THE WILDERNESS OF SIN

Exodus 16:1-5: They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and the people of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”  Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I am about to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not. On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily.”

So, a simplistic post, that reflects as much on myself as on all read this: How often are you in the Wilderness of Sin, and reflecting on that, how often do you grumble against the Lord and those whom He has appointed to be over you (not as in being better than you, but as those who "...are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account..." (Hebrews 13:17)?

How often do you think your appraisal of a situation - of any given situation - in the local body of Christ, is better than that given by our God, and as prescribed, according to that prescription of  our God, by those who are over you in the faith - those who are keeping watch over your souls as those who must give an account?

Are you so very arrogant as to think that they whom the LORD has appointed to keep such watch are subject to your personal vendettas and fleshly precepts which have nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with the properly prescribed and ordained manner of church polity of our God?

Read on, arrogant ones: "And Moses said, “When the LORD gives you in the evening meat to eat and in the morning bread to the full, because the LORD has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him—what are we? Your grumbling is not against us but against the LORD (Exodus 16:8)."

So many think that the demonstration of our LORD Jesus Christ was intolerant in the Old Testament; that He did not show His gracious forbearance in the manner in which He dealt with the church-nation, Israel.

How, then, do you account for this, and similar, instances of redemptive history?

He did not deal with His chosen people of the Old Covenant, at this time, according to their folly - that came later.

Do you suppose that His dealing with your grumbling will come later? Do you so presume upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord?

Are you so lost in your personal application of "the wilderness of sin" that you fail to see the forest for the trees of personal fleshly preference which you - you ALONE - have planted?

For you who are elect and beloved of God, His provision is much more than you can imagine; however, do not think that there are not consequences to your despising of that structure which He Himself has implemented.

Do you yet think such Scripture is vain which states " Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7)?"

Are you one of those who state "I do not listen to men; I listen to God," while yet not recognizing that God, Himself, in Jesus Christ our Lord, has so appointed men over you?

Are you really so blind?

I admonish you to search the Scriptures, ignore what your preconceptions might be (which no doubt, you were taught of men), and recognize that structure and authority in the Lord which He has set over you for your benefit and growth to His glory being proclaimed, lest you find yourself alone and adrift in "the wilderness of sin," grumbling and complaining against those whom the Lord has set over you, and so, against the Lord.

SDG - Bill

DELIGHT in the LORD.

Psalm 35:27:  Let those who delight in my righteousness shout for joy and be glad and say evermore, "Great is the LORD, who delights in the welfare of his servant!"

Who can deny that delighting in the LORD is our heritage?

What else is there to delight in; our own self sufficiency? Our heritage in conforming to that which our great God has decreed and prescribed for us?

We must realize that to DELIGHT in the LORD is to be thoroughly swept up in all that HE is, not our preconceptions of who and what He is, nor our emotions of that which He describes in His holy Scriptures.

Certainly, this has to do with both our perception of who He is, and what He has done - and indeed, from our finite perspective, what He is doing - regarding redemptive history; however, that is not the point of this Psalm. The point is that we are to have the greatest thoughts and emotions of favor towards our God because of - to put it as simply as possible - who He IS, not those thoughts or emotions of what we think or preconceive Him to be.

There is nothing in the life of each saint that can give valid expression of this thought: DELIGHT YOURSELF IN THE LORD!

Who can give valid expression to these thoughts and emotions?

Yet that is EXACTLY what we are prescriptively commanded to do here, and how far do we fall short of expressing just these very things?

We have the atheists and the deists and all manner of others who decry to us that we cannot fully comprehend or fully express the substance of that which is our understanding of God, and little do they know, they are actually speaking truth in this instance (though it be in the wisdom of men who are without God), for we fail, so often, to do just that which is prescribed.

How sad, that we could be in agreement with those who know not God, in this greatest of all the commandments (Mark 12:30). How it shows in the manner in which we fail to treat those created in the Imago Dei - that we still seek to "bite and devour one another," when to express our highest concept from Scripture is to see our brethren as representing the infinite perfection of our Creator and Redeemer in them (1 Corinthians 2:2; Romans 4:25).

How little attention we pay to that which God has done in not only redeeming our brethren, but in implementing the New Creation (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15).

If we do not see this in our brethren, how, then, can we expect to actually delight ourselves in our great God and Savior?

Dare we claim that we actually see and desire and pursue such in our God, when we actually live according to preconceptions based in our former manner and view of life regarding the brethren (Ephesians 2:1-3)?

Do you, then, think you DELIGHT YOURSELF IN THE LORD,  when, in fact, you deny HIM in HIS body?

I believe this truth needs rethinking, by the grace of God through the working of His Holy Spirit, amongst those who claim to be His, for to truly do this, we need to remember where He is expressing Himself in these days (1 Corinthians 3:17;1 Peter 2:4-5).

So then, here is the crux of the matter: If you think you are honoring God as Holy, delighting in all that He is, as He has revealed Himself in Scripture through our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet denigrate your brethren based upon false presuppositions based in your former fleshly life, you are simply lying to yourself, and your profession of allegiance to, honoring of, and delighting in God as to His righteousness and holiness, is a LIE to which you subject yourself - the deception is yours; however, God is able to break even this deception.

He has willed to reveal Himself most fully in the local body, amongst your brethren, who are are a reflection and emanation of our Lord most Holy crucified and glorified; do not partake of the wiles of the world and the flesh and think you actually are delighting in God while you do so, for such is most certainly NOT the case.

If you are truly delighting in all the holiness and glory and righteousness of who God is, you will certainly be seeing Him in your fellow saints - or your profession is but a shallow shell of His truth.

SDG - Bill

Weekly Pink (On Personal Holiness)

  “That opinion that personal holiness is unnecessary to final glorification is in direct opposition to even dictate of reason, to even declaration of Scripture.”      —Augustus Toplady

BY our fall in Adam we not only lost the favor of God but also the purity of our nature and therefore we need to be both reconciled to God and renewed in our inner man, for without personal holiness “no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). “As He which hath called you is holy; so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (behavior); because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:15, 16), God’s nature is such that unless we be sanctified there can be no intercourse between Him and us. But can persons be sinful and holy at one and the same time? Genuine Christians discover so much carnality, filth, and vileness in themselves that they find it almost impossible to be assured they are holy. Nor is this difficulty solved, as in justification, by recognizing that though completely unholy in ourselves we are holy in Christ, for Scripture teaches that those who are sanctified by God are holy in themselves, though the evil nature has not been removed from them.

None but “the pure in heart” will ever “see God” (Matthew 5:8). There must be that renovation of soul whereby our minds, affections and wills are brought into harmony with God. There must be that impartial compliance with the revealed will of God and abstinence from evil which issues from faith and love. There must be that directing of all our actions to the glory of God, by Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel. There must be a spirit of holiness working within the believer’s heart so as to sanctify his outward actions if they are to be acceptable unto Him in whom “there is no darkness” True, there is perfect holiness in Christ for the believer, but there must also be a holy nature received from him. There are some who appear to delight in the imputed obedience of Christ who make little or no concern about personal holiness. They have much to say about being arrayed in “the garments of salvation and covered with the robe of righteousness” (Isa. 61:10), who give no evidence that they “are clothed with humility” (1 Pet. 5:5) or that they have “put on … bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, forebearing one another and forgiving one another” (Col. 3:12).

How many there are today who suppose that if they have trusted in Christ all is sure to be well with them at the last even though they are not personally holy. Under the pretense of honoring faith, Satan, as an angel of light, has deceived and is now deceiving multitudes of souls. When their “faith” is examined and tested, what is it worth? Nothing at all so far as insuring an entrance into Heaven is concerned: it is a powerless, lifeless, fruitless thing. The faith of God’s elect is unto “the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness” (Titus 1:1). It is a faith which purifieth the heart (Acts 15:9), and it grieves over all impurity. It is a faith which produces an unquestioning obedience (Heb. 11:8). They therefore do but delude themselves who suppose they are daily drawing nearer to Heaven while they are following those courses which lead only to Hell. He who thinks to come to the enjoyment of God without being personally holy, makes Him out to be an unholy God, and puts the highest indignity upon Him. The genuiness of saving faith is only proved as it bears the blossoms of experimental godliness and the fruits of true piety.

In Christ God has set before His people that standard of moral excellence which He requires them to aim and strive after. In His life we behold a glorious representation in our own nature of the walk of obedience which He demands of us. Christ conformed Himself to us by His abasing incarnation, how reasonable therefore it is that we should conform ourselves to Him in the way of obedience and sanctification. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). He came as near to us as was possible for Him to do, how reasonable then is it that we should endeavor to come as near as it is possible for us to do. “Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me” (Matthew 11:29). If “even Christ pleased not Himself” (Rom. 15:3). how reasonable is it that we should be required to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Him (Matthew 16:24), for without so doing we cannot be His disciples (Luke 14:27). If we are to be conformed to Christ in glory how necessary that we first be conformed to Him in holiness: “he that saith he abideth in Him ought himself so to walk even as He walked:” (1 John 2:6). “Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19): let him either put on the life of Christ or drop the name of Christ.*

*Pink, A. W. (2005). The Arthur Pink anthology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Bravo, Kevin DeYoung, Bravo

In the discussion of sanctification Kevin DeYoung points out some flaws (go here and get his book here), even in Reformed circles, that seem to be prevalent in some parts of Christianity. The fear of legalism seems to drive some from preaching on any imperatives (commands) in Scripture. In fact it seems that some imply that in the realm of being conformed to the likeness of Christ, we are passive. Any attempts at trying to please God through our obedience (yes obedience grounded in the Gospel) should be avoided. I read an article by a known "Reformed" theologian that discouraged such an idea. In fact when I first read his article My mind went immediately to this passage:

9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Co 5:9–10).

One may wish to spin that text to simply mean please God only in faithful obedience to preaching the Gospel but the immediate context does not allow for it. Clearly the Apostle Paul, whom answered "answered the accusation of antinomianism with more grace," is urging obedience to the one in Christ (call it "Gospel obedience if you will) with the sober reminder of having to appear before the Righteous Judge of all-Christ. It seems as if there is an element of fear to motivate, if not the main thing (at least in this passage), that is leading Paul to faithfully preach the Gospel to sinners and walk in a manner worthy of the Gospel (Php. 1:27). My understanding of the passage is also confirmed by the first phrase of verse 11 ("Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord").

Before I turn it over to DeYoung, permit me to cite Simon Kistmaker's commentary on the above passage:

a. “Therefore, we consider it our aim to please him.” Paul is writing his concluding remarks on this topic, and on the basis of the preceding verses he says “therefore.” He now reverses the order of “away from home” and “at home” (v. 8) and returns to the original sequence (v. 6). The reversals make no difference in the understanding of this passage. Whether believers are in or out of the body does not matter, for their aim is to please the Lord. Does this mean that in the intermediate state, Christians are not able to please him? The answer is no. Paul is not addressing those who have died and are with the Lord. He is speaking to the readers who are alive. He is exhorting us to serve the Lord in such a manner that both God and our fellow men always take pleasure in our conduct (Rom. 14:18; Heb. 13:21).

b. “For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ.” When Paul writes “all of us,” is he referring to all people? The New Testament teaches that everyone must appear before the judgment seat of God or Christ (Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 14:10; II Tim. 4:1; I Peter 4:5). But here the Greek construction shows that he addresses the Corinthian Christians and presumably his opponents in that church. No one is exempt from being summoned to appear in court, for the word that Paul uses is “must”; the command to stand trial has a divine origin, for God through Christ issues the summons. The accused must answer to God (Rom. 14:10) and will receive the verdict from Christ.

c. “So that each one may receive recompense for the things which he has done in the body, whether good or bad.” Each individual appears in court and hears the verdict based on one’s conduct on earth. When the Lord returns (I Cor. 4:5), all works, whether good or bad, will be revealed. At that time, he assigns recompense to each individual for deeds performed through the instrumentality of the body while one is on earth. Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12).

Paul is not teaching a doctrine of earning one’s salvation by doing good works. God accepts us not because of works that in themselves are stained by sin, but because of the meritorious work of Jesus Christ. Calvin notes, “Having thus received us in His favour, He graciously accepts our works also, and it is upon this undeserved acceptance that the reward depends.”*

Here is how DeYoung responds to one of his critics (for the very good article go here):

This would be a serious deficiency, so it’s worth probing a bit further. Is the deepest problem in every situation and in every sinful struggle our failure to appropriate the gospel? Perhaps—depends on your definitions. I don’t have a problem saying at the root of every problem is a misfiring of the gospel. But neither would I have a problem saying that at its root every sin is a failure to recognize the Lordship of Christ, or to believe the promises of God, or to accept the goodness of God’s commands, or to trust the word of God, or to recognize our union with Christ, or to celebrate the character of God, or to find our satisfaction in Jesus, or to live in the power of the Spirit. I suppose someone may say, “Yes, that’s it exactly. And all of that is a failure to appropriate the gospel.” But then “gospel” has become shorthand for almost any spiritual blessing evidenced in Scripture. And if that’s our working definition of the gospel, I don’t mind, so long as we don’t expect everyone to give a hat-tip to “gospel” before we say anything else.

The gospel is, in one sense, the answer for everything. It unmasks our legalism and our antinomianism. Paul certainly confronts the “let’s continue in sin” attitude in Romans 6 by reminding us that we are dead to sin and alive to righteousness by virtue of our union with Christ. I have a whole section in the book on the glories of Romans 6. But it would be a mistake to think this is the only way to confront sin, or the only truly gospel-centered approach, or the only one that gets to the ultimate problem. In Romans 13 Paul attacks the libertines of his day by warning them of Christ’s return. This is a gracious gospel truth too, though not, I think, what people have in mind when they argue that the antidote for the abuse of grace is more grace.

Thabiti Anyabwile also has some very wise words in the discussion that even convicts me and reminds me to connect the dots with the Gospel being the answer and whatever problem. For this article go here.

I believe some folks have mastered the doctrine of justification but have fumbled the doctrine of sanctification out of some "phantom fear" of legalism.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Fernando


*Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 19: Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New Testament Commentary (180–181). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones (On Inappropriate Discussions In The Church)

‘And the house when it was in building was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither.’ Then—‘So that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building’ (1 Kings 6:7). What a vital principle this is! Being interpreted and put into its modern dress it is this. There should be no discussion and no debate and no disagreement in the Church about vital truths. There is to be none of this noise of chiselling and hammering and forming and preparation in the Church. That happens before you come into the Church. There should be no discussion in the Christian Church about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. There should be no discussion in the Church about the position and condition of man in sin. There should be no discussion in the Church about the substitutionary atonement, and regeneration, and the Person of the Spirit, and all the doctrines of grace. There must be no noise of discussion about these things. All that should have happened beforehand.

...The gospel of Jesus Christ is not something which offers itself to us for debate or discussion, but for our definite acceptance and belief. It desires not our approval but demands our obedience. It does not court discussion but rather commands diligence.*

*Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (86). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.

My Holy Land Regret

When it comes to spending money on any product--I am a top-notch researcher. I spend endless hours till I am satisfied knowing my expectations will be met (I am not cheap-- just fiscally conservative). Unfortunately, likely due to my excitement of being on vacation in Florida, I decided to attend The Holy Land. Yes, this confessionally reformed baptist took a voyage to TBN's "Holy-Land". Before you launch your stones at ninety miles an hour, hear me out. I had no idea the Holy Land attraction was owned by TBN (I live in a cave). I didn't even know what the attractions were, other than knowing they reenacted stories from scripture. I learned of TBN's ownership the night before and despite the warnings, I decided to visit.

As we were about to pay for two tickets, priced at forty dollars each, there was a large "no refund" sign in bold. That should have been enough to tell me to head back to the resort, jump in my dolphin designed swim trunks, and enjoy the sun. But my stubbornness got the best of me, and I walked the plank.

You know those wild west movies, when they show the middle of the town, and there is not a soul in sight-- that's exactly what it was like walking in. It was empty. But not so far away, there was some contemporary Christian music playing, so we headed towards the ruckus, and saw some morning worship. Didn't stay very long, as it was very charismatic-y. At the confused book store, it was filled with your typical dispensational left behind junk, and some J.C Ryle and Spurgeon gems. We headed toward the "Scriptorium", and found it to be the best part of the park. It's a "journey" that allows you to see some early manuscripts. They move through church history, highlighting Tyndale's print shop, John Bunyan's jail cell, Spurgeon's preaching, and Calvin's Geneva bible. At the end of this journey, they rightly ask, "what are you doing with God's word?", and it ended with a faithful gospel presentation.

They had a restaurant where people can eat. I chose to eat at the food stand outside, and ordered some Chick-Fil-A (it was inexpensive). The dramas at the "church of all nations" were...okay. Nothing special. I was blessed by a drama that highlighted God forgiving David after his shameful act of taking Bathsheba and killing Uriah the Hittite. After this play, they had a charismatic preacher tarnish the message by promising a year of prosperity. Little did I hear, as I chose to skip the charismania, and walk around. The rest was pathetic. The children's area was tiny.

All in all--it's like burning money. Save your money, and take your kids to Discovery Cove. Its also located in Orlando, and its a day full of fun.

The problem with "The Holy Land", is not with its cheap attractions, and mediocre dramas. I'm sure there are people who love the place. The problem lies else where, first with its glorification of images, which is a second commandment violation, and its false and contradicting messages.

R.C Sproul and me.


- awretchsaved

Weekly Dose of Lloyd-Jones (On the Differences Between The Roman Catholic and Protestant Views of Justification)

But the great question is: What was the Protestant Reformation about? What did Martin Luther rediscover? What did he find when he went back to the Scriptures? And you see, therefore, that it is something which is vital and about which we should be absolutely clear. So another good way of testing ourselves is to picture ourselves seated at a table with an examination paper in front of us and here is the question: ‘Give an account of the doctrine of justification by faith only.’ Do you know what it is that makes you a Protestant, what it is the marks you off from the Roman Catholics? That is the test.

So, let us look at this doctrine together, and perhaps the best approach is historical. Why was Martin Luther in trouble before his conversion? What was wrong with him before this truth suddenly dawned upon him? And what is wrong with all who are vague and indefinite and uncertain about the whole question of justification by faith? Now it was not that Luther had not heard of the term ‘Justification’, because he had. What was wrong with him was that he had the wrong view of it. In other words, he had the typical Roman Catholic view of justification by faith. Roman Catholics claim to teach that doctrine, but they never say ‘justification by faith only’. They regard that as the Protestant heresy.

First, then, let us look at this Roman Catholic error and in its essence it is this: the Roman Catholic Church confuses justification with sanctification. And that had been the trouble with Martin Luther before his conversion. The Roman Catholic view of justification is, first of all, that it means and includes forgiveness of sins and they are all right at that point. But they add that the sin inherent in us is taken out of us for Christ’s sake. And they do not even stop at that. They go on to say that in justification there is a positive infusion of grace into us and that, of course, comes by means of baptism. They say that in the act of baptism, grace is actually infused into the person who is baptised and that is a part of justification. Forgiveness, removal of sin—yes—but also the infusion at baptism of a positive righteousness, and not merely a positive righteousness, but the life of God as well.

And then Roman Catholics go on to say that justification is progressive. Of course, they are quite consistent there. If there is this infusion of grace, that is going to grow and develop, the justification must be progressive. Furthermore, typically, they have to go further and they even say it can be lost if we become guilty of what they call, ‘mortal sin’. But then, if we do lose it, they say that we can regain it by going through the sacrament of penance and the process of regaining it will be completed in purgatory.

Now that is the characteristic Roman Catholic view and that was the view that was held by Martin Luther before his conversion. But then, you remember, the story of his life goes on to tell us that suddenly he saw a statement in the Scripture. He had read it many times before but he had never truly seen it. This is what he saw: ‘The just shall live by faith’ (Rom. 1:17)—and these words absolutely changed everything for him. His whole life was revolutionised; he became an entirely different man. He suddenly saw that all his past ideas on justification had been quite unscriptural, utterly false, and the moment he saw this, he experienced a great liberation of his soul. He began to preach this truth and so began the great and mighty work of reformation.

Exactly what, then, did Luther see? It was that justification is a judicial act of God in which He declares that He regards those of us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, as righteous on the grounds of the work and merit of Christ. God imputes and ascribes Christ’s righteousness to us, and we rest on that by faith. That is what Luther saw. As a result, in a moment, he knew that he was right with God. Luther’s problem had been that of job: ‘How should a man be just with God?’ (Job 9:2). How can a man stand in the presence of God? That was the problem that oppressed the mind and heart of Luther. There he was, a monk in his cell, asking, ‘How can I put myself right with God?’ He fasted, he prayed, he sweated, he did good deeds, and yet the whole time he was more and more aware of the blackness and darkness of his own heart and of the utter unutterable righteousness and holiness of God. And he was trying to fit himself, to make himself just, along that Roman Catholic way, and he could not, but there he saw it suddenly. God declares him righteous, and he is righteous, because God says so, because God puts to his account the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is the historical background in which we should rejoice more and more. The crux of the matter is this: the great mistake we all tend to fall in, as Luther had done, with regard to justification, is that we tend to think that justification means that we are made righteous or good or upright or holy. But that is quite wrong. In justification we are not made righteous, we are declared to be righteous—the thing is quite different. To say that in justification you are made righteous is to confuse it with sanctification. Justification is something legal or forensic. It is God, as the judge, who is responsible for administering His own law, saying to us that as regards the law He is satisfied with us because of the righteousness of Christ. Justification is a declaratory act. It does not do anything to us; it says something about us. It has no reference to my actual state or condition inside; it has reference to my standing, to my position, to my appearing in the presence of God. Now that is the biblical doctrine of justification. That is what Luther discovered; that is what he began to preach and, in a sense, he spent the rest of his life in preaching it. It is the great central doctrine of all Protestantism and in every great revival you will find that this always comes to the forefront. It was what Whitefield used to preach, as did John Wesley.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1997). God the Holy Spirit (167–170). Wheaton, IL: Crossways Books.

