Quotes

Thanksgiving: A Presidential Proclamation


General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, October 14, 1789


Happy Reformation Day!

From the movie, Luther, here is the Reformer’s speech at the Diet of Worms:

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!


My All-Time Favorite Quotable Movies

One of my grande amigos, Eric “Gunny” Hartman, is a very sharp guy.  You can chat with him on just about any subject – theology, philosophy, rhetoric, history, politics, sports – and the discussion will  be an informative one.  His blog posts on Semper Reformanda are unique in that their titles always come from a movie quote.  Whenever he and I chat, it always involves the throwing out of one or several movie quotes.  Even before meeting Gunny a decade ago, many of my conversations were sprinkled with lines from movies.  For example, every time I get on a golf course (which isn’t often), there is always a ‘Caddyshack’ quote (even though it’s not a movie I’d recommend).  As I’m enjoying my annual golf outing next week, someone is certain to hear, “Cinderella story.  Outta nowhere.  A former greenskeeper now about to become the Masters champion.  It looks like a miracle.  It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole!”  Of course, this isn’t unusual, as many catchphrases come from movies and television.  I was thinking about this the other day, and decided to present a blog post of my own favorite quotable movies.  And, as Gunny notes, “citation doesn’t necessarily entail endorsement of the movie.”  Please feel free to comment on your favorite quotable movies / movie quotes.  Here are mine:

10. Tommy Boy
- Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box?  Hmm, very interesting.
- He could sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman in white gloves!
- You know a lot of people go to college for seven years. / I know, they’re called doctors.
- I swear I’ve seen a lot of stuff in my life, but that…was…awesome!  But, sorry about your car, man.
- You have de-railed.
- It’s called reading! Top to bottom, left to right… a group of words together is called a sentence.
- Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid?
- Oh, that’s gonna leave a mark!
- Schnike!
- Could’ve done without that.
MOST QUOTED: Brothers don’t shake hands, brothers gotta hug.

09. Ghostbusters
- Aim for the flattop!
- Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
- Someone blows their nose and you want to keep it?
- I think we’d better split up. / Good idea. / Yeah… we can do more damage that way.
- Mother pus bucket!
- Back off, man, I’m a scientist.
- You never studied.
- Well, there’s something you don’t see every day.
- Actually, it’s more of a guideline than a rule.
- I tried to think of the most harmless thing.  Something I loved from my childhood.  Something that could never ever possibly destroy us.  Mr. Stay-Puft! / Nice thinkin’, Ray.
- He’s an ugly little spud, isn’t he?
- Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nice shootin’, Tex!
- Where these stairs go? / They go up!
MOST USED QUOTE: He slimed me.

08. Nacho Libre
- I was wondering if you would like to join me in my quarters this night… for some toast.
- They think I do not know a buttload of crap about the Gospel, but I do!
- There is no flavor.  There are no spices. Where are the chips?
- Your only job is to cook.  Do you not realize I have had diarrhea since Easters?
- I’m a little concerned right now.  About your salvation and stuff. How come you have not been baptized?
- I know it is fun to wrestle.  A nice piledrive to the face, or a punch to the face, but you cannot do it. Because, it is in the Bible not to wrestle your neighbour.
- But my life is good!  Really good!  I get to wake up every morning, at 5:00 am, and make some soup! It’s the best.  I love it. I get to lay in a bed, all by myself, all of my life! That’s fantastic! Go. Go away! Read some books!
- Summon your eagle powers. / Eagle powers… come to me!  Please!
- Those eggs were a lie, Esqueleto.  A LIE!  They give me no eagle powers!  The give me no nutrients!
- I’m not listening to you!  You only believe in science.  That’s probably why we never win!
- There is no place for me in this world.  I don’t belong out there, and I don’t belong in here.  So I’m going out into the Wilderness.  Probably to die.
- My mother gave it to me before she died. It was her lucky machete. You can have it.
- These are my recreation clothes.
- How come we can’t ever have just like a salad?
- Beneath the clothes, we find a man… and beneath the man, we find his… nucleus.
- If you fight for something noble, or for someone who needs your help, only then will God bless you in battle.
MOST USED QUOTE: When you are a man, sometimes you wear stretchy pants in your room.  It’s for fun.

07. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
- You killed the car.
- The question isn’t “what are we going to do,” the question is “what aren’t we going to do?”
- He’ll keep calling me, he’ll keep calling me until I come over. He’ll make me feel guilty. This is uh… This is ridiculous, ok I’ll go, I’ll go, I’ll go, I’ll go, I’ll go.
- In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the… Anyone?  Anyone?  The Great Depression, passed the… Anyone?  Anyone?  The tariff bill?  The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act?  Which…Anyone?  Raised or lowered?  Raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government.  Did it work?  Anyone?  Anyone know the effects?  It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is?  Class?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Anyone seen this before?  The Laffer Curve.  Anyone know what this says?  It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point.  This is very controversial.  Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone?  Something-D-O-O economics.  ”Voodoo” economics.
- A: You can never go too far. B: If I’m gonna get busted, it is not gonna be by a guy like that.
- Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I’d still have to bum rides off people.
- Never had one lesson!
-Hey batta batta batta, hey batta batta batta, SUH-WING batta!
- It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.
MOST USED QUOTE: Bueller?… Bueller?… Bueller?

06. Patton
- Now I want you to remember that no [one] ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb [one] die for his country.
-Rommel, you magnificent [one], I read your book!
- Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that “we are holding our position.” We’re not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose and we’re going to kick him in the ass. We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!
- Thirty years from now, when you’re sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you, “What did you do in the great World War II,” you won’t have to say, “Well… I shoveled [crap] in Louisiana.”
- They’re ivory. Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl-handled pistol.
- You want to know why this outfit got the hell kicked out of it? A blind man could spot it. They don’t act like soldiers; they don’t look like soldiers; why should they be expected to fight like soldiers?
- I’m not going to have a man sitting here crying! In front of these brave men who have been wounded in battle!
- “Despicable”.  That’s the first time anyone’s ever applied that word to me.
- I’m not going to subsidize cowardice.
- Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee of Thy great goodness to restrain this immoderate weather with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for battle. Graciously harken to us as solders who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen.
MOST USED QUOTE: Now, an army is a team – it lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap.

05. Napoleon Dynamite
- What are you gonna do today, Napoleon? / Whatever I feel like I wanna do. Gosh!
- Lucky.
- It took me like three hours to finish the shading on your upper lip. It’s probably the best drawing I’ve ever done.
- Napoleon, don’t be jealous that I’ve been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I’m training to be a cage fighter.
- Ohhhh, man I wish I could go back in time. I’d take state.
- Back in ’82, I used to be able to throw a pigskin a quarter mile.
- You think I got where I am today because I dressed like Peter Pan over here?  Take a look at what I’m wearing, people.  You think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I’m wearing these bad boys?  Forget about it. Last off, my students will learn about self-respect.  You think anybody thinks I’m a failure because I go home to Starla at night?  Forget about it!
- After one week with me in my dojo, you’ll be prepared to defend yourself with the strength of a grizzly, the reflexes of a puma, and the wisdom of a man.
- I see you’re drinking 1%. Is that ’cause you think you’re fat? ‘Cause you’re not. You could be drinking whole if you wanted to.
- Do the chickens have large talons?
- I caught you a delicious bass.
- The defect in that one is bleach…. This tastes like the cow got into an onion patch.
- Give me some of your tots. / No, I’m freakin’ starving! I didn’t get to eat anything today.
- But my lips hurt real bad!
- Just make yourself a dang quesa-dilluh!
- Last week, Japanese scientists explaced… placed explosive detonators at the bottom of Lake Loch Ness to blow Nessie out of the water.  Sir Cort Godfrey of the Nessie Alliance summoned the help of Scotland’s local wizards to cast a protective spell over the lake and its local residents and all those who seek for the peaceful existence of our underwater ally.
MOST USED QUOTE:  I don’t even have any good skills…. You know, like nunchuku skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills.  Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.

O4. DIRTY HARRY
-
I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? (Dirty Harry)
- Go ahead, make my day. (Sudden Impact)
MOST USED QUOTE: A man’s got to know his limitations. (Magnum Force)

03. The Princess Bride
- As you wish.
- I only dog paddle.
- Inconceivable!
- Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
- This is true love – you think this happens every day?
- You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
- We are men of action, lies do not become us.
- Are there rocks ahead? / If there are, we all be dead. / No more rhymes now, I mean it. / Anybody want a peanut?
- You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you. / You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die.
- People in masks cannot be trusted.
- You’ve been mostly-dead all day.
- Get some rest. If you haven’t got your health, then you haven’t got anything.
- I… am not left-handed.
- Who are you? / No one of consequence. / I must know. / Get used to disappointment.
- We face each other as God intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone. / You mean, you’ll put down your rock and I’ll put down my sword, and we’ll try and kill each other like civilized people?
- You mock my pain. / Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
- You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- Mawwaige. Mawwaige is what bwings us togeder today. Mawwaige, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wifin a dweam…And wuv, twu wuv, will fowow you fowevuh…So tweasure your wuv…. Have you the wing?
- I do not envy you the headache you will have when you awake. But for now, rest well and dream of large women.
- Please understand I hold you in the highest respect.
- You think a little head-jiggle is supposed to make me happy?
- Humperdinck! Humperdinck! Humperdinck!
MOST USED QUOTE: Let me ‘splain.  No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

02. What About Bob?
- Baby step to four o’clock. Baby step to four o’clock.
- Leo, I see salt and pepper… is there a salt substitute?
- You think he’s gone? He’s not gone. That’s the whole point! He’s never gone! / Is this some radical new therapy?
- If I fake it, then I don’t have it.
- What if I’m looking for a bathroom, I can’t find one, and my bladder explodes?
- There are two types of people in this world: Those who like Neil Diamond, and those who don’t.  My ex-wife loves him.
- It reminds me of my favorite poem, which is, “Roses are red, violets are blue, I’m a schizophrenic… and so am I!”
- It was still grim.
- What is it with you and this death fixation? / Maybe I’m in mourning for my lost childhood.
- Good morning, Gil. I said, good morning, Gil.
MOST USED QUOTE: I feel good, I feel great, I feel wonderful… I feel good, I feel great, I feel wonderful… I feel good, I feel great, I feel wonderful…

01. The Godfather
- You’re not a wartime Consigliari, Tom. Things could get rough with the move we’re making.
- In Sicily, women are more dangerous than shotguns.
- What did he say, badda-beep, badda-boop, badda-boop, badda-beep…
- …We go to the mattresses.
- It’s a Sicilian message. It means Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.
- You’ve gotta get up close like this and – bada-BING!
-Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
- I spent my whole life trying not to be careless. Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.
- I’m gonna make him an offer he won’t refuse. Okay? I want you to leave it all to me.
MOST USED QUOTE: Tell me, do you spend time with your family?… Because a man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man.
FAVORITE QUOTE:  You can act like a man!  What’s the matter with you?  Is this what you’ve become, a Hollywood finocchio who cries like a woman?  ”Oh, what do I do? What do I do?”  What is that nonsense?  Ridiculous!

ALL-TIME FAVORITE MOVIE QUOTE
(Language Advisory)



Theology on Thursday

Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday may be the briefest on record, yet nonetheless very worthwhile for the sake of meditation.  John Hendryx, the creator and editor of Monergism.com, was described by the late Michael Spencer (The Internet Monk) as “a brilliant guy, a first class debater, and not your usual knuckle-headed, stick-in-the-mud Calvinist.”  Michael also noted, “John’s presentation of historic reformed theology, and his application of it in contemporary evangelicalism, is characterized by excellence and kindness, two qualities  missing in a lot of theologians.”  Today I present you with a quote from John regarding legalism:

“Legalism is a distortion of the gospel which denies that Jesus Christ is completely sufficient for salvation. That some additional element of self-effort, merit or faithfulness on our part is necessary to either attain or maintain a just standing before God. (Gal.3:3)” – John Hendryx


Theology on Thursday

Phillip R. Johnson, who earned a bachelor’s degree in theology from Moody Bible Institute, is probably best-known for the blog he founded, PyroManiacs.  He has been associated with John MacArthur the past three decades, editing most of his books, and also serving as the executive Director of Grace to You, the Christian audio ministry featuring MacArthur’s preaching and teaching.  Johnson also pastors an adult fellowship group called GraceLife at Grace Community Church (Sun Valley, CA).  He earned a bachelor’s degree in theology from Moody Bible Institute.  On June 30, 2006, he posted, “Is God arbitrary?  Did He ‘create’ evil?”, a response to an e-mail he received from a “gung-ho ultra-high Calvinist.”  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday, a republication of Phil Johnson’s post, continues the thread of recent posts regarding the issue of God not being the “author of sin.”

* * * * *

Today I’m answering an e-mail I received after making some comments about God’s sovereignty and the origin of evil. I subsequently heard from a gung-ho ultra-high Calvinist who suggested that if God is truly Sovereign, He must be both the author and efficient cause of evil as well. Indeed, he insisted, citing the KJV rendition of Isaiah 45:7, “God created evil.”

My correspondent, who remains anonymous, wrote the words in red italics:

It is common to hear men defend God against the charges of being arbitrary. Yet if these nervous brethren would but consult their English dictionaries as well as their theologies they would find that arbitrary is a most Scripturally appropriate adjective for the Almighty. Certainly the LORD is not capricious, but He and He alone may properly be arbitrary.

Let’s see, shall we?

ar bi trar y (ar’ bi-trer-ee) 1. determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle 2. despotic, tyrannical, ruling by whim, usually oppressively

It is that sense of the word that people usually mean when they say God is not arbitrary. He is not subject to fits of whimsy. He is a God of order and of law—a “principled sovereign”—and though we may not always understand His ways, we know He is never irrational, erratic, or inconstant (James 1:17). He always acts in accord with His own consummate holiness and perfect righteousness. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

Of course, He is bound by no rule higher than Himself, but nonetheless, all that He does must be consistent with His own immutable character. Thus He cannot be “arbitrary.”

Concerning your statement “sin is not itself a thing created—not a substance—but the exact opposite. It’s a want of moral perfection in a fallen creature.” I would point out that neither are souls, angels, nor evil “substances.”

Did you notice that further in the same context, I wrote: “Evil is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. That’s why it is not proper to speak of evil as having been created”?

Human souls and angels are beings and thus can be created. Technically, even spirit beings have substance—even though it is not material substance. (One of the dictionary definitions of substance is “essential nature; essence.” It is in this sense that the Nicene Creed, for example, speaks of the Son as being “of one substance” with the Father—even though God is a Spirit.)

Evil, on the other hand, is a defect—a subtraction and deconstruction of what God created.

Scripture is quite clear in teaching that evil was no part of God’s creation. When He finished creating everything, He looked at all His creation and pronounced it “very good.” If you insist that God created evil, you contradict His own assessment of what He made.

To say God created evil would contradict a number of other Scriptures as well, including 1 Corinthians 14:33: “God is not the author of confusion.” For if He is the author of all evil, then He must be the author of confusion as well.

Now look at Isaiah 45:7. There, God says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (KJV). Does this mean what you suggest it means? Not to a Hebrew reader. Other translations capture the sense of the statement more accurately: “I make peace and create calamity” (NKJV). “I bring prosperity and create disaster” (NIV). “Causing well-being and creating calamity” (NASB).

The Hebrew word translated “evil” in the KJV is a word that means “adversity,” or “affliction.” It’s talking about the calamitous consequences of sin; not ontological evil per se.

There is, of course, a true sense in which God decreed evil as part of His eternal plan. It did not enter the universe by surprise or against His sovereign will. He remains sovereign over it. He even uses it for good. But in no way is He the author or the creator of it.

“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (2 Thessalonians 3:18).


Every Roll of the Dice in Las Vegas

In 1998, Dr. John Piper presented a session at the annual Jonathan Edwards Institute entitled, “Jonathan Edwards on the Decrees of God.”  During the course of his presentation, Dr. Piper draws on Edwards to discuss how God is sovereign over all things, including evil, yet without being the author of sin.  This presentation is reproduced with permission.

Fourteen years ago Charles Colson wrote, “The western church – much of it drifting, enculturated, and infected with cheap grace – desperately needs to hear Edwards’ challenge. . . . It is my belief that the prayers and work of those who love and obey Christ in our world may yet prevail as they keep the message of such a man as Jonathan Edwards.” That conviction lies behind The Jonathan Edwards Institute and behind this conference. And I certainly believe it.

Most of us, having only been exposed to one of Edwards’ sermons, “Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God,” do not know the real Jonathan Edwards. We don’t know that he knew his heaven even better than his hell, and that his vision of the glory of God was just as ravishing as his vision of hell was repulsive – as it should be.

Most of us don’t know:

  • that he is considered now, by secular and evangelical historians alike, to be the greatest religious thinker America has ever produced
  • that he not only was God’s kindling for the Great Awakening in the 1730′s and 1740′s, but was also its most penetrating analyst and critic
  • that he was driven by a great longing to see the missionary task of the church completed, and that his influence on the modern missionary movement is immense because of his Life of David Brainerd
  • that he was a rural pastor for 23 years in a church of 600 people
  • that he was a missionary to Indians for 7 years after being asked to leave his church
  • that, together with Sarah, he reared 11 faithful children
  • that he lived only until he was 54 and died with a library of only 300 books
  • but, nevertheless, his own books are still ministering mightily after 250 years.

But not as mightily as they should. Mark Noll, who teaches history at Wheaton and has thought much about the work of Edwards has written:

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

One of the burdens of this Conference, and certainly one of the burdens of my life, is the recovery of a “God-entranced world-view.” “Evangelicals Seeking the Glory of God,” in my understanding, means “evangelicals seeking a God-entranced world view.” But what I have seen over 18 years of pastoral ministry and six years of teaching experience before that, is that people who waver with uncertainty over the problem of God’s sovereignty in the matter of evil usually do not have a God-entranced world view. For them, now God is sovereign, and now he is not. Now he is in control, and now he is not. Now he is good and reliable when things are going well, and when they go bad, well, maybe he’s not. Now he’s the supreme authority of the universe, and now he is in the dock with human prosecutors peppering him with demands that he give an account of himself.

But when a person settles it Biblically, intellectually and emotionally, that God has ultimate control of all things, including evil, and that this is gracious and precious beyond words, then a marvelous stability and depth come into that person’s life and they develop a “God-entranced world view.” When a person believes, with the Heidelberg Catechism (Question 27), that “The almighty and everywhere present power of God . . . upholds heaven and earth, with all creatures, and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, all things, come not by chance, but by his fatherly hand” – when a person believes and cherishes that truth, they have the key to a God-entranced world view.

So my aim in this second message is to commend to you this absolute sovereign control of God over all things, including evil, because it is Biblical, and because it will help you become stable and deep and God-entranced and God-glorifying in all you think and feel and do.

And when we set our face in this direction, Jonathan Edwards becomes a great help to us, because he wrestled with the problems of God’s sovereignty as deeply as anyone. And I want you to know how he resolved some of the difficulties.

So my plan is to lay out for you some of the evidence for God’s control of all things, including evil. Then I will deal with two problems. 1. Is God then the author of sin? 2) And why does he will that there be evil in the world? I will close with an exhortation that you not waver before the truth of God’s sovereignty, but embrace it for the day of your own calamity.

1. Evidence of God’s Control
First, then, consider the evidence that God controls all things, including evil. When I speak of evil, I have two kinds in mind, natural and moral. Natural evil we usually refer to as calamities: hurricanes, floods, disease, all the natural ways that death and misery strike without human cause. Moral evil we usually refer to as sin: murder, lying, adultery, stealing, all the ways that people fail to love each other. So what we are considering here is that God rules the world in such a way that all calamities and all sin remain in his ultimate control and therefore within his ultimate design and purpose.

If you are wondering whether there is a connection between this message and the one I gave this afternoon (on the foreknowledge of God), there is. The denial of God’s foreknowledge of human and demonic choices is a buttress to the view that God is not in control of evils in the world and therefore has no purpose in them. God’s uncertainty about what humans and demons are going to choose strengthens the case that he does not plan those choices and therefore does not control them or have particular purposes in them.

For example, Gregory Boyd, in his book God at War, says, “divine goodness does not completely control or in any sense will evil.”

Jesus nor his disciples seemed to understand God’s absolute power as absolute control. They prayed for God’s will to be done on earth, but this assumes that they understand that God’s will was not yet being done on earth (Mt. 6:10). Hence neither Jesus nor his disciples assumed that there had to be a divine purpose behind all events in history. Rather, they understood the cosmos to be populated by a myriad of free agents, some human, some angelic, and many of them evil. The manner in which events unfold in history was understood to be as much a factor of what these agents individually and collectively will as it was a matter of what God himself willed.

In other words “the Bible does not assume that every particular evil has particular godly purpose behind it.”

This is diametrically opposed to what I believe the Bible teaches and what this message is meant to commend to you for your earnest consideration.

1.1 Evidence that God Controls Calamity
Consider the evidence that God controls physical evil – that is, calamity. But keep in mind that physical evil and moral evil almost always intersect. Many of our pains happen because human or demonic agents make choices that hurt us. So some of this evidence can serve under both headings: God’s control of calamities and God’s control of sins.

Life and death
The Bible treats human life as something God has absolute rights over. He gives it and takes it according to his will. We do not own it or have any absolute rights to it. It is a trust for as long as the owner wills for us to have it. To have life is a gift and to lose it is never an injustice from God, whether he takes it at age five or age ninety-five.

When Job lost his ten children at the instigation of Satan, he would not give Satan the ultimate causality. He said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21). And, lest we think Job was mistaken, the author adds, “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (Job 1:22 RSV).

In Deuteronomy 32:39 God says, “There is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.” When David made Bathsheba pregnant, the Lord rebuked him by taking the child. 2 Samuel 12:15 says, “Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was sick . . . . Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.” Life belongs to God. He owes it to no one. He may give it and take it according to his infinite wisdom. James says “You do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. . . . You ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that’” (James 4:14-15; see 1 Samuel 2:6-7).

Disease
One of the calamities that threatens life is disease. In Exodus 4:11, God says to Moses, when he was fearful about speaking, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” In other words, behind all disease and disability is the ultimate will of God. Not that Satan is not involved; he is probably always involved one way or the other with destructive purposes (Acts 10:38). But his power is not decisive. He cannot act without God’s permission.

That is one of the points of Job’s sickness. When disease happened to Job, the text makes it plain that “Satan . . . afflicted Job with sores” (Job 2:7). His wife urged him to curse God. But Job said, “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity” (Job 2:10). And again the author of the book commends Job by saying, “In all this, Job did not sin with his lips.” In other words: this is a right view of God’s sovereignty over Satan. Satan is real and may have a hand in our calamities, but not the final hand, and not the decisive hand. James makes clear that God had a good purpose in all Job’s afflictions: “You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose (telos) of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (James 5:11). So Satan may have been involved, but the ultimate purpose was God’s and it was “compassionate and merciful.”

This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Corinthians 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. “To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!” Now, humility is not Satan’s purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God’s. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul’s life.

There is no reason to believe that Satan is ever out of God’s ultimate control. Mark 1:27 says of Jesus, “He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” And Luke 4:36 says, “With authority and power He commands the unclean spirits and they come out.” In other words, no matter how real and terrible Satan and his demons are in this world, they remain subordinate to the ultimate will of God.

Natural disasters
Another kind of calamity that threatens life and health is violent weather and conditions of the earth, like earthquakes and floods and monsoons and hurricanes and tornadoes and droughts. These calamities kill hundreds of thousands of people. The testimony of the Scriptures is that God controls the winds and the weather. “He called for a famine upon the land; He broke the whole staff of bread” (Psalm 105:16). We see this same authority in Jesus. He rebukes the threatening wind and the sea, and the disciples say, “Even the wind and the sea obey Him” (Mark 4:39, 41).

Repeatedly in the Psalms God is praised as the one who rules the wind and the lightning. “He makes the winds His messengers, Flaming fire His ministers” (Psalm 104:4). “He makes lightnings for the rain, [he] brings forth the wind from His treasuries” (Psalm 135:7). “He causes His wind to blow and the waters to flow . . . Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word” (Psalm 147:18; 148:8; see 78:26). Isaac Watts was right, “There’s not a plant or flower below but makes your glories known; and clouds arise and tempests blow by order from your throne.” Which means that all the calamities of wind and rain and flood and storm are owing to God’s ultimate decree. One word from him and the wind and the seas obey.

Destructive animals
Another kind of calamity that threatens life is the action of destructive animals. When the Assyrians populated Samaria with foreigners, 2 Kings 17:25 says, “Therefore the LORD sent lions among them which killed some of them.” And in Daniel 6:22, Daniel says to the king, “My God sent His angel and shut the lions’ mouths.” Other Scriptures speak of God commanding birds and bears and donkeys and large fish to do his bidding. Which means that all calamities that are owing to animal life are ultimately in the control of God. He can see a pit bull break loose from his chain and attack a child; and he could, with one word, command that its mouth be shut. Similarly he controls the invisible animal and plant life that wreaks havoc in the world: bacteria and viruses and parasites and thousands of microscopic beings that destroy health and life. If God can shut the mouth of a ravenous lion, then he can shut the mouth of a malaria-carrying mosquito and nullify every other animal that kills.

All other kinds of calamities
Other kinds of calamities could be mentioned but perhaps we should simply hear the texts that speak in sweeping inclusiveness about God’s control covering them all. For example, Isaiah 45:7 says God is the “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” Amos 3:6 says, “If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?” In Job 42:2, Job confesses, “I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.” And Nebuchadnezzar says (in Daniel 4:35), “[God] does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What are you doing?’” And Paul says, in Ephesians 1:11, that God is the one “who works all things after the counsel of His will.”

And if someone should raise the question of sheer chance and the kinds of things that just seem to happen with no more meaning than the role of the dice, Proverbs 16:33 answers: “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.” In other words, there is no such thing as “chance” from God’s perspective. He has his purposes for every roll of the dice in Las Vegas and every seemingly absurd turn of events in the universe.

This is why Charles Spurgeon, the London pastor from 100 years ago said,

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes – that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens – that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence – the fall of . . . leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.

When Spurgeon was challenged that this is nothing but fatalism and stoicism, he replied,

What is fate? Fate is this – Whatever is, must be. But there is a difference between that and Providence. Providence says, Whatever God ordains, must be; but the wisdom of God never ordains anything without a purpose. Everything in this world is working for some great end. Fate does not say that. . . . There is all the difference between fate and Providence that there is between a man with good eyes and a blind man.

1.2 God’s Control over Moral Evil
Now consider the evidence for God’s control over moral evil, the evil choices that are made in the world. Again there are specific instances and then texts that make sweeping statements of God’s control.

For example, all the choices of Joseph’s brothers in getting rid of him and selling him into slavery are seen as sin and yet also as the outworking of God’s good purpose. In Genesis 50:20, Joseph says to his brothers when they fear his vengeance, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Gregory Boyd and others, who do not believe that God has a purpose in the evil choices of people (especially since he does not know what those choices are going to be before they make them), try to say that God can use the choices that people make for his own purposes after they make them and he then knows what they are.

But this will not fit what the text says or what Psalm 105:17 says. The text says, “You meant evil against me.” Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, “God meant it for good.” The word “it” is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, “evil.” And the verb “meant” is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Psalm 105:17 says about Joseph’s coming to Egypt, “[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.” God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God.

The death of Jesus offers another example of how God’s sovereign will ordains that a sinful act come to pass. Edwards says, “The crucifying of Christ was a great sin; and as man committed it, it was exceedingly hateful and highly provoking to God. Yet upon many great considerations it was the will of God that it should be done.” Then he refers to Acts 4:27-28, “Truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (see also Isaiah 53:10). In other words, all the sinful acts of Herod, Pilate, of Gentiles and Jews were predestined to occur.

Edwards ponders that someone might say that only the sufferings of Christ were planned by God, not the sins against him, to which he responds, “I answer, [the sufferings] could not come to pass but by sin. For contempt and disgrace was one thing he was to suffer. [Therefore] even the free actions of men are subject to God’s disposal.”

These specific examples (which could be multiplied by many more instances) where God purposefully governs the sinful choices of people are generalized in several passages. For example, Romans 9:16: “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Man’s will is not the ultimately decisive agent in the world, God is. Proverbs 20:24: “Man’s steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way?” Proverbs 19:21: “Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.” Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” Jeremiah 10:23: “I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.”

Therefore I conclude with Jonathan Edwards, “God decrees all things, even all sins.” Or, as Paul says in Ephesians 1:11, “He works all things after the counsel of His will.”

2. Two Questions
And I pose two questions as an evangelical who is seeking the glory of God, and who longs for a Biblical, God-entranced world-view. 1) Is God the author of sin? 2) Why does God ordain that evil exist? What are the answers that Jonathan Edwards gave to each of these questions?

2.1 Is God the Author of Sin?
Edwards answers, “If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.” But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”

God is, Edwards says, “the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow.”

He uses the analogy of the way the sun brings about light and warmth by its essential nature, but brings about dark and cold by dropping below the horizon. “If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness,” he says, “it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun.” In other words, “sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence.”

Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,

God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn’t will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn’t hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.

This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – “He turned their hearts to hate his people.”). He hardens Pharaoh’s heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father’s wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

What this means is that we must learn that God wills things in two different senses. The Bible demands this by the way it speaks of God’s will in different ways. Edwards uses the terms “will of decree” and “will of command.” Edwards explains:

[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a things as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things.

This brings us to the final question and already points to the answer.

2.2 Why Does God Ordain that there Be Evil?
It is evident from what has been said that it is not because he delights in evil as evil. Rather he “wills that evil come to pass . . . that good may come of it.” What good? And how does the existence of evil serve this good end? Here is Edwards’ stunning answer:

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .

Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . . .

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

So the answer to the question in the title of this message, “Is God less glorious because he ordained that evil be?” is no, just the opposite. God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all its evil. The effort to absolve him by denying his foreknowledge of sin (as we saw this afternoon) or by denying his control of sin (which we have seen this evening) is fatal, and a great dishonor to his word and his wisdom. Evangelicals who are seeking the glory of God, look well to the teaching of your churches and your schools. But most of all, look well to your souls.

If you would see God’s glory and savor his glory and magnify his glory in this world, do not remain wavering before the sovereignty of God in the face of great evil. Take his book in your hand, plead for his Spirit of illumination and humility and trust, and settle this matter, that you might be unshakable in the day of your own calamity. My prayer is that what I have said will sharpen and deepen your God-entranced world view, and that in the day of your loss you will be like Job who, when he lost all his children, fell down and worshipped, and said, “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.”

By John Piper © Desiring God


Theology on Thursday

Dr. Michael S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, host of the White Horse Inn (a national radio broadcast), editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine, and the author of numerous books, including The Gospel-Driven Life, Christless ChristianityPutting Amazing Back Into Grace, and God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology.  He also contributed an important article to R. C. Sproul’s Tabletalk magazine several years ago, entitled, “Reformed Theology Vs. Hyper-Calvinism“.  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday is a reproduction of this outstanding article.
* * * * *

Before the average believer today learns what Reformed theology (i.e., Calvinism) actually is, he first usually has to learn what it’s not. Often, detractors define Reformed theology not according to what it actually teaches, but according to where they think its logic naturally leads. Even more tragically, some hyper-Calvinists have followed the same course. Either way, “Calvinism” ends up being defined by extreme positions that it does not in fact hold as scriptural. The charges leveled against Reformed theology, of which hyper-Calvinism is actually guilty, received a definitive response at the international Synod of Dort (1618–1619), along with the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

Is God the Author of Sin?
The God of Israel “is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he” (Deut. 32:4–5). In fact, James seems to have real people in mind when he cautions, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). Sin and evil have their origin not in God or creation, but in the personal will and action of creatures.

Scripture sets forth two guardrails here: On one hand, God “works all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:15); on the other, God does not — in fact, cannot — do evil. We catch a glimpse of these two guardrails at once in several passages, most notably in Genesis 45 and Acts 2. In the former, Joseph recognizes that while the intention of his brothers in selling him into slavery was evil, God meant it for good, so that many people could be saved during this famine (vv. 4–8). We read in the same breath in Acts 2:23 that “lawless men” are blamed for the crucifixion, and yet Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God….” The challenge is to affirm what Scripture teaches without venturing any further. We know from Scripture that both are true, but not how. Perhaps the most succinct statement of this point is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (chap. 3.1): “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” — there’s one guardrail — “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established,” and with that, the second guardrail. The same point is made in the Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 13), adding that whatever God has left to His own secret judgment is not for us to probe any further.

Is the Gospel for Everyone?
Isn’t it a bit of false advertising to say on one hand that God has already determined who will be saved and on the other hand to insist that the good news of the Gospel be sincerely and indiscriminately proclaimed to everyone?

But didn’t Christ die for the elect alone? The Canons of Dort pick up on a phrase that was often found in the medieval textbooks (“sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect only”) when it affirms that Christ’s death “is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (Second Head, Article 3). Therefore, we hold out to the world “the promise of the gospel … to all persons … without distinction ….” Although many do not embrace it, this “is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves” (Second Head, Articles 5–6).

Here once again we are faced with mystery — and the two guardrails that keep us from careening off the cliff in speculation. God loves the world and calls everyone in the world to Christ outwardly through the Gospel, and yet God loves the elect with a saving purpose and calls them by His Spirit inwardly through the same Gospel (John 6:63–64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Tim. 1:9). Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists ignore crucial passages of Scripture, resolving the mystery in favor of the either-or: either election or the free offer of the Gospel.

Grace for Everybody?
Does God love everybody, or is His kindness simply a cloak for His wrath — fattening the wicked for the slaughter, as some hyper-Calvinists have argued?

Scripture is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms: “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made …. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:9, 16). Jesus calls upon His followers to pray for their enemies for just this reason: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44). Christians are supposed to imitate this divine attitude.

The doctrine we are talking about has come to be called “common grace,” in distinction from “saving grace.” Some have objected to this term (some even to the concept), insisting that there is nothing common about grace: there is only one kind of grace, which is sovereign, electing grace. However, it must be said that whatever kindness God shows to anyone for any reason after the fall, can only be regarded as gracious. Once again, we face two guardrails that we dare not transgress: God acts graciously to save the elect and also to sustain the non-elect and cause them to flourish in this mortal life. While it is among the sweetest consolations for believers, election is not the whole story of God’s dealing with this world.

When we, as Christians, affirm common grace, we take this world seriously in all of its sinfulness as well as in all of its goodness as created and sustained by God. We see Christ as the mediator of saving grace to the elect but also of God’s general blessings to a world that is under the curse. Thus, unbelievers can even enrich the lives of believers. John Calvin pleads against the fanaticism that would forbid all secular influence on Christians, concluding that when we disparage the truth, goodness, and beauty found among unbelievers, we are heaping contempt on the Holy Spirit Himself who bestows such gifts of His common grace (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15).

Is Calvinism a License to Sin?
The first thing we need to say, with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, is that if we are never accused of preaching antinomianism (that is, grace-as-license), we probably have not preached the Gospel correctly. After all, Paul anticipates the question, “Shall we then sin that grace may abound?” precisely because his own argument from 3:9 to this point has pressed it: “Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more” (5:21). At the same time, some Reformed Christians, especially those liberated from legalistic backgrounds, seem to end Paul’s argument at Romans 5:21, concluding, in effect, “God likes to forgive, I like to sin — the perfect relationship!”

The difference between being accused of antinomianism (literally, anti-law-ism) and being guilty as charged is whether we are willing to follow Paul on into chapter 6. There the apostle answers this charge by an announcement of what God has done! At first, this would seem to favor antinomians, since they place all of the emphasis on what God has done and reject, or at least downplay, the importance of imperatives. Yet in fact, what Paul announces is that God has accomplished not only our justification in Christ, but our baptism into Christ. His argument is basically this: being united to Christ necessarily brings justification and regeneration, which issues in sanctification. He does not say that Christians should not, or must not, live in sin as the principle of their existence, but that they cannot — it is an impossibility. That they do continue to sin is evident enough, especially in chapter 7, but now they struggle against it.

The fathers at Dort recognized the charge that the Reformed doctrine “ leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil,” and leads inevitably to “libertinism” and “renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please” (Conclusion). Yet they would neither surrender the comfort of justification by Christ’s righteousness imputed nor of sanctification by Christ’s resurrection life imparted. Perfection of sanctification in this life is impossible, but just as impossible is a condition known today as the “carnal Christian.” One is either dead in Adam or alive in Christ. Again, some wish to resolve this mystery: either we can be free from all known sin, as John Wesley taught, or we can be in a state of spiritual death, as antinomianism teaches. However satisfying to our reason, such an easy resolution in either direction ignores the clear teaching of Scripture and robs us of the joy of such a full salvation.

So the two guardrails on this point emerge from the fog of legalism and antinomianism: justification and sanctification are not to be confused, but they are also not to be separated.

In addition to these other charges, Reformed theology is often regarded as “rationalistic” — that is, a system built on logic rather than on Scripture. However, I hope we have begun to see that the real rationalists are the extremists on either side of these debates. The wisdom of the Reformed confessions is that they refuse to speculate beyond Scripture and insist on proclaiming the whole counsel of God, not simply the passages that seem to reinforce one-sided emphases. It is not a question of where the logic should lead us but where the Scriptures do lead us. It might be easier to resolve the mystery in simple, either-or solutions, but such a course would certainly not be safer. So let us too strive to read all of the Scriptures together, keeping a sharp lookout for those guardrails!

© Tabletalk magazine (2005).  Reproduced with permission.


Theology on Thursday

Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday features a few quotes from the Emerald Isle’s patron saint.  St. Patrick (c. 387—493) was a Romano-Briton who served as a Christian missionary to Ireland.  Two letters he wrote still exist and detail parts of his life.  At age 16, he was kidnapped by Irish raiders and forced into slavery.  After six years of subjugation, he escaped and returned home to Britain.  Shortly thereafter, he entered ministry as a vocation and was ordained as a bishop.  Patrick returned to the land of his captivity in order to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Irish.

Patrick’s love for the Irish stemmed from his sense of obeying Christ’s command to love one’s enemies.  The Celtic culture in which he labored was entrenched in paganism, particularly the native earth-based Druid religion.  After proclaiming the gospel throughout Ireland, despite antagonism from both religious and political leaders, a showdown occurred on March 26, 433 – Easter Sunday.  The king, in concert with the agency of the Druids, commanded that all fires should be extinguished until a signal blaze was kindled at the royal residence.  The purpose of the command was to defy the “God of Christianity.”  Patrick refused to obey, and started a fire on Easter Sunday.  Chieftans and Druids gathered, with pagan priests performing incantations for the land to be covered by darkness.  Clouds filled the air and darkened the region.  Patrick then challenged them to remove the clouds, which they were unable to do.  After Patrick prayed to the Lord, the clouds lifted, and sunshine filled the land.  The chieftans and people were filled with awe, and converted to Christianity.

Legend credits Patrick with banishing snakes from Ireland even though all evidence suggests the island was never home to any of the reptiles.  However, the legend may be explained by the fact that the Druids utilized the symbol of the serpent quite frequently.  Even coins minted in Gaul reflected this icon.  Legend also credits Patrick with teaching the Irish about the holy Trinity by showing the people a shamrock – a three-leaf clover.  It is believed he did this immediately following the showdown with Druid priests.  St. Patrick’s Day is observed on March 17, the date of his death.

Here are some declarations made by Patrick during his lifetime:

  • I am Patrick, a sinner, must uncultivated and least of all the faithful and despised in the eyes of many.
  • (Prayer) Christ beside me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ within me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me.
  • Before I was humiliated I was like a stone that lies in a deep mud, and he who is mighty came and in his compassion raised me up and exalted me very high and placed me on the top of the wall.
  • The Lord opened the understanding of my unbelieving heart, so that I should recall my sins.
  • If I be worthy, I live for my God to teach the heathen, even though they may despise me.
  • That which I have set out in Latin is not my words but the words of God and of apostles and prophets, who of course have never lied.  He who believes shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be damned.  God has spoken.
  • No one should ever say that it was my ignorance if I did or showed forth anything however small according to God’s good pleasure; but let this be your conclusion and let it so be thought, that – as is the perfect truth – it was the gift of God.

 


Theology on Thursday

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899 – 1981) was a Welshman who served as a medical doctor prior to entering the ministry.  “The Doctor” succeeded G. Campbell Morgan as the senior minister of Westminster Chapel, where he served for nearly three decades.  During that period, he was a vocal opponent of Liberal theology.  He also helped to shed a great deal of light on the works of the Puritans and others who had been largely forgotten, such as Jonathan Edwards.  Concerned greatly about revival and biblical evangelism, he supported preaching which was invitational but opposed the altar call quite strongly.  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday considers the answer given by The Doctor during a visit to the United States in which the following question was posed: “During recent years, especially in England, among evangelicals of the Reformed faith, there has been a rising criticism of the invitation system as used by Billy Graham and others. Does Scripture justify the use of such public invitations or not?”

Answer: Well, it is difficult to answer this in a brief compass without being misunderstood. Let me answer it like this: The history of this invitation system is one with which you people ought to be more familiar than anyone else, because it began in America. It began in the 1820s; the real originator of it was Charles G. Finney. It led to a great controversy. Asahel Nettleton, a great Calvinist and successful evangelist, never issued an “altar call” nor asked people to come to the “anxious seat.” These new methods in the 182Os and were condemned for many reasons by all who took the Reformed position.

One reason is that there is no evidence that this was done in New Testament times, because then they trusted to the power of the Spirit. Peter preaching on the Day of Pentecost under the power of the Spirit, for instance, had no need to call people forward in decision because, as you remember, the people were so moved and affected by the power of the Word and Spirit that they actually interrupted the preacher, crying out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” That has been the traditional Reformed attitude towards this particular matter. The moment you begin to introduce this other element, you are bringing a psychological element. The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit. I personally agree with what has been said in the question. I have never called people forward at the end for this reason; there is a grave danger of people coming forward before they are ready to come forward. We do believe in the work of the Spirit, that He convicts and converts, and He will do His work. There is a danger in bringing people to a “birth,” as it were, before they are ready for it.

The Puritans in particular were afraid of what they would call “a temporary faith” or “a false profession.” There was a great Puritan, Thomas Shepard, who published a famous series of sermons on The Ten Virgins. The great point of that book was to deal with this problem of a false profession. The foolish virgins thought they were all right. This is a very great danger.

I can sum it up by putting it like this: I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this – the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.


Theology on Thursday

John Newton (1725 – 1807),a sailor and slave trader who was converted by the grace of Jesus Christ and became an Anglican clergyman and prominent abolitionist, also penned several hymns.  His most well-known hymns include “Amazing Grace” and “Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken.”  As an orthodox Anglican minister, Newton affirmed the Thirty-Nine Articles and, therefore, Calvinism.  When a fellow minister was prepared to author an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, he wrote to Newton regarding his intention.  Newton’s reply, found in his letter, “On Controversy” in The Works of John Newton, and which makes up today’s edition of Theology on Thursday, was as follows:

ON CONTROVERSY

Dear Sir,
As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the Word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method’s sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

Consider Your Opponent
As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever.

But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! “He knows not what he does.” But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose. “If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth.” If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

Consider the Public
By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions: First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are preengaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer’s spirit. They know that meekness, humility, and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The scriptural maxim, that “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God,” is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who, being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm. There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God.

I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind. I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who for want of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord.

And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit.

Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

Consider Yourself
This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented.

And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made?

Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called.” The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.
* * * * *

HT: Eric Hartman


William Weeks on the Divine Decree and Human Responsibility

William R. Weeks (1783-1848) served as a Congregational pastor in Paris Hill, New York, and was an influential minister within the Oneida Association.  William B. Sprague, author of Lectures on Revivals, declared Weeks “an able and faithful minister of Jesus Christ.”  Concerned greatly with authentic revival and biblical evangelism, he was also known for his defense of Reformed theology.  Charles G. Finney, caricatured Weeks terribly as an “anti-revival man.”  In his Memoirs, Finney charged Weeks falsely with teaching that “God made men sinners,” and had the right “to send them to hell for the sins he had directly created in them, or compelled them to commit by the force of omnipotence.”  Many others followed Finney’s lead and language.  John Frost, a devout follower of Finney, dubbed Weeks “the Orthodox Devil on Paris Hill.”  Many people within Weeks’ own congregation were influenced by such invective, and the minister was forced from the Paris Hill pastorate.  Years later, B. B. Warfield complained of the “undeserved contempt” Finney showed for Weeks, noting his “memory has been sedulously defamed ever since.”  Nonetheless, some of Weeks’ sermons are still extant.  I commend to you his Nine Sermons on the Decrees and Agency of God (free on NOOKbook).  Today a portion of one of his sermons, expounding Ephesians 1:11, is presented.

SERMON V / EPHESIANS 1.11 – “Who works all things after the counsel of His own will”

Objection: It is said, that if this doctrine is true, and God decrees and causes whatever takes place, then men cannot possibly help ‘doing as they do, in all cases. And so, if they are finally damned, they are damned for doing, what they cannot, help. And when God requires them to do otherwise than they do, he requires an impossibility which is manifestly unjust and cruel.’

Answer: It is granted that to punish men for doing what they cannot help, or to require of them impossibility, would be manifestly unjust and cruel. But this God does not, do. He requires no more of men than, they are able to perform; and he punishes them only for doing those things which they could and ought to have abstained from doing. When we speak, in common language, of ability and inability, can and cannot, possible and impossible; we always have reference to men’s power and faculties of body or mind, and not at all to their inclinations. If a man has all the power, and faculties of body and mind which are necessary to do a thing, we say he is able to do it, whether he is willing or not.  His ability and his willingness are different things, perfectly distinct. A man may be able to perform a piece of work, which he has no heart to perform, and which he is totally unwilling to engage in. And again, a man may be perfectly willing to do that which is not in his power, that which is entirely beyond his strength. One man may be able to march to the field of battle, but totally unwilling. And another may be perfectly willing to march to the field of blood, but through bodily infirmity may be unable. Ability and willingness must both unite in the same person, before he will perform any thing, but they are perfectly distinct, and our willingness constitutes no part of our ability.

It is true that willingness is sometimes styled moral ability; but it is evidently in a figurative and improper sense. According to the usual and proper meaning of the term, men are able to do everything which they have bodily and mental strength sufficient to do, whether they are willing to exert that strength, and do the thing or not. Now, although God cannot justly require of men more than they are able to do, that is, more than they have bodily and mental strength sufficient to do, if they were so disposed; yet he may, and does, justly require of them many things which they have no disposition to do, many things which they are totally unwilling to perform. And though men cannot be justly punished for not doing those things which they are unable to do, yet they may be justly punished for not doing those things which they are able, but are unwilling to do. Men are able to comply with the invitations of the gospel, that is, they have all the bodily and mental powers that are necessary to do it, and God may justly require them to do it, whether they are willing or not; and if they do not comply, he may justly punish them for their disobedience. And his making some willing and others unwilling does not interfere with the ability of any. Those who are unwilling are just as able as those who are willing, and are as justly required to comply.

To substantiate the objection, it must be made to appear, that God imposes some constraint upon men, so that they cannot do the things he requires, even though they are willing, and desirous of doing them. This is taken for granted in the objection. This is the real meaning of the phrase, doing what they cannot help. The meaning is, that they desire and endeavor to do otherwise, but have not the necessary bodily and mental strength. If they had, they should do, otherwise. They would, but cannot. But the fact is directly the reverse. They can, but will not. They have the necessary bodily and mental strength, but have no willingness. And this, God is not bound to give them. Should any say, that God cannot justly require of men any more than he gives them a willingness to do, as well as bodily and mental strength, this would abolish all law, and destroy the distinction between right and wrong. For if God cannot require of men any more than he makes them willing, as well as able, to do, then, since they always do what they have both strength and will to accomplish, he cannot justly require of them any more than they actually perform. And if they always do all that he requires, there is no such thing as sin in the world. It is right, therefore, for God to require of them all that they have powers and faculties sufficient to perform, all that they are able to do; and if they fail of complying through unwillingness, it is right that they should be punished. But men have all the powers and faculties necessary to comply with the invitations of the gospel, and all the commands of God, and want nothing but a willingness. They can comply, but will not. When, therefore, God punishes them for not complying, he punishes them, NOT for what they could not help, but solely for refusing to do what they could but would not.


Theology on Thursday

I mentioned recently that I signed up for the ‘Blogging for Books’ program offered by WaterBrook Multnomah Books.  Last month I began reading the first book sent to me from Multnomah – Randy Alcorn’s If God Is Good: Faith in the Middle of Suffering and Evil, and will post a review on it after I have finished reading it.  It is a rather lengthy work, with 494 pages of text.  I have not been disappointed with it in the least.  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday comes from Chapter 38 – “How God Uses Suffering for Our Sanctification” (pp. 404-405):

We cannot understand evil and suffering without understanding creation, the Fall, and redemption.  While we often don’t grasp the purposes of a particular event or affliction, we understand that suffering exists because evil exists.  God promised death would follow disobedience, and a world of death means a world of suffering.  In Romans 6:23, we must understand the phrase ‘The wages of sin is death’ to appreciate the one that follows: ‘But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.’  To grasp redemption’s meaning, we must see the devastation of the sin from which God redeems us.

Suffering, as sin’s consequence, points us back to sin’s ugliness.  How horrible should we expect suffering to be?  As horrible as sin.  No less.  People’s suffering from natural disasters, diseases, wars, and accidents demonstrates sin’s horrors.  If life in a fallen world didn’t sometimes show us such dreadful consequences of sin and its curse, we might look at sin and wonder, ‘What’s the big deal?’  Without a sense of the misery it produces, we’d have no motive to turn from it.


‘Liberating to the Missionary’

The annual Desiring God Conference for Pastors will be hosted by Bethlehem Baptist Church this year from January 31 – February 2.  This year’s topic is, “The Power Life of the Praying Pastor: In His Room, with the Family, Among the People of God”.  Speakers include Bethlehem’s pastor, John Piper;  Joel Beeke, president and professor of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, and pastor, Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation; Paul Miller, Director of seeJesus.net; Francis Chan, chancellor, Eternity Bible College; and Jerry Rankin, President Emeritus of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Jerry Rankin, holds a BA from Mississippi College, an MDiv from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Honorary Doctorates from Mississippi College and California Baptist University.  He spent the last four decades serving as a missionary in Indonesia, Associate to the Area Director for South and Southeast Asia, Administrator for Southern Baptist work in India, Area Director for Southern Asia and Pacific, and President of the International Mission Board (1993-2010).  He is the author of several books, including, The Challenge to Great Commission Obedience, Spiritual Warfare: The Battle for God’s Glory, and Spiritual Warfare and Missions: The Battle for God’s Glory Among the Nations.

Desiring God Ministries asked the IMB’s President Emeritus three main questions related to international missions.  Here are the questions and his responses:

1. What do you think are the greatest challenges to the world Christian movement today? What do you think are the greatest signs of hope?
From the perspective of one who has a global overview of Christian missions today, it is evident God is moving in unprecedented ways to fulfill his mission.  He is using warfare, ethnic violence, political disruption, social chaos, economic uncertainty and natural disasters to turn the hearts of people to a search for hope and security that can be found only in Jesus Christ. There is an apparent acceleration in engagement of unreached people groups and a global harvest.

The greatest challenge is not adversarial religious worldviews, hostility to a Christian witness, government restrictions and persecution of believers but indifference to God’s mission on the part of the Church.  God’s people have become ingrown and self-centered. The spiritual vitality needed to extend an effective witness to the ends of the earth has been eroded by carnality and humanism among Christians.

2. You have written directly on the subject of spiritual warfare. What led you to focus so much on this important topic, especially for missionaries?
If God’s ultimate desire is to be worshipped and exalted among all peoples, it is evident the adversary, Satan, who is jealous for God’s glory, is actively seeking to deprive God of his glory among the nations.

Just as he robs God of his glory in our lives through temptation to sin, embracing of carnal values and self-centered gratification of the flesh, he is subtly imposing barriers to global evangelization. Scripture is prolific in alerting us to this spiritual warfare and the necessity of walking in faith and utilizing the weapons of victory we have been provided in Christ. Awareness of the enemy and understanding his tactics will enable us to avoid defeat, diversions and distractions in fulfilling our mission.

3. How important do you understand God’s sovereignty in salvation to be for the mission of the gospel? How are the doctrines of grace specifically helpful for the individual missionary? How do you envision the burgeoning Reformed movement in America impacting our work in missions?
It is evident that God loves all people, Jesus died for the sins of the world and God is acting in providence and power to draw men from every tribe, people, language and nation to salvation for his glory.  To put salvation in the proper perspective of God’s divine grace alleviates a tremendous burden of having to discover the appropriate strategy or effective methodology as if results were dependent on human effort.

The doctrines of grace are liberating to the missionary.  Because the message of the gospel is indwelt with the power of God, the task becomes one of boldly communicating the claims of Christ and communicating the gospel which is the power of God to draw all men to himself.

I see the growing Reformed movement in terms of encouraging prospects of fulfilling God’s mission.  When the church discovers that bringing people to salvation is not a matter of counting numbers through human evangelistic efforts but of being an instrument of God’s grace and for his glory, motivation for missions will be greatly enhanced. It is amazing how the Reformed movement is misperceived as passive and anti-evangelistic rather than understanding the mission of God will only be compelled by the desire for him to be glorified in the salvation of the lost.


Theology on Thursday

This is the last Thursday of the year, and the next to last day of 2010.  Many people make resolutions for the beginning of the new year, yet seldom follow through with them.  During his late teen years in 1722-23, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) determined not only to make resolutions, but to truly implement them into his living and reminding himself of them by reading over them on a weekly basis.  It is little wonder God used him so mightily in the revival period now known as the Great Awakening (and through his extant writings).  With the new year dawning, I encourage you to read over Edwards’ list (which is from Vol. 1 of the two-volume, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, which may be read online for free), and determine to live — not simply this year, but your entire life — to the glory of God.
***

Being sensible that I am unable to do any thing without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him, by his grace, to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ’s sake.  Remember to read over these Resolutions once a week.

1. Resolved, That I will do whatsoever I think to be most to the glory of God, and my own good, profit, and pleasure, in the whole of my duration; without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved, to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved, so to do, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many soever, and how great soever.

2. Resolved, To be continually endeavouring to find out some new contrivance and invention to promote the forementioned things.

3. Resolved, If ever I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep any part of these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.

4. Resolved, Never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God, nor be, nor suffer it, if I can possibly avoid it.

5. Resolved, Never to lose one moment of time, but to improve it in the most profitable way I possibly can.

6. Resolved, To live with all my might, while I do live.

7. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do if it were the last hour of my life.

8. Resolved, To act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings, as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God. Vid. July 30.

9. Resolved, To think much, on all occasions, of my dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death.

10. Resolved, when I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom, and of hell.

11. Resolved, When I think of any theorem in divinity to be solved, immediately to do what I can towards solving it, if circumstances do not hinder. xxi

12. Resolved, If I take delight in it as a gratification of pride, or vanity, or on any such account, immediately to throw it by.

13. Resolved, To be endeavouring to find out fit objects of liberality and charity.

14. Resolved, Never to do any thing out of revenge.

15. Resolved, Never to suffer the least motions of anger towards irrational beings.

16. Resolved, Never to speak evil of any one, so that it shall tend to his dishonour, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.

17. Resolved, That I will live so, as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.

18. Resolved, To live so, at all times, as I think is best in my most devout frames, and when I have the clearest notions of the things of the gospel, and another world.

19. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do, if I expected it would not be above an hour before I should hear the last trump.

20. Resolved, To maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.

21. Resolved, Never to do any thing, which if I should see in another, I should count a just occasion to despise him for, or to think any way the more meanly of him.

22. Resolved, To endeavour to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigour, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

23. Resolved, Frequently to take some deliberate action, which seems most unlikely to be done, for the glory of God, and trace it back to the original intention, designs, and ends of it; and if I find it not to be for God’s glory, to repute it as a breach of the fourth Resolution.

24. Resolved, Whenever I do any conspicuously evil action, to trace it back, till I come to the original cause; and then, both carefully endeavour to do so no more, and to fight and pray with all my might against the original of it.

25. Resolved, To examine carefully and constantly, what that one thing in me is, which causes me in the least to doubt of the love of God; and so direct all my forces against it.

26. Resolved, To cast away such things as I find do abate my assurance.

27. Resolved, Never wilfully to omit any thing, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions.

28. Resolved, To study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly, and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive, myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.

29. Resolved, Never to count that a prayer, nor to let that pass as a prayer, nor that as a petition of a prayer, which is so made, that I cannot hope that God will answer it; nor that as a confession which I cannot hope God will accept.

30. Resolved, To strive every week to be brought higher in religion, and to a higher exercise of grace, than I was the week before.

31. Resolved, Never to say any thing at all against any body, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of christian honour, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said any thing against any one, to bring it to, and try it strictly by, the test of this Resolution.

32. Resolved, To be strictly and firmly faithful to my trust, that that, in Prov. xx. 6. ‘A faithful man, who can find?’ may not be partly fulfilled in me.

33. Resolved, To do always what I can towards making, maintaining, and preserving peace, when it can be done without an overbalancing detriment in other respects. Dec. 26, 1722.

34. Resolved, In narrations, never to speak any thing but the pure and simple verity.

35. Resolved, Whenever I so much question whether I have done my duty, as that my quiet and calm is thereby disturbed, to set it down, and also how the question was resolved. Dec. 18, 1722.

36. Resolved, Never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call to it. Dec. 19, 1722.

37. Resolved, To inquire every night, as I am going to bed, wherein I have been negligent,—what sin I have committed,—and wherein I have denied myself;—also, at the end of every week, month, and year. Dec. 22 and 26, 1722.

38. Resolved, Never to utter any thing that is sportive, or matter of laughter, on a Lord’s day. Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722.

39. Resolved, Never to do any thing, of which I so much question the lawfulness, as that I intend, at the same time, to consider and examine afterwards, whether it be lawful or not; unless I as much question the lawfulness of the omission.

40. Resolved, To inquire every night before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking. Jan. 7, 1723.

41. Resolved, to ask myself, at the end of every day, week, month, and year, wherein I could possibly, in any respect, have done better. Jan. 11, 1723.

42. Resolved, Frequently to renew the dedication of myself to God, which was made at my baptism, which I solemnly renewed when I was received into the communion of the church, and which I have solemnly re-made this 12th day of January, 1723.

43. Resolved, Never, henceforward, till I die, to act as if I were any way my own, but entirely and altogether God’s; agreeably to what is to be found in Saturday, Jan. 12th. Jan. 12, 1723.

44. Resolved, That no other end but religion shall have any influence at all on any of my actions; and that no action shall be, in the least circumstance, any otherwise than the religious end will carry it. Jan. 12, 1723.

45. Resolved, Never to allow any pleasure or grief, joy or sorrow, nor any affection at all, nor any degree of affection, nor any circumstance relating to it, but what helps religion. Jan. 12 and 13, 1723.

46. Resolved, Never to allow the least measure of any fretting or uneasiness at my father or mother. Resolved, to suffer no effects of it, so much as in the least alteration of speech, or motion of my eye; and to be especially careful of it with respect to any of our family.

47. Resolved, To endeavour, to my utmost, to deny whatever is not most agreeable to a good and universally sweet and benevolent, quiet, peaceable, contented and easy, compassionate and generous, humble and meek, submissive and obliging, diligent and industrious, charitable and even, patient, moderate, forgiving, and sincere, temper; and to do, at all times, what such a temper would xxii lead me to; and to examine strictly, at the end of every week, whether I have so done. Sabbath morning, May 5, 1723.

48. Resolved, Constantly, with the utmost niceness and diligence, and the strictest scrutiny, to be looking into the state of my soul, that I may know whether I have truly an interest in Christ or not; that when I come to die, I may not have any negligence respecting this to repent of. May 26, 1723.

49. Resolved, That this never shall be, if I can help it.

50. Resolved, That I will act so, as I think I shall judge would have been best, and most prudent, when I come into the future world. July 5, 1723.

51. Resolved, That I will act so, in every respect, as I think I shall wish I had done, if I should at last be damned. July 8, 1723.

52. I frequently hear persons in old age say how they would live, if they were to live their lives over again: Resolved, That I will live just so as I can think I shall wish I had done, supposing I live to old age. July 8, 1723.

53. Resolved, To improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my safety, knowing that I confide in my Redeemer. July 8, 1723.

54. Resolved, Whenever I hear anything spoken in commendation of any person, if I think it would be praiseworthy in me, that I will endeavour to imitate it. July 8, 1723.

55. Resolved, To endeavour, to my utmost, so to act, as I can think I should do, if I had already seen the happiness of heaven and hell torments. July 8, 1723.

56. Resolved, Never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

57. Resolved, When I fear misfortunes and adversity, to examine whether I have done my duty, and resolve to do it and let the event be just as Providence orders it. I will, as far as I can, be concerned about nothing but my duty and my sin. June 9, and July 13, 1723.

58. Resolved, Not only to refrain from an air of dislike, fretfulness, and anger in conversation, but to exhibit an air of love, cheerfulness, and benignity. May 27, and July 13, 1723.

59. Resolved, When I am most conscious of provocations to ill nature and anger, that I will strive most to feel and act good-naturedly; yea, at such times, to manifest good nature, though I think that in other respects it would be disadvantageous, and so as would be imprudent at other times. May 12, July 11, and July 13.

60. Resolved, Whenever my feelings begin to appear in the least out of order, when I am conscious of the least uneasiness within, or the least irregularity without, I will then subject myself to the strictest examination. July 4 and 13, 1723.

61. Resolved, That I will not give way to that listlessness which I find unbends and relaxes my mind from being fully and fixedly set on religion, whatever excuse I may have for it—that what my listlessness inclines me to do, is best to be done, &c. May 21, and July 13, 1723.

62. Resolved, Never to do any thing but my duty, and then, according to Eph. vi. 6-8. to do it willingly and cheerfully, as unto the Lord, and not to man: knowing that whatever good thing any man doth, the same shall be receive of the Lord. June 25, and July 13, 1723.

63. On the supposition, that there never was to be but one individual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Christian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true lustre, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever part and under whatever character viewed: Resolved, To act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time. Jan. 14, and July 13, 1723.

64. Resolved, When I find those ”groanings which cannot be uttered,“ of which the apostle speaks, and those ”breathings of soul for the longing it hath,” of which the psalmist speaks, Psalm cxix. 20. that I will promote them to the utmost of my power; and that I will not be weary of earnestly endeavouring to vent my desires, nor of the repetitions of such earnestness. July 23, and Aug. 10, 1723.

65. Resolved, Very much to exercise myself in this, all my life long, viz. with the greatest openness of which I am capable, to declare my ways to God, and lay open my soul to him, all my sins, temptations, difficulties, sorrows, fears, hopes, desires, and every thing, and every circumstance, according to Dr. Manton’s Sermon on the 119th Psalm,. July 26, and Aug. 10, 1723.

66. Resolved, That I will endeavour always to keep a benign aspect, and air of acting and speaking, in all places, and in all companies, except it should so happen that duty requires otherwise.

67. Resolved, After afflictions, to inquire, what I am the better for them; what good I have got by them; and, what I might have got by them.

68. Resolved, To confess frankly to myself, all that which I find in myself, either infirmity or sin; and, if it be what concerns religion, also to confess the whole case to God, and implore needed help. July 23, and August 10, 1723.

69. Resolved, Always to do that, which I shall wish I had done when I see others do it. Aug. 11, 1723.

70. Let there be something of benevolence in all that I speak. Aug. 17, 1723.


On Being Baptist

I just picked up a copy of Robert E. Webber’s The New Worship Awakening (Hendrickson, 2007; © 1994).  The late Dr. Webber was a graduate of Bob Jones University, Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, and Concordia Theological Seminary.  Having studied at a wide array of theological institutions, Dr. Webber discuses his own spiritual pilgrimage and how he came to appreciate the diversity of worship and practice within orthodox Christianity.  He did not always have such an appreciation, however.  He relates the following regarding his own prejudices:

I hold prejudices from such diverse sources as fundamentalism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and evangelicalism.  These points of view influence the way I think about the Christian faith and the way I worship.  All of us–and our churches–have dispositions of this sort.  It’s not that we are intentionally prejudiced.  Instead, the environments in which we were raised and in which we have worshiped build within us convictions that we may not even be able to identify. . . .  I was suspicious of anyone who did not believe or practice the Christian faith as I did.  And I was dead certain that I was right and they were wrong.  These prejudices became ingrained during my years at home and my formative years at college.  I can point to an incident when I was twelve years old that surely built prejudices within me.  The story goes like this: A Reformed couple came to our Baptist parsonage to visit with my parents.  As they were deeply engaged in conversation about some religious matter–the favorite topic in my home–the male visitor lighted a cigarette right there in our living room.  I was shocked.  How could someone talk about religion and smoke at the same time?  As soon as our guests left, I quickly made my way to my mother’s side.  “Mother, I thought those people were Christians.  How can somebody smoke and be a Christian?”  My mother’s answer was classic: “Well, Robert, they are Reformed.  And Reformed people, though they are Christian, have funny ideas and do wordly things.  But we are Baptists, the best of the Christian groups.  We don’t have funny ideas and we aren’t worldly.”

His mother was definitely a Baptist.


A Presidential Proclamation of Thanksgiving


General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

 

Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, October 14, 1789


Theology on Thursday

Martin Luther (1483 – 1546), studied law and philosophy prior to becoming an Augustinian monk in 1505.  Ordained two years later as a priest, he studied theology at the University of Wittenberg and was appointed as a professor of biblical studies.  Shocked by the religious corruption he witnessed in Rome during a visit in 1510, and troubled by doubts centering upon divine retributive justice, Luther experienced a spiritual crisis which was resolved when he studied Romans and encountered the doctrine of justification.  He came to understand salvation is a gift granted by God’s grace alone through faith alone on account of Jesus Christ alone.  He urged reform within the Roman Catholic Church, protesting the sale of indulgences which asserted divine judgment against sin could be purchased financially.  Refusing to retract his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo XI.  Luther believed the doctrine of justification was the “article upon which the Church stands or falls.”  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday is taken from Table Talk to show what the Reformer thought of the importance of justification and the topic of excommunication.
- – - – -

(292) It is impossible for a papist to understand this article: ‘I believe the forgiveness of sins.’ For the papists are drowned in their opinions, as I also was when among them, of the cleaving to our inherent righteousness. The Scripture names the faithful, saints and people of God, It is a sin and shame that we would forget this glorious and comfortable name and title. But the papists are such direct sinners, that they will not be reckoned sinners; and again, they will neither be holy nor held so to be. And in this sort it goes on with them untoward and crosswise, so that they neither believe the Gospel which comforts, nor the law which punishes, But here one may say: the sins which we daily commit, offend and anger God; how then can we be holy? Answer: A mother’s love to her child is much stronger than the distaste of the scurf upon the child’s head. Even so, God’s love towards us is far stronger than our uncleanness. Therefore, though we be sinners, yet we lose not thereby our childhood, neither do we fall from grace by reason of our sins. Another may say: we sin without ceasing, and where sin is, there the Holy Spirit is not; therefore we are not holy, because the Holy Spirit is not in us, which makes holy. Answer: The text says plainly: ‘The Holy Ghost shall glorify me.’ Now where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit. Now Christ is in the faithful, although they have and feel and confess sins, and with sorrow of heart complain thereof, therefore sins do not separate Christ from those that believe. The God of the Turks helps no longer or further, as they think, than as they are godly people; in like manner also the God of the papists, So when Turk and papist begin to feel their sins and unworthiness, as in time of trial and temptation, or in death, then they tremble and despair. But a true Christian says: ‘I believe in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savor,’ who gave himself for my sins, and is at God’s right hand, and intercedes for, me; fall I into sin, as, alas! oftentimes I do, I am sorry for it; I rise again, and am an enemy unto sin. So that we plainly see, the true Christian faith is far different from the faith and religion of the pope and Turk. But human strength and nature are not able to accomplish this true Christian faith without the Holy Spirit. It can do no more than take refuge in its own deserts.

(295) Upright and faithful Christians ever think they are not faithful, nor believe as they ought; and therefore they constantly strive, wrestle, and are diligent to keep and to increase faith, as good workmen always see that something is wanting in their workmanship. But the botchers think that nothing is wanting in what they do, but that everything is well and complete….

 

(304) All heretics have continually failed in this one point, that they do not rightly understand or know the article of justification. If we had not this article certain and clear, it were impossible we could criticize the pope’s false doctrine of indulgences and other abominable errors, much less be able to overcome greater spiritual errors and vexations. If we only permit Christ to be our Savior, then we have won, for he is the only girdle which clasps the whole body together, as St. Paul excellently teaches. If we look to the spiritual birth and substance of a true Christian, we shall soon extinguish all deserts of good works; for they serve us to no use, neither to purchase sanctification, nor to deliver us from sin, death, devil or hell. Little children are saved only by faith without any good works; therefore faith alone justifies. If God’s power be awe to effect that in one, then he is also able to accomplish it in all; for the power of the child effects it not, but the power of faith; neither is it done through the child’s weakness or disability; for then that weakness would be merit of itself, or equivalent to merit. It is a mischievous thing that we miserable, sinful wretches will upbraid God, and hit him in the teeth with our works, and think thereby to be justified before him; but God will not allow it.

(305) This article, how we are saved, is the chief of the whole Christian doctrine, to which all divine disputations must be directed. All the prophets were chiefly engaged upon it, and sometimes much perplexed about it. For when this article is kept fast and sure by a constant faith, then all other articles draw on softly after, as that of the Holy Trinity, etc. God has declared no article so plainly and openly as this, that we are saved only by Christ; though he speaks much of the Holy Trinity, yet he dwells continually upon this article of the salvation of our souls; other articles are of great weight, but this surpasses all….

(383) Our dealing and proceeding against the pope is altogether excommunication, which is simply the public declaration that a person is disobedient to Christ’s word.  Now we affirm in public, that the pope and his retinue believe not; therefore we conclude that he shall not be saved, but be damned.  What is this, but to excommunicate him?  Briefly, to put Christ’s word in execution, and to accomplish and execute his command, this is excommunication.

(387) Take heed, I say, that in any case thou condemn not the excommunication of the true church; a contempt certainly involving the displeasure of God. . . .  The pope, however, in his tyranny, abuses the power of excommunication.  If a poor man, at a certain appointed day, cannot make payment of the taxation the pope imposes upon him, he is excommunicated; and in the same way he thunders his bulls and his excommunications against us, because we avow the all-saving doctrine of the gospel; yet our Savior Christ comforts us, saying: ‘Happy are ye when men revile and persecute you for my sake, and speak all manner of evil against you,’ etc.  And again: ‘They will excommunicate you, or put you out of the synagogue.’

Most assuredly the pope’s bull is not Christ’s excommunication, by reason it is not done or taken in hand according to Christ’s institution; it is of no value in heaven, but to him, who thus abuses it against Christ’s command, it brings most sure and certain destruction, for it is a sin wherewith God’s name is blasphemed.

- – - – -

THEOLOGY ON THURSDAY REFORMATION BONUS:


Theology on Thursday

Reformation Day, a religious holiday celebrated on October 31st to commemorate the Protestant Reformation, is just around the corner.  The Protestant Reformation was inaugurated on October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther nailed a copy of the Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences to the Schlosskirche (castle church) door in Wittenberg, Germany.  Luther’s Disputation, which became known as the Ninety-Five Theses, were posted largely in response to the labors of Johann Tetzel.  Tetzel was a Dominican friar who was commissioned by the Roman Catholic Church to raise money in Germany for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.  Tetzel did so by selling indulgences.  Luther was troubled especially by the phrase which was heard all over Germany, “When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”  The German monk insisted the power of forgiveness belongs to God alone through Christ Jesus, and that those who claimed the sale of  indulgences absolved purchasers from judgment were in grave error.

The Ninety-Five Theses, posted in Latin, were translated very quickly into German and distributed throughout Deutschland in just a few weeks.  Within the next couple of years, Luther’s other works were circulating across the continent.  His Commentary on Galatians (often described as the manifesto of the Reformation) was published in 1519, and a year later three of his most well-known works were published: On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, On the Freedom of a Christian, and To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.  Luther’s works challenged both the practices of the Roman Catholic Church and the authority of the pope.  The response of the Roman Catholic leadership was to order the burning of Luther’s writings.

