Legalism Is Real And So Is Its Overreaction- Antinomianism

Jerry Bridges explains:

Admittedly, strong advocates of the new grace emphasis may not feel that it is their responsibility to deal with the behavior issues that concern advocates of the codes. Preachers of grace typically see the old evangelical codes as destructive forms of legalism that need to be dismantled. Many of us have been personally wounded by legalistic attitudes in the church and resonate with the need to fight their spiritually corrosive influences. Still, it is not enough for the advocates of grace simply to react against legalism. We must also respond to the license that always tempts Christians when preachers say, “God will love you no matter what.” Legalism makes believers think that God accepts them on the basis of what they do. Licentiousness makes believers think that God does not care what they do. Both errors have terrible spiritual consequences. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15). Grace should not make obedience optional. When God removes good works as a condition for his acceptance, he does not remove righteousness as a requirement for life. The standards of Scripture glorify God and protect his people from spiritual harm. We cannot undermine the legitimate standards of the Bible without grave consequences. God does not love us because we obey him, but we cannot know the blessings of his love without obedience. Thus, a grace focus that undermines Christ’s own demand for obedience denies us knowledge of and intimacy with him. This is not grace. Grace that bears fruit is biblical. Grace that goes to seed uses God’s unconditional love as an excuse for selfish indulgence. Such egocentric living ultimately burdens us with the guilt and consequences of sin that God has designed his grace to remove. Resting on God’s grace does not relieve us of our holy obligations; rather it should enable us to fulfill them (see Eph. 4:7-13). As the assurance of God’s love allows us to cease striving to please him for our own benefit, our good works will begin reflecting more of the selfless righteousness that is truly holy.*

*Chapell, Bryan (2003-02-10). Holiness by Grace (Kindle Locations 220-237). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

    —Acts 2:41–42

The early Christians described in these verses desired, as we have seen, above everything else, to know more of this Christian teaching, “the apostles’ doctrine.” This is the exact opposite of what is most popular at the present time. Modern men and women have a rooted objection to Christian doctrine and Christian creeds. This is therefore a very serious matter.

There are people in the world who dislike Christian doctrine, and in a sense I have no complaint at all against them. I would not expect them to like it. They would not be where they are if they did like it. We cannot expect anything from the world except rejection of Christian teaching. There is nothing at all new about this. It was the world that rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and His teaching. It was the same world that rejected the teaching of these apostles. But what is new today—and this is what is alarming and tragic—is that the opposition to Christian doctrine is not confined to the world, but is at the very center of the teaching of the church herself. The church is now speaking against Christian doctrine. She is saying that doctrine is not what is needed and that it is no longer of any value whatsoever...

...The second point is, the astounding thing about these people is that they simply cannot see that it is their own attitude that in many ways has produced the moral problem about which they are so alarmed. Why has there been a declension in morals during the past years? There, surely, is the fundamental problem. And for me there is only one answer. It is not the two world wars, though I know that undoubtedly they have contributed. It is not the advance of knowledge. There are some of us who have had a little scientific training—perhaps more than these people who write so cleverly—but still believe this message.

I have no hesitation in saying that the main factor in the lowering of the moral tone and life of this country [England] has been the loss of the authority of the Bible. And the institution that has been most responsible for the lowering of the authority of the Bible has been the Christian church herself. For the last hundred years or so, “scholarship,” as it is called, has been attacking the truth of the Bible. The Bible has been watered down by Higher Criticism—there is no authority here any longer, they say. Modern theologians have simply put up their own suppositions, their own theories and speculations. The church has undermined confidence in the Bible. It is said that we must not take it as an authoritative word from God because we now know that the Bible is just a man-made compilation, like many similar books.

Or let me put it in another way, a way I find fascinating merely as a psychological study. During this present century in particular there has been a great reaction against the old evangelical preaching, the apostolic doctrine, and instead men have been preaching what was called, before the First World War, “a social gospel.” Preachers used to say, “That old Gospel of individual personal salvation is no good; what we need is a social message.” So they gave ethical teaching and said this was the only way to redeem society. But the interesting thing is that the more they have done that, and the less they have preached the apostolic doctrine, the more immorality and vice and ethical problems have increased. They themselves have aggravated the problem at which they are so aghast.

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). Authentic Christianity (1st U.S. ed.) (119–120). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

A Congregationalist's View On Worship

This particular congregationalist is John Owen:

Q. 8. How may we sanctify the name of God in the use of gospel institutions?

A. By a holy reverence of his sovereign authority appointing of them; 2a holy regard unto his special presence in them; faith in his promises annexed to them; 4delight in his will, wisdom, love, and grace, manifested in them; constancy and perseverance in obedience unto him in their due observation.

EXPLICATION.—This is the first thing that God requireth us to attend unto in the celebration of the ordinances of his worship,—namely, that we therein sanctify his name, the greatest duty that we are called unto in this world. This he lays down as the general rule of all we do herein: Lev. 10:3, “I will,” saith he, “be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” Whatever we do in his worship, we must do it that he may be sanctified, or whatever we do is an abomination to him. Now, the principal ways how we may herein sanctify the name of God are expressed; as,—

First, When in every ordinance we consider his appointment of it, and submit our souls and consciences unto his authority therein; which if we observe any thing in his worship but what he hath appointed we cannot do. Not formality, not custom, not the precepts of men, not anything but the authority and command of God, is to be respected in this obedience. This is the first thing that faith regards in divine worship; it rests not in any thing, closeth not with any thing, but what it discerns that God hath commanded, and therein it eyes his authority as he requireth it: Mal. 1:6, “If I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?” Rom. 14:11, “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Reverence, then, unto the authority of God appointing his worship is a principal means of sanctifying the name of God therein. This was the solemn sanction of all his institutions of old: Deut. 6:4–7, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children.” And the observation of them he presseth on this account, that the people might fear that “glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD,” Deut. 28:58; which name he had so often engaged in his commands, saying, “Thou shalt do it; I am the LORD.” And in the New Testament, our Lord Jesus Christ proposeth his authority as the foundation of his commanding, and our observation of all the institutions of the gospel: Matt. 28:18–20, “Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” And he is to be considered in all our obedience as the great and only lawgiver of his church; as the “one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy,” James 4:12; the sovereign Lord over his “house,” Heb. 3:4–6, unto whom every knee is to bow and every conscience to be in subjection: and he who heareth not his voice is to be cut off from the people of God: Acts 3:23, “It shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”

Secondly, God hath frequently promised his special presence in and with his instituted ordinances of old, both unto the things themselves and the places wherein they were according to his appointment to be celebrated, those places being also his special institution. Under the New Testament, all difference of and respect unto place is taken away: John 4:21, 23, “The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” And we are commanded in all places equally to make our prayers and supplications. But his presence is promised and continued with the due celebration of the things themselves by him appointed for his service: Matt. 28:20, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” In them is the “tabernacle of God with men,” and he “dwells among them, and they are his people,” Rev. 21:3; the promise of Christ being, that “where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he will be in the midst of them,” Matt. 18:19, 20. And this promised presence of God, or Christ, consisteth,—1. In the power and efficacy which he by his Spirit implants upon his ordinances to communicate his grace and mercy unto his church, it being his covenant that his Spirit shall accompany his word for ever unto that purpose, Isa. 59:21. 2. In the special blessing which he gives his people in those duties, both in the acceptance of them and testifying his good-will unto them: Exod. 29:42, 43, 45, “At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God;” Zech. 2:10, 11; Ezek. 20:40, 41, “I will accept you with your sweet savour;” chap. 43:27;—in both giving them intimate communion with himself by Jesus Christ, 1 John 1:3. By all these he gives that special presence, which he requires an especial reverence and regard of faith unto, whereby his name is yet farther sanctified.

Thirdly, God hath given special promises, or promises of his special grace, unto them that attend upon him in his worship in a due manner. And hereunto also belongs that sacred relation which, by virtue of divine institution, is between the sacramental elements and the especial graces of the covenant which they exhibit and confirm; and the mixing of these promises with faith, according as they are appropriated unto any particular institution, belongs also to the right sanctification of the mind of God. So also,—

Fourthly, Doth our delight in them. Now, this delight in the worship of God, so much commended in the Scripture, and proposed unto our example, consists not in any carnal self-pleasing, or satisfaction in the outward modes or manner of the performance of divine worship; but it is a holy, soul-refreshing contemplation on the will, wisdom, grace, and condescension of God, in that he is pleased, of his own sovereign mere will and grace, so to manifest himself unto such poor sinful creatures as we are, so to condescend unto our weakness, so to communicate himself unto us, so to excite and draw forth our souls unto himself, and to give us such pledges of his gracious intercourse with us by Jesus Christ. By the contemplation of these things is the soul drawn forth to delight in God.

Lastly, Whereas great opposition lies oftentimes against the church’s obedience unto God in this matter, and much persecution befalls it on that account,—great weariness also being apt, from the remainders of unbelief, carnal wisdom, indwelling sin, weakness of the flesh in believers themselves, to arise in the course thereof, and many temptations also beset them on every hand, to turn them aside from the way of truth and holiness,—constancy and perseverance in the due and orderly celebration of all the ordinances of the gospel belongs unto this duty. And this perseverance respecteth both the things themselves and the manner of their performance, both which are of the highest concernment for us diligently to attend unto.

1. As to the things themselves. Herein do we principally glorify God and give due honour unto Jesus Christ, when we abide in our professed subjection unto him and observance of his commands against difficulties, oppositions, and persecutions. This he taketh notice of, Rev. 2:13, “Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.” And this he requireth of us indispensably if we will be his disciples, or ever hope to obtain the reward: Matt. 10:38, 39, “He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me;” and it is “he that shall endure unto the end” that shall be “saved,” chap. 24:13. And unto them who are “faithful unto death,” and them alone, doth he give the “crown of life,” Rev. 2:10; giving us caution not to “lose those things which we have wrought,” that we may “receive a full reward,” 2 John 8.

2. And as to the manner of their performance, two things are to be regarded in this duty of perseverance, and the sanctification of the name of God therein:—(1.) The inward principle of our obedience, our faith and love; which are to be preserved from decay: Rev. 2:4, 5, “I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works.” Chap. 3:3, “Remember how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.” (2.) The outward manner of observance; which is to be kept entire, according to the primitive institution of Christ: 1 Cor. 11:23, “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,”—not admitting of any corruptions in it, to avoid the greatest trouble: Gal. 5:11, “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?”

*Owen, J. Vol. 15: The works of John Owen. (W. H. Goold, Ed.) (456–459). Edinburg: T&T Clark.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

Now it seems to me that such a statement must of necessity be wrong, because if you adopt that line of argument then you have nothing whatever to say to the cults. For whatever we may think about them, if our only test is that of experience, then the cults really do seem able to offer what is required. Yet we would not for a moment grant that they are right, or that the experience they claim is true, because the cults say that they do not believe the truth.

In other words, there must be an objective test for what we believe. Experience is not a test; a man may become very happy and live a much better life than he did before, though he believes something that is not true. Things which are not true in and of themselves may at first appear to do us good because, of course, the devil can turn himself into an angel of light: it is pathetic to notice the way in which people forget that teaching. We must never base our doctrines upon experience, but upon the truth. That is the main reason for not accepting this attitude of letting any man believe what he likes. The Scripture tells us to prove the truth. ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners,’ writes Paul, to the people in the church at Corinth. You must not say, he tells them in 1 Corinthians 15, that it is irrelevant whether a man believes in the resurrection or not. It does matter, and if men hold a wrong view, eventually it will lead to something wrong in their behaviour. Our duty, therefore, as Christian people is to discover, as far as we can, the teaching of the Scriptures. Obviously we do not do that in a controversial spirit, since controversy for its own sake is always the work of the devil. Remember, however, that the opposite to that is not to say, ‘Believe anything you like as long as it helps you.’ Rather it is to ‘search the Scriptures’. So it is our duty to discover, if we can, what we are told in Scripture about this important and vital matter of the method of sanctification and we do so now in terms of our Lord’s teaching at this point in the seventeenth chapter of John.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). The assurance of our salvation : Exploring the depth of Jesus' prayer for His own : Studies in John 17 (392–393). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Answering An Objection To Reformed Liturgy

Let me extend my apologies for the lack of blog posts. I am working much and in the process of moving and my time and energy is lacking. With that said we will pick up where we left off- the subject of worship.

