything else that defines my ministry.

But there is a phrase used to describe pulpit ministry that I hear a lot down here in the south east of England that just makes me cross. It’s “teaching the Bible”.

Now don’t get me wrong I believe in teaching the Bible. It’s a good thing to do. Every Christian needs regular Biblical instruction. I just don’t believe that ‘teaching the Bible’ is the best description of the normative work of the Christian ministry. I am NOT a Bible teacher. Here’s why…

I am not primarily here to teach Bible, because I am here primarily to preach Christ, which is something much bigger. That is my job. It’s not at all the same thing as simply teaching the text.

Read more here:

Why I Am Not a Bible Teacher pt. 1

Why I Am Not a Bible Teacher pt. 2

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

Edwards writes in no. 75 of the “Miscellanies”:

If it will universally hold, that no [one] can have absolutely perfect and complete happiness at the same time that anything is otherwise than as he desires at that time they should be; or thus, if it be true that he has not absolute, perfect, infinite, and all possible happiness now, who has not now all that he wills to have now: then God, if anything is now otherwise than he wills to have them now, is not now absolutely, perfectly and infinitely happy. If God is infinitely happy etc. now, then everything is now as God would have them to be now; if everything, then those things that are contrary to his commands. If so, it is not ridiculous to say, that things contrary to God’s command are yet in one sense agreeable to his will.

Here Edwards brilliantly connects the divine decree to divine happiness. If God has not foreordained all that comes to pass, if their is anything outside the determination of his sovereign purpose, then God cannot be eternally blessed. In other words, divine aseity presupposes a divine decree.

Edwards also addresses the knotty issue of theodicy in this exerpt. In the last two sentences he writes out explicitly what is only implied in the first (one puritan sentence equals 3-4 of ours both in terms of quantity and quality). He writes that divine aseity requires, in some sense, divine approval of the evil that now exists in creation. For now God is pleased to be displeased with evil's presence in his creation. That approval is not of evil viewed in itself, in that case God is infinitely offended and grieved by evil. God's approval is in view of the larger picture, the history of redemption. God approves of the presence of evil in his creation for a time in order to accomplish that which is even more pleasing to him than a world in which evil would have never existed, the redemption of his covenant people for the display of his magnificent glory in Christ!

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST

I was emailed a link to a blog today. Written by alumnus of The Master's Seminary (M. Div., Summa Cum Laude, 2004) and former dispy Eric Adams, it is called Why I am not a Dispensationalist: An Irenic and Charitable Critique. Eric is pastor of Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Kansas City, MO. Eric's posts chronicle his conversion to the Reformed faith. I find his experience to be quite similar to my own.

SHOULD DISPENSATIONALISM BE LEFT BEHIND?

Here James Grant, Pastor of FBC Rossville, TN (a Reformed Baptist church), reflects on how his exegesis and interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 contributed to his rejection of a pretribulational rapture and subsequent abandoning the dispensational hermeneutic. Very interesting read!

(HT: JT)

PIPER ON WRIGHT

John Piper is in the latter stages of writing a book addressing N. T. Wright's teaching on justification. Mark Driscoll has met with him during his writing sabbatical and reported:

Dr. Piper explained that he was in the midst of finishing his latest book which will critically examine N.T. Wright’s new perspective on the doctrine of justification. He said the project has required an enormous amount of research and is proving to be an intense book to write. To make matters more difficult, his computer crashed which cost him a few days of work. Next Tuesday he will begin the final week of writing the manuscript and selecting a title. I asked Dr. Piper if he would mind if I got the word out to those of us who have appreciated his work that May 29th through June 5th would be a strategic time to intercede for him in prayer. He said he would appreciate prayers as he believes this book is very important for the defense and articulation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and has come with some indications of spiritual warfare. So, on behalf of Dr. Piper, your intercession during his upcoming writing days would be greatly appreciated.

(HT: JT)

DOES AFFIRMING THE APOSTLES' CREED MAKE A TEACHER CHRISTIAN?

In a previous post I discussed the modalism of T. D. Jakes and concluded that Jakes should not be regarded as Christian since he does not affirm trinitarianism. Some may ask, as did some of my fellow LifeWay employees last night, what's the big deal?

Well, fundamentally, to deny the doctrine of the trinity is to deny humanity all hope of redemption.

Every heresy related to trinitarianism ultimately has an impact on who we say Christ was. Modalist's affirm the deity of Christ, which is good. However, the personhood of Christ is not distinguished from the personhood of the Father. In other words, modalists emphasize the oneness of God at the expense of his threeness. They emphasize divine unity at the expense of divine diversity. The Father and Son are modes of expression for the one divine person. But if the Son is not a distinct person from the Father, who exactly was it that died on the cross and why? When the Son bore the sin of the many, from whom did he receive the penalty due to sinners? If the Son and the Father are one person, how could the Son be counted sin and receive the vindictive wrath of God unto death for his church? Who accounted him sinful? Who executed the judgment on that account? This is a big big BIG problem for modalists. The problem was recognized in the early church and modalism was rejected.

Here's a chart explaining modalism:

As the chart demonstrates, modalism is the belief that God expresses himself in three different modes. The one divine person, God, may express himself as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

Here's a helpful chart explaining the emphases of the heresies that have historically challenged trinitarian orthodoxy:



As the chart demonstrates, modalism is the result of denying the diversity of the Godhead, subordinationism (associated with adoptionism) is the result of denying the equality of the Godhead, and tritheism (i.e. three gods) is the result of denying the unity of the Godhead.

Michelle K commented on the earlier post and left a link to the Global Day of Prayer Dallas web site. There I read that Bob Bakke of the Evangelical Free Church of America , Jack Graham of the Southern Baptist Convention, T.D. Jakes of the Potter's House, and international evangelist Luis Palau are the guiding coalition of the event.

How could three Christian ministers participate in leading a day of prayer with a non-Christian? What possible doctrinal confession could they share? The event has a statement of faith, the Apostles' Creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy universal church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

While Jakes doesn't affirm the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (A. D. 381), the ecumenical creed recognizing trinitarian orthodoxy, he apparently affirms the earlier Apostles' Creed, which doesn't take up the issue explicitly. The Apostle's Creed is simply silent on the issue. However, the Apostle's Creed is not silent on the issue because the doctrine of the trinity was yet to be "invented," but because the trinitarianism that had always been implicitly affirmed in the New Testament church, albeit in a sometimes unrefined manner, had yet to be seriously challenged. Without the challenge there simply was no need to formally develop and creedalize trinitarianism as Christian orthodoxy. That is what happened at Nicaea in 325, which was later expanded at Constantinople in 381.

So here's the question: Does affirming the Apostles' Creed alone post-Nicae make a teacher Christian?

IS THE AMERICAN DREAM A BIBLICAL IDEAL?

I found an interesting website last night from John Piper and Desiring God Ministries. It's called Don't Waste Your Life. It offers a free electronic copy of the book, which just received the EPCA's Gold Book Award for 500,000 sold, as well as short single-point video clips updated regularly. Check it out.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From the sermon "What is Meant by Believing in Christ?" (The Blessing of God: Previously Unpublished Sermons of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Michael D. McMullen) that Edwards the missionary preached to the Indians at Stockbridge [Text: Mark 16:15-16, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."]:

Have your eyes ever been opened to see the glorious excellency of Jesus Christ? Has the light of the Word of God ever shined into your hearts so that to see the excellency of that Word that teaches Christ and the way of salvation by him? Has that Word of Christ been sweeter to you than the honey on the honeycomb?

Is the Word of Christ sweet food to your soul that puts new life into you and is better than silver or gold? Do you see your need you have of Christ? Do you see what poor, wicked, miserable creatures you are? Do you see that all your goodness, all your prayers, and all that you do is not worthy to be accepted of God and can never pay for your sins? Is your heart broken for your sin, and do you see what a filthy, vile, abominable creature you are?

Do you see that you don't deserve any mercy, that you deserve to be cast into hell forever for your wickedness? Do you see that you are like a poor, little infant who can't help yourself? Does your whole heart go to Christ and him alone as your Savior? Do you give your heart to Christ , and are you willing with all your heart to give yourself to Christ to be his people forever and ever? Are you willing to forsake all for Jesus Christ? The Scriptures say that he who believes in Christ is like a man who sells all for one pearl of great price (Matt. 13:46). Are you willing to forsake all your sins, forsake all the world for Christ?