Your Kingdom Come, Your Will Be Done, On Earth As It Is In Heaven (3)

Since we have looked at the Imperial statement of Your will be done as it relates to God – both the Father, and his Beloved Son, our Lord and Savior, in His first advent (and to some degree, as He mediates for us now, seated at the right hand of Glory, and how He will come again to consummate His kingdom by subjecting all things under His rule, per the Father’s will, then deliver such to the Father in subjection, that God may be all in all– 1 Corinthians 15:28), we will now look a bit more closely at how we are used by God to perform that which He decreed; that is, His will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

Again, great humility enters the sphere of our activity in performing this great task on a daily, moment-to-moment basis, as we realize we are but one of the secondary means by which our God performs His will on earth (although the primary of those secondary means), for we know how perfectly God’s will is done in heaven, and to seek to do it on earth in the same manner is an astounding prescription of that divine decree – this, as with all the commandments of our God we are to obey (as this encompasses all those commandments), is at once seen as impossible, relating to ourselves, but possible, as pertains to the working of God through Christ in us, the hope of glory – Colossians 1:27.

So, understanding that God’s will is being done on earth as it is in heaven, and that of Himself, we also are to understand that, although He has decreed to make that will known and performed by we who are His in Christ Jesus, it is, necessarily, limited, as to how we can perform it and make it known, because of the flesh we yet dwell in (Galatians 5:17).

While the Imperative speaks of God’s will being done of Himself to His glory, it also speaks of the intention and exhortation of His will being done in this present age – it is a present striving, by the Spirit He has given to dwell in we who are His, to put to death our members which are on the earth (Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5), and express those shared attributes of God He has willed to allot to us, singly and corporately, that we may shine forth His glory (and please note: it is His glory, not ours – Isaiah 42:8; John 17:5).

So, our doing the will of God on earth as it is in heaven is understood to be His willed expression of Himself in limited scope, due to the finite quality of our present life and the weakness of this flesh we yet dwell in; however, as with His use of His written Word, which He willed to use to express those divine, infinite and external perfections of Himself to us by His Spirit, He also expresses such through we who are His, as may be seen and comprehended in the absolute statements of command for His children in that Holy Scripture (Matthew 5:48; Ephesians 4:1; 1 Peter 1:15-16). The present limitations of expressing His glory and doing His will, by that eternal life which He has given us through His Spirit regenerating us and indwelling us to keep us in communion with Him, cannot be used as an excuse to deny that we are to do just that (Titus 3:4-6; Galatians 2:20-21; Galatians 5:16, 22-25; 1 Peter 1:13-14).

Such was that which was expressed by our Lord Jesus Christ as He looked to the end of His first coming to this earth; again, first instructing His disciples, then speaking of that which He came to do, then importuning the Father to do that which was to glorify the Father, then being answered by the Father (John 12:23-28).

Finally, although there are many passages of Scripture in which this command of doing the Father’s will are stated for our understanding and obedience, by the power of His Spirit, we turn to just two in the Pauline epistles which speak to the church, both individually and as a corporate entity, that we may have, along with the Scripture passages already referenced above in the body of this article, a plain statement of how we are to do the will of the Father in our Lord Jesus Christ. Combined, these two passages of Scripture indentify both how we are to do the will of our Lord, and so that will of the Father, both as individual members of His body, and corporately, recognize the structure of the church by which we live out the life of Christ in both His body and the world.

Before we cite the two references of Scripture from two of Paul’s epistles, it is important that we recognize the structure of our Lord’s church; too many, by far, are those Christians who, for various reasons of the flesh, believe that they can go forth and “make disciples” by personal evangelizing that is not connected with a local body.

These Christians wrongly understand the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, thinking it is to individual Christians, and not to the apostles, and through the apostles, to those who are given to actually shepherd and feed the sheep of our Lord in local congregations.

It is the elders in a local church who are engaged in the making of disciples; personal evangelizing does not “make disciples.” While all believers are to engage in proclaiming the gospel to the unsaved, it is those whom our Lord has appointed that actually take on the responsibility and the work of making disciples, which is to say that making disciples does not happen outside of the local shepherding and nurturing of the sheep within the structure of a local church. We are all held responsible for our own growth in the graces of our Lord as His Spirit gives us the desire and power to do so, according to the Scripture, but such cannot truly take place unless we are in subjection to those who have been given the gracious giftings of God to watch over our souls as those who must give an account to our Lord (Hebrews 13:17); when we go to do that work which is theirs – when we seek to exercise that outside the corporate structure of our Lord’s body, which is only and always to be worked out as members of that corporate body, we are in disobedience to the Lord; whether it is through our own wrong understanding of the Scriptures according to fleshly desires, or an ignorance of those Scriptures (again, this will be according to the fleshly desires). Those who do such not only do so to their own lack of growth in the Lord, they also do so to the grieving of the elders who have the rule over them (if they are indeed members of a good, Bible believing, New Testament church), and the suffering of all the other members of the local body; they also quench and grieve the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:26; Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:13). It should be noted that this grieving and quenching of the Holy Spirit always takes place as a result of doing that which is of the flesh, and is mentioned in passages which have to do with corporate life in a local body of Christ, whether the member(s) doing so are acting individually outside the body, or individually within the body.

To conclude this post, then, rather than cite, in their entirety, those passages from two of Paul’s epistles which we mentioned we would above, we simply give the references, inviting the reader to read them, for these two passages of Scripture show both the function of each member within the local church regarding personal responsibility, regardless of God’s particular gifts to those members, and how that function relates, by the power of our Head, Jesus Christ, to the full-orbed presentation of our Father’s will being done now, in this present time, to His glory. Here, then are those references:

Ephesians 4:1

Colossians 3:1-17

Although many more Scripture passages could have been mentioned, the discerning reader will no doubt find much to consider in these passages by which our doing the will of the Father, and so our Lord, is defined, and it is hoped that such will also study relevant Scriptures with that context of the Body of Christ, in which the members duties of faith through love are made clear and distinct by His Spirit to those who are His.

All glory to God alone - Bill

Weekly Pink (On The Holiness Of God)

BECAUSE God is holy, acceptance with Him on the ground of creature-doings is utterly impossible. A fallen creature could sooner create a world than produce that which would meet the approval of infinite Purity. Can darkness dwell with Light? Can the Immaculate One take pleasure with “filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6)? The best that sinful man brings forth is defiled. A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit. God would deny Himself, vilify His perfections, were He to account as righteous and holy that which is not so in itself; and nothing is so which has the least stain upon it contrary to the nature of God. But blessed be His name, that which His holiness demanded His grace has provided in Christ Jesus our Lord. Every poor sinner who has fled to Him for refuge stands “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6). Hallelujah!

It has been well said that “true worship is based upon recognized greatness, and greatness is superlatively seen in Sovereignty, and at no other footstool will men really worship.” In the presence of the Divine King upon His throne even the seraphim ‘veil their faces.’ Divine sovereignty is not the sovereignty of a tyrannical Despot, but the exercised pleasure of One who is infinitely wise and good! Because God is infinitely wise He cannot err, and because He is infinitely righteous He will not do wrong. Here then is the preciousness of this truth. The mere fact itself that God’s will is irresistible and irreversible fills me with fear, but once I realize that God wills only that which is good, my heart is made to rejoice. Here then is the final answer to the question (concerning our attitude toward God’s sovereignty)—What ought to be our attitude toward the sovereignty of God? The becoming attitude for us to take is that of godly fear, implicit obedience, and unreserved resignation and submission. But not only so: the recognition of the sovereignty of God, and the realization that the Sovereign Himself is my Father, ought to overwhelm the heart and cause me to bow before Him in adoring worship. At all times I must say, “Even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in Thy sight.”*

*Pink, A. W. (2005). The Arthur Pink anthology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

God's Covenant Love

From the pen of David McKay:

There is probably no easier way to start a theological argument than by mentioning ‘predestination’. Debates about the subject by theologians in the course of the Church’s history have been long, complex and often highly charged emotionally. Such is the reputation acquired by predestination that many earnest Christians take it as a mark of wisdom and maturity to avoid discussion of the subject altogether.

