Attempted Axiom: On Ministering out of Joy for the Lord and his People

The fear of the Lord, without the fear of any man, is the beginning of ministering out of joy for the Lord and his people.

Miscellanies 5: On the Call to Pastoral Ministry

During my first ten months of ordained pastoral ministry, which has been the most intense whole-being roller coaster ride I've ever been on, one practical issue has come up in my mind time and again. What does it mean to be called to pastoral ministry? While I acknowledge much variety in the way individual men might answer that question so that we might say no two calls are ever uniform, there is, nonetheless, a unifying principle of pastoral call. Traditionally three elements of a call are acknowledged: (1) Gifts commensurate to the work, (2) A desire to do the work, and (3) The reception of a particular visible call.

One part of the above description and definition that isn't defined is this: What is the work of pastoral ministry? If one must have gifts commensurate to the work and a desire to do the work, then one must also know what the work is. Again, it may be acknowledged that no two particular visible calls have uniform works. Each pastoral circumstance is in some sense unique. Nonetheless, Scripture teaches a unifying principle of the work of pastoral ministry. It is seen in Jesus' words to Peter in John 21:15-19. Jesus commands Peter saying, "Feed my sheep." I've preached on this passage here.

But again, what does it mean to feed Christ's sheep? Peter tells us in his first epistle:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

And what is the work of the sheep? In other words what does it mean to be fed by the undershepherd? Peter continues . . .

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5).

Sometimes I Wonder . . .

[HT:JT]

Understanding the Sabbath Doctrine of the Westminster Standards

Darryl Hart writes:

The [Westminster] Standards assume three categories of moral evaluation – the sacred, profane, and the common, and these spheres actually shift depending on whether the day is holy or ordinary (as in common).

This is what is meant by the Westminster divines' use of the terms holy (i.e. the sacred) and worldly (i.e. the common and profane). In WCF 21.8 we read:

This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldy employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

I'm still putting the pieces together in my own understanding of this but here's my thinking thus far. The holy sphere of moral evaluation includes all human activities or various implements set apart by God unto his worship. The worldly sphere, on the other hand, includes everything else, which could either be classified as common or profane (in my reading it appears that these are sometimes spoken of together as simply the profane, though Hart makes a distinction). The common are those human activities and implements that are part of God's good creation (e.g. lawful employments and lawful recreations), but not set apart by God as aspects of his worship, properly speaking. The profane are those human activities which are sinful (i.e. anything unlawful). Without these categories in mind it is difficult if not impossible to understand the Confession's teaching on Sabbath remembrance.

What the Confession is teaching is that the Sabbath is holy because the day is set apart unto the worship of God. Therefore, notwithstanding "the duties of necessity and mercy," it is to be kept holy by being "taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship." This, by definition, excludes the worldly sphere (i.e. anything that is common or profane).

Sean Lucas: On Greater Doctrinal Precision as the Basis for Greater Christian Unity

In Martin Downes' 2009 book Risking the Truth: Handling Error in the Church (which is a very good read!) Sean Lucas, formerly Associate Professor of Church History and Chief Academic Officer at Covenant Theological Seminary and now Senior Pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Hattiesburg, MS, says:

. . . more detailed confessional statements should provide greater unity. It is striking to me that several places in the New Testament where it appears that early creedal statements are being developed and used (e.g., Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Tim. 3:16), these statements are actually fairly detailed when it comes to Christological truths. And that is because the church had to maintain unity on the core of their faith--who Jesus was, what He came to do, what He continues to do at the right hand of the Father, what He will do at the end of the age. Unity can only be maintained when the boundaries are clearly set between truth and error.

Even more, fuller confessional statements represent a type of doctrinal advance. As J. Gresham Machen once noted, 'All real doctrinal advance proceeds in the direction of greater precision and fullness of doctrinal statement.' That is why the church did not stop with the first Nicene Creed in 325, for example. While having a wonderful statement of Christological truths, that first Nicene Creed was woefully inadequate on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And so, in 381, the Council of Constantinople revised the Nicene Creed to fill out the doctrine of the Spirit (and Gregory of Nyssa felt that the Council did not go far enough in spelling out the deity of the Holy Spirit). More truth will lead to greater precision which should lead to longer confessional statements.