I advise poor sinners to come to Christ for salvation and to give themselves with all their hearts to him. You are poor, miserable creatures. You are in danger of going to hell and stand in great need of Christ. There is no other way for you to be saved. God never provided any other Savior but he. You must come to Christ; you can't do without him. If you don't come to him, you must be damned forever and ever.

You have a last opportunity that many others don't. You have the gospel preached to you. You are instructed in the way of salvation by him, and many others have no such privilege. Christ in his Word calls you to come to him. He invites, he bids you come and welcome. If you are a great sinner, a wicked person, if you have done wickedness in these times, yet Christ is ready to receive you if you will come to him. Christ calls all men and women, young and old and little children. All are invited to look to him that they might be saved.

Christ gave direction to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven. Christ has provided a great feast, set his door wide open, and says, "Whosoever will may come." You may come and eat without money, come for nothing. Nothing is required of you for your own eternal beings and having all the glory of heaven but only to come to Christ with all your heart. You may have Christ for your Savior and may have all heaven only if you will give Christ your heart. Christ stands at the door and knocks. If you will open the door, he will come in, and he will give himself to you and all that he has.

Now is your opportunity while life lasts. Christ never will invite you and offer himself to you anymore after you are dead. The Scriptures say if you won't hear now while Christ calls to you, he won't hear you when you call to him in your misery. But he will laugh at your calamity and mock you when you are in great distress.

Christ this day calls and invites you. I am his servant, and I invite you to come to him. Make haste, delay not. Give your heart to Christ, and he will save you from hell, and all heaven will be yours.

I find a few things very interesting about this sermon and, particularly, this excerpt.

First, I have read many of Edwards's sermons. This is the first I've read that he specifically prepared for the Indians. There is a huge stylistic difference. Sermons he prepared for his congregants in Northampton are filled with complex sentences and intricate arguments. But this sermon manuscript is written in short simple sentences and the arguments are basic. Edwards clearly understood that his style should be governed by his audience, so he toned things down a bit for the Indians. He adapted to be most effective in his new environment at the mission post.

Second, notice the way his gospel call is structured. He BEGINS with an acknowledgment of the sovereign grace of God in salvation writing: "Have your eyes ever been opened to see?" Next he describes what God opens sinners' eyes to see: the excellency of the gospel through which the beatific vision of Christ and their own miserable state is revealed. THEN he gives the call, which includes the necessity of a personal faith, the readiness of Christ to receive all who will believe, the fact that believers bring nothing to the table yet receive everything in Christ, and the urgency of the moment due to certain death and final judgment.

What a great example of how to present the gospel of Jesus Christ!

BECKWITH REVISITED

Previously I have posted on the conversion of ETS president, Francis Beckwith, to Roman Catholicism. In those posts I have argued here, here, here, and here that a Roman Catholic could not sign the ETS doctrinal basis with integrity.

Today former ETS president, David M. Howard, Jr., published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on Beckwith's conversion. He writes:

The ETS executive committee--of which I am a member, as a past president of the society myself--released a statement thanking Mr. Beckwith for his many contributions to the society and expressing its desire to maintain cordial relations with him. The committee also noted that his resignation was appropriate, since the ETS affirms that "the Bible alone . . . is the Word of God written."

The phrase "the Bible alone" in the ETS context refers to the 66 books in the Old and New Testaments of the Protestant canon and thus rules out Mr. Beckwith's continued membership, given that the Roman Catholic Church accepts additional books in the canon, commonly referred to as deuterocanonical or apocryphal books. Mr. Beckwith maintains that he can still sign the ETS statement with full integrity because it does not enumerate the 66 books, but he voluntarily withdrew his membership in the interests of avoiding a rancorous debate in the society.

I think the ETS committee is right to consider the word "Bible" in the doctrinal basis as necessarily referring to the Protestant canon in context, thus ruling out the admission of Roman Catholics into the society.

However, something Howard said struck me:

Responses to Mr. Beckwith's conversion run the gamut. A small number of evangelicals have reacted as if he committed an act of betrayal. Among many more, including us on the executive committee, the response has been one of cordial disagreement on some critical matters, accompanied by an acknowledgment that we nevertheless have much in common as fellow Christians.

I understand that there may be Christian congregants within Roman Catholic churches. One could, due to ignorance, be a part of a church that is officially heretical. But is it right to call those Roman Catholics who really understand the doctrinal issues Christian? I do not think I would call informed Roman Catholics "fellow Christians."

What do you think?

(HT: JT)

T.D. JAKES, THE HERETIC

Last night while working at LifeWay "Christian" Store I noticed T.D. Jakes staring down at me from the latest cover of Gospel Today. I had an interesting conversation with a fellow associate about Jakes and informed her of his modalism, which is a denial the doctrine of the Trinity. Jakes may be something, but, because he denies that God is by nature trinitarian, he is not Christian. She asked for direct evidence of Jakes's heresy. I directed her to the Potter's House belief statement which reads:

There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The use of the word "manifestation" instead of "person" is troubling. The statement doesn't necessitate modalism, but it is certainly left open to a modalistic reading. I would think that if Jakes was concerned to confess Trinitarianism, which is an essential element of Christian orthodoxy, he would have used the word "person" rather than "manifestation."

Providentially, today Jonthan Moorhead has posted very helpful articles at Preach the Word and From the Head of the Moor citing evidence for Jake's heresy (see also here). He even offers to send chapters from his masters thesis on Jakes to those who would like a more in depth look at the subject.

NEW DIGS FOR SOLUS CHRISTUS

Hello everyone! Solus Christus has been up and running for about a year and a half now. I have been wanting to change templates since New Years but didn't take the time to do it. As you can see, I finally did it today.

Let me know what you think.

EDWARDS IN BUDAPEST

The Jonathan Edwards conference in Budapest, Hungary has concluded. Caleb Maskell has posted a pic and promised a wrap-up with video clips soon over at the JEC blog. It is amazing that 300 years after Edwards's birth his influence is still being felt worldwide.

COULD A ROMAN CATHOLIC SIGN THE ETS DOCTRINAL STATEMENT WITH INTEGRITY?

With the conversion of Dr. Francis Beckwith, ETS President, from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, and his understanding: "Because I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement, I do not intend to resign as a member of ETS," a debate has ensued over whether the ETS statement necessarily excludes Roman Catholics. The statement reads:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

Well, Dr. Beckwith did in fact withdraw from the society. But the question remains.

Could a Roman Catholic sign the ETS doctrinal statement with integrity?

I have previously argued that he could not, because the Roman Catholic understanding of the word "Bible" differs from the Protestant understanding. One word cannot mean different things at the same time and in the same sense without breaking the law of non-contradiction and, thus, rendering itself completely meaningless. In the statement, the word "Bible" must either mean to include a 39-book (Protestant) or 47-book (Roman Catholic) Old Testament. It cannot mean both. And since the framers of the statement were Protestant, it must mean to include a 39-book OT.

One leading ETS member Dr. Andreas Kostenberger, professor of New Testament and director of Ph.D. studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently posted an exchange between himself and Dr. Gregg Allison, professor of Systematic Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and expert on Roman Catholicism. Kostenberger asks Allison whether a Roman Catholic could sign the statement with integrity. Allison's response is ultimately, "I would seriously doubt that informed Roman Catholics would sign the ETS doctrinal basis." His reasons are interesting and include the fact that the Romish Bible differs from the Protestant Bible. You can read his response to Kostenberger's question here.

PASTORAL INTERNSHIP AT PCPC

As many of you know, I have been in the process of applying to the pastoral internship at Park Cities Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Dallas, Texas. Recently I received a reply to my application.

When I returned home from commencement this Saturday I found a telephone message from Rob Allen (pastor over the intern program) requesting a meeting to talk about the internship. I met with Rob yesterday morning, and he extended an offer to enter the year-long internship at PCPC beginning July 1. My wife and I are very excited about the prospect of ministering within the PCA and believe this internship will be invaluable in that undertaking. The Lord has certainly been gracious to us!

