FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From his sermon "Safety, Fullness, and Sweet Refreshment in Christ":

Christ is a refuge in all trouble; there is a foundation for rational support and peace in him, whatever threatens us. He whose heart is fixed, trusting in Christ, need not be afraid of any evil tidings. "As the mountains are round about Jerusalem," so Christ is round about them that fear him.

ON THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD AND THE MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE COLLAPSE

After the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, John Piper responded as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church. Bethlehem is located only a mile away from where the bridge fell. Pastor John interpreted the bridge collapse according to a Calvinist doctrine of God. Here's an excerpt:

The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.

We prayed during our family devotions. Talitha (11 years old) and Noel and I prayed earnestly for the families affected by the calamity and for the others in our city. Talitha prayed “Please don’t let anyone blame God for this but give thanks that they were saved.” When I sat on her bed and tucked her in and blessed her and sang over her a few minutes ago, I said, “You know, Talitha, that was a good prayer, because when people ‘blame’ God for something, they are angry with him, and they are saying that he has done something wrong. That’s what “blame” means: accuse somebody of wrongdoing. But you and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand.” Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.”

This Tuesday Roger Olson, professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor College offered an interpretation of that same event from the perspective of an Arminian doctrine of God. Here's an excerpt:

In this world, because of our ignorance and sinfulness, really bad things sometimes happen and people do really evil and wicked things. Not because God secretly plans and prods them, but because God has said to fallen, sinful people, "OK, not my will then, but thine be done -- for now."

And God says, "Pray because sometimes I can intervene to stop innocent suffering when people pray; that's one of my self-limitations. I don't want to do it all myself; I want your involvement and partnership in making this a better world."

It's a different picture of God than most conservative Christians grew up with, but it's the only one (so far as I can tell) that relieves God of responsibility for sin and evil and disaster and calamity.

The God of Calvinism scares me; I'm not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you've come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself.

I admit I wholeheartedly embrace and relish the Calvinistic doctrine of God. I find it difficult to imagine life apart from it. I also find the interpretation of evil offered by it personally satisfying. But when I delve deeply into this issue (which I am all for by the way), I encounter difficulties that seem to be insurmountable for fallen human understanding. Those are the places, in the hard work of loving God with all my mind, that I fall to my knees in awe and offer up sacrifices of praise to my infinitely beautiful God.

As the two excerpts above demonstrate, the contrast between the views is striking. There are basically two ways of interpreting the evil in this world with respect to the doctrine of God. Fundamentally, we must either admit a limitation in God (i.e. the autonomy of his moral creatures) or a limitation in ourselves (i.e. extreme difficulty in reconciling a paradox in God's revelation). Notwithstanding what I view as the clear testimony of Holy Scripture, I am much more comfortable with the latter. The English Puritan Stephen Charnock has put it rather wisely:

But what if the foreknowledge of God, and the liberty of the will, cannot be fully reconciled by man? Shall we therefore deny the perfection in God to support a liberty in ourselves? Shall we rather fasten ignorance upon God, and accuse him of blindness to maintain our liberty?

The Arminian says: Rather than blaming God for evil, let's blame him for ignorance instead.

The Calvinist says: Rather than blaming God for ignorance, let's blame ourselves for ignorance instead.

(HT: JT)

THOMAS BOSTON'S PASTORAL HEART

I am currently reading Thomas Boston's Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. I remember my seminary professor Dr. John Hannah saying in class that he considered Boston's book one of the best works on biblical anthropology ever written. Jonathan Edwards called him "a truly great divine." I am a couple chapters in now, and I must say, Boston is superb.

