Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

But I suppose if you were to be asked to say where the Bible teaches the holiness of God most powerfully of all you have to go to Calvary. God is so holy, so utterly holy, that nothing but that awful death could make it possible for Him to forgive us. The cross is the supreme and the sublimest declaration and revelation of the holiness of God.

 I should like to tarry with this great theme, but I cannot; we must move on. Let us just remind ourselves that surely the purpose of the biblical revelation of God’s holiness is to teach us how to approach Him. It is not mere theoretical knowledge that we are asked to try to grasp with our understandings. Its purpose is very practical. In the words of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, we are to approach God ‘with reverence and godly fear’ (Heb. 12:28). He is always to be approached in that way, wherever you are; when you are alone in a room, or when you are meeting as a family to pray, or when you are in a public service, God is always God and He is always to be approached ‘with reverence and godly fear’. No such expression as ‘Dear God’, for example, is to be found in the Scriptures.

 There are many illustrations of this. Think again of Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3); then there is the terrible case of that man Uzzah who put out his hand to steady the Ark as it was being carried on a cart (2 Sam. 6). That is a terrible declaration about how we are to approach God and worship Him. Read the account of how the law was given; how the mount was burning with fire, and nothing was allowed to approach it (Exod. 19:16–25): the holiness of God.

 This doctrine also teaches us, of course, the terrible nature of sin. You will never have a knowledge of sin unless you have a true conception of the holiness of God. And that is perhaps why the modern conception of sin is so inadequate. We do not spend sufficient time with the doctrine of God, and with the holiness of God. That is the way to see sin—not primarily by self-examination but by going into the presence of God. People sometimes say, ‘But you don’t expect all of us to feel that we are miserable sinners, do you? You don’t want all of us to say with Charles Wesley, “Vile and full of sin I am”? That may be all right for drunkards and people like that, but it’s not true of us!’

Some people are troubled by this. They say, ‘I have never really felt I am a sinner. How can I, when I have been brought up in a Christian home, and have always gone to a place of worship? Surely I’m not expected to have that awful sense of sin?’ But the answer to all that is this: If you really came into the presence of God and had some conception of His holiness, you would soon know yourself as a vile, terrible sinner. You would say with Paul that there is no good thing in you (Rom. 7:18). The way to appreciate your own sinfulness is not to look at your actions, nor your life, but to come into the presence of God.

And finally, of course, God’s holiness shows us the absolute necessity of the atonement. That is the reverse of what I was saying just now about the cross as the manifestation of the holiness of God. Yes, but as it manifests that, it also shows us that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, that God’s holiness insists upon it, demands an atonement for sin.*

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,  whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Ro 3:21–26).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (71–72). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

No More One- Dimensional Christianity

Dr. R.C. Sproul admits to having been a one-dimensional Christian. He writes:

But something was missing in my early Christian life. I had abundant zeal, but it was marked by a shallowness, a kind of simplicity that was making me a one-dimensional person. I was a Unitarian of sorts, a Unitarian of the second person of the Trinity. I knew who Jesus was, but God the Father was shrouded in mystery. He was hidden, an enigma to my mind and a stranger to my soul. A dark veil covered His face.

I, too, can confess to having been one dimensional in my Christianity. It wasn't just a failure to understand God the Father but failure to understand the holiness of God. For me, and many today it was all about the love of God. All I wanted to hear and speak is "Jesus loves you." That sentence was my attempt at evangelism and my only view of God. I wasn't comfortable reading the Word of God unless it stirred my emotions with some mention of God's love for me. Then two things happened. The sentimentality started to wane once my Christianity started causing me great pain and struggles. Being insulted, laughed at and mocked by others for my faith in Christ didn't make me feel so "loved." Aggravating the problem even more was a lack of seeing any repentance and faith in Christ from those whom I was telling "God loves you" or "Jesus loves you."

Then I was handed a book titled The Forgotten Trinity by Dr. James White. Now my attention was drawn to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well as God the Son. Now my theology was no longer limited to "Jesus loves me." I was starting to view God in all His glory (this side of eternity). Seeds were planted to help me understand that the triune God's greatest attribute is not His love but His holiness which makes His love for sinners that much greater.

Statements like the following helped me to stop being a one-dimensional Christian:

To mention something three times in succession is to elevate it to the superlative degree, to attach to it emphasis of su- perimportance. For example, the dreadful judgment of God is declared in the book of Revelation by the eagle who cried in midair with a loud voice: "Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth" (Rev. 8:13). Or we hear it in the mocking sarcasm of Jeremiah's temple speech when he chided the people for calling out in hypocrisy, "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!" (Jer. 7:4).
Only once in sacred Scripture is an attribute of God elevated to the third degree.

Only once is a characteristic of God mentioned three times in succession. The Bible says that God is holy, holy, holy. Not that He is merely holy, or even holy, holy. He is holy, holy, holy. The Bible never says that God is love, love, love; or mercy, mercy, mercy; or wrath, wrath, wrath; or justice, justice, justice. It does say that He is holy, holy, holy, that the whole earth is full of His glory.*

And:

Who is thee unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Interrogations are, in Scripture, the strongest affirmations or negations; it is here a strong affirmation of the incomparableness of God, and a strong denial of the worthiness of all creatures to be partners with him in the degrees of his excellency; it is a preference of God before all creatures in holiness, to which the purity of creatures is but a shadow in desert of reverence and veneration, he being “fearful in praises.” The angels cover their faces when they adore him in his particular perfections.*

This helped me grow tremendously in my Christianity. I feared God more which then moved me to be more obedient. I started to understand how much God truly loves not only me but all those for whom Christ gave His life. It effected the way I worshiped Him. No longer was I to approach God in any flippant way I desired but to worship Him in fear, reverence and awe with great joy as He has commanded the redeemed to do so. No longer was church about me and how I felt. It was a corporate gathering. A gathering of those purchased by the blood of the Lamb to sing praises and give thanks to His great name and to behold His holiness and greatness through the proclamation of His Word from the "man of God" (the pastor/preacher). No longer did I view church as a failure if I walked out of the service without an emotional high. I learned to receive rebuke and correction from the pulpit as from God precisely because my attention was drawn to the the thrice holy God and some area in my life may have been in failure to submit or testify to His great name.

No more was it an embarrassment to read and discuss with non believers of the Old Testament of God's deliberate destruction of men, women and children. In fact it became a consolation to me in that God testifies to His own holiness that He alone is "LORD" and not to be trifled with by any:

"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: I will make a stormy wind break out in my wrath, and there shall be a deluge of rain in my anger, and great hailstones in wrath to make a full end. And I will break down the wall that you have smeared with whitewash, and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you shall perish in the midst of it, and you shall know that I am the LORD (Eze 13:13–14).

Behold, I am against you and will draw my sword from its sheath and will cut off from you both righteous and wicked. Because I will cut off from you both righteous and wicked, therefore my sword shall be drawn from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. And all flesh shall know that I am the LORD. I have drawn my sword from its sheath; it shall not be sheathed again (Eze 21:3–5).

If you haven't noticed by now that God acts for His own name let me proceed to one further passage. Though sinners be the recipients of His mercy and love in their salvation from God be it temporal or eternal or the recipients of His wrath and fury, God acts for His own sake. God is holy, holy indeed:

Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. But I withheld my hand and acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out (Eze 20:21–22). 

The holiness of God also altered the way I proclaimed the name of Christ. No longer was I afraid to speak of hell and judgment from God towards the unbelieving. My mode of evangelism went from "Jesus loves you and has great plans for your life" and "Jesus loves you give Him a try" to the biblical model which never records any form of evangelism with "Jesus loves you" but does so concerning the life, death and resurrection of Christ with fearful warning of the coming wrath of God on the unrepentant:

“And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness”(Ac 3:17–26).