I am especially excited to be going through the internship with a dear friend, Matt Bradley. He has consistently challenged and encouraged my study. It was through discussions with Matt, among others, that I began to explore covenant theology in depth and finally reached a point of full acceptance. Thanks Matt! I look forward to continued sharpening from you.

Again thanks to all who have been so supportive during this transition.

All praise to the Lord Jesus Christ who is indeed, "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:13). May he receive glory and honor and praise among his people today and throughout eternity!

MY SON'S BAPTISM

Yesterday my son, Jonathan Cole Bennett, was baptized at Park Cities Presbyterian Church, Dallas, TX. Rev. Bill Lamberth administered the initiatory rite. It was a very special time. Today, as I reflect on it, I rejoice in our Heavenly Father's great faithfulness to his promises. As the Apostle Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, "For the promise is for you and for your children" (Acts 2:39a).

The Westminster Larger Catechism questions 165-67 read:

What is baptism?

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ has ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.

Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?

Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

How is our Baptism to be improved by us?

The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

BECKWITH IN THE WASHINGTON POST

The Washington Post has published an article covering the Francis Beckwith story. Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, rejoined the Roman Catholic church recently. I read the article and was startled by one quote in particular.

"At the end of the day, the reason for the Reformation was the debate over justification. If that is no longer an issue, I have to be Catholic," Beckwith said. "It seems to me that if there is not a very strong reason to be Protestant, then the default position should be to belong to the historic church."

I have three words for Beckwith's historical-theological evaluation: simplistic, inaccurate, and wrong. Read any notable history of the period. You will quickly discover that a myriad of influences motivated the Reformation. To boil it all down to the debate on over justification is incredibly naive.

Last Fall I audited a senior-level class on Roman Catholic theology from Dr. J. Lanier Burns at Dallas Theological Seminary. One main point Dr. Burns revisited throughout the semester was that, while the doctrine of justification is key, the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism involves much much more. Just a few other MAJOR differences are the doctrine of the papacy, the Church as sacrament, the doctrine of the application of the atonement, and the doctrine of Mary.

At this point, if I were to reduce the complexities of the reformation down to one thing, I would say it was fundamentally about authority. The Romish perversion of the doctrine of justification is a symptom of a much deeper problem: the need of the Magesterium to maintain its power over the people.

Do you want to receive redeeming and sanctifying grace? If you are Roman Catholic you can only get that through men who have received the sacrament of orders (the priests)! Do you want to commune with Christ, enjoying the benefits of his redemptive work? If you are Roman Catholic you must go through the Pope! There is no other way. The office of the Roman papacy is antichrist. It takes the place (anti) of Christ as head of his Church.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) says it well:

25.6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

No, the differences between Roman Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism are much much more complex and no less important than the debate over justification. But perhaps Beckwith is right. Perhaps there isn't much difference between the contemporary "Protestant" view of justification and Roman Catholicism. Maybe the Reformers would be shocked to see that those who claim their heritage have abandoned the very truths for which they gave their lives!

At the end of the day, the reason for the Reformation was Rome's perversion of the Gospel. And to this day Rome has not changed. It still preaches a false gospel.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

Just Got a new Edwards volume today, The Blessing of God: Previously Unpublished Sermons of Jonathan Edwards edited by Michael D. McMullen. Here's a quote from the sermon entitled "To Delight to Exalt God":

It is the temper of the truly godly to delight to exalt God and to lay themselves low. It is natural to a godly man as a godly man to delight in this. 'Tis not only a mere transient glance of affection after some great deliverance from a greatly feared danger, after a dangerous fit of sickness, or some dangerous accident, or the like, but it is the continued nature and disposition of the godly man. Not but that it may be otherwise with him at such times, but the thing is not because he has not such a disposition and temper so to do but because this disposition is not in exercise. The godly man then doesn't act when the godly man does. Otherwise, it is not the godly man who acts but the body of sin. If every man thus acted contrary to true grace, at some time was a wicked man, we should have none but wicked men in the world, because every action of corruption, small or great, is contrary to true grace. But this is what we say, that it is the spirit and temper of the godly man to delight thus to act.

How often do we fall short of loving that which is truly lovely? How often do we give ourselves to idolatry? Far too often! But Edwards recognizes here that, while their is no excusing sin, there is the reality that godly men do ungodly things, and, in a way, that is good news to those who are trusting in the finished work of Christ alone for their salvation. I can think of no greater tyranny for a sinner than the belief that godliness is the same as sinlessness. If that is true then, notwithstanding self-delusion, all hope becomes despair. There is a reason why Paul said, "Therefore as it is written, 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" (1 Corinthians 1:31).

Tomorrow, I will participate in the commencement services of Dallas Theological Seminary. I will be awarded a Master of Theology degree. Master of Theology? I don't think so! The only thing I have ever truly mastered is sin. Yes, I am a master of manipulation, conniving, deception, and the like. I am a master of duplicity. I am a master at believing I am a master through the suppression of knowledge to the contrary; therefore I am a master of nothing.

However, there are moments, though imperfect, when Christ causes the new creation to flourish within me. Moments when I exult to lay low and exalt the glory of God. There are moments when thorns that have infested my soul are cut away and new growth begins. Yes, there are moments when I delight to exalt the true Master as a child delights in the glory of his father. Only then are peace and mercy upon me by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those are foretastes of the ultimate commencement, the end of the age, when we will truly and perfectly delight to exalt God.

"Beloved we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure" (1 John 3:2-3).

R.C. SPROUL ON THE ABSURDITY OF ABSURDITY

I recently finished R.C. Sproul's survey of the history of ideas, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World. I enjoyed it very much. Sproul has a knack for communicating complex ideas clearly without monotonous repetition and thoroughly without belaboring nonessentials. In short, he has a Puritanical (in a good way) heart and intellect without the penchant for casuistry. He's also fun to read. Very clever sense of humor!

The chapter "Friedrich Nietzsche: Atheistic Existentialist" includes a section in which Sproul brilliantly and cleverly reacts to the pseudo-epistemology of absurdity, which is so prevalent among academics today. He writes:

Any evaluation of Nietzsche's thought must inquire into his epistemology. How does one refuse a philosopher who declares absurdity at the outset? When dealing with apostles of irrationality, I always ask them why they even bother to talk. I see no great value in my proving the absurdity of a position proponents of which already grant its absurdity. The most consistent act of irrational philosophers would be simply to shut up. If they can say nothing meaningful (since there is nothing meaningful to say), why continue babbling? They insist, however, on speaking and writing. In a word, they argue for the "truth" of their position, but their arguments have no grounds for validity or invalidity since they have already abandoned the law of validity.

When I challenge such pseudo-philosophers in this manner, they reply that they have no need to be consistent or rational because reality and truth are neither consistent nor rational. Indeed, this would be a "rational" defense of irrationality. But to seek to justify irrationality by rational means begs the question in piercing screams. It is self-defeating, because it employs the very norms it is attacking. It is the classic case of wanting to eat one's cake and have it too.

To claim irrationality allows a thinker to be as sloppy as he wishes without making himslef vulnerable to a sober critique. If we point out inconsistency, contradiction, or error, he can respond, "See, I told you my position is absurd."

One wonders what Zeno of Elea would do with such thinkers. His favorite ploy, the reductio ad absurdum argument, would be short-circuited. How does one reduce to absurdity something that is already absurd? What a monumental waste of time! When I debate someone who claims irrationality at the outset, I see no need to refute him; he has already done that for me. I hand him back the microphone and ask him politely to state his position again, but more loudly. If he declares that his alternative to theism is absurd, he has done all I can hope to achieve in my arguments for theism. The only tactic I have left is that of ridicule. We should laugh (albeit through tears) at those views that are declared by their proponents to be absurd.

The irony, however, is that most proponents of absurdity take umbrage at being deemed absurd proponents of absurdity. They want to be regarded as cogent defenders of absurdity, which is a fool's errand. For if Nietzsche's (or anyone else's) argument for irrationality is true, then it must be false!

THE ANGER OF GOD

Over the last few years I have had conversations with several dear friends about penal substitutionary atonement. Typically the conversations have revolved around N.T. Wright and the NPP (not that the two are equivalent). Recently, with the publication of the new book on penal substitution Pierced for Our Transgressions, which Wright has reviewed, and the much awaited book on the subject by John Piper slated for publication soon, old conversations have been breathed to life again.