Despite the fact that many of Luther’s dissenting works were destroyed, a copy of his Table Talk (then entitled Divine Discourses) was discovered preserved under the foundation of a German citizen’s home in 1626.  This work contains a series of informal conversations the Reformer carried on with his colleagues and students.  The topics ranged from doctrine to national politics.  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday contains a few of Luther’s uncensored thoughts regarding Jesus Christ.
_ _ _ _ _

(189) We cannot vex the devil more than by teaching, preaching, singing, and talking of Jesus.  Therefore I like it well, when with sounding voice we sing in the church: Et homo factus est; et verbum caro factum est ["And was made man; and the word was made flesh"].  The devil cannot endure these words, and flies away, for he well feels what is contained therein.  Oh, how happy a thing were it, did we find as much joy in these words as the devil is frightened at them.  But the world condemns God’s word’s and works, because they are delivered to them in a plain and simple manner.  Well, the good and godly are not offended therewith, for they have regard to the everlasting celestial treasure and wealth which lies hid, and which is so precious and glorious, that the angels delight in beholding it.  Some there are who take offense, that now and then in the pulpits we say: Christ was a carpenter’s son, and as a blasphemer and rebel, he was put on the cross, and hanged between two malefactors.

But seeing we preach continually of this article, and in our children’s creed, say, ‘That our Savior Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, etc. for our sins, why, then, should we not say Christ was a carpenter’s son?  Especially seeing that he is clearly so named in the gospel, when the people wondered at his doctrine and wisdom, and said: ‘How cometh this to pass?  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?’ (Mark 6)

(199) Christ had neither money, nor riches, nor earthly kingdom, for he gave the same to kings and princes.  But he reserved one thing peculiarly to himself, which no human creature or angel could do–namely, to conquer sin and death, the devil and hell, and in the midst of death to deliver and save those that through his word believe in him.

(201) Nothing is more sure than this: he that does not take hold of Christ by faith, and comfort himself herein, that Christ is made a curse for him, remains under the curse.  The more we labor by works to obtain grace, the less we know how to take hold on Christ; for where he is not known and comprehended by faith, there is not to be expected either advice, help, or comfort, though we torment ourselves to death.


Theology on Thursday

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) served as the pastor of London’s NewPark Street Church (formerly pastored by the renowned Baptist theologian, John Gill). His pastorate began there when he was only 20. His fame as a preacher grew rapidly. The congregation grew rapidly as well, moving to Exeter Hall and then to Surrey Music Hall to accommodate the crowds, usually numbering over 10,000. In 1861, the congregation moved permanently to the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Spurgeon, known to this day as an extraordinary evangelistic pastor, wrote a fantastic book entitled, The Soul Winner. It was required reading for seminary students who took my course in contemporary evangelism at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I recommend it highly to you. Here is an excerpt from the first chapter, “What Is It to Win a Soul?”:

“We do not regard it as soul-winning to steal members from other established churches and train them to say our peculiar creed. We aim rather to bring souls to Christ than to make converts to our churches. . . . The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. . . . We would labor earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth and not upon the sand of imagination. At the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We should bring men to Christ, not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep are gathered to the great Shepherd. There will be time enough afterward to secure them for our various folds. . . .

In the next place, we do not consider soul-winning to be accomplished by hurriedly inscribing more names upon our church rolls in order to show a good increase at the year’s end. This is easily done, and there are those who use great pains, not to say arts, to effect it. . . . By all means, let us bring true converts into the church, for it is a part of our work to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded them. But still, this is to be done with disciples, and not with mere professors. If care is not used, we may do more harm than good at this point. To introduce unconverted persons to the church is to weaken and degrade it. Therefore, an apparent gain may be a real loss. . . . It is a serious injury to a person to receive him into the number of the faithful unless there is good reason to believe that he is really regenerate. I am sure it is so, for I speak after careful observation. Some of the most glaring sinners known to me were once members of a church and had been, as I believe, led to make a profession by pressure, well-meant but ill-judged. Do not consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms and the swelling size of your church. What do these dispatches from the battlefield mean? ‘Last night fourteen souls were under conviction, fifteen were justified, and eight received full sanctification.’ I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretense of certifying in a half-a-minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime. Hope for the best, but in your highest excitements be reasonable. . . .

Nor is it soul-winning, friends, merely to create excitement. . . . Do not aim at sensation and ‘effect’. . . . It very often happens that the converts who are born in excitement die when the thrill is over. . . . I delight not in religion which creates a hot head. Give me the godliness which flourishes upon Calvary rather than upon Vesuvius. The utmost zeal for Christ is consistent with common sense and reason; raving, ranting, and fanaticism are products of another zeal which is not according to knowledge. We should prepare men for the communion table, not for the padded room of Bedlam. No one is more sorry than I such a caution as this should be needed. However, remembering the vagaries of certain revivalists, I cannot say less. . . .

The Gospel is news: there is information and instruction in it concerning matters which men need to know, and statements in it calculated to bless those who hear it. . . . Hence, if we do not teach men something, we may shout, ‘Believe! Believe! Believe!’ but what are they to believe? Each exhortation requires a corresponding instruction, or it will mean nothing. . . . We are not to try to save men in the dark. Rather, in the power of the Holy Ghost we are to seek to turn them from darkness to light. Do not believe, dear friends, that when you go into revival meetings or special evangelistic services, you are to leave out the doctrines of the Gospel, for you ought then to proclaim the doctrines of grace rather more than less. Teach gospel doctrines clearly, affectionately, simply, and plainly, and especially those truths which have a present practical bearing upon man’s condition and God’s grace.

Some enthusiasts seem to have embraced the notion that, as soon as a minister addresses the unconverted, he should deliberately throw away his usual doctrinal messages, because supposedly that there will be no conversions if he preaches the whole counsel of God. It just comes to this: supposedly, we are to conceal the truth and utter half-falsehoods in order to save souls. We are to speak the truth to God’s people because they will not hear anything else, but we are to wheedle sinners into faith by exaggerating one part of truth and hiding the rest until a more convenient season. This is a strange theory, yet many endorse it. According to them, we may preach the redemption of a chosen number of God’s people, but universal redemption must be our doctrine when we speak with the outside world. We are to tell believers that salvation is all of grace, but sinners are to be spoken with as if they were to save themselves. We are to inform Christians that the Holy Spirit alone can convert, but when we talk with the unsaved, the Holy Ghost is scarcely to be named. We have not learned Christ thus. Others have done these things. Let them be our warning signals, not our examples. . . .

The preacher’s work is to throw sinners down in utter helplessness, so that they may be compelled to look up to Him who alone can help them. To try to will a soul for Christ by keeping that soul in ignorance of any truth is contrary to the mind of the Spirit; to endeavor to save men by mere claptrap, excitement, or oratorical display is as foolish as to hope to hold an angel with bird lime or lure a star with music. The best attraction is the Gospel in its purity. The weapon with which the Lord conquers men is the truth as it is in Jesus.”


Theology on Thursday

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) was a Church Father who served as the Archbishop of Constantinople (modern Instanbul, Turkey).  Known primarily as a preacher, he was an eloquent preacher and public speaker who earned the nickname “the golden-mouthed” (Greek – chrysostomos).  He is also known as a theologian and liturgist, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Chrysostom was a fierce antagonist of those who abused ecclesiastical and political authority, and was active in the destruction of pagan symbols and places of worship, including the temple of Artemis in Ephesus.  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday comes from an excerpt of The Lord Will Answer: A Daily Prayer Catechism (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004), featuring this prayer from Chrysostom:

I know, O Lord my God, I am unworthy that You should enter beneath the roof of the temple of my soul, because it is all empty and dead.  There is in me no worthy place where You may lay Your heard.  But since from Your loftiness You humbled Yourself for our sake, please humble Yourself now toward my humility.  And as it seemed good to You to lie in the cavern and in the manger of dumb beasts, so also now graciously lie in the manger of my dumb soul, and enter into my defiled body.  Just as You did not refuse to enter into the house of Simon the leper, and there to sit at a meal with sinners, so also graciously enter into the house of my humble soul, which is leprous and sinful.  Just as You did not feel loathing for the polluted lips of a sinful woman who kissed Your feet, so also do not loathe my even more defiled and polluted lips and unclean tongue.  Amen.


Presidential Proclamation 4845

On May 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan issued Presidential Proclamation 4845, which declares:

There is no institution more vital to our Nation’s survival than the American family.  Here the seeds of personal character are planted, the roots of public virtue first nourished.  Through love and instruction, discipline, guidance, and example, we learn from our mothers and our fathers the values that will shape our private lives and our public citizenship.


Theology on Thursday

B. H. Carroll (1843 – 1914), was a Baptist pastor, theologian, professor, author, and denominational statesman within the Southern Baptist Convention.  A leading founder of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Carroll served as the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Waco and later as the founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  His theology can best be described as Calvinistic, postmillennial, and thoroughly Baptist.  He rose to prominence by proving to be a formidable leader in controversy, and was vehement in his assaults upon the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism, Roman Catholicism, Campbellism, and modernism.  Southwestern’s first president authored 33 volumes, and is best known for his commentary, An Interpretation of the English Bible.  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday presents some of Carroll’s thoughts from a sermon on Jude 10 regarding creeds and confessions.

——————————

What I want to say first of all is that it is a time that men speak disparagingly of creeds.  You hear it on every side, ‘I believe in religion but I don’t care anything about theology.  I love flowers but I don’t care anything for botany.  Let’s have a religion without any dogma.’  Men take great credit to themselves in these utterances that they are free from the enslavement to dogmas.  You must not take these people too seriously.  They either don’t know what they are talking about, or else know what they say is utterly unworthy of human respect.  There never was a man in the world without a creed.  What is a creed?  A creed is what you believe.  What is a confession?  It is a declaration of what you believe.  That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied. . . .

While it is true that Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built, yet it is true that the apostles became the secondary foundation because they teach concerning Christ, and it is equally true that the acceptance of Christ is a foundation, and that confession becomes a foundation.  So that it is perfectly correct to say that on the creed, or the confession of faith, which is the declaration of the creed that Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of man, is also the Son of the living God and was sent of the Father and anointed of the Spirit to be the Prophet and Sacrifice and King and Priest of His people—on that confession, ‘I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ . . .

So that you see the creed and the confession of that creed stand right at the door of the church.  The man without a creed cannot come in.  The man who has a creed and will not declare it cannot come in.  He must not only in his heart believe, but with his mouth he must make confession and that confession is a necessity as well as the inside faith which it declares. . . .

You say you don’t believe in creeds; you want religion and not a dogma.  You have no particular creed.  Well, I am sure then that you have no particular religion.  Whatever a man believes, that is his creed and is bound to be his basis of life. . . .

If ever on this earth there has been an age which is very hurtful as well as very silly and meaningless, it is the time that decries creeds and confessions of faith and at the same time magnifies religion.  You are authorized by the very fact that you have intelligence and reason, to hold in utter disrespect any statement from any man’s lips that he is a creedless man, and if he comes up in the pulpit and says that, you don’t need any other evidence in the world for rising in the next conference and saying, ‘I move that the credentials of this man be withdrawn and that the fellowship of this church be withdrawn.’  A man who believes nothing ought not to be a member of a church, and a preacher who has no creed has nothing to preach, and it will be a happy day when it is carried out just that way.


Theology on Thursday

Several months ago I began presenting an overview of the different views regarding the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ for our weekly Bible study group at the chapel.  One of the attendees, knowing his pastor would be out for several weeks due to health-related issues, asked if I would present the material to his congregation on Wednesday evenings.  During one of the opening sessions, I quoted the late William E. Cox about differences of opinion regarding the various views.

After serving our nation with distinction during World War II with the 80th Tank Battallion, 8th Armored Division, Cox was ordained within the West Virginia Baptist Convention in 1947.  He served as a prison chaplain and pastor in both West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and went on to earn a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1958.  He had this to say about division regarding non-essential views regarding the second advent of Jesus Christ, which carries over to non-essential views regarding other doctrinal issues:

“It is regrettable that all of us are expected to take an either-or position concerning the three above-mentioned theories of millennialism.  If one is not ‘pre-mil,’ then it is immediately assumed that he subscribes in toto to the theories of either the ‘post-mill’ or ‘a-mil.’  Indeed, some allow but two alternatives: their own school or liberalism.  In this area of theology, especially, a label often becomes a libel.  A man is forced to choose a title, and there are but three choices open to him.  The time has arrived when all man-made theories should be discarded, and eschatology should be based upon the question, ‘What saith the Scriptures?’  In each of the three schools of thought concerning millennialism, there have been equally noble and conservative men.  We might be surprised to find elements of truth in each of the camps.  Theological chauvinism is dangerous. . . .  This is spiritual pride, and is very sinful.”