One-dimensional Christianity halts spiritual growth and often presents a very shallow view of God. My plea is for an end to one- dimensional Christianity. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*R. C. Sproul. The Holiness of God (Kindle Locations 54-56). Kindle Edition.
*R. C. Sproul. The Holiness of God (Kindle Locations 262-269). Kindle Edition.
*Charnock, S. (2002). Vol. 2: The existence and attributes of God (109). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The Doctrine Of Hell Matters

Here's why according to G.T. Shedd:

The denial of endless punishment is usually associated with the denial of those tenets which are logically and closely connected with it such as original sin, vicarious atonement, and regeneration. Of these, vicarious atonement is the most incompatible of any with universal salvation; because the latter doctrine, as has been observed, implies that suffering for sin is remedial only, while the former implies that it is retributive. Suffering that is merely educational does not require a vicarious atonement in order to release from it. But suffering that is judicial and punitive can be released from the transgressor, only by being inflicted upon a substitute. He, therefore, who denies personal penalty must, logically, deny vicarious penalty. If the sinner himself is not obliged by justice to suffer in order to satisfy the law he has violated, then, certainly, no one needs suffer for him for this purpose.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Shedd, G.T. (2011-05-18). The Doctrince of Endless Punishment: a 19th Century Response to Rob Bell and Love Wins (Kindle Locations 110-116). Primedia E-launch. Kindle Edition.

Refuting Arguments Against Calvinism: Calvinism Hinders Evangelism

It has often been said, that taking Calvinism to its logical conclusion will lead to a hindrance of Evangelism.

The logic is as follows:

1) Calvinism teaches that God has an elect people
2) Calvinism teaches that those elect people WILL definitely come to God
3) Therefore, there is no point in preaching.

While both the first point (Romans 8:28-30;Ephesians 1:4;Matthew 24:31;Matthew 22:14, and second point (John 6:44;Romans 8:30;Acts 13:48), are obviously true, the deductive conclusion is false. It fails to account for the means that both the bible, and Reformed Theologians, have said is the way God has ordained for men to be saved, and that is-- by the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:15;Romans 1:16).

Not only is this not consistent with what Reformed Theologians have taught, it is also inconsistent with history. Men such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Davies, were all Calvinistic, yet, if we read their sermons, and look at history, we will see that they were evangelistic. Well known missionaries such as David Brainerd, John G. Paton, Henry Martyn, and William Carey, also believed in sovereign grace.

L.R Shelton, when speaking of one of the reasons Calvinism gives fire for Evangelism said this:

"First, we know that God has a people who will hear the Gospel and be saved, according to II Tim. 2:10. "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." Isn't that wonderful! Every saved person wants to see God's people brought in. There is a fire and enthusiasm in your heart that you can't let go. The Apostle Paul was one of the truest Calvinist's, from the standpoint of doctrine, who ever lived. When he went forth to preach, he knew that God's elect would hear him; whether he was in prison, whether he was standing before kings or queens, whether he was out there facing a mob, or whether he was just there facing one or a few, he knew God's elect would hear him, and he could endure all things for the elect's sake. Contrary to the concept of Arminian's, in the heart of every true Calvinist there is a burning desire to see God's elect get saved."

Ergo, we can see that the charge that Calvinism hinders evangelism is false. On the contrary, it encourages evangelism!

-awretchsaved

Double Predestination?

Nothing can get an Arminian's (quasi Arminians too) blood boiling like predestination. But double predestination is sure to cause our Arminian brethren a heart attack! The doctrine of double predestination has evoked much anger and venom from many people. It has been falsely depicted and grossly presented by it's objectors. "It makes God to be the author and creator of evil", "It makes God to be an evil tyrant", "Only a cruel god would create someone just to damn them." Those are just some of the objections often presented.

