Luther's Protest: A Call for Unity

Today marks 492 years since the Augustinian monk and Doctor of Theology Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg, so I'm re-reading Luther's work recently republished by P&R and edited by Stephen J. Nichols entitled Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses.

In Luther's day the church door was similar to contemporary academic journals or blogs. Churchmen would post their doctrinal concerns on the church door calling for debate among their colleagues.

Roman Catholic apologists contend that Luther's protest was a subversion of papal authority, seeing it as the beginning of the end of church unity. But that is simply bad history and bad theology.

So, what was Luther's protest? Was it that the Roman church was corrupt because its practices contradicted Scripture? Not exactly. Eventually he and others would come to that conclusion but not quite yet. Luther's protest was that a church practice (i.e. indulgence selling) had become corrupt because it contradicted the church's and the Scripture's teaching. In other words, church authorities were not only contradicting Scripture but themselves. Rather than injecting disunity into the unified, Luther was trying to recover unity within the disunified.

Ironically, while Roman Catholic apologists accuse Luther of being the catalyst that led to the radical disunity of the church, the truth is that Luther simply recognized the church was already disunified and sought to regain her unity, a unity based on doctrinal purity.

How Should Christians Think about Halloween?

Sean Lucas has posted an excellent article on this question here.

Why We Need Seeker-Sensitive Services

Here

What is the chief end of man?

Pastor Iain Campbell has posted an excellent article on Christian instruction and the chief end of man. Here's an excerpt:

To be an effective church in the modern day, one has to be involved in schemes and programmes and mercy ministries of different kinds. To be sure, the people of God are well placed to help those whose lives are broken in this fallen world, and nothing is more tragic if somehow there is a barrier between the message of the Church and the very people Christ came to save.

Yet if we reach out at the expense of dumbing down the message, or think we have done it all when we have helped people out of their personal mess, we are much mistaken. Faith has to feed upon truth; and the reality is that nothing will make Christians stronger in their faith, and more ready to engage in mercy ministries, than to drink in the doctrine of God’s Word. Nothing will teach us our need, or show us God’s provision, or teach us to live, quite like theology. It’s a fatal simplicism to prefer Jesus to theology. There is no knowing the Eternal Word apart from the written Word.

Miscellanies 8: On Truth, Certainty, and Liberty of Conscience

Does the quest for religious certainty overrule the quest for religious truth?

If one answers yes, then by all means, unless he's persuaded by the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, he should simply submit his conscience to the authority of another man or, if he's not so inclined to feign humility, himself. That is the surest way to certainty.

But if one answers no, then he should never submit his conscience to any man. Instead, he should be guided by his own conscience as well as the multitude of others who have wrestled with God's special revelation doing the hard work of exegesis, guided by the Spirit throughout history. That is the means God has ordained by which his visible church might have the blessing of understanding religious truth with certainty.

Defaulting to the authority of a single man (whether himself or another, like the pope) may be the easiest way to attain certainty, but it is a false certainty. The more difficult and only true way is to search the Scriptures for oneself in concert with the historic search of the catholic church.

True, the visible church hasn't yet understood all doctrines with certainty (1 Cor. 13:12). And she may hobble a bit due to her wrestling with God's Word, just as each believer does if he's honest with himself. But she is nonetheless blessed because of the struggle.

Returning to Rome and Sola Fide

Guy Davies has posted part two of his three part response to Francis Beckwith's new book on his reasons for leaving the baptist tradition for Roman Catholicism. Here's an excerpt:

The trouble is that Roman Catholic theology has the tendency to synthesize the different aspects of salvation so that hardly any distinction is made between regeneration, justification and transformative sanctification. The quote from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church on pages 107-108 bears this out (paras 1989-1982 here). It is as if all the different features of salvation have been placed in a Vatican blender and reduced to an undifferentiated soteriological gloop. For Beckwith as a Roman Catholic, "justification includes sanctification" (p. 103 - his own emphasis). More than that Beckwith agrees with the Catholic teaching that in justification God makes us "inwardly just" (p. 110), making justification virtually equivalent to transformative sanctification. But in Holy Scripture these terms do not all mean the same thing. Regeneration or being born again (John 3:3) is the initial act of saving transformation. Transformative sanctification is the ongoing process of spiritual renewal. Justification is the forensic declaration that the believing sinner is right with God on the basis of Christ's finished work. These key theological words are not interchangeable. Substitute "sanctifies" for "justifies" in Romans 8:33-34 and the force of Paul's argument is blunted. Justification is the opposite of condemnation. It does not refer to the ongoing process of the believer being conformed to the image of Christ, although that too is an integral feature of salvation (Romans 8:29). Distinguishing between justification and sanctification is not as Beckwith suggests another instance of "bifurcation" in Protestant thought. It is simply a matter of being sensitive to clear biblical distinctions in order to preserve the integrity of the different aspects of salvation. A salvation I stress that is not received in disparate bits and pieces, but complete and entire on the believer's union with Christ.

As Beckwith acknowledges (p. 108ff), one of the main Protestant objections to Roman Catholic teaching on justification is that the inclusion of good works in justification effectively undermines the believer's assurance of salvation. How can the Christian ever be sure that he has done enough good works to merit acceptance by God? Beckwith tries to meet this objection by suggesting that even in Protestant teaching, "good works are a necessary condition for true justification." (See p. 109). It is true that good works validate the believer's claim to be truly justified because the faith that alone justifies does not remain alone. As Paul says, "faith works by love" (Galatians 5:6). It is here that the teaching of James comes into its own (James 2:17). But good works do not constitute a condition for justification. The sinner is justified by faith in Christ's finished work alone. That is the primary basis of the believer's assurance, Romans 5:1. But Beckwith makes a salient point when he says that, "The Protestant can repeat the sinners prayer and answer the altar call until the cows come home. But if she shows no evidence of 'good works', her eternal fate remains in serious doubt (p. 110)." There is more to genuine saving faith than saying the sinners prayer. Such an approach betrays the fact that the wider Evangelical world has a superficial theology of conversion. The more biblical approach of Reformed theology insists that salvation in Christ includes forensic justification and the new life of good works. But good works are not needed to supplement the work of Christ in order to help merit salvation. We are saved by grace alone. That is why we reject Catholic practices such as penance, the confessional and prayers for the dead.

Returning to Rome and Sola Scriptura

Guy Davies has posted an excellent critique of one of Francis Beckwith's chief reasons for leaving the baptist tradition and returning to Rome. Here's an excerpt:

Increasingly Beckwith struggled with the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, finding the Catholic teaching where God reveals himself through Holy Scripture and the traditions of the Church more appealing. Of course, if Church teaching is a source of continuing revelation alongside Scripture, then it doesn't matter that certain Catholic dogmas can't be found in the Bible. On that basis the primacy of the Pope, purgatory, the Marian doctrines and so on may be accepted simply as the authoritative dogmas of the Church. The fact that they have no evident biblical foundation is beside the point. The Church has infallibly pronounced that these dogmas must be accepted by the faithful and that's that. However, it might be objected that Beckwith has not properly understood what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura. He seems to have had a rather biblicist understanding of the doctrine that excludes the role of the church as reader and teacher of Holy Scripture. By sola scriptura, the Reformers did not mean to separate the Bible from the Church. Rather they insisted that the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the supreme authority in the Church. The Church has ministerial authority to interpret and bear witness to the message of the Bible, but the Church and her traditions remain under the critical authority of God's written Word. The Church may restate the teaching of Scripture using other than biblical language in order to make its message plain, but she cannot add to God's self-revelation in Holy Scripture (emphasis mine).

More on this in the comments under this post.

The Plan of "Union"

I'm currently re-reading Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism by Darryl Hart and John Muether. Here's some of their thoughts on the 1801 Plan of Union, a plan proposed by Union Seminary president Jonathan Edwards, Jr. to unite Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the common cause of Christian ministry.

E. H. Gillett commented on the cooperation with Congregationalists as a reason for celebration because "at this crisis in the religious progress of our country such liberal and Christian views prevailed." He added that the great "struggle" of the century, namely, "to shape the future destiny of a growing nation," had begun, and it called for "the hearty cooperation, on broad principles, of all who loved the common cause."

But another way of looking at the Plan of Union, along with similar missions endeavors in the South, was to wonder about the identity of the Presbyterian Church. Presbyterianism in one part of the country could wind up with a form of Christianity that questioned some of the central tenets of Reformed theology. And in New York the same Protestant communion could agree to form a cooperation that seriously undermined the chief arguments for Presbyterian church government. In other words, the Plan of Union was an early iteration of a phrase that would gain great urgency later in the nineteenth century, "doctrine divides, ministry unites." Yet, if Presbyterianism were so malleable as the conditions of the church indicated during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, what made the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Presbyterian (emphasis added, 103-04)?

Kevin DeYoung: On Reaching the Next Generation

Here. And here's an excerpt:

In the church growth heyday, scholars and pastors were wrestling with how to reach out without dumbing down. Today I would argue that we reach out precisely by not dumbing down. The door is open like never before to challenge people with good Bible teaching. People want to learn doctrine. They really do, even non-Christians. Whether they accept it all or not, they want to know what Christians actually believe. Young people will not put up with feel good pablum. They want the truth straight up, unvarnished, and unashamed. . . .

The next generation in our churches needs to be challenged too. In his book on the religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers, Christian Smith coined the phrase “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” to describe the spirituality of American youth. They believe in being a good moral person. They believe religion should give you peace, happiness, and security. They believe God exists and made the world, but is not particularly involved in the day-to-day stuff of life. We are naïve if we think this is not the faith of some of the best and brightest in our churches, or even those reading this blog!

Church people are not stupid. They are not incapable of learning. For the most part, they simply haven’t been taught. No one has challenged them to think a deep thought or read a difficult book. No one has asked them to articulate their faith in biblical and theological categories. We have expected almost nothing out of our young people, so that’s what we get. A couple generations ago 20 year olds were getting married, starting a family, working at a real job or off somewhere fighting Nazis. Today 35 year olds are hanging out on Facebook, looking for direction, and trying to find themselves. We have been coddled when we should have been challenged.

[HT: HB]

R. Scott Clark: On Garages and Latitudinarianism

Here

Reformed Theology in America

A couple weeks ago I read the three volume work edited by David F. Wells on Reformed theology in America. I found the older publications on Amazon. They are The Princeton Theology, Dutch Reformed Theology, and Southern Reformed Theology. These three volumes have since been combined into one work entitled Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development. I HIGHLY recommend this to anyone wanting an introduction to the three primary streams of Reformed theology in America.

Each volume has the same introduction "Reformed and American" by George M. Marsden, which is well worth the price of the book. Nonetheless, each volume is packed with excellent historical theological and biographical essays.

The Princeton Theology includes an introductory essay entitled "The Princeton Theology" by Mark A. Noll followed by biographical essays on Charles Hodge by David F. Wells, Benjamin B. Warfield by W. Andrew Hoffecker, and J. Gresham Machen by W. Stanford Reid.








Dutch Reformed Theology includes an introductory essay entitled "The Dutch Schools" by James D. Bratt followed by biographical essays on Louis Berkhof by Henry Zwaanstra, Herman Dooyeweerd by C. T. McIntire, and Cornelius Van Til by Wesley A. Roberts.








Southern Reformed Theology includes an introductory essay entitled "The Southern Tradition" by Morton Smith followed by biographical essays on Robert Lewis Dabney by Doug Kelly, and James Henry Thornwell by Luder G. Whitlock.

Tim Keller: On Idolatry

Tim Keller understands the old Puritan maxim, we need to repent of our repentance. Don't miss his latest post on idolatry.

[HT: SML]

David Strain: On Evangelical Unity and Ecclesiology

Here

What is Baptism?

See for yourself. Below is a video of the baptism of my friend Rev. Brian Hough's child. It was administered today by Rev. Tony Felich, Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Overland Park, KS. Wonderful service Tony. Nice job!