Theology on Thursday

How should William Bullein Johnson, who lived and ministered during the 19th century, be classified by modern Southern Baptists?  Should he be counted as a “traditional” and “convictional” Southern Baptist, or a “Reformed” Baptist?  Johnson was very influential in the life of the South Carolina Baptist Convention.  He was a member of the three-man committee that drafted the constitution for the SCBC in 1821, preached the group’s introductory sermon in 1822, was elected vice-president in 1823, and chosen as president in 1825.  On the national scene, Johnson was chosen to serve as president of the missionary society known as the Triennial Convention for three years.  When the Triennial Convention was dismantled and the Southern Baptist Convention was formed, Johnson served as the first president of the fledgling denomination.  Baptist historian William Cathcart wrote of Johnson in 1881, “In no section of our country was any Baptist minister more highly honored by his brethren.”

From an historical point of view, it is impossible to categorize Johnson as anything less than an “authentic” Southern Baptist.  For those unfamiliar with history, however, Johnson’s legacy as such may be brought into dispute.  Anyone claiming that Baptists who affirm an elder-led polity (consisting of a plurality of elders) aren’t “authentic” Baptists, and have more to do with Presbyterians than Baptists, should read The Gospel Developed.  Written by W. B. Johnson in 1846 (after the formation of the SBC), The Gospel Developed discusses the eldership for Baptist congregations.  Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday contains Johnson’s thoughts on this issue from the eighth chapter of his work (my emphasis indicated by blue print).
————————————————————————————

CHAPTER VIII – THE RULERS OF A CHURCH OF CHRIST
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls.
—Hebrews XIII: 17

In every well regulated society, rulers are necessary for the management of its affairs. The King in Zion has, therefore, provided such for his churches, whom he clothes with authority, and to whom he requires that obedience and respect be rendered. On all these points we have full instruction in his holy word, and to those portions of it which contain this instruction, I now invite your attention: “We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.” 1 Thes. v:12, 13. “Remember them that have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation; Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to day, and forever. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you. Salute all them that have the rule over you.” Heb. xiii: 7, 17, 24.

These rulers are designated by various titles, in connection with the duties which they are to perform, as will be seen in the scriptures that follow: Paul and Barnabas “ordained them elders in every church.” The messengers from Antioch were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, at Jerusalem. “From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said to them, take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts xiv: 23, and xv: 4, and xx: 17, 18, 28. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.” 1 Tim. v: 17. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God.” Titus i: 5, 6, 7. “The elders which are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder. Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” 1 Pet.v: 1, 2, 3. Christ “gave some pastors.” Eph. iv: 11. “Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick.” James v: 14, 15.

In a review of these scriptures, we have these points clearly made out:—

1. That over each church of Christ in the apostolic age, a plurality of rulers was ordained, who were designated by the terms elder, bishop, overseer, pastor, with authority in the government of the flock.

2. That this authority involved no legislative power or right, but that it was ministerial and executive only, and that, in its exercise, the rulers were not to lord it over God’s heritage, but as examples to lead the flock to the performance of duty.

3. That the duties of these rulers consisted in taking heed generally to themselves and to the flock over the which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers; to feed the members with spiritual food; to watch for their souls, and to supervise the whole body.

4. That for the right discharge of these duties, there was a division of labor among them. Whilst all were rulers, some, in addition to the authority of office, labored in the word and doctrine, that is, preached the gospel of Christ.

5. That great responsibility rested on these rulers, for they watched for the souls of their flock, as they that must give account; and that in order to their successful discharge of so important a trust, the members of the flock were required to respect and obey them, and to afford them a liberal support.

6. That these rulers were all equal in rank and authority, no one having a preeminence over the rest. This satisfactorily appears from the fact, that the same qualifications were required in all, so that though some labored in word and doctrine, and others did not, the distinction between them was not in rank, but in the character of their service.

7. That these elders, pastors, bishops, overseers, were made so by the Holy Ghost; that is, he gave them, in accordance with the will of Christ, their qualifications, by which they were recognized and appointed to the solemn charge by their brethren.

8. That the members of the flock were required to follow, imitate, the faith of their rulers, in due consideration of the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.

For the better understanding of the terms elder, pastor, bishop, overseer, as having the same import in the above scriptures, I observe, that the terms bishop and overseer, are translations of the term episkopos in Greek. And as this term is rendered in the passages from Timothy and Titus by the word bishop, it would have been more proper to have rendered it by the same word in Acts xx: 28, thus, “over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.” Now all these terms are applied interchangeably to the office of ruler, as the same qualifications are required in all. The appropriateness of these terms in designating the office of the rulers, appears from their distinctive meaning. The Greek term for elder is presbuteros, which signifies one advanced in years, who is supposed to have dignity and experience. Episkopos is softened from the Saxon bichop, by dropping the c, and reads bishop in our language, which imports overseer. Pastor is the Latin for shepherd, a term that denotes one who has charge of a flock, to the feeding and management of which he is specially devoted. Of all these terms I should prefer overseer, if it were not that it has been applied to worldly avocations in such manner, as to lessen its dignity in its application to a spiritual ruler. Bishop, perhaps, is on the whole to be preferred, as it is rather more a term of office than the term elder, and includes what is meant by the term overseer.

It is worthy of particular attention, that each church had a plurality of elders, and that although there was a difference in their respective department of service, there was a perfect equality of rank among them. Let us now endeavor to ascertain the respective departments of service assigned to the members of the bishopric.

In the solemn address which the apostle made to the Ephesians elders, bishops, he says, “take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, bishops, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Therefore watch and remember, that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one of you night and day with tears.” To the Hebrews, he thus writes, “remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of God.” “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they WATCH FOR YOUR SOULS, as they that must give account.” And the address to the same elders by Peter, is in perfect accordance with that of his “beloved brother Paul;” “Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but as being examples to the flock.” “Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.” The duties of these rulers are evidently various. Governing, not as lords, but as examples; feeding, which implies speaking the word of the Lord, from the experience of its power; watching for souls, warning and admonishing them; laboring in word and doctrine, by preaching the word, being instant in season, out of season; taking heed unto themselves and to all the flock. These seem to be the prominent duties of the bishopric—duties which render necessary the qualifications that are required in the epistles to Timothy and Titus; all which are fully detailed in the following scriptures: “A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient; not a brawler; not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must have a good report of them that are without, lest he fall into reproach, and the snare of the devil.” 1 Tim. iii: 2–7. These qualifications most obviously fit their possessors for the various and important duties of the bishopric. The particular department of service which each shall occupy, will be determined by the talent which he has for one or the other line of duty. For example, one of the bishops may have a particular talent for presiding over the body, for regulating its affairs by advice, admonition, rebuke. Let such an one be the presiding bishop. Another may have a particular capacity for teaching the flock by exposition of scripture and exhortation, and in visits to the members. Let this be his department. A third may be endowed with the talent for superintending a Sabbath school, directing the course of studies, gathering up children for the school, and alluring them to the reading of the scriptures and religious works. To this service, then, let him be devoted. And a fourth may be endowed with the gift of laboring in the word and doctrine, that is, of preaching the gospel of Christ. This one should give himself wholly to the ministry of the word. I mean not by the above view, to determine the number of bishop for each church at four, but simply to exhibit what services the bishops might respectively render to a church.

The importance and necessity of a bishopric for each church, embodying gifts for various services, is thus most obvious for the accomplishment of one of the great ends for which Christ came into the world, and for which, when he ascended up on high, he received gifts for men. This end is stated at large in the following passage from the epistle to the Ephesian church: “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Eph. iv: 12–16. This is the noble end for which “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers were given.”

A plurality in the bishopric is of great importance for mutual counsel and aid, that the government and edification of the flock may be promoted in the best manner. At stated meetings of the bishopric, the members would report their separate doings, and confer together upon the teachings of scripture, which they would bring forth to the church for its consideration and adoption. Such a body would constitute the proper council of advisers to the church collectively, and to the members individually. Interchangeably each would aid the other in his department, and when necessary, would unite in any one department. Oh, what a blessing would such a bishopric be to a church! But ah! where are we to find men, whose gifts fit them for composing such a bishopric? The answer is given in the passage above referred to. “When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men,—some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers.” To the ascended Redeemer and Head of the churches, must we go for these gifts. For he will be enquired of for them. The churches must desire them. They must understand this part of their divinely instituted order, and must earnestly wrestle with their Lord for the gifts that are necessary to carry it out.

They must be willing to do another thing. This is to afford these gifts a liberal support. The divine command is, “let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they that labor in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the laborer is worthy of his hire.” I Timothy v: 17, 18. The principle on which compensation is here required to the elders, is obviously correct. It is payment for work done, for service rendered. For “who goeth a warfare at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk there-of?” The principle of compensation for service rendered, admits of graduation in the amount, according to the extent and quality of the labor performed. The duties of those elders who do not “labor in the word and doctrine,” might be attended to by some, without interfering with their avocations in life, or by others in so small a degree, that a moderate compensation would be sufficient for the service done, whilst a larger remuneration would be necessary for those, who do “labor in the word and doctrine,” since such should give themselves wholly to the work, in a profound study of the Bible, and in actual preaching “the truth as it is in Jesus.”

Whilst a plurality of bishops is required for each church, the number is not fixed, for the obvious reason, that circumstances must necessarily determine what that number shall be. In a church where more than one cannot be obtained, that one may be appointed upon the principle, that as soon as another can be procured there shall be a plurality. And when, from the poverty and fewness of the members, it may be impracticable for them to afford a support to the ruler or rulers they may have, let the members faithfully do what they can, and let the rulers imitate the example of Paul, who “ministered with his hands to his necessities, and to them that were with him.”

I have said above, that of all the terms by which the rulers of a church are designated, I would prefer “overseer,” if it were not that it has been applied to worldly avocations in such a manner, as to lessen its dignity in its application to a spiritual ruler. Bishop, perhaps, is on the whole to be preferred, as it is rather more a term of office than the term elder, and includes what is meant by the term overseer. As we are familiar with the term overseer, in this country, and its import is embodied substantially in the word bishop, I shall now point out, in some particulars, the analogy between the offices of the spiritual, and the temporal overseer. The temporal overseer has the charge of a body of laborers. The spiritual overseer has the oversight of a church of spiritual laborers in the cause of God. The temporal overseer governs the laborers, not by the laws which he or they enact, but by those which the employer lays down. The spiritual overseer governs the church, not by the laws which he or the members pass, but by those, which the chief Shepherd and Bishop establishes. The temporal overseer receives the compensation for his services out of the produce of the laborers’ work. The spiritual overseer receives his from the same source. The office of the temporal overseer is executive only, not legislative. Such is also the authority of office which the spiritual overseer holds. The complete code of laws for the church is contained in the Bible, and neither the church nor the overseer has any authority to abrogate, alter, or add to any part of this code. Should the church and her overseers so disagree in their understanding of this code, that they cannot continue together profitably, let them separate in love.

For the spiritual as for the temporal overseer, a support is required; and upon the obvious principle of mutual obligation. “Do ye not know,” says Paul, ” that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” I Cor. ix: 13, 14. “Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good things.” Gal. vi: 6. And what can be more reasonable? As citizens we cheerfully pay our taxes for the support of government, that its officers may give themselves to the making and the maintenance of the laws; and thus, under God, secure the prosperity of the land. And why not give our money to support the rulers of the churches, which their great Head has appointed, not for the making, but the maintenance of the laws of his kingdom, and the advancement of the prosperity of his people? We will give to overseers of our temporal property, full compensation for managing our temporal business; and why should not the churches exercise equal justice in compensating their spiritual overseers, to whose management the Holy Ghost has committed them and their affairs? We will spend large sums in splendid habitations, furniture, equipage, costly entertainments for carnal pleasure, all in conformity to this world; why not spend equal sums in conformity to the will of God, by sustaining the ministry of the word, the full bishopric of the churches, and thus lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.

That we should not think, in thus complying with our duty, we have done a meritorious deed, the apostle asks, “if we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” Does a man deserve any credit, who pays another a just price for the labor which that other has done for him? Christians are taught to say, when they have done all these things which are commanded them, “we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.” Oh! may the churches wake up to the importance of the bishopric, and the duty of its support.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers