f The Wittenberg Door: November 2011

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
My Photo
Name:

Commenting on Christendom, culture, history, and other oddities of life from an historic Protestant perspective.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Discussing Homosexuality

Here’s some advice for when discussing homosexuality in the market place: steer clear of using the term terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” These terms, which have only been around for about 60 years, have taken on a meaning that is foreign to preceding generations and civilizations—that being, homosexuals are regarded as a special class of human being.

This designation gives homosexuals carte blanch when it comes to their behavior. After all, it’s genetic. For them not to act in a way consistent with their nature would be, well, unnatural, or so the argument goes.

Terms

Instead of using "homosexual" and homosexuality," use “homosexual desires” and “Homosexual activity.” Using these terms makes irrelevant the claim that “they are born that way.” Here’s how:

I was born with certain heterosexual desires. These desires are good when exercised properly (i.e., for my wife, and for her alone). However, if I misdirect these desires (i.e., lust towards another woman), they are bad (immoral). When confronted with these misdirected desires, what should I do? Should I say, “Hey, it’s natural; I was born with these desires,” and then act upon them? No. I’m expected to realize that these desires are misdirected (sinful) and to restrain myself.

Likewise, those with homosexual desires should show the same restraint. The moral aspect aside for a moment, isn’t it obvious that their desires are misdirected? If “nature” intended for a man to have relations with another man, wouldn’t “nature” have provided the compatible equipment? It seems obvious that the proper direction for the desires should be towards those of the opposite sex.

Conclusion

Speaking of desires moves the conversation beyond the question of genetics—it doesn’t matter why I have these desires; what matters is how I respond to them. Engaging in homosexual activity is both unnatural (which a quick survey of the equipment reveals), and immoral (this is where a discussion of worldviews comes in). Speaking of desires also avoids the modern notion that “homosexuals” are a special class of humans. Instead, it reveals that they are like anyone else, just with different immoral desires.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Today in Church History: E. J. Young

On November 29, 1907, Edward Joseph Young was born in San Francisco, California.

A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, Westminster Theological Seminary (Th.B. and Th.M.), and the Dropsie College of Hebrew and Cognate Learning (Ph.D.), Young was ordained in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1935. One year later, he joined the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the same year that he was appointed to the Old Testament department at Westminster Seminary. A prolific author, Young wrote commentaries on Isaiah and Daniel, and several other books including An Introduction to the Old Testament, My Servants the Prophets, and Thy Word is Truth. For many years he served as editor for the Westminster Theological Journal and the New International Commentary on the Old Testament. No less remarkable were Young's labors as an Orthodox Presbyterian churchman. He served as the moderator of the General Assembly in 1956, he was a long-standing member of the Committee on Christian Education (for which he wrote several tracts), and for 15 years he served on the committee that produced the first Trinity Hymnal.

Young's varied service to the church was cut short by his sudden and premature death on February 14, 1968. The Presbyterian Guardian memorialized him in these words: "He was second to none in his research depth of the Scriptures, with a reading knowledge of thirty or more languages, ancient and modern. Writing articles for various journals year after year, Dr. Young did not neglect the ordinary reader in his conscientious effort to explain Biblical truth and its relevance as the Word of God. A willing listener and counselor, he was esteemed as a friend by pupils, colleagues, and many others."

-John Muether

Labels:

Monday, November 28, 2011

The Loss of Symbolism

One of the things I love about the Reformed church is the symbolism, especially the symbolism involving the pulpit. The pulpit comprises a lectern standing upon a raised platform. Being the most important piece of “furniture” in the church, it is positioned in front of the congregation, with all pews facing it. Its symbolic importance can be summarized as follows:

  • It’s central—The pulpit’s central placement is important because it is from there that God addresses His people via the preached word. Therefore, it commands the most prominent place in the church.

  • It’s raised—The pulpit is elevated because it is upon the lectern that the minister’s bible rests, symbolizing the word of God being over the people.

  • It’s solid—The lectern is made of solid wood, symbolizing the sure foundation upon which God’s word stands. Moreover, it’s large enough to obscure most of the minister’s body, thus keeping the focus on the word. For this reason, Reformed ministers stay behind the lectern, so as to stay behind the word of God.

So Goes the Pulpit, So Goes the Glory of God

Overall, the pulpit represents what the church service is to be primarily about—God’s people coming together to worship Him, and, as mentioned, God addressing His people through the preached word.

Things have changed, though. Pulpits are considered outdated, and even stifling. Like nature, the church abhors a vacuum. In the pulpit’s place sprung the Plexiglas stand, allowing the “minister” to be seen in all of his glory. But this too is seen by some as cumbersome. Why let anything stand in front of the minister, hindering his ability to work the crowd like a Vegas lounge lizard?

Too harsh? Perhaps. But the transition from the pulpit to more modern elements is symptomatic of a greater problem: a shift from the glory of God to the glory of man; a shift from the minister as an empty vessel placarding Christ, to the minister as a personality and centerpiece; a shift from the preached word as a Means of Grace to the advent of a new sacrament—the minister himself.

Labels:

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Is Christianity Left, Right, or Nether?


Dr. Brian Lee, pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Washington DC, wrote an interesting opinion piece over at The Daily Caller. It’s part of a series where one writer makes the case for Christianity being politically conservative, one that it’s liberal, and one that it’s neither (Rev. Lee’s view).

Warning: If you go on to read the “liberal” article I recommend a belt of whiskey first. It’s a long, rambling invective that offers no discernible arguments; all we learn is that the author hates Christianity, even though the Christianity he hates is a product of his own imagination.

Here’s how Rev. Lee kicks it off . . .

Both the Christian Right and the Christian Left get the question of Christianity and politics wrong.

Christianity is not politically conservative or politically liberal — though Christians may be either. Christianity is not political at all. It is in a sense politically agnostic. But in another sense it calls into question the basis of every earthly power, including politics.

You can read the entire article here.

(HT: The Riddleblog)

Labels:

Friday, November 25, 2011

Children’s Bibles, Ben-Hur, and Imaging Christ

The Internet Movie Database (IMDB) describes the epic movie Ben-Hur’s plot as follows:

When a Jewish prince is betrayed and sent into slavery by a Roman friend, he regains his freedom and comes back for revenge.

What most people don’t know is that the book upon which the movie is based is actually titled Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ. Published in 1880, this novel, by Union general Lew Wallace, unfolds the life of Christ in parallel to that of the book’s protagonist, Ben-Hur. One of the interesting things about the film is that you never actually see the face of the actor portraying Jesus, opera singer Claude Heater.

From what I've found, there are basically two theories as to why “Christ” isn’t shown. The first was that the author, who was Presbyterian, requested that the actor’s face be shielded. This is unlikely, though, since General Wallace died in 1905. The second, more plausible reason is that the director, William Wyler, did it out of respect. Respect, I’m sure, for not only Christ but also for the public, which tended to be more theologically conservative than it is today.

This brings me to children’s bibles (and other such Christian commodities). William Wyler thought better of imaging Christ in his film; but in our day, I think it rare indeed to find a children’s bible that doesn’t. But is this appropriate? Is it okay to make images of our Lord?

Consider this—Jesus is God.

Q: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are . . . the making of any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of creature whatsoever . . .

The Westminster Larger Catechism, question 109

Consider the following syllogism:

Making a representation of God is forbidden (Deut. 4:15–19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21–25).
Jesus is God.
Therefore, making a representation of Jesus is forbidden.

Something to think about before adding a children’s bible to your Amazon.com shopping cart.

Note to My Reformed Brethren

The children’s bible pictured in this post (I blured the Christ image), The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name, is written by a member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York City. Redeemer PCA is pastured by a man I respect, Dr. Tim Keller. Not only is this book endorsed by Dr. Keller, it is also endorsed and marketed by Westminster Theological Seminary’s bookstore. On their Web site they inform shoppers of the images:

Why do some children's books have the disclaimer, "This book contains cartoon or artistic images of Jesus."

There are many people in our constituency who, in a sincere effort to honor the second commandment, refrain from the use of any kind of drawings or pictures of Jesus, even if not intended for a worship context (cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q. and A. 109). Out of respect for those who take this position, we have sought to add a note to books in our children's category which have drawings or depictions of Jesus so that they can factor that into their internet buying decisions, as they would if they could inspect the books physically

As evidenced by the disclaimer, imaging Jesus is still very controversial (and forbidden by the catechism). I searched the Web sites of the seminary’s bookstore, the author, and Dr. Keller’s church for an explanation as to why the images are allowable, but found nothing. I respectfully request that those in the Reformed camp who think it permissible to image Christ explain their position, especially if they are including these images in their books, selling those books, or endorsing them.

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Today in Church History: John Knox, Scottish Reformation

On November 24, 1572, Scottish reformer John Knox died in Edinburgh.

Born in 1514, Knox trained for the priesthood and was converted under George Wishart, an early martyr of the Scottish Reformation. While pastoring in St. Andrews, Knox was imprisoned after Wishart's death and served for 19 months as a galley slave. After his release he pastored in England until Mary Tudor ascended the throne, when he escaped to the continent, where he studied under John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger. Knox described Geneva as "the most perfect school of Christ on earth since the apostles," and during his exile he developed his defense for rebellion against idolatrous magistrates and female sovereigns. Upon his return to Scotland in 1559 he led in the development of the Scottish Reformed Church, introducing Reformed worship in his Forme of Prayers and Presbyterian polity in his Book of Discipline. In addition, his Scottish Confession, approved by the Scottish Parliament in 1560, was the confession standard of the Church of Scotland until it was superseded by the Westminster Standards in 1647.

Knox's secretary, Richart Bannatyne, recorded the passing of the "Thundering Scot" with these archaic words (recorded in the Presbyterian Guardian, November 4, 1935):

On this manner departed this man of God, the lycht of Scotland, the comfort of the kirk within the same, the mirror of godliness, and patrone and example of all true ministeris, in puritie of lyfe, soundness in doctrine, and bauldness in reproving of wickitness, and one that cared not the favor of men (how great soever they were), to reprove their abuses and synis. In him was sic a myghtie spreit of judgement and wisdome, that the truble never came to the kirk sen his entering in publict preiching but he foirsaw the end thereof, so that he was ever reddie a trew counsall and a faythfull to teich men that wald be taught to tak' the best and leive the worst.
-John Muether

Labels: ,

The Separatist


The one side [the Reformers] laboured to have ye right worship of God & discipline of Christ established in ye church, according to ye simplicitie of ye gospell, without the mixture of mens inventions, and to have & to be ruled by ye laws of Gods word, dispensed in those offices, & by those officers of Pastors, Teachers, & Elders, &c. according to ye Scripturs. The other partie [the Church of England], though under many colours & pretences, endevored to have ye episcopall dignitie (affter ye popish maner) with their large power & jurisdiction still retained; with all those courts, cannons, & ceremonies, togeather with all such livings, revenues, & subordinate officers, with other such means as formerly upheld their antichristian greatnes, and enabled them with lordly & tyranous power to persecute ye poore servants of God.

These were radical words when written in the early part of the seventeenth century. They described a movement whose members were known as “Separatists.” To be a Separatist in King James I’s England was punishable by imprisonment or even death.

On the run, the author and the others who yearned to worship God according to the Scriptures fled England to the more tolerant Netherlands. Here they remained for 12 years, enjoying their freedom granted by the Lord.

Being thus settled (after many difficulties) they continued many years in a comfortable condition, injoying much sweete & delightefull societies & spirituall comforte togeather in ye wayes of God . . . So as they grew in knowledge & other gifts & graces of ye spirite of God, & lived togeather in peace, & love, and holiness; and many came unto them from diverse parts of England, so as they grew a great congregation.

A Change in the Winds

But times changed. As war with Catholic Spain loomed on the horizon, England pressured its Dutch ally to drive out the Separatists. But where could they go that they could preserve their English heritage and language, be able to remain the king’s subjects, and still worship according to their conscience? There was an answer, but one that would be accompanied by great peril.

all great & honourable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and must be both enterprised and overcome with answerable courages. It was granted ye dangers were great, but not desperate; the difficulties were many, but not invincible . . . Yea, though they should loose their lives in this action, yet might they have comforte in the same, and their endeavors would be honourable. They lived hear but as men in exile, & in a poore condition; and as great miseries might possibly befale them in this place, for ye 12. years of truce [the truce between Holland and Spain] were now out, & ther was nothing but beating of drumes, and preparing for warr, the events wherof are allway uncertaine.

So it was, after many more hardships and trials, that the author of these journal entries, William Bradford, and 101 other Separatists set sail for America.

On this Day of Thanksgiving, may we not forget the gratitude we owe these Pilgrims, and to the gracious God who established this nation upon the principles of freedom, justice, and liberty. May God continue to sustain this nation, and may He bless and keep His people all over the world.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The First Thanksgiving and Indeed-La

From Forgotten English . . .

Indeed-la: The exclamation of a whining Puritan. Shakespeare uses the phrase, the right use of which has not been previously explained. (James Halliwell’s Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words, 1855.)

The First Thanksgiving

American folklore historians generally consider the first Thanksgiving dinner to have taken place in the fall of 1621 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The early Puritan celebrations were anything but lavish, focusing on restraint in contrast to the overindulgence of today.

Many of the dishes now consumed at this most American of meals were not part of the first holiday meal, including sweet potatoes, yams, and white potatoes, which would be introduced later from South America.

As the settlers were near the Atlantic, cod and other ocean fish, eels, mussels, claims, and crabs were standard fare, and so corn-on-the-cob, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie would also have to wait for later times. It was not until 1863, when Abraham Lincoln designated the last Thursday of November as Thanksgiving, that this date was established.