For this I turn to Dr. Michael Horton:

Old Testament versus New Testament Worship? First, it is right to point out the break that occurred when the temple curtain was torn from top to bottom on Good Friday. As Jesus told the Samaritan woman, the time has come in Jesus, the true temple, when true worship is tied not to an earthly place but to the heavenly Zion. With Mount Sinai in mind, the writer to the Hebrews declares: For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. . . . But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 12: 18– 19, 22– 24 NKJV

In fact, the entire Book of Hebrews is aimed at Jewish Christians who were turning back to the shadows of the old covenant with its ceremonies and sacrifices, when the reality to which they pointed had arrived. On this basis, Reformed Christians have rejected liturgical approaches that seek to base Christian worship on the shadowy worship of the Jewish theocracy, especially imitating its ceremonial, sacrificial worship of the temple period.

At the same time, too much can be made of the difference between testaments in terms of an alleged contrast between formal and informal, heartfelt worship. To be sure, Jesus castigates the religious leaders of his day for being so obsessed with the outward form and show of holiness that they could not even recognize their inward depravity. But this was not a New Testament critique of Old Testament worship. In fact, it differs little from the sort of rebuke that God gives Israel and Judah through the prophets: “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6: 6). Furthermore, judging by first-century Jewish prayer books, Jesus did not regard formal liturgies as inherently stultifying to a personal relationship with his Father. In fact, he tells his disciples not to be like the hypocrites who stand on street corners praying long-winded prayers of many words, and then gives them his famous form: “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matt. 6: 9– 13 NKJV). Jesus not only did not abandon formal prayers but, as God in flesh, inaugurated one! Similarly, we read in Acts 2: 42 that the early believers gathered for preaching, sacrament, and “the prayers.” Although the definite article appears in the Greek text, it is often not included in English translations that have an anti-liturgical bias. Formal prayers were not viewed by our Savior as magical incantations but as disciplinary structures. Like a trellis, they taught wandering hearts to weave their prayers up to God in a manner that delighted him.

This is not meant to be an argument in favor of using only formal, written prayers but for structure in general. In conversations, my colleague D. G. Hart has compared liturgical structure to rules in baseball to which we gladly surrender our individual freedom and preferences in order to play a common game. Imagine what would happen if we all showed up at the baseball field and decided to do our own thing, enjoying the “baseball experience” in our own special way. There would, of course, be no game if that were the case.

Submitting to particular forms disciplines us not only as the congregation but also reins in pastors and worship leaders at whose mercy congregations too often find themselves. American sectarianism thrives on the unique charisma and personality of its leaders, and this is one of the reasons that worship forms always have to be changing, as a new entrepreneur comes on the scene. Slick services have slick preachers, and boring services have boring preachers. As I know from personal experience, the downside of having an active imagination is idolatry. The little thespian in me could easily construct experimental worship “experiences” for a living, but their very uniqueness and innovative cleverness would undoubtedly grow old fairly quickly, and there would be little similarity in worship over generations. More importantly, there is too much biblical history to remind us that God is pleased only with the simplicity of the worship he has prescribed.

Throughout centuries— in many cases, even millennia— God’s people have sought to chain their worship to Scripture itself. In fact, the Book of Common Prayer (1552)— gem of the English Reformation— consists largely of biblical quotations. Also in the Reformed tradition is the Dutch Liturgy, adopted at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Book of Common Order (commonly called “John Knox’s Liturgy”), which is only slightly freer in style, and the Directory for the Public Worship of God, produced by the Westminster Assembly in the mid-seventeenth century. Luther’s service was an evangelical revision of the Mass, and Calvin produced a simplified yet structured liturgy, as well as the Form of Prayers, for public worship. What the Reformers and their heirs opposed was the imposition of a particular liturgy on the church as a necessary form for the true worship of God.

Despite a rich Protestant liturgical inheritance, our churches (regardless of where they are on the spectrum) seem to give too little attention to why we do what we do. In many cases, hours are spent (hopefully) in preparing a sermon, but the rest of the service may be haphazard and lack a clear sense of a movement from point A to point Z. We are familiar with services that begin with miscellaneous introductions and announcements. Next, the choir sings and perhaps provides background to special music of some sort, followed by a congregational song, an offering, more singing, a sermon, more singing or special music, and a much anticipated benediction. When churches are contemplating moving from this to something else, like a seeker service or a high church service, we cannot help but be somewhat sympathetic to the reasons for their reaction. A worship service should be interesting— we are meeting with God, after all!— and it will be interesting if ministers and their congregations are intentional about its development and meaning. But whether contemporary or traditional, worship will become a boring, purposeless routine if that is in fact what is unintentionally conveyed in its preparation.

If worship is to be Christ-centered, then, we will not move beyond the types and shadows of God’s commands in the Old Testament to our own types and shadows that lead us not to Christ but to our own creatively conceived images and “worship experiences.” But while God has commanded us to gather together on the Lord’s Day, he has not commanded us to meet at 10: 00. Church services will vary in entirely appropriate ways; some things are necessary while other things depend on circumstances of time and place. The former we ordinarily call an element (i.e., it is necessary), while the latter is a circumstance (i.e., it is up to the church’s discretion). Taking an offering is an element, while how it is taken is a circumstance.

Horton, Michael (2003-05-01). Better Way, A (pp. 145-148). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition. 

Bullying in Apologetics

The History of Christian apologetics has not been the cleanest slate one could acquire at Goodwill. There are now at least 5 different major schools of thought in Apologetics: 1). Classical / Traditional 2). Evidential, 3). Reformed Epistemology, 4). Presuppositionalism, and 5). Ad-Hoc Apologetics (whatever comes up at the moment for whomever is there in the moment). Those brethren without a methodology (such as the ad-hoc crowd) are thought of as “messy” and “unsophisticated” by the rest of us (I will not lie, this has often crossed my mind). Those same brethren will see us as “unable to adapt to many different situations.” But it does not stop there. The Traditionalists and Evidentialists will accuse us and the Reformed Epistemologists with using circular reasoning and “assuming a first principle” (which is a virtue, not a vice!). Everyone (who is uninformed and loves to build straw men) regards my presuppositional system as “fideism.” There goes the fideist, they say. He is reasoning in a circle. The presuppositionalists will accuse the Reformed Epistemologists of not taking the Bible seriously enough, because it is not their prima fascie first principle. The Reformed Epistemologists secretly see the Traditionalists as “antiquated” and the Evidentialists as “market-driven.” They always come up with evidences and never know where to place them, apparently. But the Evidentialists will retort “at least we have evidences – you (Reformed Epistemologists) don’t even know where to gather your first principles from.” (A charge mistakenly advanced against Alvin Plantinga). Do not get me started with some (s-o-m-e) Clarkians and their crusade against who knows what. I am quite the fan of Gordon Clark, but this does not mean that everyone other than him is mistaken. (Then you have the young Van-Tillians who have never picked up Van-Til but can write a book on him only by consulting secondary sources). The horrible trench-warfare that goes on in the apologetics forums between those of the analogical and purely propositional knowledge camps is enough to leave a shell-shock in the minds of those in the fringes, and in some cases, certain popular Christian apologists are labeled “heretics.” Something has gone awry – has been awry.

But notice how, throughout the last paragraph, I was throwing a few little jabs myself. This was deliberate and must not be taken more seriously than is warranted. But why?  Why would a command to state my claims with “gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15) be mistaken for a call to strip the medals off of my Christian colleagues? I am not one to allow myself to be out-argued, but I certainly do not have time nor desire to entertain the thoughts that some of my brethren have with regard to others who do not see eye to eye with them on apologetic method. The term “heretic” must not be so easily allowed to slip from our tongues. So let us read 1 Peter 3:15 in context and search our hearts. If we have any repenting to do, let us do it now.

Felipe Diez
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

Now If I Said This About Worship (And I Have)...

Jon D. Payne:

Before we can properly prepare our hearts for public worship, we must first and foremost understand what worship is. Sadly, present-day churches are rife with confusion regarding worship, and this has led to much discord and division among congregations, families, and friends. Worship should unite Christians, not divide them (see Romans 15:6; Eph. 5:19-21).

A big part of the problem is that Christians are locking horns over worship styles or preferences that please themselves rather than honestly and carefully exploring what constitutes biblical worship that pleases God. It is not uncommon to hear believers say something like: “You worship in your way, I’ll worship in mine … As long as we are sincere it doesn’t really matter.” Not only is this statement audaciously relativistic, but it is also theologically remiss. God has not left us without direction concerning the most important and sublime activity of the Church. On the contrary, as I hope to show in the following pages, God has provided clear instruction on how His people are (and are not) to worship Him. The following are some points which have helped to shape my own thinking on the nature and practice of Christian worship.

1. Biblical Worship is Biblical Yes, I know … a clear redundancy. But, dare I say, a necessary one. Indeed, in the minds of many believers, biblical worship embodies not so much what the Bible commands as rather what makes believers happy or seekers comfortable. Worship must, however, in its form and content be rooted in the authoritative Word of God. Theology, and not a pragmatic philosophy for church growth or the weekly quest for a mountaintop experience with God, must drive our worship.

In the Reformed tradition, Christians have generally held to what is called the Regulative Principle of Worship. The Regulative Principle states that Christians are to do nothing in worship except that which has been prescribed or commanded in Scripture. Not only does this principle underscore the fact that God has revealed in His Word how He desires to be worshiped, but it also wonderfully safeguards worship from the innovations of sinful mankind. Calvin once remarked that our minds are idol factories, always inventing new objects of worship and dreaming up new ways in which to worship. The Regulative Principle takes very seriously both the truthfulness of God’s Word and the deceitfulness of men’s hearts.

In Leviticus 10:1-11 we are taught a sobering lesson concerning the seriousness with which God takes worship. Nadab and Abihu, ordained priests and sons of Aaron, offered strange or unauthorized fire in their censors before the LORD, fire which God “had not commanded them” (v. 1). As a result, “fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD” (v. 2).

Lest we think that God regarded these matters differently in the Old Covenant, the writer to the Hebrews reminds us that God continues to command acceptable (read: biblically-regulated) worship in the New Covenant, when he states: “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29). Commenting on this passage, John Owen, the seventeenth-century English Puritan, asserts that “it is religious worship, both as unto outward form of it in divine institution, and its inward form of faith and grace, which God requires”  (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. VII, 378). In other words, God requires worship that is both outwardly biblical in form and inwardly sincere through faith.

In addition to these illuminating passages, the second commandment reinforces the Regulative Principle of Worship. In it God states: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is under the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5a). What is God more jealous for than anything else? His own glory. Indeed, to worship God in a way not prescribed in His Word is to undermine His divine authority and rob Him of the glory due His Name. Commenting on the second commandment, the Westminster Divines wrote that “the sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God Himself” (Westminster Larger Catechism, A. 109). In other words, what we do in worship must be regulated by God, in His inspired Word—nothing less and nothing more. No one’s conscience should be bound in a worship service to do anything more or anything less than what God requires in Scripture. Thus, for a liturgy to include, for example, drama, the lighting of Advent candles, or the singing of a patriotic hymn is to ask worshipers to participate in elements of worship that are not prescribed by God in His Word.*

*Payne, Jon D. (2008-05-01). In The Splendor Of Holiness: Rediscovering the Beauty of Reformed Worship for the 21st Century (Kindle Locations 169-212). Tolle Lege Press. Kindle Edition.