Jared Nelson: On Semi-Marcionism

As a fellow former Baptist and alumnus of Dallas Seminary (though I love my teachers dearly and am very thankful for the education I received from them) I feel my brother's pain in this post. Here's an excerpt:

We quote Augustine: "The New is in the Old contained, and the Old is in the New explained." We don't mean it though. We really mean: " The New is in the Old in certain parts, and the Old is in the New explained away."

Sean Lucas Interviewed by Derek Thomas . . .

. . . at Ref21. Don't miss the excellent discussion on preaching Law and Gospel.

Attempted Axiom: On Love and Obedience

[See this disclaimer and explanation of my Attempted Axioms here]

The basis for the only proper motivation for obeying God's law is the understanding that I mustn't obey it in order to receive his love, because Christ obeyed it in my stead.

Or

The belief that one must obey God's law in order to be loved by him undermines the moral ability to obey God's law.

Or

God's unconditional love freely given to those united to Christ, the One perfect law-keeper, by faith is the basis of our love for him, which is the only proper motivation for obeying his law.

30 Years Ago Today . . .

Here. (I'm so thankful for John Piper!)

Problems with Universal Atonement

Here

Miscellanies 7: On Idolatry and Substitution

It is fitting that the opposite of the root of our sin is the means by which God saves us from it. While we substituted many false Gods (i.e. idols) for the one true God, God substituted one righteous man (i.e. Jesus Christ) for many unrighteous men (cf. Rom. 1:23; 5:19).

Martin Downes Radio Interview

Here. It is very good.

12 Questions that Have Shaped Church History: What is true freedom? (Part 5)

Continuing from Part 4 . . .

Edwards continues by answering objections against the Calvinian teaching of the moral necessity of God's will (i.e. that God always necessarily chooses the good and no other). Arminians like Thomas Hobbes have argued that man's freedom of will precludes any moral necessity since it is based on indifference (or neutrality) in decision-making. Therefore, they also assert the same for God. Hobbes offers two lines of reasoning as to how this can be true for God: (1) In many instances there may be no difference between the objects of choice before God and (2) In many instances the difference between objects of choice are negligible. Let's take each in turn.

1. In many instances there may be no difference between the objects of choice before God.

On this line of reasoning Edwards responds:

And here in the first place, it may be worthy to be considered, whether the contradiction there is in the terms of the question proposed, don't give reason to suspect that there is an inconsistence in the thing supposed. 'Tis inquired, whether different objects of choice mayn't be absolutely without difference? If they are absolutely without difference, then how are they different objects of choice? If there be absolutely no difference in any respect, then there is no variety or distinction: for distinction is only by some difference. And if there be no variety among proposed objects of choice, then there is no opportunity for variety of choice, or difference of determination. For that determination of a thing which is not different in any respect, is not a different determination, but the same (385).

Hobbe's offers two defenses of this reasoning. First, he presupposes an infinite measure of time and space from which God chose to cut a piece when he created. The piece that God chose is no different in quality from any other piece. He just happened to choose it. Edwards, answers by pointing out that Hobbes' presupposition of an infinite measure of time and space extending beyond what God created is false. Prior to the creation there was no time and space, only the eternity of God's existence, which is another way of saying, "his immediate, perfect and invariable possession of the whole of his unlimited life, together and at once" (385). To speak of an infitnite expanse of time and space prior to creation is a "groundless imagination" (385). "'Tis as improper, to imagine that the immensity and omnipresence of God is distinguished by a series of miles and leagues, one beyond another; as that the infinite duration of God is distinguished by months and years, one of another," so that "all arguments and objections which are built on the imaginations we are apt to have of infinite extension or duration, are buildings founded on shadows, or castles in the air." (386, 387).

Second, Hobbes defends his view of God's indifference in decision making by pointing out that God's decision to place identical atoms of matter in different parts of the world must have been an indifferent. Edwards answers that it is unlikely, given the infinite divisibility of matter, that any two particles are exactly alike. But even if there are alike particles, the decision of placement need not have anything to do with a comparison between the quality of the particles themselves. The decision of placement would only have the difference of place in mind. In other words, God did not choose that water particle A be in one place and an identical water particle B be in another due to any difference between them, for that would be impossible given they are identical. God chose that a water particle should be in place A and a water particle should be in place B. The difference of particles is then subsequent to the difference of placement alone. In other words, God did not have particle A and particle B before him and then deside where to put them. He simply decided that there should be water particles in places A and B and not C and D. The duplicity of particles is derived from the prior decision of placement alone.

N.B. God's decision to use identical created objects differently does not presume indifference in his decision. In order for a decision to be made between the use of two different objects considered in themselves, those objects must be different in themselves. Otherwise, a decision that involves the different use of identical objects must have some other difference in view (e.g. difference of place or time), prior to and as the ground of the distinction between the objects.

2. In many instances the difference between objects of choice are negligible.

On this line of reasoning Edwards answers, "It is impossible for us to determine with any certainty or evidence, that because the difference is very small, and appears of no consideration, therefore there is absolutely no superior goodness, and no valuable end which can be proposed by the creator and governor of the world, in ordering such a difference" (392). Even the influence of the attraction of one atom in the universe, which may seem insignificant in itself, could have major consequences in the scope of history.

N.B. We can have no certainty that minute differences do not lead to major consequences. On the contrary, it can be demonstrated that the minutest of differences can have major consequences over time.

Edwards continues this section by addressing some of Hobbes' other arguments against the moral necessity of divine decision-making. Hobbes has asserted that if the divine will is necessarily determined by "a superior fitness," then the freeness of God's grace and goodness is derogated. Therefore our thankfulness for his benefits is also derogated. Edwards offers four answers to this charge. First, moral necessity in decision making does not detract from the goodness of God any more than to suppose that his decisions are determined by chance with no design whatsoever. Second, Edwards acknowledges that if God's decision to favor some creatures over others due to some good in them, then the freeness of his grace would be derogated. But this is no argument for indifference in God's gracious decision. God can still have some end in view outside the creature which makes his decision with respect to the creature of superior fitness to its absence or opposite. Third, no one would claim that God never has some wise design in view in choosing the objects of his favor. Edwards explains: "The Apostle himself mentions one end. 1 Timothy 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:16: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. Howbeit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them who should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." But yet the Apostle never looked on it as a diminution of the freedom and riches of divine grace in his election, which he so often and so greatly magnifies" (394). Fourth, God's decision to favor some rather than others may actually have the effect of magnifying the beauty of his grace and the thankfulness of its objects. Edwards writes:

God may choose this object rather than another, as having a superior fitness to answer the ends, designs and inclinations of his goodness; being more sinful, and so more miserable and necessitous than others; the inclinations of infinite mercy and benevolence may be more gratified, and the gracious design of God's sending his Son into the world may be more abundantly answered, in the exercises of mercy towards such an object, rather than another (395).

N.B. The freeness of God's grace is not derogated by the moral necessity of his decision-making because (1) the supposition that his decisions are random and purposeless is at least as derogatory, (2) while his election of some is unconditional with respect to their goodness, it is not necessarily without some superior fitness in the plan of God, (3) there are instances where God clearly bestows his grace with some superior end in view, which in no way derogates the grace bestowed, and (4) God's decision to favor some (e.g. the weak and destitute) rather than others (e.g. the strong and well endowed) may actually serve to magnify his grace and goodness freely bestowed.

Edwards finishes this section with a brilliant analysis of the logical end of the Arminian understanding of free will (i.e. that it is based on decisional indifference). He writes:

One thing more I would observe, before I finish what I have to say on the head of the necessity of the acts of God's will; and that is, that something much more like a servile subjection of the divine being to fatal necessity, will follow from Arminian principles, than from the doctrines which they oppose. For they (at least most of them) suppose, with respect to all events that happen in the moral world depending on the volitions of moral agents, which are the most important events of the universe, to which all others are subordinate; I say, they suppose with respect to these, that God has a certain foreknowledge of them, antecedent to any purposes or decrees of his about them. And if so, they have a fixed certain futurity, prior to any designs or volitions of his, and independent on them, and to which his volitions must be subject, as he would wisely accommodate his affairs to this fixed futurity of the state of things in the moral world. So that here, instead of a moral necessity of God's will, arising from or consisting in the infinite perfection and blessedness of the divine Being, we have a fixed unalterable state of things, properly distinct from the perfect nature of the divine mind, and the state of the divine will and design, and entirely independent on these things, and which they have no hand in, because they are prior to them; and which God's will is truly subject to, being obliged to conform or accommodate himself to it, in all his purposes and decrees, and in everything he does in his disposals and government of the world; the moral world being the end of the natural; so that all is in vain, that is not accommodated to that state of the moral world, which consists in, or depends upon the acts and state of the wills of moral agents, which had a fixed futurition from eternity. Such a subjection to necessity as this, would truly argue an inferiority and servitude, that would be unworthy of the supreme Being; and is much more agreeable to the notion which many of the heathen had of fate, as above the gods, than that moral necessity of fitness and wisdom which has been spoken of; and is truly repugnant to the absolute sovereignty of God, and inconsistent with the supremacy of his will; and really subjects the will of the most High to the will of his creatures, and brings him into dependence upon them (395-96).

N.B. The Arminian understanding of divine decision-making is fatalistic. If God knows future events, then they must come to pass. And if these future events are not based on the personal plans of the divine being, then they are no different from the machinations of some impersonal force, which is fatalism.

Dr. Jeffrey K. Jue: On Francis Turretin

[HT: FOC]

Attempted Axiom: On Attempted Axioms

I just realized I have not actually explained what my Attempted Axiom posts are and why I feel the need to write them down, so here goes.

I don't believe in axioms. I don't believe there is such a thing as self-evident truth per se. I believe there is only One who is self-evident. He is the triune God. He is truth itself. Truth is evidenced by him alone. In other words, truth both is and is shown to be because of its ultimate derivation in God. We are able to understand the concept of truth in general and therefore understand truths in particular because God has revealed himself to us. There are no self-evident truths; there are only God-revealed truths, either by natural or supernatural revelation.

I believe the concept of self-evident truth presupposes the independence and eminence of created beings over the divine being, which is wrong. God has revealed supernaturally (i.e. in the Bible) that nature is fundamentally an analogue of himself. Though essentially distinct from him, it is nonetheless united to him as ectype to archetype.

Ironically, the quest for self-evident truths which particularly marked the "enlightenment" period of Western civilization, was simultaneously an expression and rejection of man's analogous relationship to God. It was an expression of it, because intelligence is an aspect of the image of God. It was a rejection of it, because, though deep down we all know we are the bearers of the image of God's "self," we still make every attempt to establish the independence and preeminence of our own. One way we do that is by presupposing our"selves" as the final arbiters of truth.

So, in the interest of backhanding the hubris of so-called enlightenment free-thinking, while also acknowledging the goodness of the human drive to understand truth, which is fundamentally God's self-revelation, I occasionally attempt to formulate an axiom. But nonetheless, all my attempts begin with this God-revealed presupposition, which is anti-axiomatic:

There is no such thing as axioms, only attempted axioms.

R. Scott Clark: On TPism

Here

Attempted Axiom: On Theodicy

If God is not in control of evil, then we have no hope of deliverance from it.

The Marrow of Modern Divinity 45% Off!

Westminster Bookstore is offering a big discount on the newly republished Puritan-Reformed classic The Marrow of Modern Divinity. It will be 45% off until October 12! For more on what The Marrow is all about see this post by Ben Dahlvang.

Michael Horton: On the Two Kingdoms

Dr. Michael Horton has posted three excellent articles answering questions about two kingdom theology. Here they are:

Responding to Some Good Questions About the Two Kingdoms
Responding to Some Good Questions About the Two Kingdoms (Part 2)
Two Kingdoms Questions (Part 3)

And here's an excerpt from Part 3:

Pastors aren’t authorized to create their own blueprint for transformation, but are servants of the Word. Where Scripture has clearly spoken, he must speak. Where it is silent, he must keep his personal opinions and perhaps even learned conclusions to himself. Of course, pastors are called to preach the whole council of God: not only the gospel, but the law—including its third use (to guide Christian obedience). That’s enough to occupy our prayerful action in the world, without piling up commands that God never gave. We’re never called to transform the world (or even our neighborhood). We’re never called even to bring millions to Jesus Christ. We’re called to be faithful in our vocations at work, at home, in our neighborhoods and in our witness to those individuals whom God brings across our path in ordinary ways every day.

One day, this kingdom will extend to every aspect of worldly existence. There will be no tyrants, no pain, no disease, no injustice, no poverty, no idolatry, no oppression. The kingdoms of this world will be made the kingdom of our God and of his Christ and he will reign forever. For now, however, Jesus is gathering guests for his feast, forgiving, justifying, calling, renewing, sanctifying, and sending them out to bring others to the swelling hall. Christ’s reign in grace (through the Great Commission) is a parenthesis in God’s plan. His reign in glory, commencing with his return in judgment and final conquest of the whole earth, will be everlasting.

Of course, we live today in the light of that future hope. This is the message of Romans 8:18-25. To paraphrase Paul, we are stewards of God’s earth, not simply because of God’s creation of the world and of us as its keepers in the past, but also because the whole creation will share one day in the glorious liberty of God’s children. “For in this hope we were saved” (v 24). Yet we also live in the present as those who do not yet see all things subjected visibly to Christ and are all too familiar with the opposition of the world, the flesh, and the devil. “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” (vv 24-25). The indwelling Spirit engenders within us the longing for Christ’s return (v 26).

We are not building a kingdom, but receiving one (Heb 12:28). Even our lives in the world, in our callings, in our witness to our neighbors, is not bringing the future of Christ’s consummated kingdom into the present. Rather, it is God’s means of extending his reign in grace, while we wait expectantly for his return in glory.

[HT: JT]

Princeton Calvinism

Today I'm reading The Princeton Theology from the three-volume Reformed Theology in America edited by David F. Wells. It is excellent! Thanks for the recommendation Matt.

Here is Mark Noll's summation of Princeton Calvinism:

Princeton Calvinism shared the main emphases of the Reformed tradition: The Fall perverted a perfect creation, led to divine condemnation, and established human guilt. Adam's sin was imputed to all humans who properly deserve the condemnation which that sinfulness entails. The same process of imputation that rendered humanity doomed in Adam justified the elect through faith in Christ. God expressed his saving purposes in covenanting to offer salvation through Christ. Sinners, turned from God by rebellious natures, were "bound" to their own sinful desires until God changed their hearts through Scripture, Christian nurture, preaching, and the sacraments. Redeemed sinners, though hamstrung by the lingering effects of the Fall, yet were fitted by the Holy Spirit for fruitful service in the Kingdom of God. These principles made up the solid core of Princeton belief to which all other major concerns were attendant (19).

If Anyone Is . . .

. . . above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are submissive and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:5-9).

This morning I studied the book of Titus with a little help from George W. Knight III (NIGTC, The Pastoral Epistles). Knight offers this gem on Titus 1:8b, "a lover of good":

An overseer's love for people is always to be correlated with a love for what God wants people to be (292).

In other words, in order for elders to love those over whom God has given them care, they must be vigilant to lead them into virtuous living.

306 Years Ago . . .

. . . today America's greatest pastor-theologian Jonathan Edwards was born. Here are a few thoughts about Edwards in tribute:

"Mr. Edwards is a solid, excellent Christian . . . I think I have not seen his fellow in all New England" (George Whitfield).

"The profoundest reasoner, and the greatest divine, in my opinion, that America ever produced" (Samuel Davies).

"No man is more relevant to the present condition of Christianity than Jonathan Edwards. . . . He was a mighty theologian and a great evangelist at the same time. . . . He was pre-eminently the theologian of revival. If you want to know anything about true revival, Edwards is the man to consult" (D. Matryn Lloyd-Jones).

"Never was there a happier combination of great power with great piety" (Thomas Chalmers).

"He was distinctly a great man. He did not merely express the thought of his time, or meet it simply in the spirit of his tradition. He stemmed it and moulded it. . . . His time does not explain him" (F. J. E. Woodbridge).

“Edwards was extraordinary. By many estimates, he was the most acute early American philosopher and the most brilliant of all American theologians. At least three of his many works—Religious Affections, Freedom of the Will, and The Nature of True Virtue—stand as masterpieces in the larger history of Christian literature. The appeal of his thought endures” (George M. Marsden).

“Jonathan Edwards’s stature as a significant American thinker is universally acknowledged” ( Glenn Kreider).

“One studies the times and backgrounds of some men in order to understand them. Others have such rare greatness that one studies them in order to understand their times, or even to comprehend the deepest meaning of the intellectual and other influences that were effectual upon them. Jonathan Edwards was such an original" (Paul Ramsey).

“Evangelicals have not thought about life from the ground up as Christians, because their entire culture has ceased to do so. Edwards’ piety continued on in the revivalist tradition, his theology continued on in academic Calvinism, but there were no successors to his God-entranced worldview or his profoundly theological philosophy. The disappearance of Edwards’ perspective in American Christian history has been a tragedy” (Mark Noll).

“Modern evangelicalism is being doctrinally hollowed out by its love affair with pragmatism and numerical success. Edwards’s relentless God-centeredness and devotion to Biblical [sic] contours of doctrine are profoundly needed in our day” (John Piper).

And finally, here is a bit of Edwards thoughts on himself.

In a letter to Edwards sent to Scottish minister James Robe on May 12, 1743. The occasion of the letter was to encourage the revival that had come to Scotland and report the stifling of revival in New England. Edwards closes the letter writing:

I hope, dear Sir, you'll remember me in your prayers. Never was I so sensible in any measure how vain a creature man is, what a leaf driven of the wind, what dry stubble, what poor dust, a bubble, a shadow, a nothing, and more vain than nothing, and what a vain and helpless creature I am, and how much I need God's help in everything, as of late. Dear Sir, don't forget New England, and don't forget your affectionate and obliged brother and servant, and unworthy fellow laborer, Jonathan Edwards.

Also Edwards wrote in his personal resolutions:

8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and to let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

Rick Phillips: On Keller's Review of Willow Creek

Here

An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism

I'm looking forward to the release of this new book by Dr. John D. Hannah, An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism.

The Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit on the Normal Christian Life

Romans 7:13-25:

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

The Reformed View of Imputed Righteousness

Paul Helm posted the last of a series of articles on N.T. Wright on justification today. Here's his summary of the Reformed view of imputed righteousness:

On the Reformed view, Christ’s imputed righteousness is ‘alien’, external, the righteousness of another, and even when imputed, it will always remain alien. God justifies the ungodly as ungodly. The widely-used illustration, that Christ’s righteousness is credited to my account, is misleading. (If I’m credited, mustn’t Christ be debited?) To repeat, in the imputation of righteousness, nothing moves. Imputation is not an electronic moral transfer. Righteousness is not transmitted, transfused, or relocated in any way. (Any more than if I receive free insurance cover I receive a transfusion of some mysterious substance called ‘insurance’.) The believer’s imputed righteousness remains inalienably Christ’s perfect righteousness. What is true is that by an act of the unspeakable mercy of God the believer is shielded by, or seen through, or covered by, the righteousness of another.

It's this always-remaining-alien righteousness that is reckoned to the believer, and it is inseparably linked with the distinct blessing of subjective renewal, sanctification. Justification and sanctification - distinct and yet inseparable, as Calvin routinely says. So the Reformed view of imputation is that justification is a wholly extrinsic change, a change of status, that is, a change of relation, by itself no inward change, but carrying with it the sure prospect of such a change. Hence the language of Reformed popular piety: we are ‘clothed with’ Christ’s righteousness, it is ‘put on’, we are ‘sheltered’ by it. ‘Clothed with his righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne’.

Attempted Axiom: On the Golden Age

The tendency of the fallen human mind to reflect on a past golden age is evidence: (1) that something is wrong with the world, namely sin, and (2) that there was a time when things were right, namely the Garden of Eden before the fall.