They may even turn to the Prince of Preachers- Charles Spurgeon an ardent believer in unconditional election- to state or support their case. Spurgeon once preached:

Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly—it is the same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever.*

It does seem that Spurgeon held to single predestination. That is that God only predestines some people to salvation but did not predestine those whom to damn. There are a few things to point out here. One is that Spurgeon may be taking aim at hyper-Calvinists. Outside of the hyper-Calvinist (I'm using the historical definition not the Norman Geisler redefinition) camp I know of not one person who believes God "arbitrarily" creates people simply to damn them. Sinners are not damned simply because God wants to damn them. No, sinners are damned because of our rebellion against God. Both in our corporate sin in our federal head Adam and for personal sins that follow.

 The second is that when God decrees to damn sinners it must never be viewed apart from the fall (sin). In both the infralapsarian view and the supralapsarian view the fall is always in mind when reflecting on God's decree to damn those whom He withholds His saving grace from. R.C Sproul puts it in this way:

If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate's being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion...God's decree of reprobation, given in light of the fall, is a decree to justice, not injustice. In this view the biblical a priori that God is neither the cause nor the author of sin is safeguarded...The importance of viewing the decree of reprobation in light of the fall is seen in the on-going discussions between Reformed theologians concerning infra- and supra-lapsarianism. Both viewpoints include the fall in God's decree. Both view the decree of preterition in terms of divine permission. The real issue between the positions concerns the logical order of the decrees. In the supralapsarian view the decree of election and reprobation is logically prior to the decree to permit the fall. In the infralapsarian view the decree to permit the fall is logically prior to the decree to election and reprobation.

Simply put when God decrees to save some and reject others passing them over decreeing their damnation He is not doing so from a mass of innocent humans all deserving to be saved. Rather, the fall must always be kept in mind since God decreed the fall and in it all humanity is guilty of sin and deserving of God's just damnation. This is precisely why the words of Rom. 9:14-16 are so humbling and precious, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."


 Dr. Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology, is wise to define predestination in regards to man in light of the fall. He writes:

In passing from the discussion of the divine decree to that of predestination, we are still dealing with the same subject, but are passing from the general to the particular. The word “predestination” is not always used in the same sense. Sometimes it is employed simply as a synonym of the generic word “decree.” In other cases it serves to designate the purpose of God respecting all His moral creatures. Most frequently, however, it denotes “the counsel of God concerning fallen men, including the sovereign election of some and the righteous reprobation of the rest.” In the present discussion it is used primarily in the last sense, though not altogether to the exclusion of the second meaning (emphasis mine).*

Keep that in mind as we read his writing on election:

The purpose of election. The purpose of this eternal election is twofold: (1) The proximate purpose is the salvation of the elect. That man is chosen or elected unto salvation is clearly taught in the Word of God, Rom. 11:7–11; 2 Thess. 2:13. (2) The final aim is the glory of God. Even the salvation of men is subordinate to this. That the glory of God is the highest purpose of the electing grace is made very emphatic in Eph. 1:6, 12, 14. The social gospel of our day likes to stress the fact that man is elected unto service. In so far as this is intended as a denial of man’s election unto salvation and unto the glory of God, it plainly goes contrary to Scripture. Taken by itself, however, the idea that the elect are predestined unto service or good works is entirely Scriptural, Eph. 2:10; 2 Tim. 2:21; but this end is subservient to the ends already indicated.

And reprobation:

Reprobation may be defined as that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice...

The doctrine of reprobation naturally follows from the logic of the situation. The decree of election inevitably implies the decree of reprobation. If the all-wise God, possessed of infinite knowledge, has eternally purposed to save some, then He ipso facto also purposed not to save others. If He has chosen or elected some, then He has by that very fact also rejected others. Brunner warns against this argument, since the Bible does not in a single word teach a divine predestination unto rejection. But it seems to us that the Bible does not contradict but justifies the logic in question. Since the Bible is primarily a revelation of redemption, it naturally does not have as much to say about reprobation as about election. But what it says is quite sufficient, cf. Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 11:7; Jude 4; 1 Pet. 2:8.*

This leads to a third point regarding the use of Spurgeon's quote. That is unless one is willing to adopt universalism or a modified Arminianism then one cannot hold to a consistent view of single predestination. A firm belief in unconditional election logically leads to double predestination as Dr. Berkhof points out in the above quote. Or better expounded on by Dr. Sproul:

Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination. (1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold); (2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds); (3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and (4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds). The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. (I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: "Now tell me your theologywithout the dialectic, so I can understand it!" Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner's view of predestination the only way to avoid "double" predestination is with the use of "double-talk."
Thus, "single" predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination (emphasis mine).*

As for the illogical leap that double predestination must make God evil and the author of sin, I will turn to Dr. Martin Luther:

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.*

Tis always good to use the minds of learned and godly men. For a better article on the subject by Dr. R.C. Sproul go here.


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?- Romans 9:19-24

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,

Fernando


*Spurgeon's sermon on Rom. 9:13, "Jacob I have Loved but Esau I have Hated." 
*R.C. Sproul, Double Predestination
*Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (109). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
*Ibid, p. (115)
*Ibid, p. (116)
*Ibid, p. (117–118)
* R.C. Sproul, Double Predestination
*Cited from R.C. Sproul, Double Predestination

Weekly Dose Of Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Since there is a Weekly Dose of Spurgeon I am inspired to start a weekly dose of Lloyd-Jones. Both men are two of the greatest preachers the Church has ever known. That and having my soul fed last Sunday leads me to post a weekly dose of Lloyd-Jones. He is known for two things: preaching and preaching the Gospel. Without further ado:

There was a very great preacher in the U.S.A. just over a hundred years ago, James Henry Thornwell. He was, possibly, the greatest theologian the Southern Presbyterian Church has ever produced; but he was also a great preacher and a most eloquent man. There are those who say that next to Samuel Davies he was the most eloquent preacher  the American continent has ever produced. This is how his biographer tries to give us some impression of what it was to see and hear Thornwell preaching. Notice that it confirms and illustrates my definition of true preaching as something to look at as well as to hear because the whole man is involved in the action. This is how he puts it:

 "What invented symbols could convey that kindling of the eye, those trembling and varied tones, the expressive attitude, the foreshadowing and typical gesture, the whole quivering frame which made up in him the complement of the finished author! The lightning's flash, the fleecy clouds embroidered on the sky, and the white crest of the ocean wave, surpass the painter's skill. It was indescribable."

That was his impression of the preaching of Thornwell. Then consider what Thornwell himself said about preaching, and about himself as a preacher.

"It is a great matter to understand what it is to be a preacher, and how preaching should be done. Effective sermons are the offspring of study, of discipline, and especially of the unction of the Holy Ghost. They are to combine the characteristic excellencies of every other species of composition intended for delivery, and ought to be pronounced not merely with the earnestness of faith but the constraining influence of Heaven-born charity. They should be seen to come from the heart, and from the as filled with the love of Christ and the love of souls. Depend upon it that there is but little preaching in the world, and it is a mystery of grace and of divine power that God's cause is not ruined in the world when we consider the qualifications of many of its professed ministers to preach it. My own performances  in this way fill my hear with disgust. I have never made, much less preached, a sermon in my life, and I am beginning to despair of ever being able to do it. May the Lord give you more knowledge and grace and singleness of purpose."    

There is nothing to add to that. Any man who has had some glimpse of what it is to preach will inevitably feel that he has never preached. But he will go on trying, hoping that by the grace of God one day he may truly preach.*

May the Lord raise up faithful preachers of His Word.
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Preaching and Preachers (Zondervan, 1971), pp.97-98.

The Church Did Not Burn Down

Yesterday I had the great joy of fellowshipping with some of my infant baptizing brothers. Every Thanksgiving I step out of the pulpit and take a vacation. Usually we celebrate it in California with my side of the family but this year circumstances wouldn't permit that. Instead we remained in Idaho and traveled two hours to Boise and spent it with my wife's side of the family.

Down the street from her parents house is Cloverdale United Reformed Church (part of the URCNA). Having never attended a 'Truly Reformed' church, this Reformed Baptist decided to fellowship with the saints there. Two amazing things happened (or in one case something didn't happen).

One is that the church did not burn down. It was not struck down with lighting because credobaptists worshiped the same Lord along with their paedobaptist brethren in the same local church. We did not burn the church down. Who would have thought that saints purchased by the blood of the Lamb from all tribes tongues and nations and people could congregate together in His name to testify that all praise, honor, glory and worship be unto Christ the King? What a novel idea. I mean what kind of sick display of 'ecumenism' could possibly bring such glory to the Lamb of God of whom it is written, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth”(Re 5:9–10)? Tongue planted firmly in cheek.

What made it even more astounding is that an infant baptism was actually performed during the service. I was thinking to myself  "don't do it", "don't do it." Just kidding. I was actually paying careful attention to the brief discourse given on baptism before the baptism and the words being spoken during the ceremony. Of course I would strongly disagree with the notion that infants are members of the covenant of grace by virtue of federal headship. But I would not be so foolish as to say that their case for paedobaptism is without any merit. I must admit that the brief ceremony was moving and I understand how they try to get from point A to point Z. Of course that is if point is correct in the first place. Again, I disagree (strongly) but I truly enjoyed the service.

Here I must echo the words of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

One thing I have looked for and longed for and desired. I can forgive a man for a bad sermon, I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God, if he gives me something for my soul, if he gives me the sense that, though he is inadequate himself, he is handling something which is very great and very glorious, if he gives me some dim glimpse of the majesty and the glory of God, the love of Christ my Saviour, and the magnificence of the gospel. If he does that I am his debtor, and I am profoundly grateful to him. Preaching is the most amazing, and the most thrilling activity that one can ever be engaged in, because of all that it holds out for all of us in the present, and because of the glorious endless possibilities in an eternal future.*

This leads me to the second amazing thing that happened. The pastor, as Lloyd Jones put it, gave me a sense of God he gave me "some dim glimpse of the majesty and the glory of God, the love of Christ my Saviour, and the magnificence of the gospel." I could have been upset like many Christians today that I was not personally greeted outside of the greeters at the front entrance. That I went largely ignored by the church body. Or that nobody personally went out of their way to make me 'feel welcome.' No, I wasn't there for that. I was there to worship the Lord Most High with my brethren. It wasn't about me. And that day I was in submission to that pastor. Let me say that again- I was in submission to the pastor. He was handling the Word of God faithfully and accurately. He was cutting it straight.

He was giving me a taste of the glory of Christ from 1 Corinthians 16:19-24 with an emphasis on v. 22- "If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!" He was passionate about proclaiming Gospel of Christ and equally passionate about warning people of the curse pronounced upon the heads of those that do not love Christ. He didn't paddy-cake the deliberate curse, given by the Apostle Paul who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, upon the heads of non believers- haters of Christ. At the same time he was moved by the proclaiming Christ as the wrath bearer of the Father in place of hell bound sinners. He was getting emotional and having to fight back those emotions when speaking of the saving work of Christ. He was pleading with people to long for the return of Christ or to repent and believe on His name. I, too was having to fight back tears. Not just because the preacher (he is a true preacher) was getting emotional but for the same reason that was stirring the emotions of the pastor- the Gospel of Christ.

The fact that he was rightly handling the Word and doing so with passion and that because he grasps the tremendous power of the Word of God. I was reminded of what Lloyd-Jones said:

What is preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! Are these contradictions? Of course not. Reason concerning this Truth  ought to be mightily eloquent , as you see it in the case of the Apostle Paul and others. It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology; or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. I say again that a man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one.*

I had a great time in my first experience at a 'Truly Reformed' church. My only regret is that I did not stay after the service for coffee and further fellowship. I was like a ninja- in and out. Unnoticed. I had to be. I feared that they were going to sniff out this "Anabaptist" and forcefully remove me from the premises. Just kidding. I had to leave quickly as my son was sick while mom was taking care of him and I needed to give mom a little relief.


And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Re 5:7–10).


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Preaching and Preachers (Zondervan, 1971), p.98.
*Ibid, p. 97