Terry L. Johnson On Worship

What is worship that is not centered on God? Worship that is centered on something other than God is not worship, we answer simply. It may be a religious gathering, it may be exciting, it may be informative, but it is not, by definition, worship. Among the primary virtues of traditional Reformed worship is its God-centeredness. Its structure and content leave no ambiguity about what the people of God have gathered to do: offer publicly to God their sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15). A church gathering to offer traditional Reformed worship assembles to meet, to encounter, to know, and to glorify God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is as it should be. “It is fundamental that we recognize that all true Christian worship must be theocentric,” says Robert G. Rayburn, “the primary motion and focus of worship are Godward.”

Nearly everyone leading worship services claims to be God-centered. What exactly do the proponents of traditional Reformed worship mean when they claim to be God-centered, or theocentric? We mean that our worship is directed to God. Praise is offered to Him, confession is made to Him, petitions are presented to Him, He addresses His Word to us, and He meets with us at His table. Is this not the worship language of the Bible? We “draw near” to God in worship (James 4:8–10; Heb. 4:15–16; 10:19–23). We ascribe glory to His name (1 Chron. 11:29; Pss. 29:2; 96:7). It is before Him that we bow down and kneel (Ps. 95:6–7). We come before Him with “joyful songs” (Ps. 100:2 NASB). We could go on and on with examples of this. Everything in worship is God-centered and God-directed. Even as the Bible is read and preached, we are worshiping God by receiving and submitting to His Word (2 Tim. 3:16). “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only,” Jesus said (Matt. 4:10 NASB).

Finally there are only two options in worship. Worship can be man-centered or God-centered. Worship is “worth-ship,” to attribute worth to God. Congregations assemble to do other things. Sometimes they meet to conduct business, exercise discipline, or enjoy fellowship; or sometimes they meet to devote time to music, Bible study, or evangelism. These other activities should not be confused with worship, though they may be elements or by-products of worship. Time devoted to worship proper should, in the first place, consist of congregational devotional exercises, which, in the second place, have as their aim the glorification of God. It should be asked of any activity proposed for inclusion in a worship service: Is it legitimately devotional in nature? Is its aim first and foremost to please, honor, and glorify God?

This means that for a service to be about God it cannot be about the lost, the saints, or about my experience. A proper worship service will indeed have much to say to the lost, much that will edify the saints, and much that is experientially rich. Indeed, we would claim that traditional Reformed worship is potentially the experientially richest of all worship, thrilling the soul with rich praise of God, deep confession of sin, fresh appreciation of the promises of pardon through the cross of Christ, and the peace and joy and contentment that flow from it. Traditional Reformed worship features intercessory prayer that expresses dependence upon the Spirit for holiness and Christ-likeness. It also emphasizes the soul feeding and satisfying reading and exposition of God’s word. All of this praying and preaching has an impact on the lost and edifies the saints. But it is not “my experience” at which proper worship aims. Fulfilling personal experience is a by-product of God-centeredness in worship.

Ironically, because traditional Reformed worship aims at God, it opens the door for a more true and deeper experience of God’s presence than is likely in a service that aims at experience (or edification or evangelism). The service is about God. This is crucial. Yet it is not about God as an abstraction, but as a Person. Worship is concerned with both His praise and His presence. We are drawing near to Him not only that we might glorify Him but also enjoy Him. True worshipers long to “behold the beauty of the Lord” (Ps. 27:4–5 NASB). They seek His presence wherein they find the “fullness of joy” (Ps. 16:11 NASB). They are as the deer that pants for the waterbrook, thirsting for God (Psalm 42:1). “Oh satisfy us in the morning with Thy lovingkindess,” they cry (Psalm 90:14 NASB). It may be that we are making a very fine distinction, but it is one that must be made. The God we seek is a Person. As we seek Him (and not just an experience of Him) we glorify and do indeed enjoy Him.

*Tabletalk Magazine: January 2005. 2005 (16–18). Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, Inc.

R.C. Sproul On Worship

We are to worship God how God wants us to worship Him. This is the apparent crisis in the revolution of worship in our day. The driving force behind the radical shift in how we worship God today is not because of a new discovery of the character of God but rather through pragmatic studies on what works to attract people to corporate worship. Thus, we devise new ways of worship that will accommodate the worship of the people of God to those who are outside the covenant community. We are told that churches ought to be seeker-sensitive, that is, they ought to design worship to be appealing to people who are unbelievers. That may be a wonderful strategy for evangelism, but we must remember that the purpose of Sabbath worship is not primarily evangelism. Worship and evangelism are not the same thing. The solemn assembly is to be the assembling together of believers, of the body of Christ, to ascribe worship and honor and praise to their God and to their Redeemer. And the worship must not be designed to please the unbeliever or the believer. Worship should be designed to please God.

We remember the tragic circumstances of the sons of Aaron in the Old Testament, who offered strange fire before the Lord, which God had not commanded. As a result of their “experiment” in worship, God devoured them instantly. In protest, Aaron went to Moses inquiring about God’s furious reaction. Moses reminded Aaron that God had said that He must be regarded as holy by all who approach Him.

I believe that the one attribute of God that should inform our thinking about worship more than any other is His holiness. This is what defines His character and should be manifested in how we respond to Him. To be sure, God is both transcendent and imminent. He is not merely remote and aloof and apart from us. He also comes to join us. He abides with us. He enters into fellowship. He brings us into His family. We invoke His presence. But when we are encouraged to draw near to Him in New Testament worship, we are encouraged to draw near to a God who, even in His imminence, is altogether holy.

The modern movement of worship is designed to break down barriers between man and God, to remove the veil, as it were, from the fearsome holiness of God, which might cause us to tremble. It is designed to make us feel comfortable. The music we import into the church is music that we draw from the world of entertainment in the secular arena. I heard one theologian say recently that he was not only pleased with this innovative style of worship and music but thought that what the church needs today is music that is even more “funky.” When we hear clergy and theologians encourage the church to be more funky in worship, I fear that the church has lost its identity. Rather, let us return to Augustine who agreed that we can use a variety of music in our worship, but all that is done should be done with a certain gravitas, a certain solemnity, always containing the attributes of reverence and awe before the living God. The “what?” of worship, the “where?” of worship, the “when?” of worship, and especially the “how?” of worship must always be determined by the character of the One Who is the living God.

*Tabletalk Magazine: January 2005. 2005 (6–7). Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, Inc.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

Why do we need grace and peace? Why does the Apostle wish us to know them? Why does he use these terms rather than some other terms? The answer leads us immediately into fundamental Christian truths. By desiring grace and peace for us he is telling us the truth about ourselves, he is telling us what we need. We need the grace which will lead to peace because man is what he is as the result of the Fall and of sin. What that means in detail is expounded fully by the Apostle in his second chapter. Man in sin is at enmity with God. Man by nature, as he is born into this world, is a hater of God. He is not only separated from God, but he fights God, he is an enemy, and alienated in his mind from God; everything in him by nature is utterly opposed to God. Such is the truth about man, and the result is that man in this condition is fighting God, striving against Him, hating Him. Man in his natural state is ready to believe any claim in a newspaper that someone has proved that there is no God. Man jumps at such statements and delights in them because he is a God-hater. He is in a state of enmity against God.

Furthermore, because man is in this relationship to God he is also in a state of enmity against himself. He is not only engaged in this warfare against a God who is outside of him; but he is also fighting a war within himself. Therein lies the real tragedy of fallen man; he does not believe what I am saying but it is certainly true of him. Man is in a state of internal conflict and he does not know why it is so. He wants to do certain things, but something inside him tells him that it is wrong to do so. He has something in him which we call conscience. Though he thinks he can be perfectly happy whatever he does, and though he may silence other people, he cannot silence this inward monitor. Man is in a state of internal warfare; he does not know the reason for it, yet he knows that it is so.

But in the Scriptures we are told exactly why this is the case. Man was made by God in such a way that he can only be at peace within himself when he is at peace with God. Man was never meant to be a god, but he is for ever trying to deify himself. He sets up his own desires as the rules and laws of his life, yet he is ever characterized by confusion, and worse. Something in himself denies his claims; and so he is always quarrelling and fighting with himself. He knows nothing of real peace; he has no peace with God, he has no peace within himself. And still worse, because of all this, he is in a state of warfare with everyone else. Unfortunately for him everyone else wants to be a god as well. Because of sin we have all become self-centred, ego-centric, turning in upon this self which we put on a pedestal, and which we think is so wonderful and superior to all others. But everyone else is doing the same, and so there is war among the gods. We claim that we are right, and that everyone else is wrong. Inevitably the result is confusion and discord and unhappiness between man and man. Thus we begin to see why the Apostle prays that we may have peace. It is because of man’s sad condition, man’s life as the result of sin, and as the result of his falling away from God. He is in a state of dis-unity within and without, in a state of unhappiness, in a state of wretchedness.

But it does not even stop at that; man has brought all this upon himself by his disobedience to God. He cannot get away from this. He has tried to put forward every other conceivable explanation of his condition, but none is adequate. He has tried the theory of Evolution and on the basis of that outlook and teaching man should by now have been emancipated and there should be peace; but peace has not come. So man tries to explain his lot in other ways; but he cannot do so. Man has brought all this evil upon himself because of his desire to be a god. This is proved by the fact that he dislikes correction, and indeed the whole idea of law. He ridicules it, and regards law as an insult; he does not recognize the need to be kept right by law, and he resents its interference.

But the great message of the Bible is that though man has fallen into sin and has got himself into this wretched state, God has still been concerned about him, and God has both intervened and interfered. He has given laws and directions, but man has invariably rejected them. It is God who has appointed governments and magistrates in order to keep sin within bounds; but man is always fighting against order imposed from without. He dislikes it, and thereby shows his terrible hatred of God and his enmity against God. Man has always rejected what God has provided for him, and so there is only one inevitable conclusion to come to with respect to man. Man richly deserves the fate he has brought upon himself. Indeed we can go further and say that man deserves something much worse; he deserves to be punished. But man is not only a law breaker who deserves to be punished, he is also a fool. He rejects and will not listen to God’s law, and therefore he deserves punishment, he deserves damnation. There is no excuse for man, he deliberately sinned and fell at the beginning, and he deliberately rejects God’s guidance still. There is no plea that can be offered for such a person. Give him the Bible and he laughs at it. Though we find in the Bible that the men who have conformed to it have found happiness and peace, men reject it; though it is clear that if all people in the world were truly Christian most of the problems would disappear, man still rejects Christianity. Such creatures deserve nothing but punishment and hell. Such is man’s condition as a result of his own fall into sin.

But it is just at this point that the marvellous message of the gospel comes in. The whole message of the gospel is introduced by this word ‘grace.’ Grace means that in spite of everything I have been saying about man, God still looks upon him with favour. You will not understand the meaning of this word ‘grace’ unless you accept fully what I have been saying about man in sin. It is failure to do the latter that explains why the modern conception of grace is so superficial and inadequate. It is because man has an inadequate conception of sin that he has an inadequate conception of the grace of God. If you want to measure grace you must measure the depths of sin. Grace is that which tells man that in spite of all that is so true of him God looks upon him with favour. It is utterly unmerited, it is entirely undeserved; but this is the message of ‘Grace be unto you.’ It is an unmerited and undeserved action by God, a condescending love. When man in sin deserved nothing but to be blotted out of existence God looked on him in grace and mercy and dealt with him accordingly. So this one word ‘grace’ at the beginning of the Epistle introduces the entire gospel.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1978). God's Ultimate Purpose : An Exposition of Ephesians 1, 1 to 23 (38–41). Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust.

Dr. Michael Horton On Structure of Worship

The first thing we should observe is that the structure and content of the service are never neutral, nor should they be regarded as matters of preference. Unlike the “gods of the nations,” the God of Abraham and Jesus does not leave the matter of how we approach him in our hands. While there may not always be a clear black-and-white answer to all our questions about which style to use in a given context, it should be fairly obvious that liturgical style is more than the window dressing of worship. In fact, it is that which brings into an embodied form all our beliefs about God, ourselves, redemption, and the chief end of human existence. By way of analogy, even architectural style can tip the scales toward transcendence (a cathedral with a towering nave) or immanence (a theater-style worship center), so we always have to think through the implications of style if we wish to support the biblical announcement of both God’s majesty and nearness in Christ. Of course, that does not mean there is a divinely inspired architecture: As in creation generally, many styles could be appropriate— from neoclassical to postmodern. The real question, however, is whether thought has been given to issues of transcendence and immanence, the priority of the Word and the sacraments, and a host of other practical questions addressed by the theological convictions of a given church. At the same time, circumstances can make it difficult to make our services exactly what we might want them to be, although the necessary elements are present.

Sometimes we take style too seriously and end up worshiping a form rather than the God who seeks to reshape us through his chosen forms. “Going through the motions” can happen in “low church” traditions as well as “high church” varieties. One can sing the same praise songs repetitively and without much thought, just as one can say the Apostles’ Creed each week without adequate reflection on what one is professing.

If style is not neutral, how do we determine the shape of our service, beginning with the liturgy or order of service? Non-Christian thought swings like a pendulum between hyper-transcendence and hyper-immanence. But as John Frame has noted, Christian thinking should take its direction not from the radical opposition of transcendence and immanence but from the biblical representation of God as covenant head of his people. As covenant head, God transcends his creation, and as covenant head, God is intimately involved with his people. Although God “goes beyond” us, he has condescended to be “with us” as Emmanuel.

God has come close, but on his terms. It is therefore not left in our hands whether we will tip the scales toward either a sub-biblical transcendence or a sub-biblical immanence. Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, served the Lord as temple priests, but when they offered a sacrifice that God had not commanded, God struck them dead. On one hand, they may have been looking for more transcendence— more ritual, another liturgical innovation. On the other hand, they may have had a desire for more immanence— a form of worship that seemed to bring God down to their level. In any case, they were sincere. They presumed to serve God in the way that they found “worshipful,” but they were unwilling to regard God’s commanded worship as sufficient. They thought this was the sort of business about which God might not care very much, at least as long as the worshiper’s heart was in the right place. They learned otherwise— with tragic results, confirmed by the anguish of their father, Aaron, who had himself accommodated to the people in fashioning the golden calf.

I have labored to demonstrate from Romans 10 the logic of the gospel— God sending his emissaries to sinners rather than sinners trying to make their way to God by their own skill, cleverness, imagination, or efforts. God has already accommodated himself to our weakness. He is not far from us, if we will but attend to the ministry of the Word. Therefore, we must resist “the sky’s the limit” when it comes to accommodation. The Bible must be read, sung, and preached in the common language of the people, but when we introduce skits, musicals, and puppet shows on the basis of wanting to bring God down to the level of the people, they can only conclude that God has not already accommodated himself sufficiently through the ministry of the Word. There is accommodation and there is accommodation. When Moses confronted Aaron about the golden calf, Aaron replied, apparently even without the benefit of marketing surveys, “You know the people” (Exod. 32: 22 NKJV). Ever since Cain— actually, ever since Adam and Eve— human beings have sought to worship God in their own way, on their own terms, in forms that seem “pleasing to the eyes and desirable to make one wise.” We know that God clearly commanded every detail of worship in the Old Testament, but is it not one of the liberating aspects of the New Testament that faithful worship is a matter of the heart rather than outward form?*

 *Horton, Michael (2003-05-01). Better Way, A (pp. 143-145). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition.

Semper Reformanda and John Calvin

The church has always believed in semper reformanda ( always being reformed). The difficulty comes in applying it. We have been seeing the church bind herself to unnecessary and un-biblical traditions (not all traditions are bad) and many of them stemming from the influence of "culture." That is to say it has let the era we live in determine certain practices and even doctrines not only invade but determine the direction of the church.

There was once a time where pastors/elders feared God in not only the proclamation of His truth but also in leading the corporate worship of His Name. Now it seems that they fear their congregations. Certain truths are not allowed to be preached on and certain church practices are not to be touched for fear of how the congregants may react. It seems as if we've turned the age old question of is this going to please and glorify God to is this going to satisfy the congregation? "But we've always done it this way!", "If we tamper with that practice so and so will be upset", "If we preach that people are not ready for it and many will be offended" seem to be the controlling factor in many churches. Little is the question asked "What does God require?" or "What pleases  Him?"


To be sure any church reform must be done with the authority of Scripture, prayer, care and with consideration for the flock of Christ but ultimately for His glory and for His pleasure. To be clear, the acceptable corporate worship of the thrice holy Triune God is not determined on a matter of votes. It is determined by God Himself.

Here is Calvin on the matter:


If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the sacraments and the government of the church, which, as they were instituted for the preservation of these branches of doctrine, ought not to be employed for any other purpose; and, indeed, the only means of ascertaining whether they are administered purely and in due form, or otherwise, is to bring them to this test. If any one is desirous of a clearer and more familiar illustration, I would say, that rule in the church, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, and pointsout the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively and active, and, in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcass. As to what I have yet said, there is no controversy among the pious, or among men of right and sane mind.

Let us now see what is meant by the due worship of God. Its chief foundation is to acknowledge him to be, as he is, the only source of all virtue, justice, holiness, wisdom, truth, power, goodness, mercy, life, and salvation; in accordance with this, to ascribe and render to him the glory of all that is good, to seek all things in him alone, and in every want have recourse to him alone. Hence arises prayer, hence praise and thanksgiving ­ these being attestations to the glory which we attribute to him. This is that genuine sanctification of his name which he requires of us above all things. To this is united adoration, by which we manifest for him the reverence due to his greatness and excellency; and to this ceremonies are subservient, as helps or instruments, in order that, in the performance of divine worship, the body may be exercised at the same time with the soul. Next after these comes self-abasement, when, renouncing the world and the flesh, we are transformed in the renewing of our mind and living no longer to ourselves, submit to be ruled and actuated by him. By this self-abasement we are trained to obedience and devotedness to his will, so that his fear reigns in our hearts, and regulates all the actions of our lives.

That in these things consists the true and sincere worship which alone God approves, and in which alone he delights, is both taught by the Holy Spirit throughout the scriptures, and is also, antecedent to discussion, the obvious dictate of piety. Nor from the beginning was there any other method of worshipping God, the only difference being, that this spiritual truth, which with us is naked and simple, was under the former dispensation wrapped up in figures. And this is the meaning of our Saviour's words, "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23). For by these words he meant not to declare that God was not worshipped by the fathers in this spiritual manner, but only to point out a distinction in the external form: that is, that while they had the Spirit shadowed forth by many figures, we have it in simplicity. But it has always been an acknowledged point, that God, who is a Spirit, must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate (emphasis mine).*

*John Calvin (2010-03-25). The Necessity of Reforming the Church (Kindle Locations 47-87).  . Kindle Edition. 

A Little Dose Of Pink

From the pen of Arthur Walkington Pink:

The Godhood of God!  What is meant by this expression?  Ah, sad it is that such a question needs to be asked and answered. And yet it does: for a generation has arisen that is well nigh universally ignorant of the important truth which this term connotes.  That which is popular today in the colleges, in the pulpits, and in the press, is the dignity, the power, and the attainments of man.  But this is only the corrupt fruit that has issued from the Evolutionary teachings of fifty years ago.  When Christian theologians (?) accepted the Darwinian hypothesis, which excluded God from the realm of Creation, it was only to be expected that more and more God would be banished from the realm of human affairs. Thus it has proven.  To the twentieth-century mind God is little more than an abstraction, an impersonal “First Cause,” or if a Being at all, One far removed from this world and having little or nothing to do with mundane affairs.  Man, forsooth, is a “god” unto himself.  He is a “free agent” and therefore the regulator of his own life and the determiner of his own destiny.  Such was the Devil’s lie at the beginning—“Ye shall be as God” (Gen. 3:5).  But from human speculation and Satanic insinuation we turn to Divine revelation.

The Godhood of God!  What is meant by the expression?  This: the omnipotency of God, the absolute sovereignty of God. When we speak of the Godhood of God we affirm that God is God. We affirm that God is something more than an empty title: that God is something more than a mere figure-head: that God is something more than a far-distant Spectator, looking helplessly on at the suffering which sin has wrought.  When we speak of the Godhood of God we affirm that He is “King of kings and Lord of lords.”  We affirm that God is something more than a disappointed, dis-satisfied, defeated Being, who is filled with benevolent desires but lacking in power to carry them out.  When we speak of the Godhood of God we affirm that He is “the Most High.”  We affirm that God is something more than One who has endowed man with the power of choice, and because He has done this is therefore unable to compel man to do His bidding.  We affirm that God is something more than One who has waged a protracted war with the Devil and has been worsted.  When we speak of the Godhood of God we affirm that He is the Almighty.

To speak of the Godhood of God then, is to say that God is on the Throne, on the Throne as a fact and not as a say so; on a Throne that is high above all. To speak of the Godhood of God is to say that the Helm is in His hand, and that He is steering according to His own good pleasure.  To speak of the Godhood of God is to say that He is the Potter, that we are the clay, and that out of the clay He shapes one as a vessel to honor and another as a vessel to dishonor according to His own sovereign rights.  To speak of the Divine Despot doing “according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him what doest Thou?” (Dan. 4:35). Therefore, to speak of the Godhood of God is to give the mighty Creator His rightful place; it is to recognize His exalted majesty; it is to own His universal scepter.

The Godhood of God stands at the base of Divine revelation: “in the beginning God”—in solemn majesty, eternal, un-caused, self-sufficient.  This is the foundation doctrine, and upon it all other doctrines must be built, and any other doctrine which is not built upon it will inevitably fail and fall in the day of testing.  At the beginning of all true theology lies the postulate that God is God—absolute and irresistible.  It must be so.  Without this we face a closed door: with it we have a key which unlocks every mystery.  This is true of Creation; exclude an Almighty God and nothing is left but blind and illogical materialism.  This is true of Revelation: the Bible is the solitary miracle in the realm of literature; exclude God from it and you have a miracle and no miracle-Worker to produce it.  This is true of Salvation. Salvation is “of the Lord,” entirely so; exclude God from any aspect or part of salvation, and salvation vanishes.  This is true of History, for history is His story: it is the outworking in time of His eternal purpose; exclude God from history and all is meaningless and purposeless.  The absolute Godhood of God is the only guaranty that in the end it shall be fully and finally demonstrated that God is “All in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

“In the beginning God.”  This is not only the first word of Holy Scripture but it must be the firm axiom of all true philosophy—the philosophy of human history, for example. Instead of beginning with man and his world and attempting to reason back to God, we must begin with God and reason forward to man and his world. It is failure to do this which leaves unsolved the “riddle of the universe.”  Begin with the world as it is today and try to reason back to God, and what is the result?  If you are honest of heart and logical of mind, this—that God has little or nothing at all to do with the world.  But begin with God and reason forward to the world as it is today and much light is cast on the problem.  Because God is holy, His anger burns against sin.  Because God is righteous, His judgments fall on those who rebel against Him.  Because God is faithful, the solemn threatenings of His Word are being fulfilled.  Because God is omnipotent, no problem can master Him, no enemy defeat Him, and no purpose of His can be withstood.  It is just because God is who He is and what He is that we now behold what we do—the gathering clouds of the storm of Divine wrath which will shortly burst upon the earth.

“For of Him, and through Him and to Him, are all things” (Rom. 11:36).  In the beginning—God.  In the center—God.  At the end—God.  But as soon as this is insisted upon men will stand up and tell you what they think about God.   They will prate about God working consistently with His own character, as though a worm of the earth was capable of determining what was consistent and what was inconsistent with the Divine perfections.  People will say with an air of profound wisdom that God must deal justly with His creatures, which is true, of course, but who is able to define Divine justice, or any other of God’s attributes?  The truth is that man is utterly incompetent for forming a proper estimate of God’s character and ways, and it is because of this that God has given us a revelation of His mind, and in that revelation He plainly declares, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher then your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is. 55:8, 9). In view of such a scripture as this it is only to be expected that much of the contents of the Bible conflicts with the sentiments of the carnal mind which is “enmity against God.”  And further: in view of such a Scripture as the above we need not be surprised that much of human history is so perplexing to our understandings.*

*Pink, A. W. (1999). The Godhood of God. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.