Thomas Boston (1676-1732) was a Puritan pastor-theologian who labored for most of his ministry among God's flock in Ettrick, a secluded rural parish in Selkirkshire, Scotland along the headwaters of the Etrrick River. By the time Boston began serving there the people had been without a minister for five years. During that time the spiritual condition of the town had diminished significantly. Boston inherited a nominally Christian flock and had to contend with the pervading clouds of religious apathy for many years before the light finally began to break through. George Morrison writes (the comments in brackets are mine):

For a long time it looked as if nothing could be done. Work and prayer seemed to be well-nigh powerless. Amid that sea of hills, as Ettrick has been called, Boston had taken arms against a sea of troubles, and nothing but deep conviction that his call had been of God could have upheld him through his earlier ministry. The little flock at Simprin [where he had previously labored] had been ignorant, but, at least, they had received with meekness the engrafted word. Ettrick was very liberal to its poor, and very hospitable to the passing stranger; but it was full of pride, and self-assurance, and conceit [much like our communities today I think]--the frequent offspring of an isolated life . . . A four years' vacancy [of a parish minister] had wrought its natural effects. Men had grown careless. They had lost the art of decent attention during service. They gossiped and chaffered so noisily in the churchyard in time of sermon, that one of the elders had to be told off to keep order there. Worse, too, than any inattention was the so lax morality. The vice of swearing was widespread. And one has but to turn the pages the old Session Records to be ashamed at the prevalent uncleanness. No wonder Boston was made to go with a bowed-down back. No wonder that after eight years of it he said to his wife, 'My heart is alienated from this place.' At times he was filled with the longing to be gone. And it is characteristic of his large and loyal heart, that nothing so speedily subdued that longing as the thought of the sad plight of Ettrick if he went.


But in the long-run, faith and prayer and study will tell. And as they had told in Simprin they were to tell in Ettrick too. It is not every minister who grows and deepens amid unsympathetic people. It is not every father who abounds in thankfulness when called to meet the bitterest sorrows of the home. Boston did both. And the artless story of his study and his preaching and his daily wrestling with God, surrounded and shadowed as he was, is one of the noblest records that was ever penned. Slowly and surely his influence grew. Gird as they would, men felt the thrust and power of his preaching, and knew the Holy Ghost was in it. One of his action sermons had been published, and word began to steal into the valley that it was making a deep impression in Edinburgh. Strange faces became common in the church. Then came the inevitable calls. And Ettrick grew convinced at last--and the conviction had taken ten years to ripen--that in losing Boston they would lose an incomparable minister. It is touching to note the outbreakings of a rough affection, and to find a congregational fast appointed by the Session, when in 1716 Boston came under call to Closeburn. It is touching, too, and something more, when we remember what the past had been, to mark how Boston, in Presbytery and Synod and Assembly, battled against the call, and how at last he won. It was the turning-point in the parish life. Henceforth he was to minister with new authority, and to be the instrument of far larger blessing.

INFANT BAPTISM

Justin Taylor posted linked to a couple of outstanding articles yesterday on the topic of infant baptism:

Dennis Johnson, Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed

R. Scott Clark, A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism

(HT: JT)

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From A Sweet Flame: Piety in the Letters of Jonathan Edwards, edited and introduced by Michael A. G. Haykin:

Just before his death, those at his bedside, supposing he was unconscious, were lamenting what his death would mean to the college and to the church, when they were surprised by what proved to be his last words:

Trust in God, and ye need not fear.

QUOTES ON EDWARDS FROM DR. JOHN HANNAH

DTS student David Gundersen has recently posted extensive quotes from Dr. John Hannah's course on Jonathan Edwards. They are excellent. I took the course a couple years ago. I encourage you to check them out.

(HT: George Deines)

THEOLOGY QUIZ

Do you really know your theology?



Who was the third man to walk on water?



The first man to walk on water was Jesus Christ.



The second man to walk on water was the Apostle Peter.



Then there was this man named Jose . . . .



(HT: Rev. Rob Allen)

I'M A BAPTISTERIAN???

Ever heard someone say: "I'm a Baptisterian"? I have, and I always think to myself: "Wha?" In my mind the statement translates: "I'm happy to be ignorant in important ecclesiological issues, because the Lord's body, his church for whom he died, is not important enough for me to spend my valuable time considering." As a Presbyterian/Covenantalist I am happy to rejoice with Baptist brothers and sisters in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, especially with those who understand the importance of the church. But it saddens me when either Persbys or Baptists trivialize important ecclesiological distinctives.

Justin Taylor has posted a thanks to Ligon Duncan for his post of the basics of covenant baptism at Reformation 21. In a spirit of unity, which I applaud, he refers to a discussion between Baptist (SBC) Mark Dever and Presbyterian (PCA) David Coffin in which they offered 17 points of agreement between baptists and covenantalists on baptism. The first point of agreement is this:

1. No one disagrees with professor baptism (except Quakers).

But is that true? Is it true that baptists and covenantalists affirm professor baptism in the same sense?

The only sense in which I can imagine it is true is that both baptize professors. But the trouble is neither agrees with what the baptism of a professor means, which is, I think, the heart of the issue.

For instance, baptists baptize professors only. Covenantalists baptize professors and there children. Therefore, if a baptized child later professes the faith, becoming a professor, they are not then baptized again, because their baptism as a child is viewed as valid. However, if that person who had been baptized as a child wants to become a member of a baptist church, he would be required to be baptized as a professor. In that way, baptists and covenantalists define professor baptism differently.

Furthermore, covenantalists affirm that the baptism of every professor and their children is a valid baptism. Baptists do not affirm this. Baptists believe that only the truly regenerate can receive a valid baptism. If one professes faith, yet is unregenerate, and that person is baptized, then their baptism is not regarded as valid. Therefore, if that person at a later time "realizes" that he was not really regenerate when first baptized, he must be baptized again for a valid baptism to occur. Covenantalists only baptize once. Regeneration is not required as a prerequisite (If it were how could we ever presume to baptize anyone this side of glory?). In that way baptists and covenantalists define professor baptism differently.

I don't believe that either Dever or Coffin mean to trivialize this important ecclesiological issue. Their second point clearly reads:

2. This is a subject of great import.

However, while I appreciate the desire to find common ground, the first point of "agreement" is only true if one allows the term professor baptism to be defined differently by each side of the debate. In other words, it is not a point shared in common. Baptists and covenantalists may both baptize professors, but if they don't mean the same thing by it, then claiming commonality on this point is not very helpful.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From "The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous," text: Rev. 18:20, "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her":

Then [after the saint is glorified], there will be no remaining difficulties about the justice of God, about the absolute decrees of God, or any thing pertaining to the dispensations of God towards men. But divine justice in the destruction of the wicked will then appear as light without darkness, and will shine as the sun without clouds, and on this account they will sing joyful songs of praise to God, as we see the saints and angels do, when God pours the vials of his wrath upon antichrist; Rev. 15:5-7. They sing joyfully to God on this account, that true and righteous are his judgments; Rev. 19:1-6. Their seeing God so strictly just will make them value his love the more. Mercy and grace are more valuable on this account. The more they shall see of the justice of God, the more will they prize and rejoice in his love.

BAPTISM REVISITED (NOT REDONE)

With Baptist pastor/theologians Wayne Grudem and John Piper discussing the significance of baptism as it relates to church membership last week (which baptist pastor/theologian and friend Gunny Hartman of Providence Church has discussed insightfully at his blog Semper Reformanda), questions about the covenantal understanding of baptism have arisen. Today Ligon Duncan, PCA pastor/theologian, has posted a helpful summary of the basics of covenantal baptism at Reformation 21. Here is his thumbnail sketch of the position:

1. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly makes a promise to believers and to their children (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39).

2. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs (respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.

3. Therefore, since God has given an explicit promise to believers and their children, in the New Testament, and attached a sign to this promise, and enjoined us (in the new covenant) to administer that sign [baptism, Matthew 28:19-20], then we should give the sign of the promise he has made to believers and their children, to believers and their children, in humble obedience to biblical command and example.

DALLAS PASTOR RECEIVED A SPECIAL REVELATION FROM GOD: QUICK! WRITE IT DOWN AND PUT IT IN YOUR BIBLE

Sam Hodges of The Dallas Morning News published an article this Monday on the new Pastor of FBC Dallas, Robert Jeffress. Hodges writes:

After the vote, he told the congregation about an experience he said he'd never shared with anyone, including his wife, Amy. He said that one night as a Baylor University student, he was walking down the street and had a direct communication from God.

"God said to me, 'One day you will be the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas.' ... Whatever happens, I know I am in the center of God's will."

(HT: George "Horhay" Deines)

CT COVER STORY: WHAT DID PAUL REALLY MEAN?

With John Piper's soon to be published book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, and the cover story for the next issue of Christianity Today, What Did Paul Really Say?, it looks as though NPP ideas have officially entered the mainstream of the contemporary American evangelical conversation. Here's the intro:

Pick up any recent Bible commentary or theology textbook, and you will read about something called the "new perspective on Paul." Seminaries have buzzed for decades about how they might apply to Paul the new light shed on Judaism. Some advocates of the new perspective conclude that the Reformers have led Protestants to misunderstand the all-important doctrine of justification.

As a result, the new perspective has stirred more than a little controversy. Ligon Duncan, former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), said new perspective theology "undercuts the certainty of believers regarding the substance of the gospel message." In June, the PCA General Assembly said advocates of the new perspective should report themselves to presbytery courts, because their teaching does not accord with the Westminster Standards.

Leading new perspective theologian N. T. Wright has repeatedly responded to his critics. Talking in 2004 with James D. G. Dunn, who named the new perspective, Wright faulted his critics for producing websites that "are extremely rude about the two people sitting on this platform tonight for having sold Paul down the river and given up the genuine Reformed doctrine of justification by faith."

So is this merely a squabble among Reformed theologians? Certainly not—some new perspective scholars also teach that Martin Luther's preoccupation with the Roman Catholic Church has led all Protestants astray. Do we now need to reframe our preaching and teaching to be truly biblical? British scholar Simon Gathercole takes on that question in this article.—CT Editors

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From Ethical Writings vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards ed. Paul Ramsey, "Heaven is a World of Love," 396-97:

By living a life of love, you will be in the way to heaven. As heaven is a world of love, so the way to heaven is the way of love. This will best prepare you for heaven, and make you meet for an inheritance with the saints in that land of light and love. And if ever you arrive at heaven, faith and love must be the wings which must carry you there.

If you haven't had the privilege of reading this sermon I encourage you to. It is a masterpiece of both form and content. You may access it here at A Puritan's Mind.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From The Salvation of Souls, ed. Bailey and Willis, "Ministers to Preach Not Their Own Wisdom but the Wisdom of God":

God does not need to be told by his messengers what message is fit to deliver.

Sometimes beauty comes wrapped in simplicity!

BUILDING BRIDGES

The Building Bridges Conference on Southern Baptists and Calvinism has just been announced by LifeWay. It looks like a good conference with great speakers. It's good to see Founders Ministries partnering with SEBTS on this. However, it is a bit telling when the denomination's publishing house misspells the word Calvinsim. :-)

(HT: TA)

THE BRIDGE FELL

This evening the bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. At the time, around 6:00 pm, the eight-lane interstate highway was loaded with rush hour traffic. Cars driving across plummeted 60 feet to the river below. According to the New York Times at least seven people were killed and more than sixty were injured. The bridge stood just a few miles from Bethlehem Baptist Church. Pastor John Piper has written an excellent reflection on this tragic event.

PAUL HELM'S ANALYSIS #5- "ARE REVEALED TRUTHS TIMELESS?"

Paul Helm has written and posted another wonderful analysis over at his blog Helm's Deep. The post is entitled Analysis 5- Are Revealed Truths Timeless? Helm analyzes and evaluates the assumptions behind the current tendency among some theologians to move away from (or totally deny?) Berkhofian systematics on the pretext of the innate deficiency of propositional truth claims. He opens with these paragraphs:

I have not tried to count the number of times when I have read that Berkhofian systematic theology, and the idea of propositional revelation that underlies it, expresses the Christian faith as ‘timeless truth’, or as ‘timelessly true’, or even as ‘eternally true’. Those who say such things clearly regard timeless truth as a bad thing, something to be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of adopting a narrative or theodramatic or speech-act approach to revelation and theology. (I suspect that this charge, like others I have mentioned elsewhere, in connection with Charles Hodge, is passed from hand to hand rather unreflectively. Is it a case of 'proposition-denial', I wonder? I may be mistaken. We may then get to the bottom of things, though I am not hopeful.)

For it is hard to fathom what those with this distaste for the timelessness of truth really object to. I have yet to find critic who will state – timelessly or otherwise, clearly or fuzzily – what the problem is: why revealed truths are timeless, and what’s so bad about that. So in the interests of furthering communication among those interested in systematic theological method I shall now attempt to try to work out what the timelessness charge is all about.