Home Group Sheet for Matthew 5:4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted”

I know this is a bit choppy, but I made it for my personal use and it might not be reader-friendly. This is a condensed commentary on Matthew 5:4 for the homegroup I am leading right now. We are going through the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted”

-          This beatitude connects to the previous one in that “being poor in spirit” acknowledges one’s poverty and need for help. Important to note that the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t advocate “works righteousness”, nor is “law” for Jews only. It begins with our poverty and need of grace.

-          Being “poor in spirit” will manifest itself in mourning.

• Our faith is a “crying one”:
  • “We need, then, to observe that the Christian life, according to Jesus, is not all joy and laughter. Some Christians seem to imagine that, especially if they are filled with the Spirit, they must wear a perpetual grin on their face and be continuously boisterous and bubbly. How unbiblical can one become? No. In Luke’s version of the Sermon Jesus added to this beatitude a solemn woe: ‘Woe to you that laugh now.’¹ The truth is that there are such things as Christian tears, and too few of us ever weep them.”^[1]

-          “I fear that we evangelical Christians, by making much of grace, sometimes thereby make light of sin. There is not enough sorrow for sin among us. We should experience more ‘godly grief’ of Christian penitence, like that sensitive and Christ-like eighteenth-century missionary to the American Indians David Brainerd, who wrote in his journal on 18 October 1740: ‘In my morning devotions my soul was exceedingly melted, and bitterly mourned over my exceeding sinfulness and vileness.’ Tears like this are the holy water which God is said to store in his bottle. Such mourners, who bewail their own sinfulness, will be comforted by the only comfort which can relieve their distress, namely the free forgiveness of God” (Stott, John).

What is Godly grief?

Kevin DeYoung on Church Membership

Kevin DeYoung has a good post on the importance of church membership.  It’s worth reading.  Here are his main points:

1. In joining a church you make visible your commitment to Christ and his people.

2. Making a commitment makes a powerful statement in a low-commitment culture.

3. We can be overly independent.

4. Church membership keeps us accountable.

5. Joining the church will help your pastor and elders be more faithful shepherds.

6. Joining the church gives you an opportunity to make promises.

Pentecostalism in Latin America

Milton Acosta of Biblical Seminary of Colombia in Medillín gives his readers an introduction to the trends in Latin American Pentecostalism.  He says that churches are often disconnected from either Catholicism or Protestantism and the pastors often get theology degrees from an unregulated degree market.  There are also trends of “Protestant shamanism” and the prosperity gospel:

[Historian Arturo] Piedra says that the “religious space of ‘prophets and apostles’ is dominated by an anachronistic Protestant shamanism, made up of individuals (actores) who pretend to save the world through an animist manipulation of evil spirits.”

Under the umbrella of spiritual warfare has grown a body of clergy specializing in discerning hidden forces. These preachers focus more on the fear of spirits than on the hope that Christ gives. They are also “experts” on curses and all sorts of practices like geographic cornering and blowing and whistling to subject evil spirits. This is quite the opposite of the defeat of Satan!

Like Argentine Methodist theologian José Míguez Bonino, Piedra holds that there is a weak historical connection between Latin American Protestantism and the Protestant tradition, as there is little or no emphasis on sola gratia, sola Scriptura, or justification by faith alone. Sadly, the apostles and prophets are not teaching the central message of the gospel, but a gospel of prosperity.

Television is a powerful influence on Latin American theology. The TV channel Enlace (owned by the Trinity Broadcasting Network) has become “a true magisterium” beyond denominational beliefs and practices. It is available in most Latin American countries. Most evangelicals turn it on several times a week. No matter what topic Enlace is dealing with, the message boils down to making “pacts” with God, wherein a person must demonstrate the seriousness of his prayer request by sending money along with it. Pastors with little or no training imitate Enlace preachers, and the effect intensifies.

Many Enlace-style churches have reduced the message of the gospel to economic prosperity. Based on belief in evil spirits’ hidden conspiracies that can only be averted by economic pacts—a contemporary version of indulgences—some of these churches end up in clear continuity with the surrounding culture of amulets, or magical ways of quickly obtaining wealth and happiness. The celebrities who represent this kind of overnight wealth are Mafia members and druglords. The final product, says Piedra, is religious consumerism.

Acosta says that theological training is badly needed in Latin America.  Echoing his concerns, a long-time missionary to Colombia, who is part of a group that is trying to give Colombian pastors training, told me once that becoming an evangelical pastor is supposed to be a great way to get rich in Colombia.

Latin American is obviously a dynamic place for those who claim Christ.  I pray that God will lead the Church there to more knowledge of Himself and greater faithfulness to His Word.

A Journey With John Calvin, “Man’s Full Culpability”

Two selections from Calvin’s Institutes:

This corrupt procedure is admirably described by Paul, when he says, that “thinking to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22). He had previously said that “they became vain in their imaginations,” but lest any should suppose them blameless, he afterwards adds that they were deservedly blinded, because, not contented with sober inquiry, because, arrogating to themselves more than they have any title to do, they of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselves with perverse, empty show. Hence it is that their folly, the result not only of vain curiosity, but of licentious desire and overweening confidence in the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, cannot be excused (Calvin, John: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. I, iv, 1).

Nothing being less accordant with the nature of God than to cast off the government of the world, leaving it to chance, and so to wink at the crimes of men that they may wanton with impunity in evil courses; it follows, that every man who indulges in security, after extinguishing all fear of divine Judgment, virtually denies that there is a God. As a just punishment of the wicked, after they have closed their own eyes, God makes their hearts dull and heavy, and hence, seeing, they see not (Calvin, John: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. I, iv, 2).

Calvin goes to great lengths to show that man, and man alone, is culpable before God. Man is the initiator in rebellion. God is not actively causing people to sin. Calvin’s testimony aligns with Scripture, and especially Paul in Romans 1, where he uses the phrase “God gave them over” three times to explain the depravity of man. God is therefore seen as the restrainer of evil within His grace, but where it is shunned and evil is desired, God relents and gives them over. Notice that God is removing His hand. Hardly the picture some attribute to Calvin of a God who is not removing His hand, but rather pushing people away to rebel.

God has only so much patience with OUR rebellion. It is ours entirely. Calvin warned against “omni-causality”, seeing God as a causal agent for every event. It is more nuanced and requires further explanation, but suffice it to say that this Calvinist does NOT believe that God is the causal agent for my rebellion. Rather, He permitted and allowed me to do what I wanted to do. It all accords within His providential rule, but He didn’t decree my sin as an active agent. James says that God neither tempts or is tempted. Calvin would lend a hearty “Amen” to the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter.

Friendly Discourse on Charismatic Gifts

I have been in discourse on Facebook of all places with some folks that I esteem, one of which is an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor that I have the highest esteem for. Anyhow, thought you might be interested in the correspondence:

OPC Pastor: Rutherford’s qualification is important: “1. These worthy reformers did tye no man to beleeve their prophecies as scriptures, we are to give faith, to the predictions of Prophets and Apostles, foretelling facts to come, as to the very word of God, they never gave themselves out as organs immediately inspred by the Holy Ghost, as the Prophets doe, … Read Moreand as Paul did Rom. 11. prophecying of the calling of the Jewes, and Ioh. Revel. 1.10 and through the whole booke; yea they never denounced Iudgement against those that beleeve not their predictions, of these particular events and facts as they are such particular events & facts, as the Prophets and Apostles did.”

“God in his ordinary providence makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above and against them, at His pleasure.” (WCF V:3) Although there are no extraordinary works of God to confirm additions to His Word, a Sovereign God may use special providential means to guide, deliver or protect His people, especially in times of persecution, hardship, or advancement of the Kingdom, never as a contradiction, an addition to, or with the infallible certainty of canonical Revelation, but “as gracious intimations of the will of God, granted to them in answer to prayer, for their own encouragement or direction” (McCrie, Story of the Scottish Church). Scripture does not forbid one to pray for God’s special providential intervention to deliver beyond His ordinary workings through man and nature. The Spirit may give or withhold liberty and faith for such prayers or restrain such.

One should not base his relationship with God on the anticipation of extraordinary experiences of His grace. The Spirit of God enables us to have an assurance of grace and salvation without extraordinary extra-biblical revelation, by the use of ordinary means (WCF XVIII:3): reading and meditating on scripture, prayer, singing with grace in the heart, hearing the Word preached, receiving the Sacraments and subjection to biblical authority.

Me: I like “as gracious intimations of the will of God, granted to them in answer to prayer, for their own encouragement or direction” . The WCF is great in that I think it is “softly” cessationist and is willing to acknowledge that God can, at His will, work in “supra” natural ways. They should be viewed as His extra-ordinary means of grace…meaning that they aren’t ordinary and shouldn’t serve as the primary means of grace in the mind of the believer, however they can be sought and prayed for. The WCF is softly-cessationist or softly-charismatic, which are one and the same in my book. I appreciate your honesty on this matter.

I would only add that Paul did anticipate the “charismata” potentially in every corporate gathering and actually urges all believers to zealously desire such gifts. Though they are extra-ordinary in nature, they should be more commonplace within the “body of Christ”. The only way for “regulativists” to eschew Paul’s imperative “zealously … desire” is to theologize in a fashion that would say that Paul never intended for the catholic (universal) Church to actually seek such things. It isn’t good enough for me. I think those who advocate the “regulative principle” have some better explaining to do on why they don’t seek what was clearly and specifically commanded in the context of corporate worship (1 Cor 14:1). Honest Biblical Exegesis/Theology would side with Paul over Dispy-Covenantal Cessationists.

That is why I am a convinced “charismatic” even though I wanted to be a cessationist at one time in my life. My conscious would not permit me to iso-gete Paul to the countless millions around the globe and conclude that they are either demon-possessed or out of their mind. Those are the only two options for the cessationist in response to modern … Pentecostal/Charismatics. In the name of “charity”, most modern cessationists don’t declare Pentecostals to be demon-possessed or deluded, however their theology says so. Unless you adopt an “open but cautious” position, I think the cessationist is obligated as a matter of pastoral care to call it as their theology dictates. Stop accepting Pentecostals as fellow believers when you are bound to think us demon-possessed, gullible, etc. If we are demon-possessed or faking it and perpetuating a lie, then we are either damned to hell or guilty of lying to the Spirit and perpetuating heresy. You mislead us by considering us fellow believers, unless we are being assessed by many other standards which would place us well within orthodoxy. However, if we are truly demon-possessed or perpetuating a lie or are just faking it as a result of faulty theology, then we are to be corrected and pitied. I would that cessationists go on the offensive like they did years ago…I think that their theology would be found wanting before the modern jurors who think the cessationist position untenable.

You said, “a Sovereign God may use special providential means to guide, deliver or protect His people, especially in times of persecution, hardship, or advancement of the Kingdom”. I would respond, “Isn’t the Church promised persecution, hardship, and advancement during her entire duration here on earth?”. If so, then we should see a continuing witness of “special providential means” throughout the history of the Church.

John Calvin: The Pentecostal???

This is an article from a scholar that I have much respect for, Dr. Ben Witherington, who in turn gives much respect to John Calvin even if Witherington is Weselyan. Note that Calvin may have spoken in tongues. I have bold and italicized the section which make reference to such.

John Calvin is Old, and Not Looking a Day over 500

Friday July 10, 2009

by Dr. Ben Witherington

John Calvin’s birthday deserves to be celebrated, not least because he was one of the truly great Christian exegetes and indeed systematic theologians of all time. Never mind that I disagree with a great deal of what he has to say about God, his sovereignty, the nature of his grace, election, predestination, human freedom, and perseverance of the saints.  I will reserve comments on those sorts of things for my essay which will appear in the September issue of  Christianity Today.   Here I want to say some positive things.  A personal word is necessary at this juncture.

I attended a seminary. Gordon-Conwell, which was largely in the Reformed tradition, even though I was an Evangelical Methodist. I read Calvin, Beza, both Hodges, Warfield, Berkower, Berkof, Van Til and various others.  I enjoyed taking Calvin with T.H.L. Parker at the University of Durham in England during my doctoral studies and reading in his commentaries.  The end result of this is that I discovered that the bar had been set high by Calvin when it comes to careful exegesis, and consistent theological systems.

I also discovered along the way exactly why I am not a Calvinist, and became a more convinced Arminian as a result of reading Calvin.  I also discovered that Calvinism is actually in the main a redoing of Augustinianism, the theology of St. Augustine. It’s not actually a distinctively Protestant form of theologizing at all.  But Calvin deserves full marks for working out the logical implications of Augustinianism to the nth degree and adding some new wrinkles.

Above all for me, he is to be respected for understanding that Biblical theology can only be done on the basis of a detailed and comprehensive exegesis of all the relevant Biblical material.  This is precisely why I have waited until late in my career to write The Indelible Image in two volumes (the first volume will be out in Sept.), which is a comprehensive survey of NT theology and ethics.  I needed to follow Calvin’s lead and research and write commentaries on all the NT corpus first.  Exegesis is the basis of all good Biblical theology, and the latter should not be attempted without doing the former first.

My wife and I many years ago made a pilgrimage to Geneva. We visited the Reformers memorials, and I even sat in Calvin’s teaching chair (please don’t tell the elderly Swiss guard in that shrine). As a Protestant I owe Calvin, and Luther as well, much, as did my spiritual forebears John and Charles Wesley. The Calvinistic theology proved to be the iron offered by a brother which sharpened my own theology, just as George Whitfield’s sharpened Wesley’s.  And for this I am truly grateful.

I have fond memories of working carefully through Calvin’s Institutes for the first time, and being especially surprised and taken with his profound theology of the Holy Spirit and of the Spirit’s sanctifying work.  This resonanted well with my own heritage.  I remember reading in the Gordon-Conwell paper a rather interesting historical curio from a letter of Calvin about how one morning he woke up and founded himself speaking in ‘lingua barbaria’. The article speculated that Calvin may have spoken in tongues.  The notion of Calvin as an early Pentecostal produced some interesting and heated responses.

There is much more I could say of a positive sort about Calvin, but this must suffice. He lived by Bengel’s maxim– Apply the whole of the text (of the Bible) to yourself. Apply the whole of yourself to the text. Its a motto any Christian should be proud to live by.

Book Review: “The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views”

This is a bit dated but each of the contributors’ essays represent well the dispensational pre-mill, historic pre-mill, amill, and post-mill views. There hadn’t been much more to add to these views as they were here represented.

First off, Hoyt’s defense of a dispensational pre-mill view follows the standard dispy hermeneutic. The one strength of this view is that they seemingly have an answer for everything. This is also the weakness of this view…they assert dogmatically that this or that will happen in this or that fashion in a particular order. While they boast in being “literal”, they often dogmatically assert what some ratehr unclear or obscure passages mean. Anyhow, I was not persuaded by Hoyt’s presentation, though I appreciate his zeal and clarity.

George Ladd presented the “historic pre-mill” and he is definitely one of the more esteemed theologians on this issue. I am much indebted to Ladd’s work, especially his NT Theology book and his work on the “Kingdom” of God. He was humble in his presentation and even acknowledged that such a view requires some rather strange assertions about what the millennium would actually look like. Will Christians be resurrected physically in the millennium, only to die again? Will resurrected Christians actually rebel against Christ in the millennium? Will believers be married in the millennium to their former wife or wives? There are definitely a lot of questions and the historic pre-mill folks will usually humbly state that what is unclear should remain unclear. I guess I need more answers. The main reason I’m not convinced of historic pre-mill is that it asserts a period of time with Christ reigning on earth before the judgment and creation of an eternally new heaven and earth…and that this period of time is not spoken of with clarity in Scripture. I am convinced that Jesus taught that His return would be a final judgment on the evil one, a general resurrection of all to life or condemnation, a new heaven and new earth where Christ will reign for eternity.

I also want to be charitable in my disagreement with the historic pre-mill view for it was indeed the view of several prominent ante-Nicene fathers. Polycarp, who is thought to be a disciple of the Apostle John, held what many consider a pre-mill position. That carries some weight, especially considering that he was the disciple of the very man who wrote the book of Revelation.

Okay, onto to the Amill and Post-Mill views. I think that they are so similar in many ways and only differ and how exactly things will consummate when Christ returns. The Post-Mill are very optimistic about the “Christening” of all nations, whereas Amill can vary from being generally more pessimistic or more optimistic. The Amills believe that there will be an ever increasing harvest and hostility and persecution of the Church. It is a view that embraces tension and some level of paradox. Things will get better and worse. Most Post-mills are preterists and believe that the worse of the persecution against the Church has since passed and that things are getting increasingly better. I am a partial-preterist myself, but I still leave open the strong possibility that the consummation will be preceded by a season of persecution led by the beast, false prophet, and anti-Christ. While “anti-Christ” is a spirit that has long been operative and has manifested in various folks throughout the centuries, it may culminate in singular individual who will bear the full identity of this notorious title. I believe that Satan is bound, as been dealt a decisive blow, but is still at work in the earth, albeit on a leash. Time doesn’t permit me to further explain the many nuances of my view, but suffice it to say that I am likely an Amill that is almost as optimistic as the Post-mill, but do believe that persecution of the Church will continue until Christ’s return. While the Church may be very strong, there will always be the spirit of anti-Christ at work among some who will viciously attack the body of Christ.

I appreciate Boettner’s post-mill argument and would actually concur with him in advocating the founding of institutions that would long benefit folks beyond our time. I live in imminence, but also believe that we should be faithful unto the next generation and should build schools, hospitals, translation projects to get the Scriptures into all languages, etc. At the end of the day, I side with most of what Hoekema advances as an “Amill” view, which is better described as a “Realized Millennial” view. It is said by some that the pre-mills are looking forward to the millennium, post-mills are working for the millennium, and that we ammils are enjoying the millennium. I know that this may be rather simplified and not fairly represent those who hold each respective position, but the statement generally applies.

The book can be found for about $2 used plus shipping and it would be a worthwhile introduction into the issue of the millennium for those who have yet to examine the Scriptural basis for each position.

Mission trip to Bundibugyo, Uganda

I returned from a two-week trip to Uganda on July 25. I did not have time to post updates while I was there, so I’m catching up now that I’m back in the U.S. The first update can be found here. New updates here.

Baptism Correspondence

Based on an earlier post: http://endued.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/my-baptismal-sabbatical-bibliography-say-that-5-times-fast

Joel and I have corresponded and I thought that posting my response in a blog post would interest some readers. Here it is:

joelmartin said

July 23, 2009 at 7:14 am e

I actually embrace infant baptism based on the authority of the Church and the idea that she can decide things for me that I don’t have to decide.

I’m curious as to what you make of circumcision, its function and what it accomplished? IOW, did one have to profess faith to join the OT church? Did their infants?

You might like this:

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/cc_1.pdf

Rick Hogaboam said

July 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm e

I can actually respect deference to the Church on the issue of baptism. As a pastor, however, one needs to actually represent the Church and do so in hopefully good conscious…therein my responsibility in studying this issue while preparing for pastoral ministry.

As for circumcision, I think that John Reisinger’s book “Abraham’s Four Seeds” sums up fairly well what I believe about circumcision…essentially that it had a multifaceted function under the Old Covenant:

- it represented God’s promises to an ethnic people (natural seed) and was thus annulled in Christ, who is the true circumcision.
- it represented the internal covenant of grace in pointing to Abraham’s faith, which was a necessary requisite for inclusion in the “Israel within an Israel”. God also commanded His people to circumcise their hearts, showing that the external sign really pointed to the need for faith.
- there are some more nuances to what I have explained, but time permits me to condense it all.

Jesus, as the true circumcision, HAD to be a Jew, from the lineage of Abraham…thus fulfilling the ethnic (promise to Abraham’s physical seed) aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. He is also the truly righteous one, whose heart was perfect in every way, whose faith surpassed that of Abraham, etc., thus truly being what circumcision pointed too: faith.

John the Baptist, who was a forerunner to Christ, and the last prophet of the OT, was purposed by God to do two things: call for repentance and baptize. God was signaling that His people would soon be regarded by faith and no longer by ethnic descent from Abraham. Repentance was a necessary, and had always been a necessary requisite to become part of the “true Israel”. A new sign was introduced, baptism. This new sign would now mark God’s “true Israel”, the Israel of faith.

As such, God constitutes His people today based on faith alone. He is no longer fulfilling promises to a particular ethnic people. Repentance and Baptism was necessary under John and so also under Peter on Pentecost. I would go on more on this point, but will stop for now.

As for children and whether profession of faith was necessary to become part of the “OT church”, well, if you mean by “OT church” the Israel within Israel of faith and heart circumcision, then one truly had to bear such fruit. Ultimately, my soteriology would point to God as the one doing the heart circumcision, but this would inevitable lead to faith. In fact, John the Baptist was urging the people to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Children in the OT could be circumsized, taught everything, etc. but show a hardness towards God and bear no fruit in their lives, thus evidencing that they really don’t belong to God and never did in an internal fashion as part of his eternally elected Church.

There was no confirmation or public profession of faith per se to examine whether one had truly repented…not until John the Baptist, which is significant to understanding the transition of the Covenant in God’s redemptive purposes. I don’t believe that infants were baptized under John’s ministry, nor do I think infants were baptized on Pentecost, nor the household baptisms recorded in Acts. As such, holding loosely to the regulative principle, I only do what is clearly commanded or inferred. In my case, I need more clear proof for the practice of infant baptism as well as a theology of it that I don’t see articulated in the NT.

For others, an assumption is made that God has constituted His people in much the same way from Abraham to us…if children were included then, then why not now? For them, the burden would be to show where children are excluded in the NT Church and they don’t see convincing proof.

I agree with both camps to a degree. What we are left with is “good and necessary inferences” (quoting John Murray). He lands on one side, while I land on the other. I have told people that my ‘credo-Baptist’ position is less like a slam-dunk and more like a 60-40 victory in a presidential election. The other side got many votes, but there is one president who must rule. Therefore I minister within a ‘credo’ paradigm, but am gracious to the opposing views.

My Baptismal Sabbatical Bibliography (say that 5 times fast)

Okay, some folks have wondered what I have actually read on the topic of Baptism…perhaps suspecting that what I consider a worthy examination was something short of it. Such may be the case…that’s for you to decide, but these are some of the main works that I referenced in my reasearch:

There are other books I read like:

Baptism: Sacrament of the covenant of grace by Pierre Charles Marcel…and others, but suffice it to say that it is Scripture which is the final arbiter on this issue and Christians have long disagreed. I don’t have time to delve into all of the lines of argumentation from all camps, but I would say that I am a generous and charitable ‘credo-baptist’. I will say that it was Jewett’s book which argued for ‘credo-baptism’ as a more faithful practice within a Covenantal framework. I am Covenantal, my theology of Children is much similar to my Reformed friends than that of Baptists, I encourage early baptism and communion, am Sacramental in that I believe God confers grace in Baptism, believe that ‘credo-baptism’ is what binds the beleiver to Christ and the Church, and I catechize my young girls (3 & 5) in the children’s version of the shorter catechism. I teach my girls that Jesus DID die for them from a presuppositional and propositional framework, viewing them as recipients of increasing grace through the means of the Word and Prayer. I see God’s grace operational in Kira (5) and am starting to think, “What forbids her to be baptized?”. She is growing in her understanding of the Lord’s Table and is starting to show a desire to receive Christ in that sacred meal. I do weigh heavily in my heart whether I am keeping her from Christ much like His disciples’ did. She is close to coming to the waters and making an appeal from her heart for a clean conscience and to be sealed by the Holy Spirit and brought fully in Christ’s Church (NOT by her relation to myself and my wife as believing parents, nor of the will of man, but by the will of God). Her baptism will attest to God’s saving, adopting, free grace in her. She will be bound to the Church community, to love her brothers and sisters, to care for them, to submit to the teaching of the Word and admonition of the elders. She will be bound to these duties as a full member in Christ’s Church, who by His grace decided to put her into His Body through faith and by faith and unto faith.

Cody, who is 15, has been baptized. For those of you who don’t know…he has downs syndrome and operates at a 5-8 year old level in some things like logic, etc, but he can hit a baseball like an 18 year-old!!! His ‘5′ year old comprehension of the Gospel is not despised, but wholly sufficient to enter the waters of baptism and receive His Supper. He loves the Gospel and is captive to it.

BTW, I need to wrap this up, but I think that the early Church required a profession of faith for baptism and even when they practicied infant baptism, they required a “sponsor” to make a profession on behalf of the one being baptized. I think that this was the exception and allowed for infants in fear that their death without baptism would result in damnation. I know that the views of the early church are much disputed. I think that an allowance would also be made for a severely handicapped individual to be received into the Church, even if they are unable to give profession of faith. Some might not like such a practice, but it would be an inferred practice that accomodates extenuating circumstances. There were also early Church fathers who grew into adulthood unbaptized as the Church thought that one should maximinze the cleansing of sin just prior to death.  The history of baptism is a tragic comedy of sorts as there is hardly a uniform theology behind its practice. I failed to mention that adult converts would be baptized naked after prolonged fasting and demonic deliverance. I know of none who are contending for that pratice today, but it actually started fairly early in the Church. Where does this all lead us? Back to Scripture where we do the best we can with the material given on this issue.

Book Review of “Predestination and Free Will: Four Views”

This book is toooooo short to address this issue fairly from 4 different perspectives. I will only say that I was surprisingly appreciative of Bruce Reichenbach of Augsburg College attempt to define his views, but still reject it at the end of the day. BTW, he articulated God’s foreknowledge of future free events (Traditional Arminianism/Wesleyan). Clark Pinnock (Open Knowledge) was really horrid and was expecting more from this ‘Evangelical’ godfather of sorts for this particular view that God knows nothing of the future.

John Feinberg articulated God’s exhaustive foreknowledge based on God’s decree and tried to define compatibilism in how God’s sovereign decree is played out while consisting of man’s free (uncoerced against one’s will). He sought to define this mystery using some philosophical language and thought some of the categories were helpful, but would be almost impossible to explain to a lay person who inquires about this issue.

Norman Geisler presents what he considers a moderate Calvinist position and I fould him intuitively trying to explain how God is actively working out His will in particular instances while passively allowing man’s free decisions to work within His purposes at the same time. He sounds more like Wesley than Calvin to me. He says that God’s foreknowledge and His predestination occur concurrently and one doesn’t necessarily precede the other or is subservient to the other. I find this logic faulty at many levels.

Anyhow, if one asserts God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, even if based on free decisions of man, one still doesn’t escape the tension the issue of Sovereignty and Free Will have long presented the inquirer. Most assert that God was free to create however He wanted and was not bound to create as he hypothetically foresaw, which means that God chose the path that most accorded with His will while denying what would have potentially been otherwise. I disagree with this logic, but it is one I use with my Arminian friends to show that they are seemingly in the same camp with me whom they accuse. I also grant the possibility that we are completely free and simply ask the questions whether God is completely free to strike dead whomsoever He wills. The minute the Arminian says yes, then I show how they are also in the same camp with me whom they are contending against. If God chooses NOT to strike someone down, then it is ultimately His will that certain people live, etc.

Anyhow, this book was dissapointing and I would instead suggest that people go straight to John Calvin’s Institutes and Jacob Arminius’ theological treatise.

Book Review of “Understanding Four Views on Baptism”

First off, I want to say that I am fairly convinced of ‘believer’s baptism’, having taken a sabbatical leave in my past to study the issue, after having even studied it pretty intensely prior to that. I only say that as a disclaimer so you knwo where i am coming from.

I read this couterpoint book not neccesarily as ongoing investigation so much as to keep up with the line of reasoning that is represented by those who continune to articulate their position.

This book is too brief for my likes and doesn’t allow the sort of exhaustive dialogue I would prefer on this issue. Dr. Nettles presents a familiar case for ‘beleiver’s baptism’ and Dr. Pratt (who I like a lot…Third Millenium Ministries) presents a familiar case for Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant and thus given rightly to infants of beleivers.

The other views represented were: Lutheran (God’s Baptismal act as regerative) and Church of Christ (Beleivers’ Baptism as the Biblical occasion of salvation). I didn’t spend too much time investigating the merits of these views in my previous study because it didn’t have sufficient weight to even be tried in the court of my opinion. The one thing that I do agree with in both of the views represented by the Lutherans and Church of Christ folks is that they ’something’ happening in baptism. It is not just symbolic, but also an act in which God conveys something. As you can tell, I am a bit sacramental. I beleive in both symbol and the conveying of God’s grace.

Alright, this isn’t much of a review, but suffice it to say that if you aren’t familiar with the Lutheran and Church of Christ views on baptism, this is worth your money. If you are looking for substantial debate from the traditional Baptist and Reformed camp, I would reccomend you reading two books:

This is the strongest book I have ever read in favor of ‘pedo-baptism’ within a Covenantal structure. It actually refined my theology of Covenant and it did influence my theology of children a great deal. I essentially understand the child’s relation to covenant in a very similar (almost identical) strain with my Presbyterian and Reformed friends, but I still think that Baptism is a Sacrament that confirms a person’s full immersion into the body of Christ, evidencing their consent to the terms of the Covenant of Grace, namely repentance and faith. I could go on and on but I will do so another time in a future post…maybe. Suffice it to say, I would whole-heartedly reccomend this book to all who are looking into this issue…it will refine you one way or another.

This book is a substantial offering in favor of Believer’s Baptism rooted historically, Biblicaly, and Theologically. it also dialogues with more recent scholarship favoring the ‘pedo-baptist’position.

Christ’s Triumph over Earthly Powers

Scholars have begun to think about the way that Jesus and Paul called the Roman Empire into question.  I think that it was this Christian Century article from 2005 that turned me on to the trend.  Peter Leithart’s article in First Things also explored the idea of Paul’s assertion of Christ’s triumph over earthly powers:

Paul taught Christians to expect a lot from the gospel, politically as well as personally. He taught that the crucifixion of Jesus had a direct impact on the powers-that-be. He told the Colossians that Jesus went to the cross as the firstborn—the only-begotten of the Father, the new Israel, the heir, the Passover sacrifice—to pacify the powers. The same Son who created the powers (Col. 1:16) has “made peace through the blood of His cross” by reconciling powers in heaven and earth to Himself (Col. 1:20).

Paul borrows from the propaganda of the Roman Empire to make his point. According to Roman imperial ideology, the emperor was a cosmic “peace-maker,” bringing to earth an image of heavenly peace. The apostle says, on the contrary, that God has his own peace-maker, another Lord who reconciles all things. As Paul says later in Colossians, Jesus renovates all things and unites Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, slave and free (Col. 3:10-11), extending his empire even to “barbarians” (Col. 3:10-11).

Scholars have debated inconclusively about whether the powers are angels or demons or social “forces” or human authorities, but in the end it doesn’t matter for Paul. If there are visible powers and authorities, the Son who made them subdues them (Col. 1:16). If there are invisible angelic or demonic powers, or more abstract forces in the human world, their fate is the same. The key thing for Paul is not to identify the powers, but to say that they have all been created and they have all been conquered. It’s a universal truth: Whatever rules over humanity has been tamed by the cross of Jesus.

Paul reiterates the same point in more extreme terms in the following chapter. Jesus, he claims, has “stripped” the rulers and authorities and made a public display of them (Col. 2:15). Paul is making an ironic reference to the actual event of Jesus’ crucifixion. If CNN had captured the crucifixion, the film clip would have shown Jesus Himself stripped, crucified naked and exposed. According to Paul, what actually happening was the opposite: Jesus stripped the powers. Paul again borrows from Roman imperial custom in saying that Jesus makes a “public display” of the powers, having triumphed over him in the cross.” By his death, Jesus leads the powers in a triumphal procession, displaying them as the trophies of his conquest, the plunder of Egypt.

Leithart believes that this has indeed happened, and discusses the Christian Church’s victory over Rome’s tyranny and the polytheistic religions of the ancient world.  At the same time, he writes that governments and cultures can be not only defeated, but reconciled to God’s rule, rejecting the Anabaptist idea that Christians must always be opposed to power.  Of the times where the Church has sinned in its triumph, he writes,

Paul also means that through the cross the Church is delivered from everything else that dominates and distorts human life. The true man Jesus redeems slaves to tradition, slaves to blood and nation, slaves to fashion, slaves to public opinion, and forms a community of free citizens, of truly human humans. If the Church has often bowed to the idols of nationalism, traditionalism, or trendiness, it is because we have too often forgotten our exodus and returned to Egypt.

Leithart believes (in my understanding) that the Church can bring Christ’s kingdom here on by baptizing nations and bringing the world under God’s rule, fulfilling the Great Commission.  I believe in the Great Commission, of course, but I’m not yet convinced of the Christendom model that he embraces.  I’m not sure that the Bible teaches that Christians are to set up an earthly kingdom, but I haven’t done a lot of study on the topic.  Nevertheless, I found his reflection on Christ’s victory edifying and the historical context in which he places Paul’s writings to be quite helpful.

Leithart also posted a couple of really deep reflections here and here on the meaning of worship within the last month, which I mostly want to link to so I can recall them.  I hope that you find them helpful as well.  Thanks, Joel, for putting me in touch with Leithart’s writings!

Jesus on the Cross = Penal Substitution AND Sanctification

My evening readings were in 1 Pt. 1-2 and there is so much precious truth in it all, however 1 Pt 2:24 sticks out  for me today:

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

I had the chance to visit with a dear brother this morning who is a missionary to the Ukraine and we ended up spending some time talking about the work of Jesus upon the cross. I informed him that the doctrine of penal substitution (Jesus satisfied our penalty for sin on the cross) is under attack today. He was shocked.

“How could they do that? Why did Jesus come to die then?” he asked.

I gave him the reasons and he was appalled that people have a problem with the idea that Jesus actually took our sin, its filth, the Father’s wrath against it, everything with Him into His body on that cross. You are left with an empty cross… a most unfortunate martyrdom that the Father had nothing to do with. How is this glorious?

Anyhow, Peter tells us plainly that Jesus bore our sins in His body. That is glorious in and of itself, however the good news doesn’t end there. Peter adds a purpose clause following that great statement, “…that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”

Jesus not only satisfies the penalty and wrath for our sin, but purchases on the cross sanctifying power for the believer to die to sin and live for Him. This is great news!!! He not only forgives us, but empowers us to live a life pleasing to Him for His glory. 1 Peter has several important imperatives that help shape exactly how the ‘justified’ believer is to live out ’sanctification’. Let us praise our Lord that He truly “healed” us on that cross through the wounds He endured.

Prayer-

Thank you for saving me and not appointing me to destruction, but rather unto newness of life. Thank you for choosing to come and carry out the mission that the Father gave you to purchase me. Thank you for enduring every stripe and wound for my sin. As I ponder your wounded body, may I see in it the death of my own flesh and the power to live for You. I live for you Lord…for Your glory. I am not ashamed of the cross…it is a stumbling block for many, but you have made it precious in my sight. I have tasted Your sweet goodness and I long for more. May Your goodness shape me as a vessel to be used for Your glory. Amen.

Christian orthodoxy and republican ideas: the American puzzle

Noll’s fifth fourth chapter in America’s God describes the unusual agreement between traditional Christians and republican political ideas in late 18-century America.  First, we have to define republican ideology.  Here’s how Noll does it:

American republican language returned constantly to two main themes: fear of abuses from illegitimate power and a nearly messianic belief in the benefits of liberty.  It presupposed, in the succinct summary of Blair Worden, that “man is a citizen, not (like Hobbes’ man) a subject.”  Moreover, “his citizenship is dependent on the free exercise of his virtue and of his reason, and upon his participation, as an elector of representatives and as arms-bearer, in the communal affairs of his country.” (56)

After the American Revolution, clergy from all Christian churches (whether Congregational, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, or Catholic) spoke highly of American political ideas, while their peers in Europe and Canada often decried the values of the new American Republic, especially in the face of war against the French Republic.  Philadelphia’s Jewish community even protested their exclusion from Pennsylvania’s government using American political dialogue.

Noll believes that this phenomenon needs explanation because for more than a century before the American Revolution, those who held republican ideas were usually suspected of heresies such as Arianism and Socinianism (which denied the full divinity of Christ).  Republican beliefs often assumed a more optimistic nature of human beings, believing that they could be independent and virtuous by nature, opposing traditional Christian teachings on man’s sinfulness.   Making sense of the American combination of evangelicalism and republicanism is the task of Chapter 6 5.

Jonathan Edwards and the Decline of the Puritan Covenant

In Chapter 3 of America’s God, Noll writes that while Jonathan Edwards ably defended the doctrines of Calvinism in a way that understood the Enlightenment, his conception of the church represented a break with the Puritan ideal.

The Puritan covenant bound society and church under a covenant with God, using biblical Israel as the model.  In Puritan Massachusetts, the official theology taught that the society was truly a covenant community.  One needed to give a convincing testimony of being born again to join a church, and men needed to be church members to vote, but all society was to be under God’s law.  Of course, there were tensions:

• Only church members could take communion, but by the terms of the Half-Way Covenant of 1662 the children of baptized nonmembers could themselves be baptized.
• Roger Williams argued that the faith could not be compelled, and set up a colony in Rhode Island to set up a colony with religious liberty.
• Anne Hutchinson denied the responsibility of believers to keep the law and held private religious meetings, and she also left Massachusetts.
• Edwards’ grandfather Solomon Stoddard argued that communion was a sign of the covenant with New England society and therefore allowed all church attenders to take communion, regardless of whether they had made a profession of faith.

These point to the central difficulty that the Puritans faced.  They held to the ideal of Christendom, a godly society ordered by Christian principles.  But they also were Protestants who believed that faith alone began the new birth of the Christian, unlike Catholics who believed that regeneration began with baptism.  So the number of true Christians was fewer than the number of baptized Christians.  But all people were under the covenant of God with society.

Noll argues that for all of Edwards’ defense of traditional doctrine, his writing and revivals of the 1730s-1760s (the Great Awakening period) helped to destroy the Puritan idea as a comprehensive system.  Edwards saw the church as a gathering of born-again people only, and eventually argued that only Israel was a truly covenanted nation with God.  In this vein, he only allowed church members (who had given testimony of their conversion) to recieve communion and only church members to have their children baptized.

Noll writes that the Puritan ideas of a chosen nation continued in their influence after the Great Awakening, but the convenant as a systematic way of looking at life lost its considerable influence.  This opened theology in America to new influences.

Countdown to Pentecost Sunday: Pentecostals, Greatest Global Movement?

Time magazine had recently cited the “New Calvinism” as one of the most important ideas in the world. While I am excited about such as a Calvinist myself, I was somewhat surprised by the omission of Pentecostalism.

Jenkins calls Pentecostalism,“the most successful social movement of the past century” (Jenkins 2002:8). Jenkins, P. (2002) The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

That is high praise. Not the most successful religious movement, or Christian movement, but the most successful social movement. I would recommend Harvey Cox’s (professor of Divinity at Harvard) book, “Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the 21st Century”. He is pretty objective in his documentation and commentary of the Pentecostal movement.

Anyhow, on my list of ideas shaping the global scene, I would add “Pentecostalism” to the “New Calvinism”, much to the shagrin of most Calvinists and Pentecostals. However I, along with a growing consticuency, find myself planted with feet in both camps and predict that the Evangelical Church, not too far from now, will be filled with either Reformed Christians (confessional and neo-Calvinist TULIP types) or Pentecostal/Charismatics (or perhaps a hybrid of both). Recent polls that I have looked at suggest that the two growing sects within Christendom fall into these two groups, whereas all others are declining or holding par.

Countdown to Pentecost Sunday:”Teaching a Calvinist to Dance” by James K.A. Smith

Professor at Calvin College, James K.A. Smith, offers some thoughts on how Reformed theology and Pentecostal practice complement each other. BTW, the picture on the left is that of a dancing Abraham Kuyper (Dutch Calvinistic Giant). Link at Christianity Today here.

You will find this less academic, more biographical, and perhaps a bit challenging devotionally. Also, here is a link to the author’s blog, commenting on the article. BTW, I refer to myself as a “Pentecostal” like Smith, not in the narrow Assembly of God statement concerning necessity of tongues as “initial physical evidence”, but rather as one who adheres to a distinct empowering work of the Spirit that is complimentary to the soteric (saving) work of the Spirit (not ordinarily subsequent nor solely evidenced by speaking in tongues). Enjoy the article below:

“It can be a little intimidating in a Reformed context to admit that one is Pentecostal. It’s a bit like being at the ballet and letting it slip that you’re partial to and country music. Both claims tend to clear a room. And yet I happily define myself as a Reformed charismatic, a Pentecostal Calvinist.

It’s been said that testimony is the poetry of Pentecostal experience, so permit me to begin with a personal poem to provide some background. I wasn’t raised in the church; rather, I was quite “miraculously saved” the day after my 18th birthday through my girlfriend (now wife!), who was doing a little missionary dating.

I received my earliest formation among the Plymouth Brethren, in a sector that defined itself as anti-Pentecostal and took a certain pride in knowing that the “miraculous” gifts had ceased to function with the death of the last apostle. Through a path that is convoluted and riddled with hurts, our spiritual pilgrimage eventually took us across the threshold of a Pentecostal church where we were welcomed, embraced, and transformed.

Quotable by John Gill on Prayer…Is he speaking of tongues???

You will find the quotes below….notice the part in bold text, which sound surprisingly similar to the “prayer language” glossolalia that some Pentecostal/Charismatic folks advocate.

1. Take notice of the various sorts of prayer, which will lead on to that; for there is a praying with all prayer, which denotes many sorts and kinds of prayer.

1a. There is mental prayer, or prayer in the heart; and, indeed, here prayer should first begin; so David found in his heart to pray ( 2 Sam. 7:27 ), and it is “the effectual fervent,” or ενεργουμενη , “the inwrought prayer of the righteous man that availeth much;” which is wrought and formed in the heart by the Spirit of God ( James 5:16 ). Such sort of prayer was that of Moses, at the Red Sea, when the Lord said to him, “Wherefore criest thou unto me?” and yet we read not of a word that was spoken by him; and of this kind was the prayer of Hannah; “She spake in her heart,” ( 1 Sam. 1:13 ) and this may be performed even without the motion of the lips, and is what we call an ejaculatory prayer, from the suddenness and swiftness of its being put up to God, like a dart shot from a bow; and which may be done in the midst of business the most public, and in the midst of, public company, and not discerned; as was the prayer of Nehemiah in the presence of the king ( Neh. 2:4, 5 ), and such prayer God takes notice of, and hears; and, as an ancient writer observes, “Though we whisper, not opening our lips, but pray in silence, cry inwardly, God incessantly hears that inward discourse,” or prayer to him, conceived in the mind.

1b. There is prayer which is audible and vocal. Some prayer is audible, yet not articulate and intelligible, or it is expressed by inarticulate sounds; as, “with groanings which cannot be uttered;” but God knows and understands perfectly the language of a groan, and hears and answers. ^[1]

 

---

^{[1]John Gill: A Body of PRACTICAL Divinity. Joseph Kreifels, S. 347}

Happy Ascension Day!!!

Ascension Day often gets overlooked, but it is a most glorious truth that we celebrate today…the risen, exalted Christ, reigning from on high, expanding His kingdom and subdoing His enemies.

Review of Greg Carey “Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature”

Carey, G. (2005). Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature. St. Louis, MO: Chalice.

Commenting on Joel 2:28-32, Carey (2005:61) says:

…it proclaimed an eschatological age marked by prophetic and visionary activity…Peter recites part of the passage to interpret the manifestations of the Spirit at Pentecost (2:16-21). Likewise, Paul, who testifies to prophetic activity within the churches, interprets such dramatic signs of the Spirit among his congregations as demonstrations of their authentic religious experience (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:4-5; 4:20’ Gal. 3:2; 1 Thess. 1:5).

It is no small thing that Peter and Paul both share a common conviction that the presence of the eschatological charismatic Spirit was validation for the NT people of God. The presence of the Spirit was not only an objective reality, but was also a demonstrable reality, on in which both Peter and Paul refer to. The Qumran community was looking for a Messianic age that would be accompanied by the Holy Spirit as validation for their status as God’s people. Their expectations may have not been too far off from the testimony we have in Peter and Paul regarding the Holy Spirit’s presence in the Church.

Carey (2005:62) sees three major sections in the book of Joel:

By emphasizing what we might call Joel’s point of view with respect to the question of Zion’s salvation, we have identified three major movements: (1) an examination of the present calamity, with hope for future deliverance (1:1-2:17); (2) assurance that God’s salvation will emerge from pity for the people (2:18-27); and (3) eschatological confidence in Jerusalem’s final salvation (2:28-3:21).

I would concur with Carey and only add that the calamity may have been past, present, or even future. The salvation that was provided could have been a historical fact that Joel is reminiscing upon, a present reality, or yet future. The third and final section (2:28-3:21) is easier to pin down as the full testimony of Scripture would view this as eschatological in nature, however some still disagree as to what extent its fulfillment began on Pentecost or is yet future.

Another possibility is to view all three sections as a metaphorical “wisdom literature” of sorts. As such, the message speaks broadly to calamity, need for repentance, God’s promised blessing, and ultimate final deliverance. There is broad consensus among most commentators that the dating of Joel is uncertain. Even though, most all are agreed that the disadvantage is minimal and that the message of Joel has enduring applicable value to the people of God throughout the ages.

Carey (2005:63) makes mention of how Israel came to view their history within an eschatological framework, thus living in perpetual imminence of God’s coming deliverance and realizing their need for wholehearted repentance:

Joel interprets the present crisis as the eschatological tribulation. In that moment the prophet cries out for repentance, which (he is certain) will bring about Zion’s eschatological blessings….From the outset, Joel interprets the locust swarms as an eschatological crisis, a sing that “the day of the LORD” is at hand….[N]o layer of Joel is free from eschatological reflection…As apocalyptic discourse develops, we will observe a tendency to interpret a current challenge as marking the culmination of history….[A]pocalyptic discourse can adapt texts and even recollections of history to address continuing concerns in the life of a people.

We move ever closer to the climax and consummation of all thing. The Messianic age has commenced in Christ’s coming, the Spirit has been given, and the Gospel is to be preached to the ends of the earth.

Spiritual Blindness in the Academy

James Jordan has written an excellent critique of why Christian scholars and secular scholars are in thrall to false ideas. The entire article is here, this is an excerpt:

The current scholarly consensus gives little comfort to the evangelical scholar, because at a great many important points the history of the ancient world as reconstructed by secularists contradicts what the Bible says. The evangelical scholar finds two possible ways to deal with this. The first, far and away the most common, is to go back to the Bible and “soften” what the Bible says until it fits with the current secular scholarly consensus. The second way of dealing with the problem is to attack the secular scholarly consensus. This is something few evangelical scholars are willing to do.

Why not? Well, we could be harsh and say that evangelical scholars like their tenured positions at secular and quasi-secular institutions of higher learning, and so don’t like to take risks. That would be unfair, however, because some tenured people do take risks, as do some untenured people. In more than a few cases, however, fear doubtless is a factor. Most people, scholars included, like to look good to their peers, and to call into question the work of one’s fellows is not the way to get along with them.

The more pervasive reason that evangelical scholars do not challenge the secular system at its root is that modern evangelicals do not believe that the depravity of man seriously infects scholarship. They believe that the secular scholars are simply and disinterestedly pursuing truth. They don’t think that secular scholars suppress evidence.

Unfortunately, this view of the secular mind is extremely naive. The Bible tells us in Romans 1:18ff. that the unconverted mind constantly suppresses the truth, and that includes the truths of history. The Bible tells us, again in Romans 1:18ff., that the unbeliever deceives himself continually. In other words, he is not really aware of his powerful propensity to suppress any truth that threatens his peace of mind.

Further — and I realize that by writing what follows I am opening myself up to ridicule, but it is true nevertheless — the Bible tells us that the unbelieving world, including the world of scholarship, is constantly being led astray by fallen angels who seek to prevent the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. These “principalities, powers, thrones, and dominions” are under Satan but over the ordinary demons. They operate by means of prejudice and ideology, binding the minds of men into straightjackets of error from which it is difficult to deliver them. It takes the miraculous power of the gospel to break through these ideologies. Warfare at this level is the calling of the Church (Ephesians 6).

Thus, over the course of time, men forget the truth because in their hearts they forsake it. The reason the Bible is so full of memorials to historical events and to the words of God, is that men tend to forget. This is an moral forgetting, not a mere psychological one: Men forget because they don’t want to remember. Thus, the history of the Bible and of the Church is a history of revivals, of times when what had been suppressed and forgotten is once again remembered. If this is a problem in the Church, how much more is it a problem outside of her?

Can One Be a Credo-Baptist and Still Hold to a Nuanced Reformed-Covenantal View of Children?

Greetings blog-readers!!! I have not touched on a subject that is very dear to my heart, children. A couple of years ago I took a sabbatical to research the theology of both baptism and children. I came away more intrigued in developing a theology of Children that was faithful to Scripture…albeit a convinced Covenantal Credo-Baptist.

Suffice it to say that some of my colleagues have stated that my theology of children and passion to nurture them in the faith seems more zealous than their pastoral colleagues within their Reformed Paedo-Baptist denominations. What puzzles them most is that I am still a Credo-Baptist though I speak Covenantal language with regards to children of believers.

Anyhow, I continue to research and grow in my understanding of Scripture on the issue of children on relation to Covenant parents. I hope to discuss this issue further in future entries. I want to share my thoughts one tid-bit at a time.

For this first entry, I want to state that the ideal conversion of children should be stated, like the Psalmist: “For thou, O Lord, art my hope; my trust, O Lord, from my youth” (71:5). As such, I believe that God’s grace operates preveniently through the loving nurture and instruction of the parents to child. Though affirming the doctrine of original sin, I would also state that it would be difficult to resist such grace in its 24/7 ethos of the home. I would also affirm that God’s grace is extended through the Church to the child, binding them to God’s Word, promising great blessing upon their trust in the Savior. I would also state that the Church has jurisdiction over the entire household, where believing parents are present. Now some are asking the question, “Why then would you withhold baptism from these children?”. I will answer that question at another time, but will minimally state that though God’s grace is operative towards the child through both parents and church, it is no guarantee of an inward working unless such instruction is received in faith. I believe that my 2 and 4 year old daughters have shown signs of faith that is comparable with their age…I don’t minimize or disdain their childlike faith. Such was commended by our Lord. I’m not waiting for some radical conversion experience before bestowing the sign of baptism, but rather confirming fruits of what I already suspect to be present within their hearts. I acknowledge the tension in defining what that burden of proof should be before admitting one to baptism…am I looking for 2 year old faith, 6 year old faith, 10 year old faith? I also struggle with the other sacrament of communion. To be honest, speaking from my gut (which isn’t the final arbiter in truth, thank goodness), I want my little girls to receive the supper because it feels right to include them in this symbol of the Body of Christ, and His saving benefits to all who believe. The words of Jesus, “Suffer not the children come to me”, may be relevant on this issue…I want them to understand that they do in fact belong to Jesus, even if their faith is at 2 and 4 year old levels. After all, Kira and Lexi are encouraged to pray during our family prayer times and often lead out in prayers that I must presume are being heard by our Savior and mediated by Him. I have no good reason to say that their prayers are deficient. True they pray for candy at times, etc, but they have shown heartfelt concern in praying for the health and wellbeing of certain family members when sick, etc. They are also leading us in prayer through the Lord’s Prayer daily now. Perhaps Kira should soon be baptized, perhaps we should wait. She doesn’t want to be baptized though because it looks scary to her and she has stated that “older people get baptized”. Her faith isn’t being damaged by withholding the sign, so I am content to wait till she is eager for it and hungry for the Supper.

Anyhow, I just want to be honest about the tension I feel in these areas. I am trying to reconcile my theology of children and the sacraments and acknowledge it isn’t easy. I am not alone. Most of my Presbyterian-Reformed friends are also struggling with these very same issues and

Catholic Inclusion ~ Catholic Exclusion

The logic of the Roman Catholic Church is that you are better off not ever hearing the gospel or knowing about the Church than you are in knowingly refusing to enter her. In other words, pagans who have not heard are better off than those who hear and do not join the Church. Current Catholic theology bumps up against universalism while at the same time magnifying the necessity of Rome for salvation, [as an aside, this is also the position of the Latter Day Saints, something I hope to write about soon].

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this astounding statement:
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (§841)
Also, if someone ‘through no fault of their own’ does not know of Christ and the Church, he is good to go. “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (§847)
But if you have the misfortune of having heard about Christ and the Church and you stay outside, you’re in trouble:
“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (§846)
Writing in the February, 2008 edition of First Things, the late Avery Cardinal Dulles confirms this line of thought:
“Piux IX and the Second Vatican Council taught that all who followed their conscience, with the help of the grace given to them, would be led to that faith that was necessary for them to be saved. During and after the council, Karl Rahner maintained that saving faith could be had without any definite belief in Christ or even in God…[but] In Christ’s Church, therefore, we have many aids to salvation and sanctification that are not available elsewhere.”
I take this view to be a dangerous delusion that provides false comfort to people in contradiction to what God has told us in the Scriptures. The Bible tells us, “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” We are told by Jesus that, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” Saint Peter says that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Hopefully, the living Word of God will work its way in the Catholic Church and in time she will revert to her more ancient views on this subject.

Hanging With the Elders

I am about to head out to an Elder retreat for my Church, Sovereign Grace Fellowship. We will be spedning some quality time together and pray for God’s leading and guidance upon His body. I love the Body of Christ and am most excited when praying and planning according to His will. Jesus is the head!!! May He bless His Body and guide us, His elders of this Church.

Soli Deo Gloria

Geerhardus Vos = Charismatic Theologian?

Okay, I know that some are about to stone me for even mentioning Geerhardus Vos and charismatic in the same sentence. It was intended to be provocative, but I must say that Vos’ pnuematological insights align well with a Redemptive-Charismatic hermeneutic. He quotes:

The position of Jesus in the development of pneumatology as between the Old Testament and Paul can be broadly defined as follows: In the Old Testament the Spirit is the Spirit of theocratic charismata, who qualifies prophets, priests and kings for their office, but is not communicable from one to the other. Of this charismatic Spirit Jesus has received the fullness, and, having the fullness, dispenses of it to His followers, first partially and by means of promise, then in greater fullness by way of fulfillment at Pentecost (Vos:387).

This “theocratic” work of the Spirit did manifest itself by possessing prophets, priests, and kings. Each office complements one another and requires a special empowering that only God can provide through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Old Testament pneumatology is therefore mostly confined to this “theocratic” nature. The Spirit’s work was specific and specifically given only to those who occupied each of the offices. Joel’s promise of the Spirit (2:28-32) ascends from this backdrop of “theocratic charismata” and declares that such phenomenon will not only accompany the three offices, but rather all of Israel. Though the outpouring of the Spirit contains within it a soteriological nature, the emphasis for Joel was on its charismatic nature in the life of Israel.

Vos understands Jesus as the climatic bearer of the Spirit as He possessed all three offices within the theocratic strata. The Spirit is therefore understood as a vocational empowering upon Jesus to fully execute His offices of prophet, priest, and king. Lukan Christology and Pneumatology converge in Jesus baptism, where He receives the Holy Spirit. For Luke, this Spirit is what ushers in Jesus’ Messianic ministry. He is full of the Spirit and led by the Spirit into the wilderness (Lk. 4:1), returns from the wilderness to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” (Lk. 4:14), and proceeds to quote Isaiah 61 on the Sabbath in Nazareth,

“And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”” (Lk 4:17-19, ESV)

Shortly after Jesus’ reading, he proceeds to heal a demon possessed man in Capernaum, Simon’s  mother in law, and then all who were brought to him (Lk. 4:31-41). This is no small thing in Luke’s account. Jesus is clearly being portrayed as the great theocrat, endued with power. It is this very same paradigm that Luke unpacks in Acts as the disciples are told by Jesus to wait in Jerusalem for “power” from on high. This was not a soteriological or sanctifying work of the Spirit, but clearly a “theocratic” vocational endowment of the Spirit for the disciples.