That is understandable, perhaps, but sad. At the heart of predestination as it applies to the people of God (when it is usually termed ‘election’) are two precious truths about God: He is sovereign and He is loving. It is in Covenant Theology that these truths are set out in their biblical harmony. The God of the covenants is a loving Lord, absolutely sovereign and perfectly loving.

God is sovereign

The God of the covenants is the God ‘who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will’ (Eph. 1:11). The glorious salvation which the Apostle Paul describes so magnificently in this chapter is but a demonstration of the sovereignty of God which governs all things. As Charles Hodge comments on this verse, ‘Every thing is comprehended in his purpose, and everything is ordered by his efficient control.’

...The God of the covenants, however, is not at any man’s beck and call. He may not be defined in any way we choose: He is who He says He is in His revelation. More than that, He may be approached only in the way He lays down. The terms of His covenant are for acceptance, not negotiation. Sinners enter a covenant relationship with the Lord on His terms or not at all. Covenant Theology thus acknowledges God’s supremacy and assigns to man his proper place of subordination. Human pretensions are humbled, something our fallen nature rebels against, yet, without such humbling, salvation will never be ours. A culture which in many ways exalts human powers and potential will not want to hear such a message, yet the Church is not faithful to her covenant Lord if any other gospel is preached. We know too that our sovereign God is able to change the human heart so that such a message is accepted willingly.

The God who establishes covenant relationships is not only sovereign, He is perfectly and infinitely loving. ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:16). Indeed it is the love of God, along with zeal for the glory of His name, that has resulted in His raising up a covenant people for Himself. In the Covenant of Works, God’s love for Adam is evident in every blessing that He provided. In the Covenant of Redemption the mutual love of the Persons of the Trinity is clearly demonstrated as God lays the foundations for the salvation of sinners. In the Covenant of Grace God’s redemptive love for a people chosen in eternity is central. In the covenants sovereignty and love meet in perfect harmony, as they are always in harmony within the Trinity.

We find this truth well stated by William Hendriksen in his comments on Ephesians 1:11: ‘although everything is included in God’s universe-embracing plan and in its effectuation in the course of history, there is nothing in this that should scare any of the children of God. Quite the contrary, for the words clearly imply that the only true God, who in Christ loves his own with a love that passes all understanding, acts with divine deliberation and wisdom.’

The God of the covenants is love, and the Bible shows that the most wonderful characteristic of that love is that it is lavished on sinners, on the totally undeserving. Indeed the objects of God’s love are worse than undeserving: they are positively deserving of eternal punishment on account of their sins. The wages they have earned are death (Rom. 3:23; 6:23), and yet we read in Romans 5:8 the amazing statement, ‘God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ No human mind could have imagined such love.

Such goodness and love directed to those who deserve only punishment is termed ‘grace’ and the covenant which brings salvation to sinners is rightly called the Covenant of Grace. The Lord is ‘the God of all grace’ (1 Pet. 5:10). All through the Bible the grace of God is a freely-given gift. Nowhere is this brought out more clearly than in Paul’s descriptions of salvation, particularly of justification. Thus we read in Romans 3:24 that God’s people are ‘justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.’ *

*McKay, D. (2001). The Bond of Love: Covenant Theology and the Contemporary World (49,53-54). Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones (On The Atonement)

If you believe at all in the doctrine of the wrath of God against sin, then obviously sin must be punished. What comes in and that leads to the necessity of substitution.

...You and I must realise that; that before we see the love of God in the cross we must see His wrath. The two things are always together and you cannot separate them. It is only as you have some conception of the depth of His wrath that you will understand the depth of His love. It was God Himself who found the way whereby His own wrath could express itself against sin, and yet the sinner not be destroyed but rather justified, because His own Son had borne the punishment.

...He [God] made Him [Jesus Chris] sin, He imputed the guilt of our sins to Him; He put them upon Him; and then He tells us that He punished them in Him. Any idea or theory of the atonement must always give full weight and significance to the activity of God the Father.

...There is only one doctrine of the atonement, not only in the Bible, but which is true to the biblical revelation concerning the character of God. God’s love, let us never forget, is a holy love. I say it to the glory of God—that God cannot forgive anybody by just saying, ‘I am going to forgive’. He cannot. There was only one way in which God could forgive: it was by putting our sins on His Son and by punishing them in Him. He poured out the vials of His wrath against sin on His own Son. He has ‘set him forth as a propitiation’. God has done it. That is His severity working with his goodness—the two together. It is a holy love; It is a righteous forgiveness.*

*Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (15-16). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.

We Are NOT "Good 'Ole Boys," "Dudes" or Street Urchins

Plain "good ole boy" and common slang are lost to me when it comes to the teaching and preaching of the Word of God. An occasional slip I find understandable, but in such a weighty and yet heavenly matter as the gospel being proclaimed and expounded, I find repetitions of street vernacular to take away from the presentation of God's truth - it simply seems demeaning, to both that representation of the glory that is His alone, and a detraction of that which those attending to the preaching/teaching could be gaining.

Romans 12:2 speaks of our minds being renewed to show that metamorphosis into new creatures who are being conformed to the image of our Creator - I take it this also means that our vocabulary will benefit by showing that particular aspect we gain from a Bible vocabulary as well, since it is the Word our God uses to sanctify us; which His Spirit uses to transform those new personalities that are part and parcel of the new nature and the renewed and renewing mind.

I do not mean we will speak in this or that certain translation; I mean we will speak as those who hold the glory of God in the highest honor, and that by the washing of the water of His Word, just as our Lord transforms His church to present it spotless and blameless to Himself.

If this is so important that we are told not to speak in vulgar and obscene language, as in Ephesians and Colossians, and we are to be seeking our treasure in heaven, for our treasure is that which pertains to the glory of God in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, why would we seek to be better understood by using the language we commonly used - even if it is not obscene, but merely vulgar - to communicate those words of the Lord; the very words which have no such characteristic among them, except to identify sin and the fallen nature, and that only sparingly?

We are not "Dudes;" our God is infinitely and thrice holy in unapproachable glory; yet we see Him in and our future home in a glass darkly, and only the mirrored reflection of our Lord (1 Corinthians 13:12; 2 Corinthians 3:18) - although our face is unveiled, we cannot look directly into His glory, or even our future existence in that glory. We are saints, and though we yet must struggle with the flesh until glorification, we will find that communication is best served by modeling our speech in the proper usage of language that partakes of the common nomenclature as possible, when teaching one another of our Great God, and speaking of Him to those who do not know Him. When we do not seem peculiar to those we speak to because we speak as we did prior to our conversion, even if to a lesser degree, to that same degree we lessen the impact of our words - that which is of the world remains of the world; that which is of God may well be - will be - hated by the world, but that is the point of representing He whom the world, and the evil one who, by Divine Fiat, sought to kill Him, which the Father allowed, then defeated, is it not?

Even if we are of a past in certain sub-cultures, or from certain locations of the land where different pronunciations and even words are used to communicate in what is, by the area or culture, the common speech, this too has been redeemed.

We are not "Good Ole Boys" or Street Urchins, nor are we of the society of the world, for then we would be of the world. We must function and communicate in the world's society, but what we communicate is the abode of our Lord, and He has given us the words by which our speech should be modeled after - we are priests of our God to properly serve Him by showing forth His unique glory to those who are our brethren, and those who are yet to be our brethren, as well as those who hate our God and Lord and so, us, as well.

Should that which is holy to the Lord, set apart by Him for His purpose, use the language of the profane to communicate His glory to the masses, or worse yet, our brethren?

"May it never be!" But it is, far too frequently, such is, indeed, the case.

I do not mean that we must all speak eloquently, or have greatly extended vocabularies (although I do not know how one can study the Scriptures without an improvement of vocabulary), for such as plain speech need not descend into the language which is most relevant to those we speak too.

Observe the speech of the Puritans, or specifically, that Prince of Preachers, Charles H. Spurgeon, as he speaks of such a common thing as sleep, from the text of Psalm 127:2:

"The sleep of the body is the gift of God. So said Homer of old, when he described it as descending from the clouds and resting on the tents of the warriors around old Troy. And so sang Virgil, when he spoke of Palinurus falling asleep upon the prow of his ship. Sleep is the gift of God. We think that we lay our heads upon our pillows, and compose our bodies in a peaceful posture, and that, therefore we naturally and necessarily sleep. But it is not so. Sleep is the gift of God; and not a man would close his eyes, did not God put his fingers on his eyelids; did not the Almighty send a soft and balmy influence over his frame which lulled his thoughts into quiescence, making him enter into that blissful state of rest which we call sleep. True, there be some drugs and narcotics whereby men can poison themselves well nigh to death, and then call it sleep; but the sleep of the healthy body is the gift of God. He bestows it; he rocks the cradle for us every night; he draws the curtain of darkness; he bids the sun shut up his burning eyes; and then he comes and says, "Sleep, sleep, my child; I give thee sleep." Have you not known what it is at times to lie upon your bed and strive to slumber? and as it is said of Darius, so might it be said of you: "The king sent for his musicians, but his sleep went from him." You have attempted it, but you could not do it; it is beyond your power to procure a healthy repose. You imagine if you fix your mind upon a certain subject until it shall engross your attention, you will then sleep; but you find yourself unable to do so. Ten thousand things drive through your brain as if the whole earth were agitated before you. You see all things you ever beheld dancing in a wild phantasmagoria before your eyes. You close your eyes, but still you see; and there be things in your ear, and head, and brain, which will not let you sleep. It is God alone, who alike seals up the sea boy's eyes upon the giddy mast, and gives the monarch rest: for with all appliances and means to boot, he could not rest without the aid of God. It is God who steeps the mind in lethe, and bids us slumber, that our bodies may be refreshed, so that for tomorrow's toil we may rise recruited and strengthened. O my friends, how thankful should we be for sleep. Sleep is the best physician that I know of. Sleep hath healed more pains of wearied bones than the most eminent physicians upon earth. It is the best medicine; the choicest thing of all the names which are written in all the lists of pharmacy. There is nothing like to sleep! What a mercy it is that it belongs alike to all! God does not make sleep the boon of the rich man, he does not give it merely to the noble, or the rich, so that they can keep it as a peculiar luxury for themselves; but he bestows it upon all. Yea, if there be a difference, the sleep of the labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much. He who toils, sleeps all the sounder for his toil. While luxurious effeminacy cannot rest, tossing itself from side to side upon a bed of eider down, the hard-working labourer, with his strong and powerful limbs, worn out and tired, throws himself upon his hard couch and sleeps: and waking, thanks God that he has been refreshed. Ye know not, my friends, how much ye owe to God, that he gives you rest at night. If ye had sleepless nights, ye would then value the blessing. If for weeks ye lay tossing on your weary bed, ye then would thank God for this favour. But as it is the gift of God, it is a gift most precious, one that cannot be valued until it is taken away; yea, even then we cannot appreciate it as we ought."

 He had pithy quips, and could use plain language in the highest of manner - and so do a great many preachers and teachers of the Word follow this example today, not because of Spurgeon, but because the Lord had transformed their speech as He did the rest of them.

It may take time, but I have known men who could not read, with reading disabilities, who learned both to read and to speak much better by simply studying and reading the Bible, for that sacred Word is not only "the power of God unto salvation," it is the power of God to show that transformation which is given us at salvation, and continues through conversion and sanctification.

If we are to redeem the time because the days are short, should we not remember that this also applies to every aspect of our being a "new creation," because "old things have passed away," and "behold, all things are new?"

Perhaps this will be taken as a rant; I hope not, but perhaps it will - perhaps it even is, in some sense, for I do find myself not only offended at my own sin (how much that is hated!), but at the manner of speech which seeks to make people understand the holiness and glory of our God by using the vocabulary which went with the old man, if not as often as before, yet in speech patterns, recognition of such is more common than not.

I will end this with the fact that those I most admire, as they follow after Christ, among those who teach and preach the Word of Truth, have a very set-apart manner of speaking. They may not all have the same vocabulary, but they all are possessed of a manner of speaking about God and the  brethren in a way that, most often, reminds me of those words used in the Scriptures of our God. The illustrations may be of common things, and even the speech of the most well articulated of these men can - and does - reach to common illustrations of mundane things, but the communication of these things are - most often - done in a way that is understandable, yet, if one can be said to speak in such a way, "redeemed."

Post over, or rant over, as the case may be. The peace, grace and blessings of God be with you and yours through the only glorious and blessed Potentate (Sovereign - I learned both words through different versions of the Bible, with different text flows - neat, huh?), the Lord of lords and King of kings, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

My Presbyterianism

I am announcing publicly that I am now a Presbyterian. I dislike writing blogs in non-academic prose. I sense that it trumps my trek into scholarship, but bear with me. I became a 5 point Calvinist in 2007 and for 5 years termed myself: Reformed Baptist, Calvinistic Baptist, or Sovereign Grace Baptist. I was 5 point Calvinist who believed in believer’s baptism, but having studied Presbyterianism for a few years, I respected infant baptism and could see its defense in the Scriptures. In seminary, for a class assignment, I played Increase Mather, dressed like a Puritan, and gave a defense of infant baptism while calling myself a Reformed Baptist. I loved (and still love and cherish) Baptist history. I admired (and still admire) the British Baptists, and of course I grieved over the fact that much of the Southern Baptist Convention was theologically aberrant. As time passed, I became acquainted with Presbyterian ideas and was exceedingly blessed by them, as much as by the Calvinistic Baptists.

Some history: I am a proud ex-Roman Catholic, saved at an evangelical Pentecostal church in 1997 in the Republic of Panama, which is very Pentecostal. After some theological issues and bad experiences, I grew tired of strong Pentecostalism and came to oppose it quite strongly but respectfully, although the church I was saved at was an exception to the rule (a great church). I came to despise the spiritual abuse of the pressure to receive the “gifts of the spirit,” and now I am a proud and comfortable cessationist (for exegetical, not emotional reasons).

I am a Seattleite (a citizen of Seattle, Washington), and there are not many confessionally Reformed churches. To me, the 3 forms of unity and the LBCF / Westminster confessions were exceedingly important, and as I learn more about them, I strongly believe that much of Christianity is suffering due to ignorance of these great confessions. I include the London Baptist Confession of 1689 because it is such an excellent Baptist document, and what true Baptists ought to believe. I began to attend a few non-denominational churches in Seattle, and grieved over the fact that the preaching proved to be awkward, sometimes irrational, sometimes aberrant, and non-exegetical. At times I left the church service fuming over the bad theology that was presented there. I began going to Seattle Reformed Presbyterian church this summer (2012) and was very glad to see brethren who loved the truth, were Calvinists, were confessional, cared about sola scriptura, and treated me like family (not that I was demanding). The RPCNA is a fine denomination, holding to confessional Reformed theology and the principles I strongly believed in, that were missing from so many other churches I attended, even Baptist ones (non-Reformed). I felt that the Baptist churches I attended lacked the pure Reformed convictions I cherished (minus the one in Kirkland – a good Reformed one), and still taught the error of free will and Amyraldism (general atonement). I will say that there are about half a dozen Reformed Baptist churches that are excellent confessional churches, and who get along very well with the Presbyterian churches. Here in Seattle, Calvinists stick together despite differing in non-essentials (baptism, the Lord’s supper, church government, etc.) These Reformed Baptist churches, a really good one in Kirkland (far from where I live), are highly recommended to worship at, but they are too far from where I live, as are most of the Reformed churches in Washington state. The closest one to my apartment, Seattle Reformed Presbyterian, grew on me very quickly, and I am convinced that going there was due to God’s providence and Sovereign direction.

This summer I intensified my Presbyterian studies, did tons of research and exegesis, and made the decision to adopt Presbyterian views. I still love Reformed Baptism and I am not pedantically opposed to credobaptism, but I am Presbyterian – my conscience has been directed there. I adhere to Calvin’s view of the Lord’s supper and the sacraments, where before I did not. I do not wish to debate baptism or other non-essentials, and I would never criticize Reformed Baptism, much less my dear Reformed brethren in Christ that adhere to the London Baptist Confession (hey, I adhere to most of it anyway! It is a wonderful read). My “switch” is not presumptuous, reactionary, or spiteful, and I spent many sleepless nights thinking about this. I am confident that this decision was a great idea, and I look forward to studying much more concerning Presbyterianism – areas such as theonomy and postmilleniallism. Know this - that I will not disrespect Reformed Baptists (I was one, and was happy to be one), nor will I cease to cherish this great Calvinistic tradition and the theologians that comprise it, in particular Spurgeon. Again, I do not wish to debate non-essentials nor forcefully promote them. To God be the glory alone – for Christ and covenant. 

Felipe Diez III
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

 

Epistemology of History

I have not written on this beloved blog for some time, as an exceeding number of preoccupations concerning the state of my health have prevented me from doing much more than my seminary work and some studies at the Institute of Biblical Defense, but I am back. My intention now is to lay a basic foundation for thinking about History. By this, I mean extra-biblical history. I am rather alarmed that when history is discussed among learned people, the discourse remains at the metaphysical level (occurrences and reasons for those). I am not suggesting that all scholars do is ramble about facts and whether or not History is linear, circular, or oscillating. I am also not implying that subjects concerning historiographical method are also not spoken of. Before I proceed with my thesis, I would like to supply, if I may, a brief fact concerning historiography after a definition. Historiography is a discipline that concerns itself with the study of the methodology and development of history. How should we think about history? How do we write about it and approach it?

Basically, history is the study of past events, but this is not what I am concerned with. I am not a historian, although I read my fair share of history and have taken one year of Masters level church history and historiography in seminary. But what does this matter if I do not first ask the question: What is History? We are not looking for a definition now. One has already been provided. My question is purely epistemological. It is my exceedingly strong contention that before one can postulate anything as regards metaphysics, that one is obligated to “pan-out” a theory of knowledge (epistemology) and how it is possible to think about metaphysics (the facts of history). 

For the most part, historiography has been a study very much dominated by empiricism and concrete metaphysical reasoning, and as I have stated before, the facts of history do not arrive to us with an implicit built-in interpretation that we can ascertain through sense experience. This is why our first concern as regards history is epistemological. With what lens are we going to “view” history? After all, it cannot be observed. But someone will say “of course it can – we have relics from antiquity, and archaeologists have adduced wonders from an analysis of pottery. Our cultural anthropologists have written books about this or that, and our historians have arrived to unanimous decisions.” But this kind of argumentation has not departed from the metaphysical, and we are still left with facts suspended in mid-air. As stated before, all subject matter, including the discipline of Historiography, is controlled by a theory of knowledge that attempts to authenticate its theory of metaphysics (the facts of history) for the purpose of making sense of those facts. It is my strong assertion that an empirical theory of knowledge cannot account for the facts of History, neither can it organize history, as if the facts had their own interpretations ready to be unpacked once we observe and think about occurrences. The 5 senses can only do that – sense. They cannot lead to an intellectual adduction, much less a hypothesis about history. It is, then, the majority of historians who have taken for granted that history exists, that the past was uniform, and that the present is uniform enough in order to make meaningful statements about the past. They also take it for granted that the future will be uniform. By uniform, I am speaking of the philosophical topic of the uniformity of nature. After all, in order for the Battle of Hastings to have happened, gravity and the laws of logic must have existed back then. But historians often simply speak of facts before they even define the equipment by which they are philosophically warranted to state the facts. After all, most historians are common-sense realists although I doubt they have ever cared to adopt the views of the Scottish common-sense philosophers that they have studied.

My point is that one cannot simply assume that nature is uniform and engage in historiography “just because.” One must realize that it is the God of the Scriptures who not only created the world, but is Sovereign over history. Any attempts to make sense of history by reasoning autonomously away from God end up in futility and chaos. Historians, then, do not have a complete sense of history if they only tell us what “happened” or why they “think it happened.” They must answer other questions as to the origin of how they can say what they say in order for History to “come alive,” as they want it to. They can say that Napoleon lost to the Iron Duke, but they cannot call Napoleon “ruthless,” because by simple empirical understanding of facts, one cannot come to the conclusion that someone is ruthless. This is the task of ethics, and when it comes to ethics, the Bible is the only thing that matters – the Word of God. So History’s starting point is the Word of God, which is full of historico-theological account, and authenticates natural revelation, which in its past disguise, we call history.


Felipe Diez III
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

A.W. Pink On True Christian Love

LOVE is the Queen of the Christian graces. It is a holy disposition given to us when we are born again by God. It is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. True spiritual love is characterized by meekness and gentleness, yet it is vastly superior to the courtesies and kindnesses of the flesh.

We must be careful not to confuse human sentimentality, carnal pleasantries, human amiability and affability with true spiritual love. The love God commands, first to Himself and then to others, is not human love. It is not the indulgent, self-seeking love which is in us by nature. If we indulgently allow our children to grow up with little or, no Scriptural discipline, Proverbs plainly says we do not love them, regardless of the human sentimentality and affection we may feel for them. Love is not a sentimental pampering of one another with a loose indifference as to our walk and obedience before the Lord. Glossing over one another’s faults to ingratiate ourselves in their esteem is not spiritual love.

The true nature of Christian love is a righteous principle which seeks the highest good of others. It is a powerful desire to promote their welfare. The exercise of love is to be in strict conformity to the revealed will of God. We must love in the truth. Love among the brethren is far more than an agreeable society where views are the same. It is loving them for what we see of Christ in them, loving them for Christ’s sake.

The Lord Jesus Himself is our example. He was not only thoughtful, gentle, self-sacrificing and patient, but He also corrected His mother, used a whip in the Temple, Severely scolded His doubting disciples, and denounced hypocrites. True spiritual love is above all faithful to God and uncompromising towards all that is evil. We cannot declare, ‘Peace and Safety’ when in reality there is spiritual decay and ruin!

True spiritual love is very difficult to exercise because it is not our natural love. By nature we would rather love sentimentally and engender good feelings. Also many times true spiritual love is not received in love, but is hated as the Pharisees hated it. We must pray that God will fill us with His love and enable us to exercise it without dissimulation toward all.*

*Pink, A. W. (2005). The Arthur Pink anthology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Theology Gone To The Head

Yes theology can be a dangerous thing. That is no fault of theology itself. The fault lies with the sinful heart of man. The proud sinful heart of man to be precise.We've all encountered such individuals who have all the right theology. They can expound and defend the doctrines of grace with precision. They have all their theological I's dotted and T's crossed. They love to talk about all the major doctrines and are very great at proclaiming them. They are passionate about the discussion on supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. They go into depth on the ordo salutis. They love all the five solas. They cherish and adore the creeds and confessions. To simplify, they have the mind of a theologian but the heart of Pharaoh.

Therein lies the danger. These men can speak of the truth but their hearts seem far from humbled by them. They have the right doctrines but their hearts are cold and and as hard as stone. They act pompously when others disagree with their cherished non essential doctrines. They demonstrate no fruit of the Spirit and lack love for the brethren, which mind you is the main way Christ said that all will know we are His (Jn 13:35, 1Jn. 4:7-21). They seems to especially eschew anyone that is outside of their theological camp. That which is meant (theology) to take the sinner before the throne of Christ and humble Him before the almighty and then others, is distorted to puff up the sinner. It is theology gone to the head. It is dangerous and quite obnoxious. The Apostle Paul puts it this way:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor. 13:1-7 emphasis mine).

Theology gone to the head is real, my friends. These people are not on the outside looking in, they are on the inside looking out (or so they think).They are right smack in the middle proclaiming and articulating but seldom loving. The sad thing is, is that these individuals are so familiar with the right theological language that they even distort the word "love" to justify their scorn and hatred of the brethren. Let me add that they are both old and young.

To be sure theology is a must. One cannot worship the Triune God apart from proper theology. But that is for another article. For now I am concerned with the danger of theology gone to the head. A theology that misses the heart is a theology gone to the head.

Here are some final words from Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

The business of the Christian faith is not to give us a knowledge of theology. You can have a great knowledge of theology and still not know God. I am the last man to decry theology, one of the greatest troubles is the lack of a knowledge of theology, but I say you may have a knowledge of theology and still be a stranger to the love of God.

...True theology always moves the heart

...Oh, you can boast of your understanding of theology, you can feel proud of yourself. But your real reason for studying and reading is to show off your great knowledge. I have known people who have had, it seems to me, nothing but a purely technical interest in the Bible. They are clever at turning up this and that verse and comparing them. They have topics and words all neatly classified. In a minute they can give you an analysis of a whole book of the Bible. But that is not true knowledge of the Scripture.

...Generally speaking, the truly great thinker is a humble man. It is ‘a little learning’ that ‘is a dangerous thing’.*

*Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (295-296). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.

Weekly Pink (On The Balance Of Preaching)

One of the most unknown great preacher/theologians is, in my opinion, Arthur Walkington Pink. His book The Sovereignty of God is a masterpiece that every Christian should read. He is by no means above criticism, yet when one reads his writings they can be sure to be edified by having Christ preached to them.

With that said, I will now post quotes from Pink on a weekly basis. Love him or hate him, the man preached Christ and Him crucified.

Now since it be true that the roots of both legality and licentiousness are found in every man by nature, it behooves the servant of God to be on his most prayerful and careful guard against giving place to either of these evils, for in proportion as he does so the Truth is falsified and the souls of his hearers are poisoned. If he be guilty of preaching in a legalistic way, the person and work of Christ is dishonored and the spirit of self-righteousness is fed to those who sit under him. Unless he makes it crystal clear that none but Christ can avail the sinner and that there is in Him a sufficiency to meet his every need, unless he expresses himself beyond a peradventure of being misunderstood that the merits of Christ’s righteousness and blood are the sole means for delivering a believing sinner from the curse of the broken law and his alone title to everlasting bliss, he has failed at the most vital point of his mission and duty. The trumpet he is called upon to blow must give forth no uncertain sound at this point: nothing but faith in the finished work of Christ, and nothing added thereto, can supply the sinner with a standing-ground before the thrice holy God.

On the other hand, it is equally important and essential that the minister steer clear of the opposite extreme. If he be guilty of preaching in a licentious way then the person and work of Christ is equally dishonored and the spirit of religious bolshevism is fostered in his hearers. Unless he makes it as plain as an object bathed in the light of the noonday sun that God hates sin, all sin, and will not compromise with or condone it in any one; unless he declares and insists that Christ came to save His people from their sins—from the love of them, from the dominion of them—he has failed at the most essential part of his task. The great work of the pulpit is to press the authoritative claims of the Creator and Judge of all the earth, to show how short we have come of meeting God’s just requirements, to announce His imperative demand of repentance—the sinner must throw down the weapons of his rebellion and forsake his evil way before he can trust in Christ to the saving of his soul: that Christ is to be received as King to rule over him as well as Priest to atone for him, to surrender to Him as his rightful Lord ere he can embrace him as his gracious Saviour.

Such a task as we have briefly outlined above is no easy one, and only those who are called and qualified by God are fitted to discharge it. To preserve the balance of Truth so that the requirements of righteousness and the riches of grace are equally poised: to avoid Arminianism on the one side and Antinomianism on the other is an undertaking far beyond the capacity of any “novice” (1 Tim. 3:6). It requires a “workman” and not a lazy man, a student and not a sloven, one who studies to “show himself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15) and not one who seeks the applause and the shekels of men. Nor can any human education or self-development of the intellectual faculty impart this capacity. No indeed: only in the school of Christ can this accomplishment be acquired; only as the Holy Spirit is his Teacher can any man be furnished unto such an undertaking. The preacher must first be taught himself, taught experimentally and effectually, taught in his soul to love what God loves and hate what God hates, and then be given wisdom from above to express the same according to the Scriptural pattern before he is ready to show unto others the way of life.

It is because so many untaught men, unregenerate men, now occupy the pulpits that “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6) is being so widely and generally disseminated. Multitudes who have neither “tasted that the Lord is gracious” nor have “the fear of the Lord” in them have, from various motives and considerations, invaded the sacred calling of the ministry, and out of the abundance of their corrupt hearts they speak. Being blind themselves, they lead the blind into the ditch. Having no love for the Shepherd they have none for the sheep, being but “hirelings.” They are themselves “of the world” and therefore “the world heareth them” (1 John 4:5), for they preach that which is acceptable unto fallen human nature, and as like attracts like, they gather around themselves a company of admirers who flatter and support them. They will bring in just enough of God’s Truth to deceive the unwary and give the appearance of orthodoxy to their message, but not sufficient of the Truth, especially the searching portions thereof, to render their hearers uncomfortable by destroying their false peace. They will name Christ but not preach Him, mention the Gospel but not expound it.

Some of these men will preach legality under the pretense of furthering morality and honoring the Divine Law. They will preach up good works, but lay no foundation on which they may be built. They confound justification and sanctification, making personal holiness to be the ground of the sinner s acceptance before God. They sow their vineyards with “divers seed” (Deut. 22:9) so that Law and Gospel, Divine grace and creature performances are so mingled together that their distinctive characters are obliterated. Others preach Licentiousness under the guise of magnifying the grace of God. They omit the Divine call to repentance, say nothing about the necessity of forsaking our sins if we are to obtain mercy (Prov. 28:13), lay no stress upon regeneration as a being made “a new creature In Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17), but declare that the sinner has simply to accept Christ as his personal Saviour—though his heart be still unhumbled, without contrition and thoroughly in love with the world—and eternal life is now his. The result of this preaching is well calculated to bolster up the deluded, for instead of insisting that saving faith is evidenced by its spiritual fruits, instead of teaching that the Christian life is a warfare against the world, the flesh and the devil and that none but the overcomer will reach Heaven, they are assured—no matter how carnal their walk—that “once saved, always saved,” and thus they are soothed in their sins and comforted with a false peace unto they awake in Hell. Shun all such preaching, my reader, as you would a deadly plague. “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth thee to err from the words of knowledge” (Prov. 19:27).*

*Pink, A. W. (2005). The Arthur Pink anthology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.