In these conversations, I have always found it difficult to clearly articulate the intuitive antagonism I feel toward any doctrine of the atonement that downplays penal substitution. Today I found a link on Adrian Warnock's blog to an article by a German guy named Sam that really helped me understand my understanding better. It says exactly what I've felt but have been unable to pin down with clear articles. Here's an excerpt:

Penal substitution has to be "central" for me because I read my bible. That may sound like a ridiculously blank statement, so I'll explain what I mean. When I read my bible, I am presented with a God who gets angry. This is not all of who God is, or necessarily the main thing, but it's there in black and white. Sure, he's slow to anger, compassionate and gracious, but he gets angry. Recently I read through Jeremiah - the first main point is: Jerusalem's going under because the people are sinful; God (in his sovereignty over the nations) is going to send an army to carry out his judgment. He's like a potter who's going to dash his vessel Judah on the ground. Do I think that's great? Do I get a sort of masochistic pleasure from this? Does this make God attractive to a 21st century student? No. Welcome to the bible: God gets angry.

I submit that the whole argument about penal substitution stems from a problem with the idea that God gets angry and kills people when they sin. At the end of the day it's God's anger and retributive justice that offends the human heart above all.

Penal substitution, that God in Christ bore the penalty for our sin, is a perfectly natural and consistent development of the story and theology of the Old Testament, perfectly in line with God's character revealed in the Hebrew scriptures.

I would only add that I think divine anger IS about the main thing, namely, divine glory exhibited in divine love. There is no such thing as divine love divorced from divine anger. Divine anger must be extended toward anything that contradicts divine love, lest divine love be forfeited.

ETS PRESIDENT CONVERTS TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM

Frances Beckwith, Baylor prof and president of ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) has converted to Roman Catholicism. You can read about it at Tom Ascol's blog here. Beckwith's website is here. He contributes to the blog Right Reason. There you can read his own thoughts about his conversion to Roman Catholicism in the post, "My Return to the Catholic Church." There he writes,

Because I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement, I do not intend to resign as a member of ETS.

What? The ETS doctrinal statement says:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

I think the only way a Papist could affirm this statement with consistency is to undersatnd the word "Bible" to include a 47-book Old Testament. But since the founders of ETS were clearly Protestant, they must have meant it to only include a 39-book Old Testament. Therefore, I don't think, according to the Romish heresy, Beckwith could affirm the statement with integrity.

Beckwith also blogs:

I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.

Historical and theological continuity? Am I missing something here? Roman Catholicism may be something, but it is not any more historically or theologically continuous than Protestantism with the first generations of Christians.

Carl Trueman has ably critiqued Beckwith's reasons for returning to Rome at Ref 21.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From Typological Writings YE 11:123,

When the fruit is ripe, it is easily gathered. It don't cleave fast to the tree, but is ready to quit it, and is picked without rending or making any wound. So is a saint that is ripe for heaven; he easily quits this world (Job 5:25).

THIS JUST IN!

Rodney Trotter may have just scooped the story of the century, nay the millennium, over at Ref 21. The post is entitled "Baptism: the Problem Solved after 2000 Years":

You heard it here first: a group of baptist leaders gathered at Southern Baptist Seminary have assessed all the evidence and decided that -- wait for it -- believer's baptism is the only biblical approach. See the shock headline at, of all places, the Southern Baptist webpage Towers.

Yes, after months of careful and dispassionate research, a jury of previously convinced baptists have concluded that they have been right all along and thus brought in this shock result. The baptists world is said to be in turmoil tonight. A spokesman for Mark Dever has declared that Dr D was `Shocked and stunned at this surprise turn of events' and that we could be looking at `a major paradigm shift in baptist thinking over the coming weeks and months.'

Other surprising, paradigm-busting headlines on the net today:

`Pope is Catholic: so Concludes Papal Commision': Vatican Daily News

`Park Ranger Research Panel Concludes: Bears Don't Use Public Lavatories' State Park Inquirer

THE STUFF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IS MADE OF

Paul Helm has posted part two of his series on systematics, "Propositions and Speech Acts," over at his blog Helm's Deep. Helm defends the need for propositional truth against post-modern claims to the contrary while fairly recognizing the dramatic character of much of special revelation. Here's an excerpt from his concluding remarks:

It is the assertions that the very many different speech-acts to be found in Scripture presuppose - the true assertions, or propositions, about God and his ways - that provide the bedrock of theological reflection that goes to form systematic theology.