Lukan pneumatology should therefore be understood less in a soteric/regenerative aspect and instead in an empowering/theocratic aspect. I think Vos was onto something, although he didn’t enumerate  his points in an apologetic for what is now understood as “charismatic” theology. The foundations he lays, however, align better with “charismatic” theology than his “cessationist” grandchildren. 

Max Turner’s “The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts”

This isn’t a review per se, but rather some of my thoughts on a single citation from Turner’s volume.

Turner, M. (1998) The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament and Today. Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.

The nature of the gift of the Spirit which Peter promises to all who call on the name of the Lord (Acts 2:38,39)- even to the hearers’ children’s children- is a Christianized version of Joel’s promise of the ‘Spirit of prophecy’. Prototypical to thus are gifts of revelation, wisdom, prophecy and charismatic praise. It would quite literally be nonsense to suggest the writer of Luke-Acts anticipated the cessation of these: if indeed they ceased, such a state of affairs could only have come as a considerable surprise to him. It would inevitably have seemed like a failure at the very heart of what Joel’s promise of the Spirit was all about (Turner 1998:298).

For those who advocate a cessationist position, it hardly seems plausible that Peter had in mind that the promises of Joel would only be fulfilled for his lifetime. Some would contend that Peter did not view Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel’s promise and the initiating of the last days, but rather a foretaste of what God will do in some future millennial period with ethnic Israel. This seems very unlikely considering that Peter extends the very promise evidenced in Pentecost to the audience, their children, and those who were afar off, everyone that the Lord should call. The promise was rooted in Joel and extended to all. One could neither say that Peter had in mind a soteriological work of the Spirit that would be devoid of the promised manifestations in Joel, which would apparently cease after the death of he and his Apostolic colleagues (as is popularly espoused by cessationist theologians).

More Thoughts on Max Turner’s “Spirit of Prophecy”

Turner, Max. 1998. The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ As the Power of Israel’s Restoration and Witness. In “Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts” edited by Marshall, I.H. & Peterson, D.

My first post can be read at http://endued.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/review-of-max-turner’s-“’the-spirit-of-prophecy’-as-the-power-of-israel’s-restoration-and-witness”/

The Pentecost account (2:1-13) quite deliberately echoes Jewish accounts of the Sinai theophany…Jesus is exalted to God’s right hand not merely as the Davidic Messiah, but as the Mosaic Prophet. It is especially as the latter that he ascends on high to receive a gift of foundational importance which he gives to his people at the beginning of a decisive new phase of Israel’s existence, and amidst theophanic phenomena strikingly reminiscent of Sinai (Turner 1998:345-346).

God covenanted with His people through the prophet Moses and giving the nation a table of laws that would guide and direct them. God is now covenanting with his people through a new prophet (Jesus) that ascends much higher (right hand of the father) than Sinai and brings down a gift (Holy Spirit) much better than the table of the law. Whereas the Mosaic covenant was especially with ethnic Israel in a specific land, this new covenant with a newly constituted Israel that encompasses all people to the ends of the earth.

The idea of ‘cleansing’ or purging of Israel inherent in the Baptist’s promise then emerges most prominently both in the Ananias and Sapphira incident and in the Cornelius episode. With respect to the latter, it can be no accident that the one time when the Baptist’s promise that Jesus will purge/cleanse Zion with the Holy Spirit is ‘remembered’ is 11:16, in the midst of questions about whether Gentiles can be ‘clean’ (the focus of Acts 10). Their participation in the Spirit of prophecy shows that Cornelius’ household has a part in the ‘Israel’ the Messiah is cleansing/restoring by the Spirit and thus they are readily admitted to baptism, and Peter can later refer to God as having ‘cleansed their hearts by faith’ (15:9). This whole incident, which initially took Peter and the church by surprise, apparently led to some reinterpretation of Israel’s hope. In 3:19-26 national restoration of Israel around the Messiah as Abraham’s seed was expected eventually to lead to the universalizing of the blessing promised in Gn. 22:18. But in 15:14-18 the argument appears to be that Israel’s restoration is in principle complete and accordingly it is the hour for the eschatological influx of Gentiles. The hopes of Luke 1-2 have largely been fulfilled (Turner 1998:346-347).

Turner’s understanding of the Spirit’s role in Acts as carrying out an eschatological mission of gathering and cleansing an Israel that includes Gentiles is problematic for dispensational and premillennial theologians. They would view this as a ‘church age’ where Gentiles are being reached, but not understand James’ quotation of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18 as actually taking fulfillment when James’s spoke such words.

“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “ ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,” (Acts 15:12-19, ESV)

 

The overwhelming evidence in Acts and the constant recitation of Old Testament texts to understand the current reality of Gentile inclusion views a single people of God that consist of all people, just as promised in the Abrahamic covenant. If anything, the inclusion of Gentiles is a climax in redemptive history and the realization of all that God had spoken through the prophets about saving people from all nations.  

For Luke the charismatic ‘Spirit of prophecy’ is very much the power and life of the church, and so probably of the individual too. It is the means by which the heavenly Lord exercises his cleansing and transforming rule over Israel as much as the means by which he uses her as the Isaianic servant to witness his salvation to the ends of the earth (Turner 1998:347).

The bestowing of the Spirit on Pentecost didn’t mark the end of God’s dealings with Israel and a transferring of God’s salvific dealings solely to the Gentiles, but was rather the initiation of Israel’s glory age. They were empowered to be the witnesses to the nations as prescribed in Isaiah. The height of Israel’s existence is their mission to the Gentiles and that is being fulfilled right now in these last days. There remains a distinction in ethnicity between Jew and gentile, no doubt, but both constitute a single people of God who are constituted by the same means of calling upon the name of their common Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all the nations are blessed.

ESV Study Bible Article on Christ’s Full Deity + Humanity, Council of Chalcedon

 

The following article is from the newly released ESV Study Bible. I highly commend this study Bible to your collection…its study notes are thorough and Evangelical, and its articles cover a suprinsingly vast number of topics from Theology to Ethics, and everything inbetween. Visit esvstudybible.org.

The Person of Christ

Four statements must be understood and affirmed in order to attain a complete biblical picture of the person of Jesus Christ:

1. Jesus Christ is fully and completely divine.
2. Jesus Christ is fully and completely human.
3. The divine and human natures of Christ are distinct.
4. The divine and human natures of Christ are completely united in one person.

The Deity of Christ

Many passages of Scripture demonstrate that Jesus is fully and completely God:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1, 14).

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (John 1:18).

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 9:5).

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not countequality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:5–7).

. . . waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3).

But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” . . . And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Heb. 1:8, 10).

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1).

Jesus’ Understanding of His Own Deity

Even though the passages cited above clearly teach the deity of Christ, this truth is often challenged. Some say that Jesus never claimed to be God and that these verses were written by his disciples who deified him because of the impact he had on their lives. Jesus, it is claimed, only saw himself as a great moral teacher on a par with other religious leaders. However, Jesus’ understanding of his own deity in the Gospels does not support this perspective. He clearly saw himself as God. This can be seen primarily in six ways.

1. Jesus taught with divine authority. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he wasteaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:28–29). The teachers of the law in Jesus’ day had no authority of their own. Their authority came from their use of earlier authorities. Even Moses and the other OT prophets and authors did not speak in their own authority, but would say, “This is what the Lord says.” Jesus, on the other hand, interprets the law by saying, “You have heard that it was said. . . . But I say to you” (see Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). This divine authority is shown with staggering clarity when he speaks of himself as the Lord who will judge the whole earth and will say to the wicked, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23). No wonder the crowd was amazed at the authority with which Jesus spoke. Jesus recognized that his words carried divine weight. He acknowledged the permanent authority of the law (Matt. 5:18) and put his words on an equal plane with it: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Robert Strimple vs. Fred Malone Baptism Debate

http://inthylight.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/paedo-credo-baptism-debate-dr-robert-strimple-and-dr-fred-malone/

Another audio resource for you seekers on the issue of baptism. I must admit that I am partial to Dr. Malone’s understanding of credo (believer) baptism within a Covenantal Hermeneutic. Paul Jewett’s book, http://www.amazon.com/Infant-Baptism-Covenant-Grace-Circumcised/dp/0802817130, also contends for Believer’s baptism within a Covenantal framework.