Labels:

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Divvying Up the Writers of the 66

John Mark Reynolds takes up an interesting task over at First Things: Identify the Biblical writer’s denominational affiliation. Here’s how he kicks it off:

Ecumenical dialogue is important. One problem in discussions between Christians has been the failure to recognize that each group quotes different Biblical authors. We all know that Paul is a Protestant, for example, but few recognize that Paul himself can be divided between early Paul (hyper-Calvinist) and late Paul (Presbyterian).

Theologians, of course, have long known that Obadiah was a papist, but the rest of us have been clueless. For example, the shift of Jeremiah from Calvinism to Catholicism over the course of his life explains a great deal about the text.

Many problems related to our ignorance of denominational affiliation would be solved if the Biblical players came with a program. I have provided you one with a one sentence reason for the designation . . .

Here are a few of my favorites:

Joshua: Catholic
Why? Likes crusades and building shrines.

Court Chronicler: Anglican
Why? Only Christian group interested in sustained sucking up to monarchs.

Ezra: Southern Baptist
Why? Has a great church building program.

Esther: Pentecostal
Why? Good looking women leaders.

Mordecai: Pentecostal
Why? Guy willing to work with good looking women leaders.

Job: Calvinist
Why? Stuff happens, don’t complain.

Solomon (Proverbs): Evangelical
Why? Advice fits on church sign.

Paul: (Late Period, see II Timothy) Presbyterian
Why? Very mellow and more concerned about heritage than present.

James: Catholic.
Why? Luther hated him

You can read the entire list here.

Labels:

Monday, November 21, 2011

How the Church Failed Brad Pitt

"She [his college girlfriend] helped me more than anyone else as far as setting off in my own direction," he explains. "It was my first year in college and I was pushing back against the religion thing. In my eyes it was a mechanism of guilt, this engrained system, used to keep the flock in servitude." Brad was raised a conservative Southern Baptist. "Guilt is the thing I find most evil about it. It's the thing I rail against the most. She helped me in defining what I believed.

"Religion works," he goes on. "I know there's comfort there, a crash pad. It's something to explain the world and tell you there is something bigger than you, and it is going to be alright in the end. It works because it's comforting. I grew up believing in it, and it worked for me in whatever my little personal high school crisis was, but it didn't last for me. I didn't understand this idea of a God who says, 'You have to acknowledge me. You have to say that I'm the best, and then I'll give you eternal happiness. If you won't, then you don't get it!' It seemed to be about ego. I can't see God operating from ego, so it made no sense to me.

Brad Pitt in a Parade.com interview

Based on the reasons Brad Pitt gives for abandoning his Baptist roots, I think that we can surmize the following:

  • He doesn’t understand man’s plight

  • He doesn’t understand God's nature

Man’s Plight

Mr. Pitt finds guilt the most evil thing about Christianity. We can infer from his comments that he thinks his feelings of guilt are a result of his Baptist upbringing; that without that upbringing he would live a guilt-free life. But is that the case? Do those outside of the Christian community live a conscience-free existence? The answer is, unless you’re a sociopath, no (Rom. 2:14 – 15).

What Mr. Pitt should have learned in church is that people of all types of rearing experience the crises of conscience known as guilt, and the reason for this is simple: we feel guilty because we are guilty.

Scripture teaches that Adam’s sin brought spiritual death to us all (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13). As a result, men are spiritually deaf, blind, and completely corrupted (Ecc. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14); also, men are slaves of sin (John. 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3) and children of the devil (Eph. 2:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:25–26; 1 John 3:10). So how does natural man respond to the revelations God has given him such as a guilty conscience? He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). This is all something Mr. Pitt should have learned in church.

God’s Nature

Mr. Pitt is offended by the idea that God would require honor. I suppose his view is that any being who would have himself honored is undue that honor. An odd claim coming from a man who accepted the honor of his peers through both Golden Globe (he won one) and Academy Award nominations. I don’t’ recall him repudiating these accolades. Apparently, he is due honor, but God isn’t.

Here’s why God deserves honor:

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

Again, something he should have learned in church.

Conclusion

The reasons Mr. Pitt gives for abandoning his childhood faith show that he doesn’t understand Christianity. As mentioned, all of this should have been learned in church, but his church failed him. Not only that, his parents failed him too. But Mr. Pitt is not alone. We see a trend of children departing the faith as soon as they enter the college parking lot. So what are we as the church and as parents to do?

Catechize

To catechize a child is to instruct her in the faith using questions and answers. It’s a method that traces its history back to Scripture (Mat. 16:13, 22:42). The catechism that I use in my home is the Heidelberg Catechism. Completed by Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus in 1563, the Heidelberg Catechism offers 129 questions and answers and is divided into three parts: man’s guilt, God’s grace, and our gratitude. Here’s a sample:

Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?

A. That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him.

The best way to inoculate your child (or yourself, for that matter) against error is by knowing the truth. Catechization is a tried and true method of learning the faith that has stood the test of time. Perhaps this could have made the difference in Brad Pitt’s life.

(Hat tip to the Desiring God blog for the Parade article.)

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Jesus Actually Saves by C. H. Spurgeon

Even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

Matthew 20:28

Some preachers and professors affect to believe in a redemption which I must candidly confess I do not understand; it is so indistinct and indefinite — a redemption which does not redeem anybody in particular, though it is alleged to redeem everybody in general; a redemption insufficient to exempt thousands of unhappy souls from hell after they have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus; a redemption, indeed, which does not actually save anybody, because it is dependent for its efficacy upon the will of the creature; a redemption that lacks intrinsic virtue and inherent power to redeem anybody, but is entirely dependent upon an extraneous contingency to render it effectual. With such fickle theories I have no fellowship. That every soul for whom Christ shed his blood as a Substitute, he will claim as his own, and have as his right, I firmly hold. I love to hold and I delight to proclaim this precious truth. Not all the powers of earth or hell; not the obstinacy of the human will, nor the deep depravity of the human mind, can ever prevent Christ seeing of the travail of his soul and being satisfied. To the last jot and tittle of his reward shall he receive it at the Father’s hand. A redemption that does redeem, a redemption that redeems many, seems to me infinitely better than a redemption that does not actually redeem anybody, but is supposed to have some imaginary influence upon all the sons of men.

C.H. Spurgeon (1834 - 1892)

Lifted from Reformation Theology.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Dante's Ante-Purgatory


Greg Peters at The Scriptorium provides a fascinating analysis of Dante's Ante-Purgatory found in the Divine Comedy. Here's how it begins . . .

For many Protestant Christians today the doctrine of Purgatory (especially in its medieval articulation) is blatantly wrong. The need for such a place is mainly the result of the medieval concepts of debt, penalty and merit (of Christ and the saints). To a medieval theologian Purgatory was necessary, even desirable. Thus, when Dante Alighieri went about writing his Divine Comedy, it was only natural that it would be set in three geographical locations: Hell, Purgatory and Heaven. Yet, when one sits down to read Dante’s Purgatorio attentively, the reader notices that it is not until Canto 9 of the book that Dante (and Virgil) actually reaches the gates of Purgatory: “Thou art come to Purgatory now.” Where is he in Books 1-8? Is he still in Hell? No. He’s in a place between Hell and Purgatory that is seaside, flat and covered in reeds. This area is often labeled as Ante-Purgatory. Ante-Purgatory? As a person fairly well versed in medievalia, I do not recall the theological concept of Ante-Purgatory. What is Dante up to?

You can read the rest here.

Labels:

Friday, November 18, 2011

Thought of the Day: The Gospel in a Word

Here’s the gospel in a word: imputation. It’s Christ’s righteousness (His perfect keeping of the Law) being imputed (transferred) to His people, and their sins being imputed to Him (which He bore on the cross). Men can only stand before God when clothed in Christ’s righteousness—and this was accomplished by God descending to man (in Christ), not man ascending to God (through works).

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Unique? It Really Is!

From Great Commission Publications:

Many authors have been captured by a noble theme; we call them inspired. Many books have stirred hearts and even changed lives; we call them inspiring. Paul speaks of Scripture in a completely different sense. Whatever power exists in the written word to move the soul or redirect a life—and that power is considerable—it is different from that of the Bible. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16:17).

First, look at the Bible’s source. It is breathed out, as it were, by God himself. God’s agency is direct and intimate, not merely providential. God’s agency is direct and intimate, not merely providential. God did more than guide the authors of Scripture in producing the final result. The human authors varied in their literary skills, education, and background, note of which God bypassed in using them. But, as Peter notes, “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). As B. B. Warfield wrote, “The men who spoke from God are here declared, therefore, to have been taken up by the Holy Spirit and brought by His power to the goal of his choosing.” It was not their goal or their agenda they were promoting, but God’s. Whatever the Bible says, God says. And therefore, to quote Warfield again, the writers of Scripture looked on their work as “divinely safeguarded in even its verbal expression, and as divinely trustworthy in all its parts, in all its elements, and in all its affirmations of whatever kind.”

The Bible’s source is the key to its power. Because it is God-breathed, the Bible is therefore “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Scripture does what no merely human writing can do. It reveals the totality of God’s will concerning everything we need to know on earth about the righteousness that God demands. And in doing that, it is the perfect instrument for equipping the Christian minister completely for his work—and the Christian layperson too.

The questions for you today are these: What are you doing with God’s word? Are you in it daily, even if briefly? Are you letting the Word “dwell in you richly”? (Col. 3:16). If it is God’s Word, dare we treat it as optional reading?

May God give us perseverance in his Word.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Defense of Marriage Act and Same-Sex Marriage

From The Wittenberg Door archives . . .

The Obama administration recently announced that it will no longer legally support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The act, signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also stipulates that a same-sex union considered a marriage in one state does not have to be recognized as such in another.

In order to advance the ball put into play by the Obama administration, House and Senate Democrats will be drafting legislation both to repeal DOMA and to replace it with something more palatable to their sensibilities.

In this post we’ll consider the reasons put forth as justification for overturning DOMA.

(Quotes below are from the Huffinton Post.)

State Interest

"The president's move is another step in the increasing realization that there is no conceivable justification for DOMA, that it is motivated, was motivated, purely by irrational considerations and fear and that there is no rational basis that will stand up to a constitutional challenge," said Nadler [Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee]. "Hopefully, that will make it somewhat easier to pass legislation in Congress."

DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Rep. Nadler, instead of advancing an argument to substantiate his claim, simply resorts to motive questioning: those who don’t agree with him are motivated by irrationality and fear. Furthermore, he claims “that there is no rational basis that will stand up to a constitutional challenge.”Again, no reason is given. He just makes a claim.

Unlike Rep. Nadler, I will make a case for my side, and I’ll do so without questioning his motives. I’ll let the reader be the judge as to whether or not what follows is irrational.

The State should only have an interest in two types of contractual relationships: corporations and heterosexual marriages. The first because the State is required to regulate commerce (section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution); and the second because it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself.

Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise. This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions.

All You Need is Love

"As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," [Sen. D-CA] Feinstein said in a prepared statement. "My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that. I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed."

Sen. Feinstein’s comments bring to mind the Beatles’ song, All You Need is Love. Great song; bad social policy. Is it true that we can marry anyone we love and with whom we enter into a “contract”? Can I marry my two neighbor’s wives as long as we love each other? Can I marry my sister if we stipulate that we wouldn’t breed? Can I marry myself (if I likewise promise not to breed)? We could go on-and-on with scenarios, but I think the point has been made: love is an insufficient reason to redefine marriage.

Another point is that the state isn’t interested in whether or not the happy couple love each other. On a marriage form there is no “Check Here to Swear That You Love This Person.” The fetching Mrs. Catechizer didn’t swear to her undying love for me before a magistrate. Why? Because the State doesn’t care. They care about the union for the reasons above, not about our emotional commitment to one another.

Conclusion

For all of recorded history marriage has been between men and women—never between the same sex. There have been variations on the theme of marriage, but the theme remains. Consider, though, the amazing chutzpah of the Senator and Congressman: They and their compatriots on the left are morally superior to all religious leaders of all times, and to all generations that preceded this one. (I suppose Sen. Feinstein can teach Jesus a-thing-or-two about morality.)

If the Congressman and the Senator take truth, intellectual honesty, and the fabric of society seriously, then they’ll offer something more substantial than “all you need is love, and if you disagree it’s because you’re irrational and fearful.”

Labels:

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Was John Calvin a Murderer?

Was John Calvin responsible for the execution of Michael Servetus? That’s the question Jim McClarty answers over at Reformed Voices. Here’s how it begins . . .

This is a question that shows up in my email from time to time. It's a claim that is leveled by those who seek to besmirch Reformed Theology. Usually, the claim that Calvin was a murderer is an attempt to make all Calvinistic doctrine wrong through 'guilt by association.'

However, historically speaking, the so-called 'Doctrines of Grace' - which go by the nickname of Calvinism - did not originate with Calvin. They are the result of a Synod held in Dort, Holland in 1618/19, after Calvin was long dead. Those of us who hold to Reformed Theology do so not because we are attempting to replicate the theology or ecclesiology of John Calvin, but because we are convinced that the Biblical arguments and conclusions stemming from that Synod are valid and our own exegesis confirms the five points.

If it could be proven that John Calvin was indeed a murderous wretch, it would have no effect on the theology that sprung from the pen of the Reformers. In other words, the 'guilt by association' tactic has no teeth. That being said, let's clear up the history and let the proverbial chips fall where they will.

You can read the entire post here.

For a well-reasoned contrary view, I recommend Standford Rives’ article, Servetus & Calvin: Was it Murder by Calvin?

Labels:

Monday, November 14, 2011

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Part 2 (Conclusion)

In Part 1, we considered the definition of tolerance and how post-modernity has redefined it. We also took a look at the common retort of those holding the new view: "Who are you to judge?"

In this post we’ll consider the foundation of tolerance, both old and new. We’ll also get a chance to see modern tolerance in action.

Tolerance with an “If”

Classical tolerance was birthed by a Christian worldview. It’s founded upon the notion that man is created in God’s image. As His image bearer, man is expected to act in accordance with God’s moral standards. Man is also expected to treat his fellows with respect, since they too bear God’s image.

Modern tolerance has no such foundation. Consequently, it’s very fickle, changing from person to person. Because of this, you can never tell how it’s going to cash out—it’s like playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey with a living, highly agitated animal. Some burrows, however, are easier to stick than others. Consider the following sentiment from Ms. Parton:

. . . If you can accept me, I can accept you.

Dolly Parton

Ahhhh, the art of the caveat. This is actually very typical. She’ll show you tolerance as long as you show her the same. It’s the contingency here that counts. In the classical view, one shows tolerance even if the object of the tolerance is himself intolerant. This caveat makes tolerance anemic. Reason is, I don’t have to tolerate someone who agrees with me. It’s only those with whom I don’t agree that I can show tolerance—this, of course, includes the intolerant.

Hate Mail?

Having a big gay following, I get hate mail and threats . . .

Dolly Parton

I don’t know what to make of this. Ms. Parton doesn’t give us any examples. It does seem odd, though. I’m trying to figure out what someone would say. Maybe something like this:

“Dolly, I hear that there are some homosexuals out there who listen to your music. Therefore, I hate you. Have a nice day.”

There’s no question that people full of irrational hate do irrational things. But her characterization is a bit hard to accept. I wonder if those same people send similar emails to Levi Strauss:

“I hear that there are some homosexuals out there who wear trousers. Therefore, I hate pants. Boy is it drafty.”

Of course, I’m only able to offer conjecture since Ms. Parton has not granted us a peek into her email. I suspect, though, that she does what many do today: If someone is critical of your position (particularly hot-button issues like homosexuality), you characterize them in the worst possible light. Again, I don’t know whether or not that’s the case with Ms. Parton. But, because she holds to modern tolerance, and because her claim just doesn’t ring true (that she gets hate mail because some homosexuals like her music), I think we have grounds to be suspicious.

Mr. Mohidin of New Queer World, however, has already passed judgment: these people are “hate mongers.” It makes you wonder how he can come to this conclusion without seeing any evidence. But it does provide a transition to our next topic.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Some people are blind or ignorant, and you can't be that prejudiced and hateful and go through this world and still be happy.

Dolly Parton

If I were to create a bumper sticker for the new-tolerance crowd it would read, “We don’t tolerate intolerance around here!” Reason being, those holding to modern tolerance have a tendency to vilify their detractors. For example, if you question the morality of homosexual behavior you run risk being labeled a “homophobe” or being accused of hating homosexuals. (I can’t tell you how many times this has happened to me.)

True tolerance doesn’t name call, and it doesn’t cast aspersions upon the character of those on the other side. Even if the person is prejudiced in a bad way, or has an irrational hatred towards a person or group, the truly tolerant would respond with a well-reasoned argument, presented in a gracious, respectful manor. Of course, this is the difference between the classic definition and the new: the former, being founded upon a Christian ethic, has substance, while the later, having no foundation at all, is vacuous—just like the smiley face.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Catechisms and Catechizing in England from 1530 to 1740

The following is an excerpt from the chapter Catechizing in Church in Ian Green’s The Christian’s ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England (1530 – 1740). It provides a fascinating look into how the English churches of that time catechized.

The attitude of the English church to basic catechizing was not very different from that of the mature Luther or Calvin in the stress that was put on the role of the minister. Luther did not abandon his earlier belief that parents had a duty to teach their children the basics at home, but by the time he published his shorter catechism, it was on the shoulders of the “faithful, godly pastors and preachers” that he put the main responsibility for teaching it. Calvin too thought that householders and school teachers had a role to play, but in the text of his 1541 catechism the exchanges were between minister and child, and in the ordonnances ecclesiastiques of the same year it was to the minister in the church at midday on Sundays that parents were told to bring their children to be catechized.

In England, too, while many bishops and enthusiasts envisaged a role for parents in instructing their charges, there is no sign of great confidence that they would play it, or of any official attempt to make instruction domestic compulsory. Instead, in England from the early stage the brunt of the burden of ensuring the basic catechism was mastered and understood, especially by those who never attended a school, fell on the parish clergy.

The official reliance on the clergy for basic catechizing was laid down in the rubrics of the Edwardian, Elizabethan, and Caroline Prayer Books and the canons of 1571 and 1604. Catechizing was to be performed by what the rubric in the original Book of Common Prayer called “the curate of every parish.” In the absence of assistant clergy in the majority of the parishes at this time, “curate” referred literally to the man with the cure of souls: the parson, rector, vicar, or perpetual curate, or minister as he was often referred to in later Episcopal injunctions and visitations articles.

Basic catechizing was to take place on those days when all the faithful were supposed to attend church: Sundays and those holy days retained by the Protestant church. However, it is worth noting that regular catechizing on a weekday was not unheard of ... according to Samuel Clarke, the puritan hagiographer, a number of godly clergy not only preached twice on Sundays but also catechized or gave a catechetical lecture on weekdays as well.

Being catechized in church was part of a process of growing up in a village or town in which community and congregation overlapped, and was, at least in theory, a means to the end of further participation in the rites of passage which (as parents knew full well) only the church could provide. And from the point of view of a highly perceptive child like William Wordsworth, there may have been a frisson of excitement about b eing catechized and an element of anticipation about being ‘bishoped,’ as an initiation rite into adulthood. By the eighteenth century (and sometimes earlier) there was also the prospect of a reward or treat for those who were confirmed. Such thinking may have made children accept, if not necessarily welcome, their parents’ insistence that they attend church for catechizing for a period of time.

By was of conclusion and comparison, a word may be said about catechizing in Presbyterian churches and separatist congregations from the 1650s. In the 1650s the exercise was certainly comparable to that in ‘church’...

For there were always many Presbyterians and other nonconformists who were anxious to catechize in public if they could. Hence the elementary catechisms prepared by men like John Owen, John Wallis, Richard Baxter, George Fox, Benjamin Keach, Isaac Watts, and others for their particular groups of catechumens.

There was also a comparable commitment to securing understanding as well as instilling knowledge, a growing variety of catechetical forms and methods, and some extremely zealous catechists, such as Richard Baxter, Henry Stubs, Thomas Wadsworth, Thomas Lye, Thomas Doolittle, Thomas Vincent, Philip Henry, and his some Matthew, Samuel Bourn the younger and many others. Thomas Lye’s thirty year ministry, mainly in London, was marked by his zeal for catechizing, and his unflagging attempts to find new ways to make the Westminster Shorter catechism easier to master and understand, especially by those with ‘weakest capacities and memories.’ He taught catechism publicly on Saturday afternoons at Dyers’ Hall in the mid 1670s and among those he instructed was a very young Edmund Calamy. Of Thomas Doolittle it was said that “catechizing was his special excellency and delight, wherein he took much pains himself, and which he earnestly recommended to his brethren in the ministry, as greatly tending to their people’s profit, and their own comfort.” By his own account, his normal catechumens ranged from 6 to 28 years in age, though he also tells us he had helped some in their thirties and forties, and up to their seventies. In the preface of an early venture, which turned the Shorter Catechism into a series of questions requiring yes and no answers, Doolittle recorded the delight that children found in this exercise: they “would with great willingness for an hour or two together, answer yes or no to the questions, and so may yours,” he added to the householders to whom the published work was dedicated.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Today in Church History: Adopting Act (OPC, 1936), General Assembly (2nd: 1936)

On Thursday, November 12, 1936, the Second General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (later to become the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) convened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

As commissioners met for three days in the Manufacturers' and Bankers' Club on Walnut and Broad Streets, the main item on their agenda was the report from the Committee on the Constitution on the adoption of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the doctrinal standards of the five-month-old church. The debate centered on whether or not the church should include the 1903 confessional revisions in its version of the standards. While it was generally agreed that those revisions were Arminian and anti-Reformed, some commissioners argued that the inclusion of those revisions would bolster the church's claim of being the "spiritual successor" to the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and thus help congregations in their legal battle to maintain their property. Cornelius Van Til spoke in opposition to such expediency: "Shall we be Arminians before the courts this year, with the full expectation of being Calvinists next year?"

The Presbyterian Guardian described the outcome of the debate in this way: "When the vote was taken by roll-call on this all-important matter the result was the adoption of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, without the obnoxious 1903 revisions, by the decisive majority of 57 to 20."

-John Muether

Labels:

Friday, November 11, 2011

Tolerance and Dialog – Tactical Considerations

As mentioned in Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Tactical Considerations – Part 1, I penned the following post while writing for another Web site. Please note that since that site is no longer alive, the original comment mentioned below is no longer available.

It’s always of interest to me how people reach this Web site. Yesterday, someone found us by doing a search on Dolly Parton. When I was looking at the other Web sites and blogs that came up in the search, I noticed one called New Queer World that had commented on the same Dolly Parton interview on which I had posted. Since I’m always looking for opportunities to dialog with non-Christians, I left the following comment:

Greetings, Don. I can sympathize with Ms. Parton’s desire for toleration. I too want people to be tolerant of others with whom they disagree. That means we ought to treat them with dignity, fairly represent their views, and respectfully engage their ideas. Today, many of us fall short of this classic definition of tolerance. It’s much easier to name call and to vilify than to truly treat each other with tolerance. May we all strive for true tolerance.

In response to my comment, the author, Don Mohidin, left a comment on my Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Tactical Considerations post. I encourage you to read it. Mr. Mohidin, I believe, showed true tolerance. His comments are both gracious and thoughtful. He also took time to challenge my position. What follows is my response to his challenge.

Is Morality Ice cream?

Points of view that some will view as good and others will see as bad have no intrinsic 'goodness' or 'badness.' They are simply one (or more) person's opinion about something.

Mr. Mohidin, it would seem, is a moral relativist (moral absolutes do not exist). His claim is that ideas have no intrinsic moral properties, that they are simply one’s opinion. For example, Mr. Mohidin might like chocolate ice cream, while I like vanilla. Michael might like feeding starving children, while Bob likes torturing them—none of these views are “good” or “bad,” we all just have different opinions. (As you can see, moral relativism offers a hard pill to swallow.)

I think that what happened to Mathew Shepard was a heinous act, that it was an objective (exists outside of the mind) moral wrong. But, on Mr. Mohidin’s view, there are no objective moral wrongs. Morality is subjective (only exists in the mind). Therefore, the perpetrators didn’t actually do anything wrong, because there’s no “wrong” to do. All that exists are just different opinions.

The point will always be distilled down to a set of values the speaker holds based upon beliefs and a moral code developed during life. Who is to say whose moral code is universally correct?

On Mr. Mohidin’s view, man is a moral tabula rasa (blank slate). We collect our moral views through-out life like a ship’s hull collects barnacles. Adolph Hitler developed the view that homosexuals should be put to death. Does that make the Nazi persecution of homosexuals right? If Mr. Mohidin is consistent he would have to answer, “Who’s to say?”

It takes supreme arrogance to adopt the position that one knows the right moral code . . .

It’s Mr. Mohidin’s moral code that it is supremely arrogant to think that you have the right moral code. Assuming that Mr. Mohidin thinks he's right about that, he has shown us that he is supremely arrogant. (Example of a self-refuting claim.)

. . . because it assumes that the decider knows everything, and knowing everything, can pick out the right moral code to which all people should adhere.

I couldn’t agree with Mr. Mohidin more. No human being can know everything, and no human being can establish a moral code for all to follow. Here’s the Christian claim: Morality is based upon God’s holy, just, and perfect character. He is the standard for morality. We know this in two ways. First, we are beings created in His image; because of this, we are moral beings who are imprinted with His moral code. That’s why everyone engages in moral reasoning. Second, He has revealed His moral law to us in the Bible. Consequently, morality is objective.

Please note that I am not arguing for the truthfulness of Christianity. I’m simply stating the claim. For a thumbnail sketch as to why Christianity is true, please see my post titled, The Lazy Atheist?— The Christian Worldview (Conclusion).

Conclusion

I don’t know Mr. Mohidin. He might be a prince of a man; perhaps he gives liberally to charity, is adored by many, and performs daily acts of mercy. His character is not in question. It’s his worldview that deserves scrutiny.

Moral relativism is untenable. Not only is it self-refuting (e.g., “there are not absolutes” is itself an absolute statement), but it doesn’t work in real life—no one lives that way.

I bet if someone broke into Mr. Mohidin’s house he’d call the police (that he wouldn’t just dismiss the crime by saying that the burglar simply had a different opinion as to who owned the property). I bet he thought Hitler was evil. And I bet he was repulsed and outraged by what happened to Mathew Shepard. These are all appropriate moral responses—they're appropriate, that is, in a world with objective morality. But if morality is simply ice cream . . .

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Whoever Calls

From Great Commission Publications . . .