So - as is usual in thinking theologically - we need a historical perspective if we are not to be bowled over by the latest big words. This perspective gives us a sense of proportion. More importantly, we need a little philosophy, in this case the idea of propositions and assertions, what accounts for their meaning, and their fundamental character as truth-bearers.

Attempting to make the form of systematic theology more ‘participatory’ by stressing its 'dramatic' character, and by talking about speech-acts as its jazzy units, will not ensure participation in the Gospel, nor will it help to ensure it. It’s likely outcome is something that will make participation in the Gospel more difficult. For it will fuzzy the distinctive cognitive character of God's revelation, its good news, and make our thinking about divine things less exact, and less exacting.

THE PROPER OBJECT OF FAITH

Over the past few months I have been in the mode of applying for an internship at Park Cities Presbyterian Church. All the applicants finished interviewing last Tuesday. Tomorrow marks a week of waiting, wondering, hoping, questioning, over-analyzing, second-guessing, and struggling to maintain the proper object of my faith. I have reason to believe I won't be offered a position and to some extent that breaks my heart.

Last night while working at LifeWay I had the opportunity to minister to an older woman. We talked for three hours with only a few short interruptions. At the end of the matter the counsel she needed was really quite simple. She was struggling with maintaining the proper object of her faith. She spoke of people who had been healed, special visions, special messages from God, and her past conversion experience. I assured her that, though I don't believe God has given special messages to people since the close of the canon, I didn't doubt the reality of her experiences. What I doubt is their importance with respect to her present circumstances. The simple fact is because we are all sinners and unable to discern the intentions of our own hearts we can never discern whether a personal experience is truly from God with absolute precision. Satan can do all those things. In stressful times the mind can play tricks. I have flying dreams fairly frequently. Those experiences are very real, but that doesn't mean they are true.

At the end of the day the question is what are we trusting? What is our treasure? What do we love?

Are we to trust our own experiences? Should I have faith in my faith? NO! That's idolatry! That is trusting in myself!

Many contemporary evangelical churches lie to their people and lead them into this kind of idolatry. They tell their people to trust in themselves, in their own experience of faith. They tell them that if they'll only believe "enough," God will bless them. THAT is a lie! THAT is idolatry! THAT is sin! THAT is tyranny!

As I ministered to the woman last night, I was much more gentle than the remarks above might suggest. She didn't know any better. She only knew what she had been taught or what she had deduced for herself through the lack of teaching. Nonetheless, I was compelled to be clear with her. I helped her see how trusting in miraculous healings, visions, special divine messages, or her past conversion experience was ultimately sin. It is funded by the desire to see what is unseen, which is, ultimately, a rejection of faith. I encouraged her to be wary of trusting anything other than our triune God. He alone is worthy of our trust! She was very attentive and seemed genuinely appreciative of the counsel I gave her. We all like sheep have gone astray. I pray the Lord might indeed shepherd her beside still waters the rest of her days, and I am thankful that he would condescend in grace to allow a pitiful worm like me to point her in his direction.

By the end of our discussion I realized that as I was giving counsel, God was counseling me. Over the past few days I have been consumed with agonizing worry, a sure sign of misplaced faith, over the internship. Long story short: I realized that I have in effect placed my trust in a hypothetical "good" that I've constructed in my own mind rather than God, which is simply another way of saying I've been trusting in myself. What a wretch I am to think that I know what's best for me! Who am I to exalt myself above God in my mind's eye?

Praise be to the Father who has ordained all our steps for our own good. Praise be to the Son who has taken the form of a servant to secure our redemption unto that good. Praise be to the Spirit who disciplines and comforts us with the love of God, which is the ultimate "good." Because of God nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Oh that somehow I might learn to say along with the Apostle, "Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord," and mean it. I pray the Lord might help me to know contentment in all circumstances, knowing how to be brought low and how to abound with the humility that is the mind of Christ.