Which is all to say that the move of many evangelicals toward minimalistic creeds is actually a move in the wrong direction. Rather than representing doctrinal advance or even means for unity, minimalistic confessional statements actually lead to doctrinal pluralism, theological downgrade, and suspicion leading to division. Better to have fullerconfessional standards and allow differences among believers to be owned manfully and discussed charitably (128-29).

I had the privilege of preaching on this same doctrine, the doctrine of doctrinal maximalism, from 1 Cor. 1:2 ; 13:12 Sunday evening March 15, 2009 at my home church Twin Oaks Presbyterian, Ballwin, MO. The sermon is called "The Wellbeing of Christian Unity"

Is it a Sin to Omit Political Activism?

Darryl Hart writes:

The two-kingdom approach to Christ and culture is superior to neo-Calvinism because it is based on the doctrine of vocation. For the Kuyperian, Christians have a holy duty to take captive every square inch. In the current political climate, the neo-Calvinist position has inspired many believers to engage in politics and change the nation. It has also meant that those who have different ideas about politics or who do not sense a call to engage the political process are guilty of not following their Christian duty to transform society.

The two-kingdom approach recognizes the diversity of callings both among Christians and institutions. Not every Christian is called to be a banker or a Republican. Not every Christian is called to oppose national health care. Not every Christian is called to a holy vocation (the Christian ministry). A “secular” calling is not inherently sinful and is actually good in the sight of God. Not every institution is called to administer justice. In fact, the church’s calling is to minister forgiveness – not exactly what the Bible says is the work of the magistrate.

[HT: White Horse Inn]

Guide to Understanding Flowcharts

At RFT.

Martin Bucer: "Concerning the True Care of Souls"

A few days ago I finished Martin Bucer's 1538 book entitled Concerning the True Care of Souls. The 2009 edition published by The Banner of Truth Trust is translated by Peter Beale with a historical introduction by David F. Wright.

Martin Bucer, born in 1491 in Schlettstadt in Alsace (a region in northern France adjacent to the German border), was a first-generation magisterial reformer in the city of Strasbourg (the capital city of the Alsace region). Early in his life Bucer studied the theology of Thomas Aquinas and Desiderius Erasmus as a member of the Domnican order. At the Heidleberg Disputation in 1518 he heard a young Augustinian named Martin Luther teach a "theology of the cross." Soon after he began to describe himself as a Martinian. In 1521 Bucer attended the famous Diet of Worms, where Luther was ordered to recant his teaching. Bucer is best known for his mediation between the Lutherans and Zwinglians with respect to Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. He served the church in Stasbourg as a leading reformer for 25 years. Then Charles V issued the Augsburg Interim, and Bucer was deposed by the city authorities. He was then invited to England, which was in full reform under the rule of the protestant Edward VI. There he lived with the great Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and was soon appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. Bucer died shortly thereafter in 1551.

Bucer's work Concerning the True Care of Souls is a study in the extraordinary times in which he lived. While I disagree with significant aspects of his teaching (e.g. his view of penance and the role of civil government in church affairs), I agree with him on the whole. If I might speak anachronistically, Martin Bucer was a first-rate Puritan pastor-theologian.

He outlines his project in the introduction writing:

We want to demonstrate to all the pious children of God, who from their hearts pray for the future of the kingdom of Christ, according to the measure of our faith, our own duty in this so deplorable scattering of the church, so that they may thoroughly understand what the church of Christ is, what rule and order it must have, who its true ministers are and how they are to exercise their ministry in the care of souls and the pastoral office for the true salvation of Christ's lambs; so that we may at last be a true and rightly ordered church of God and the body of Christ, which we have to be or else be eternally cast out from Christ the Lord and his kingdom (xxxiii).

I think Bucer made very good progress toward accomplishing this lofty goal. His call for the preaching and teaching of the Word and the proper administration of church discipline were particularly compelling. This would be beneficial reading for all elders in the Reformed tradition.

Attempted Axiom: On "Dead" Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy is the seed from which spiritual life grows; therefore to speak of orthodoxy as "dead" is to misunderstand what orthodoxy is.

Or . . .

Just because the truth is not received unto transformation does not mean it is flawed.

Or . . .

In the relationship between truth and transformation, truth is primary.

Mark Dever Interviews Darryl Hart

Here. It is EXCELLENT. Well worth the time. ESPECIALLY the last ten minutes on evangelicalism. Dever offered this as part of a summary statement of Hart's view of evangelicalism:

Evangelicalism is inherently a vain and misleading attempt to turn the society into the church. . . . It is a black hole of wasted energy for moral reform as we misrepresent the gospel in the process.

JARED NELSON: Confessionalism in Matthew 16

Here.

ATTEMPTED AXIOM: On the Terror of Divine Sovereignty

The doctrine of divine sovereignty is a terror apart from the doctrine of divine goodness.

Or,

Calvinism, far from majoring on divine sovereingty to the exclusion of divine goodness as some claim, necessitates a focus on divine goodness.

[Based on Richey Goodrich's reflection on Prov. 16]

DARRYL G. HART: On Neo-Kuperianism

Hart concludes his latest post writing:

By failing to acknowledge that part of existence is good even apart from redemption because it is created, neo-Calvinists want to redeem things that do not need to be saved. And it is this expansive view of salvation – because of the missing category of the common or created – that leads to liberal theology.

I think he's right.

JOHN OWEN: "Two Heads of the Mediation of Christ and his Kingdom"

From The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace:

These are the two heads to which all the prophecies and predictions concerning Jesus Christ under the Old Testament are referred, namely, his sufferings, and the glory that ensued upon that. All the prophets testified beforehand 'of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow' (1 Pet. 1:11). So when he himself opened the Scriptures to his disciples, he gave them this as the sum of the doctrine contained in them, 'Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?' (Luke 24:26). The same is frequently expressed elsewhere (Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:5-9). So much as we know of Christ, his sufferings, and his glory, so much do we understand of the Scripture, and no more.

These are the two heads of the mediation of Christ and his kingdom, and this is their order which they communicate to the church, first sufferings, and then glory: 'If we suffer, we shall also reign with him' (2 Tim. 2:12). They do but deceive themselves who design any other method of these things. Some would reign here in this world; and we may say, with the apostle, 'Would did you reign, that we might reign with you.' But the members of the mystical body must be conformed to the Head. In him sufferings went before glory; and so they must in them. The order in the kingdom of Satan and the world is contrary to this. First the good things of this life, and then eternal misery, is the method of that kingdom (Luke 16:15) (121-22).

If Owen is right, what does this teach us regarding the extent of the kingdom of God on earth? I think it teaches us that, for now, the kingdom is wholly spiritual (i.e. the mystical body of Christ). On earth, it is ordinarily and ideally within and does not transcend the visible church. Though the church has a blessed foretaste of the kingdom by God's in-dwelling, we do not yet see God's dwelling, which is heavenly. For now we suffer on the earth as we await the glory to come. As Paul says in Rom 8:18-25:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

JONATHAN EDWARDS: On the Centrality of Divine Love in the Christian Life

This afternoon I finished Jonathan Edwards's short work "A Treatise on Grace," republished in 2002 by Soli Deo Gloria under the title Standing in Grace. This is my third time through the work. If you've never read it, get it now! Edwards beautifully demonstrates the centrality of the love of God, in the Christian life, a love which is sourced in the divine nature and expressed as a work of the trinity ad intra and ad extra. On the centrality of divine love in the Christian life he writes:

Divine love, as it has God for its object, may be thus described: it is the soul's relish of the supreme excellency of the divine nature, inclining the heart to God as the chief good.

The first thing in divine love, and that from which everything which pertains to it arises, is a relish of the excellency of the divine nature, which the soul of man by nature has nothing of.

The first effect that is produced in the soul, whereby it is carried above what it has or can have by nature, is to cause it to relish or taste the sweetness of the divine relation. That is the first and most fundamental thing in divine love, and that from which everything else belongs to divine love naturally and necessarily proceeds. Once the soul is brought to relish the excellency of the divine nature, then it will naturally, and of course, incline to God in every way. It will incline to be with Him and to enjoy Him. It will have benevolence to God. It will be glad that He is happy. It will incline that he should be glorified, and that His will should be done in all things. So that the first effect of the power of God in the heart in regeneration is to give the heart a divine taste or sense, to cause it to have a relish of the loveliness and sweetness of the supreme excellency of the divine nature; and indeed this is all the immediate effect of the divine power that there is; this is all the Spirit of God needs to do in order to produce all good effects in the soul. If God, by an immediate act of His, gives the soul a relish of the excellency of His own nature, other things will follow of themselves without any further act of the divine power than only what is necessary to uphold the nature of the faculties of the soul. He who has once been brought to see, or rather to taste, the superlative loveliness of the Divine Being, will need no more to make him long after the enjoyment of God, to make him rejoice in the happiness of God, and to desire that this supremely excellent Being may be pleased and glorified (32-33).

If this is true, then the work of the pastor is singular: To love and communicate the excellency of the divine nature. This is the one thing that transforms the soul of man, conforming it more and more to the image of God.

ERIC ALEXANDER: Sermon Series on Romans

An indispensable aspect of learning to preach well is listening to those who do. And, even if you haven't been called to the ministry of preaching, to hear the Word preached is an indispensable means of grace to both further solidify and build you up in the Christian faith. To those ends I highly recommend listening to the sermons of the Church of Scotland minister Eric Alexander.

The audio files of a sermon series by Alexander on Romans 1-11 is now available here. I am planning to begin the series this morning.

Also, the gentlemen at Christ the Center did an interview with Alexander called "A Life in the Preaching Ministry" this past May. It is available here.

[HT: Nick Batzig]

MISCELLANIES 4: On Justification by Faith Alone

The central issue regarding the historic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone is causation rather than timing.

Protestants do not teach that the exercise of redemptive faith is prior to the exercise of love for God and neighbor with respect to time. The regenerating work of the Spirit produces faith and love within the human heart simultaneously. Instead, the central issue for Protestants is whether we are justified because of the work of Christ (i.e. his righteousness, his fulfilling the requirements of God's law) or because of our own work (i.e. our righteousness, our fulfilling the requirements of God's law). This is where the language of logical ordering comes in.

Love is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22a) which comes to us through the mediation of Christ (Gal. 3:14) and is, in that sense, Christ's work. But, in another sense, it is our work. It is our law-fulfilling work and the foundation of all our law-fulfilling works. As the Apostle writes, "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14).

Redemptive faith, on the other hand, is not a work in this sense. It is not a fulfillment of the requirements of God's law, but a trusting in someone else's fulfillment of that law. Again, the Apostle writes, "The law is not of faith, rather 'The one who does them shall live by them'" (Gal. 3:12).

So, since the Biblical teaching is that the meritorious cause of our justification is the law-fulfilling work of Christ alone (Gal. 3:13; Rom. 5:19b), Protestants confess the corollary biblical teaching that the ungodly are justified by faith alone (i.e. trusting in Christ's law-fulfilling works apart from our own) (Gal. 2:16; Rom. 4:5). In other words, to confess justification by faith alone (sola fide) is to confess justification because of the law-fulfilling work of Christ alone (solus Christus). It is to turn away from self-reliance, which is the yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1b) unto God-reliance, which is the yoke of Christ (Matt. 11:28-30).

MISCELLANIES 3: On the Priority of Worship for Sabbath Remembrance

Here are two questions I've recently pondered:

1. If one were to spend the whole Sabbath day in exercises of worship, excepting works of necessity and mercy, would he be remembering the Sabbath as God commands?
   
2. If one were to spend the whole Sabbath day resting from his worldly employments by enjoying worldly recreations, excepting works of necessity and mercy, would he be remembering the Sabbath as God commands?
   

These questions draw out the priority of worship for proper Sabbath remembrance. Since one could remember the Sabbath day by spending the whole time in exercises of worship, but one could not do it by spending the whole time resting through recreation, then worship must be primary in Sabbath remembrance. This leads to the conclusion that the purpose Sabbath remembrance is worship (which is truly the highest form of rest and re-creation, a holy rest and recreation).

This gives the question regarding Sabbath remembrance more precision. The question is not what is allowed? The question is what is required? Worship is required. Therefore the question becomes how much? The whole day? 8 hours? 2 hours? 1 hour? 30 minutes? 5 minutes? 1 minute? 30 seconds?

Since the command is to remember the Sabbath day to keep it [the day] holy, it seems best to understand that the whole day should be spent in worship.

POSSIBLE OBJECTION: Given the logic above, one might also argue that only public worship is required. For instance, I might ask:

1. If one were to spend the whole Sabbath day in exercises of public worship, excepting works of necessity and mercy, would he be remembering the Sabbath as God commands?
   
2. If one were to spend the whole Sabbath day in exercises of private worship, excepting works of necessity and mercy, would he be remembering the Sabbath as God commands?
   

Since one could remember the Sabbath day by spending the whole time in exercises of public worship, but one could not do it by spending the whole time in private worship, then public worship must be primary in Sabbath remembrance. This leads to the conclusion that the purpose of Sabbath remembrance is public worship.

At that point one must either recommend spending the whole Sabbath day in public worship or allow for only part of the day to be spent that way. If one does the former he is way outside the historical norm. If he does the latter he cannot argue that anything is a requirement for the whole day, and the question, "What is allowed?" comes to the fore for other parts of the day, which undermines my original argument.

But the problem with this argument is that public worship is assumed as wholly separate from private worship, which isn't true. Public worship is within the sphere of private worship. While the two spheres are distinct, they are still unified as worship to God. There is a sense in which when one is engaged in public worship, he is engaged in the highest expression of private worship. In other words, just as individuals exist within communities without losing a sense of themselves as individuals, so also private worship exists within public worship without losing a sense of itself as private, though it is transcended by the public expression. Worldly recreation on the other hand is not worship in any sense, properly speaking. Therefore, the objection fails, and the original argument that worship is the primary concern in Sabbath remembrance stands.

A DOOR STANDING OPEN IN HEAVEN!

This morning as I taught on Revelation 4, I was struck anew by the immensity of what John saw and recorded in verse 1a: "After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven!" This was the door to the throne room of God! This was the door to the holy of holies in the heavenly temple! And what does John hear from the risen and ascended Christ? "Come up here." I am blown away by this. This is what the Old Testament Garden, the tabernacle, the temple, and more specifically the holy of holies typified. John is being invited into the special dwelling place of God!

I am reminded of David's words in Psalm 27, "One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple."

This is the hope of heaven. Oh to be with our triune God through Christ forever! To gaze upon his beauty and inquire in his temple. Yes, to die is gain indeed!

FOR THE LOVE OF WISDOM

Here.

WTS PHILLY ON JUSTIFICATION AND UNION

Dr. Lane Tipton discusses this Westminsterian distinctive in a video here.

THE PROMISED LAND

I am currently teaching the book of Revelation in Sunday School. The predominant eschatology of the local church in which I minister seems to be premillennialism. Although I was schooled at THE hub of dispensational premillennialism (Dallas Seminary), I am an amillennialist. This has led to some interesting discussions these last few weeks.

A prominent, though not essential, doctrine of premillennialism is that the Promised Land is only understood to be the precise tract of land given to Israel by God during the Old Testament theocracy (this is an essential doctrine of dispensational premillennialism). Therefore, the prophecies related to the land are expected to be fulfilled (or have already been being fulfilled) when ethnic Israel reinhabits that tract of land.

This is one reason I am not a premillennialist. I believe premillennialism arises out of an overly literal hermeneutic. The Promised Land means much more in Scripture than premillennialism typically allows, as Nick Batzig points out in this post.

TUESDAY EDWARDS EXCERPT: On the Lord's Day

It's been a while since I posted an Edwards excerpt. I've usually posted them on Mondays, but Tuesdays are better for me now. So here's an Edwards excerpt. It's Miscellanies #466, "The Lord's Day":

God blessed the sabbath day, or determined to confer his blessings on men especially on that day, as it were as an expression of his own joyful remembrance of that day, and of the rest and refreshment he had in it (Ex. 31:17). God takes delight to honor the day and to give his blessing on this day upon that account, as princes will give gifts on their birthdays, marriage days, etc. But how much more reason has Christ to bless the day of his resurrection, and to delight to honor it, and be conferring his blessed gifts on men on this day, in a joyful remembrance of his rest and refreshment from his extreme labors and sufferings on this day! It was a day of refreshment to Christ Jesus in a literal sense, a day of great joy; being the day of his deliverance from the chains of death, the day of his completing that great and arduous work of redemption which he had upon his heart from eternity, the day of his justification, the beginning of his exaltation, and the fulfillment of the promises of the Father to him, and when he had eternal life that he purchased given into his hand.

THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE OF WORSHIP

Nick Batzig interviewed Dr. Derek Thomas on the Regulative Principle of Worship at this year's General Assembly (PCA). The audio is online at Christ the Center.