There is a mysterious longing in the heart of God that is captured in the words, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom. 10:13; see Joel 2:32). Without prejudice to any, without restricting his benevolence to only a few, God does not want anyone to perish, “but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

The mystery for us is contained in the distinction between what God has decreed and what he has revealed in Scripture. We know from Scripture that God has decreed, irrevocably and forever, which ones will receive his electing love and thus be saved (Rom. 9:18). But Scripture also makes plain that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rather that they turn from their wickedness and live (Ezek. 33:11). If there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, there is no equal joy over one who des not. God longs intensely for individual men and women to repent and believe the gospel, even if they never do. We cannot fathom this mystery; we must embrace it.

The Mystery of the Gospel

Here is the mystery of the free offer of the gospel. Without distinction and with no strings attached. It is universal. Literally anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Jew or Gentile, white or black, European or Asian, the subject is the same. No special privilege is granted to any. It is uniform in its method. The one thing required of everyone is to call upon the Lord’s name. Acknowledge that he alone saves and ask him to save you. It is unerring in its results. Whoever calls will be saved, period. There is no mincing of words here, no hidden clauses.

The offer is indiscriminate. God’s benevolent love extends to all, and he deeply longs for all to repent. Think of that next time you see your neighbor grilling hamburgers in his back yard, or bump into her in the grocery store, or wave as you drive by his house. God longs for that person to hear the gospel; he longs for that person to repent.

But what if he’s not elect? First, we don’t know who the elect are, and it’s none of our business to figure it out (Deut. 29:29). Second, even if someone isn’t elect, God longs for him anyway. Jesus wept over a non-elect Jerusalem; he longed for her, though she refused him. There is the heart of God, if you need proof. Is it your hear too?

Labels:

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Dolly Parton and Tolerance – Tactical Considerations – Part 1

A few years ago, while writing for another Web site, I penned the following post. I came across it recently while going through some old files and thought that the readers of this site might find it of interest.

In a USA Today interview, Parton’s Plea for Tolerance, Dolly Parton explains that her ability to identify with the outcast enabled her to pen the song Travelin’ Thru. This Oscar-nominated song was written for the movie Transamerica, which tells the tale of a pre-operative “transsexual” traveling the country with his son.

Some things are strange to me, and some things are odd . . . But I don't condemn. If you can accept me, I can accept you.

Dolly Parton

Definition of Tolerance

“Tolerance,” classically defined, refers to how you treat someone with whom you disagree. You show tolerance when you treat your opponent with dignity, fairly represent his views, and graciously engage his ideas—or, to put it simply, you don’t kill him for having divergent views.

The classical definition of tolerance has fallen on hard times. Post-modernity has refashioned the term into something warm and fuzzy—a verbal counterpart to the ubiquitous smiley face.

No longer is tolerance characterized by charitable disagreement. The modern notion is that to be tolerant is not to disagree at all, but rather that all views ought to be embraced equally—sort of.

Not only has the term been redefined, but it has also been narrowed: only those views deemed socially acceptable are accorded toleration. All other views are marginalized.

“Poor Dolly” Disclaimer

Before I comment, I want to make it clear that it is not my intention to beat up on Dolly. She seems to me to be a very sweet, decent lady (and she looks amazing for 60 years old). The reason I’m using her comments is because I think they reflect how most people view tolerance.

Judging

In Dolly’s comment above, she mentions that she doesn’t “condemn” things that seem strange or odd to her. In context, she’s talking about people’s behavior or “life choices.” Basically, she’s saying that she doesn’t judge.

The not-judging aspect of modern tolerance usually takes two forms:

  • “You shouldn’t judge”

  • “Who are you to judge?”

You shouldn’t judge.
When I’m confronted with this objection, I typically respond with a clarification question: “Is it your view that it’s wrong to judge?” After he affirms I follow-up with, “Then why are you judging me?”

You see, what he’s saying is that, in his judgment, it’s wrong to judge. This is obviously self-refuting. By pointing out the contradiction, it helps to pave the way for a discussion of true tolerance.

Who are you to judge?
When confronted with this question, respond with, “Who are you to ask ‘Who am I to judge?’”

Behind his question is a presupposition that you don’t have the authority to make the judgment. In essence, you are asking the same question: by what authority do you ask me about my authority? Responding this way shows that his presupposition dies by its own sword. Also, by using this tactic, you pave the way to talk about Who actually has the ultimate authority to judge.

Part 2

In part 2 we’ll consider the caveat to modern tolerance, as introduced to us by Ms. Parton: “If you can accept me, I can accept you." We’ll also see that those holding this view don’t tolerate what they consider “intolerance.”

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Notable Quote: R.L. Dabney

R.L. Dabney (1820 – 1898) on sanctification . . .

Sanctification, in the gospel sense, means then, not only cleansing from guilt, though it presupposes this, nor only consecration, though it includes this, nor only reformation of morals and life, though it produces this; but, essentially, the moral purification of the soul . . . Sanctification only matures what regeneration began. The latter sprouted the seed of grace, the former continues its growth, until there appears first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.

R.L. Dabney, Systematic Theology

Labels:

Monday, November 07, 2011

Thought of the Day: Man’s Fallen Condition

In his fallen state man is an enemy of God. He not only doesn’t seek reconciliation and entrance into God’s kingdom, but he is daily seeking to further himself from His holy Creator. The sinner’s only hope is a rescue operation—a sovereign work of God upon his heart. And this rescue operation does not depend upon the drowning man seeking out the lifeguard. Instead, our rescuer chose to save us, and to preserve us, before we ever entered the water.

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 06, 2011

Children at the Lord’s Table?

New Horizons provides an outstanding insight into the paedocommunion debate. Here are links to the relevant articles, along with a brief summary:

Children at the Lord’s Table
James T. Dennison, academic dean of Northwest Theological Seminary

From at least the time of John Calvin, the Reformed churches have interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:29 as requiring a profession of faith prior to participation in the Lord's Supper. Taking the phrase "discerning the Lord's body" in the sense of implying profession is but a particular instance of the general Reformed rule: confession of faith is prior to the Lord's Table. In the nature of the case, profession of the covenant with the mouth comes before feeding upon the symbols of the covenant with the mouth.

The Lord’s Supper: Warnings for All
George W. Knight III, author, OPC minister, and teacher at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Our confessional standards understand 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 as providing warnings to all Christians. But some say that the warnings apply only to those who have sinned as the Corinthians did. Most of these desire to admit children to the Lord's Supper who are unable to do what the warnings require. This article defends the historic way of understanding the warning statements.

The Lord’s Supper and Covenant Children
Stuart R. Jones, OPC minister

A recent decision of the Christian Reformed Church (June 2006) to prepare the way for child communion within that denomination highlights the durability of that issue. The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church received a report on this issue in 1987 in which a division of opinion was expressed. I will argue that the confessional standards of the OPC are correct in disallowing the practice of paedocommunion, because of the nature of the Lord's Supper as a covenant renewal meal.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 05, 2011

Today in Church History: B.B. Warfield, Princeton Theological Seminary

On November 5, 1851, Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield was born outside Lexington, Kentucky.

The son of a prosperous horse and cattle breeder, Warfield developed interests in science before studying at Princeton College and Princeton Seminary. A brief pastorate in Baltimore preceded his appointment at Western Seminary in Pittsburgh. After teaching New Testament there for nine years, he was offered a chair in theology at Princeton Seminary in 1887, succeeding A. A. Hodge.

During his 34-year tenure at Princeton, where he taught over 2700 students, Warfield was a prolific writer and long-time editor of the Presbyterian Review, the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, and the Princeton Theological Review. In those pages he took on mysticism, naturalism, Pentecostalism, perfectionism, and rationalism, as these movements threatened the Presbyterian church. He vigorously defended the verbal inspiration of Scripture against his antagonist, Charles A. Briggs of Union Seminary in New York. Calvinistic orthodoxy lay at the heart of all of his work. "Calvinism is just religion in its purity," he wrote. "We have only therefore to conceive of religion in its purity, and that is Calvinism."

The last of the great Princeton Theologians died on February 16, 1921. Warfield's passing was a great blow to the seminary and church, as a younger colleague, J. Gresham Machen, described in letters to his mother:

Princeton will seem to be a very insipid place without him. He was really a great man. There is no one living in the Church capable of occupying one quarter of his place. To me, he was an incalculable help and support in a hundred different ways.

Dr. Warfield's funeral took place yesterday afternoon at the First Church of Princeton . . . It seemed that the old Princeton " a great institution " died when Dr. Warfield was carried out.

-John Muether

Labels:

Friday, November 04, 2011

Moral Confusion—Slavery vs. Abortion

Most people’s moral reasoning has been crippled by Relativism. Because of this, it can be very difficult to get people to think deeply about any issue—and it’s almost impossible to get them to reflect seriously upon the most important moral issue of our day—abortion.

When discussing this matter, it helps get people thinking when you replace abortion with an already-settled moral issue. Here’s an example using Rudy Giuliani’s remarks at one of last presidential-cycle Republican debates. But, in order to make the analogy more clear, we’ll move the debate back to the year 1860, and swap Giuliani for Lincoln.

Moderator: Let me ask Mr. Lincoln, do you want to respond to this? Because it seems like across the room here, this strong, unrelenting anti-slavery position. You seem to have a nuanced position on this. Many people think you're pro-slavery. Could you define it in a couple of seconds?

Abraham Lincoln: Sure. This is a very, very difficult issue of conscience for many, many people. In my case, I hate slavery. I would encourage someone to not take that option and enslave Africans. When I was a member of the House of Representatives, I encouraged emancipations.

But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a slaveholder’s or slave-trader’s right to make a different choice.

But ultimately, I think when you come down to that choice, you have to respect a slaveholder’s or slave-trader’s right to make that choice differently than my conscience.

We cannot even conceive of Abraham Lincoln being this morally confused. When it came to the issue of slavery, the greatest moral issue of his time, Lincoln understood that there was only one question that needed to be answered: Are black folks human beings?

And when this new principle [that African Americans were not covered by the phrase "all men are created equal"] -- this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago, -- is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design; I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro -- to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property of the negro in all the States of the Union.

From Abraham Lincoln’s last debate with Stephen Douglas, 1858

What makes the analogy work is the question of humanity: for Lincoln, as mentioned, Are blacks human beings? If so, then there is no justification for their enslavement. If not, then do with them what you will—no justification needed.

For us, Are the unborn human beings? If so, then there is no justification for abortion. If not, then do with them what you will. This is the question with which we must press those in favor of abortion. All others are secondary.

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 03, 2011

A Little Levity

What do you get when you combine an insomniac, agnostic, and a dyslexic?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

A person who stays up all night wondering if there is a dog.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

The Gospel Call

When thinking of salvation, it is appropriate to step back and understand that salvation is the work of the Trinity. In eternity past, the Father marked out those who would be saved. This is referred to as “election.” At the appointed time, the Son came into the world and secured the redemption of His people. Finally, the Spirit, working through the word, applies that redemption to the elect. A key part of this process is the gospel call, which takes two forms.

The general (or external) call

We find in Scripture that the gospel call is distributed indiscriminately. This call to repentance and faith goes out to all hearers. The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon was once asked why he didn’t preach to the elect only. His response is reported to have been, “If I know the elect had yellow stripes down their backs, I would be running around London lifting up shirts.” The elect is known only to God. Thus those responding to the Great Commission proclaim Christ to all.

This external call includes (1.) A declaration of the plan of salvation. (2.) The promise of God to save all who accede to the terms of that plan. (3.) Command, exhortation, and invitation to all to accept of the offer mercy. (4.) An exhibition of the reasons which should constrain men to repent and believe, and thus escape from the wrath to come. All this is included in the gospel. For the gospel is a revelation of God's plan of saving sinners . . . This call is universal in the sense that it is addressed to all men indiscriminately to whom the gospel is sent. It is confined to no age, nation, or class of men. It is made to the Jew and Gentile, to Barbarians and Scythians, bond and free; to the learned and to the ignorant; to the righteous and to the wicked; to the elect and to the non-elect.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

For many are called, but few are chosen

Matthew 22:14

5) "The sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell beside the road, and it was trampled under foot and the birds of the air ate it up.

6) "Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture.

7) "Other seed fell among the thorns; and the thorns grew up with it and choked it out.

8) "Other seed fell into the good soil, and grew up, and produced a crop a hundred times as great." As He said these things, He would call out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

11) "Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.

Luke 8:5-8, 11

The Effectual (or inward) call

For the elect, a special inward call from the Holy Spirit accompanies the general call. This call brings the sinner, who is dead in his sins (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13), to life. By this work of the Spirit, through the Word, faith is granted to the sinner—he is enabled to believe all that is promised in the gospel.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

Ephesians 2:1

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Romans 10:17

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

Ephesians 2:8

Labels:

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Top Twelve Theology Books of Christian History

Over at Scriptorium Daily, Fred Sanders offers a list of the top twelve theology books of Christian history, as used at the Torrey Honors Institute of Biola University. Here are the books:

  1. Selections from the Bible: Paul's Letters and John's Gospel

  2. Irenaeus of Lyons, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (circa 150)

  3. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation (circa 325)

  4. Gregory of Nazianzus, The Five Theological Orations (circa 381)

  5. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ (circa 440)

  6. Augustine of Hippo, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love (circa 430)

  7. Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) (circa 1100)

  8. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae selections (circa 1270)

  9. Martin Luther, Selections (circa 1530)

  10. John Calvin, The Institutes (circa 1559)

  11. The Heidelberg Catechism by Ursinus and Olevianus (circa 1563)

  12. John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress (circa 1678)

Click here to learn more about these selections.

Labels: