Har Magedon

Luther on Music

2011-07-31T17:16:00.000-07:00

Forward to Georg Rhau's Collection, "Symphoniae iucundae."

I, Doctor Martin Luther, wish all lovers of the unshackled art of music grace and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ!

I truly desire that all Christians would love and regard as worthy the lovely gift of music, which is a precious, worthy, and costly treasure given to mankind by God.

The riches of music are so excellent and so precious that words fail me whenever I attempt to discuss and describe them... In summary, next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world. It controls our thoughts, minds, hearts, and spirits...

Our dear fathers and prophets did not desire without reason that music be always used in the churches. Hence, we have so many songs and psalms.

This precious gift has been given to man alone that he might thereby remind himself that God has created man for the express purpose of praising and extolling God.

However, when man's natural musical ability is whetted and polished to the extent that it becomes an art, then do we note with great surprise the great and perfect wisdom of God in music, which is, after all, His product and His gift; we marvel when we hear music in which one voice sings a simple melody, while three, four, or five other voices play and trip lustily around the voice that sings its simple melody and adorn this simple melody wonderfully with artistic musical effects, thus reminding us of a heavenly dance, where all meet in a spirit of friendliness, caress and embrace.

A person who gives this some thought and yet does not regard music as a marvelous creation of God, must be a clodhopper indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted to hear nothing but the braying of asses and the grunting of hogs.

-Martin Luther

Casper Olevianus on the Benefits Believers Receive from the Resurrection of Christ.

2011-04-23T22:02:00.000-07:00

102 Q. What benefits do believers receive from the resurrection of Christ?

A. Four in all. First, the resurrection of Christ is a sure testimony to us that God considers us to be as just and righteous in His eyes as the body of Christ was when He arose from the dead out of all of our sins. This is what St. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15[:17]: "If Christ were not risen, you would still be in your sins." From that it follows that since Christ has risen, believers are no longer in their sins. Not that there is no more sin in them but that it is pardoned and not imputed to them. Christ died not in His own sin but in all of those sins of ours that we commit right up to our death, and He arose out of all of those selfsame sins. It necessarily follows, therefore, that every single one of our sins laid upon His body is completely punished and paid for. Otherwise Christ could not have arisen. For if even one sin remains, death, the penalty for sin, also remains (Rom. 6[:23]). This teaching is found in the verse mentioned a short while ago (1 Cor. 15[:17]) and in Romans 4[:25]: "Christ was delivered up because of our offenses and was raised because of our justification."

103 Q. What is the second benefit?

A. By the power of our Head, Jesus Christ, through the Spirit of faith, we rise in this life to a new life. Humanity was created in God's image to glorify and praise Him forever in a holy and upright life. It was necessary, therefore, that Christ raise us with Him by the power of His Spirit in order that we might begin to glorify and praise God here, until we reach the goal of perfection after this life (2 Cor. 4; Phil. 2; Col. 3; Rom. 6,8).

104 Q. What is the third benefit?

A. The resurrection of Christ is a guarantee to us that our bodies will also rise unto eternal life. For since not only our souls but also our bodies are members of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15) and it would be a disgrace to Christ's body to leave its members forever in the stench of decay, it must follow that the same Spirit who raised the body of Christ from the dead and dwells in our bodies will raise our bodies from the dead (Rom. 6[:4ff.]; 8[:11]). They will conform to the glorious body of Christ, with complete victory over sin and death and perfect righteousness and radiance (Phil. 3[:21]; 1 Cor. 15[:53-57]).

105 Q. Now give the last benefit.

A. We are certain that Christ has gained the victory for Himself and us against our enemies, namely, sin, mockery and scorn, death, and the power of Satan -- which are not only our enemies but also and especially Christ's. It is with joyful hearts, therefore, that we now accept whatever adversity these enemies bring upon us in this world. We do so with a sure confidence that all of this together will not only not hinder but even further the delight and enjoyment of our victory, already gained and freely given to us by Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15[:57]: "Thanks be to God, who gave us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Corinthians 4[:10]: "We always carry about in our body the dying of Christ the Lord, that his life may also be manifested in our mortal flesh." See also 1 John 5 and 1 Peter 1.

- Casper Olivianus, A Firm Foundation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995)

Alleluia! The Lord is risen! He is risen indeed, Alleluia!

Bavinck On The Difference Between the Lutherans and Calvinists

2010-11-06T01:48:00.000-07:00

Being a Reformed student at a Lutheran university I'm naturally interested in trying my best to understand where the differences are in the two theologies of the Reformation. Awhile ago I came across a short little section in Bavinck's dogmatics where he says the differences between the two can be clearly demonstrated by their difference in principle.

"For all the agreement between them--extending even to the confession of predestination--there was from the very beginning an important difference between the German and the Swiss Reformation... Historical researches into the characteristic difference between the two in recent years have clearly demonstrated that underlying the split is a difference of principle... The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God. For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all against paganism--idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism--works-righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the "wherefore" of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the "that" and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained."

- Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 1:176-177.

I have some thoughts on this but I'd be curious to hear what you think. Does Bavinck get it right?

The First Resurrection

2010-07-30T18:17:00.000-07:00

Brian Vos pastor of Trinity United Reformed Church has a great sermon on The Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 16 Question 42. His focus is on The First Resurrection in Rev. 20:4-6.

You can find the sermon here

Also last semester I took a class on the book of Revelation and wrote a paper on the First Resurrection which you can find on the right hand side of this blog. Essentially I defended Meredith Kline's (as well as G.K. Beale's, and William Hendricksen's) thesis that the First Resurrection is the death of the believer (not baptism), while also looking at and critiquing the classic dispensational view and an alternative reformed/lutheran view of the First Resurrection (regarded as baptism).

Hope you will find it to be encouraging and helpful!

Faithful Biblical Interpretation

2009-12-20T20:27:00.000-08:00

In their book "Let The Reader Understand" Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton layout three points that are essential if we desire to faithfully interpret the Bible. Any attempt to interpret the Bible apart from these three points is ultimately incomplete.

1. How does this passage function in God's plan of redemption for his people, and where does it fit into the unfolding of that plan in history?

2. How does the passage point to Jesus Christ; i.e., how does this (OT) passage participate in the entire OT's movement toward, and focus on, Jesus Christ; or, how does this (NT) passage build on the fulfillment of God's plan in Jesus Christ?

3. How does this passage, having been focused on Christ, instruct those who are in Christ, the church; how does it help us to follow him, know him, or grow in him?

Redemptive Historical, Christotelic, and Personal (or corporate) Application!

From my personal experience it seems far to easy to focus on a single one of these at the neglect of the other two, especially to focus solely on the redemptive historical over the application or the application over the redemptive historical.

I'd recommend as one of many possible solutions to this problem (the one which I am now doing) is to print out those three helpful reminders and tape the to the inside of your Bible and give them a once over before you begin your daily reading, so as to have these questions on your mind as you read!

I hope it will help you as much as it has helped me!

Caspar Olevianus on Justification and Good Works

2009-11-11T23:25:00.000-08:00

168 Q: What kind of antidote to this accusation does faith find in the sacrifice of Christ?

A: It is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which originated and developed out of His voluntary obedience, or perfect love of God and neighbor. Since the One who suffered death kept the law perfectly and thus was not liable to death, I believe that such a death was complete payment not only for the evil I have done but also for the good that I should have done but failed to do. The latter is also sin and has also been erased and paid for with the obedience of Christ's death (Phil. 2; Rom. 5; Gal. 3,4; 1 John 1)

169 Q: How would it be however, if we countered this accusation of Satan before the judgment seat of God with a kind of righteousness that derived partly from the suffering and death of Christ and partly from our good works?

A: We could not do that without great danger both to the honor of God and to our own consciences. First of all, if we should add something, however little, from our works to the righteousness that Christ has obtained for us by His suffering and death, then we could still have reason to boast in ourselves. But faith certainly and completely removes all boasting from us and ascribes it to Christ alone (Rom. 3:27, 4:2; Jer. 9:23; 1 Cor. 1:31). Therefore, we must never add even a fragment of our works, no matter how big or small it is, to the obedience or righteousness of Jesus Christ. Otherwise faith would present Christ's righteousness before the tribunal of God as though it were not complete in itself but needed to be supplemented by us. This is what the holy apostle Paul teaches in Philippians 3:7-10.
Second, if we were to mix our own works together with the merits of Christ, we would not have a peaceful conscience. Believer's obedience and good works are still sullied with the stains of the flesh and are imperfect; much that is sinful still clings to their good works. Thus if their works were presented before the judgment seat of God, they would of necessity be liable to the sentence that God has already pronounced in His Word, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them (Gal. 3:13). It is, therefore, easy to see that if we should depend in part on our works, even a little, our consciences could never be at peace or assured that we are justified before God and can stand in His presence. Instead they would be assured of our condemnation. As Scripture says, "As many as are of the works of the law [that is, of the opinion that they are wholly or partially justified before God by these works] are under the curse" (Gal. 3:10). Therefore, says Paul in Romans 4:16, we are freely justified through faith "so that the promise might be sure."
The entire doctrine of justification, then, has two goals on which we should focus our attention: (1) that God alone be given the glory for justifying us (Rom. 3,4); nothing remains of which even the greatest of saints can boast, not even Abraham himself (Rom. 4:2); and (2) that our consciences be peaceful and steadfast (Rom. 4). These two goals of our justification are fundamentally altered, however, if we should add our own works, wholly or in part, to the righteousness that Christ obtained for us and freely given to us. It is only right, then, that we let the perfect righteousness that Christ obtained for us by His death suffice for us. Then we shall not be robbing Christ of His glory and shall have peace and quiet in our consciences. For it is impossible that the perfect, eternal righteousness of Christ, freely given us to be ours through faith, should lack anything before the judgment seat of God. We have absolutely nothing to worry about if we hold on to this righteousness with a genuine trust.

170 Q: You are not saying, then, that good works are useless?

A: They do not serve to make us right with God, either wholly or in part, but they do serve this purpose: after we have been freely and graciously justified through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, we show with good works that we are thankful to God the Lord, so that God might be praised through us. That is the reason we were originally created and then redeemed, as Zachariah teaches in Luke 1:74,75: "That we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness that is pleasing to him all the days of our life."
Good works are also useful because by the example of our good works we win others to Christ and keep those already won from falling away. The longer they are kept close to Christ, the more they are built up.

- Casper Olivianus, A Firm Foundation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 115-116

The Meaning Of The Lord's Supper

2009-09-12T14:21:00.001-07:00

I stumbled across this interesting little article today on The Meaning of the Lord's Supper. In it they gave Herman Ridderbos's view of the Meaning of the Lord's Supper which I found to be very interesting and thought I'd share it:

H. Ridderbos has discussed the Lord's Supper extensively in his book on the synoptic gospels: The Coming of the Kingdom. The Bible indicates that the Lord's Supper was instituted at a passover meal as prescribed in Ex. 12 and 13. This is very important for the understanding of the Lord's Supper, says Ridderbos, it leads to the question how exactly the Lord's Supper is related to the passover. Did Jesus Christ present Himself here as the true passover lamb? This is maintained by many scholars, but Ridderbos does not agree. When Jesus Christ speaks of "his body" He does not distribute the lamb, but the bread. And concerning the wine, Jesus Christ does not say that this refers to the blood of the passover lamb, but to the blood sprinkled at the making of the covenant (425). The bread and the wine do not represent the sacrifice of Christ, says Ridderbos.

The true background for the Lord's Supper is the sacrifice meal. That means that the Lord's Supper is a meal similar to the meals the people of Israel enjoyed after having sacrificed an animal to God. The important consequence of this is, that the sacrifice itself is no longer a part of the Lord's Supper. In the sacrifice meal the sacrifice is not represented in the meal. The meal is the result of the sacrifice (426ff.). This means that the Lord's Supper does not set before us the death of Jesus Christ, but only the beneficial results of His death.

At first sight this does not seem to be a very important change. But this impression changes when we see how Ridderbos applies this to the elements of the Supper. The breaking of the bread does not belong to the symbolism according to him. When Jesus said: "This is my body," He did not refer to His sacrifice, but to what He is distributing.

The breaking itself does not have any particular meaning. Breaking bread was a customary action: the father of the family did this at every meal (429).

Ridderbos has even stronger objections against the pouring of the wine as a symbol of the shedding of Christ's blood. The verb "to shed" cannot be used for the action of pouring wine into a cup. Moreover, the wine was not poured out at this moment of the passover meal. The wine had been standing ready for some time, when Jesus spoke these words (429ff.).

Ridderbos concludes that not the acquisition but only the application of salvation is represented in the Lord's Supper. This means: Christ's death is not represented in (broken) bread and (poured) wine. The point of the bread and the wine is, that they are there to be eaten and drunk. The participants in their believing act of eating and drinking will receive the virtue of Christ's expiatory death (437ff.).

This is undoubtedly a reduction compared to the traditional Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper. Of the meanings we found: the meal, the communion and the eschatology, only the first is emphasized by Ridderbos. From this first meaning every reference to the sacrifice is removed. The Lord's Supper should be conducted without the breaking of bread or the pouring out of wine. No distinction is indicated between bread and wine. The meaning of the Lord's Supper can, in Ridderbos' view, be summarized under two aspects:

1. Christ gives the results of His workof satisfaction
2. We receive the results of Christ's work of satisfaction.

Not having read any of Ridderbos's work I hope this is an accurate explanation of his view.

The Mystery Of Our Redemption By Christ Contained In The First Commandment

2009-06-07T18:15:00.000-07:00

"Verily, the mystery of our redemption by our Lord Jesus Christ is manifestly contained in the first precept of the ten commandments. For it is evident, that the Israelites’ free departure out of Egypt was a type or figure of the delivery of the whole compass of the earth, and of all the kingdoms of the world, which should be wrought by Christ our Lord, who hath now already set all the world free from the bondage of sin and hell. But if any man doubt of this let him diligently consider with himself the meaning of the ceremony and sacrament of that bodily deliverance, I mean, the very passover. For what is he that knoweth not that the paschal lamb did in a figure represent Christ our Redeemer? Are Paul’s words unknown, who saith, “Christ our passover is offered up?” Have not all the apostles and John the Baptist called our Lord “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world?” The words of the prophet Isaiah also, in his fifty-second chapter, are apparently known; where he compareth the delivery of Israel out of Egypt with the redemption of all the world wrought by Christ from the slavery of sin. Wherefore, in this first precept of the ten commandments is contained the mystery of Christ our Lord, and our salvation: so that, as often as those words of God shall be recited in our ears, we ought not so much to set our eyes and minds upon the ancient delivery of Israel out of Egypt, as upon the new and latter redemption, which we have by Christ Jesus, thereby to quicken our hope, and not to despair, but that the most excellent and mighty God both is and will be our God, as heretofore he hath been theirs."

- Henry Bullinger, The Decades (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004)

Is the History of the Old Testament Accurate?

2009-05-19T21:04:00.001-07:00

Meredith Kline has a chapter in the book "Can I Trust My Bible" in which he deals with the accuracy of OT history, and whether we can trust it.

Some quotes:

"... the view of history embedded in the Old Testament is not the sort of thing archaeology is able to verify."

"It must suffice to state here that apart from the God of the infallible Word, truth would be lost in meaningless darkness through which there would never resound the creative word, "Let there be light," separating the light from the darkness and assigning to each its definition as "Day" or "Night." And apart from the infallible, absolutely authoritative Word of God, man's quest for truth would be a hopeless writhing to escape the coils of subjectivism and historical relativism. The necessary presupposition for the writing of this book or for predication of any kind is the God of the infallible Word."

"... rationalistic scholars, like little boys, delight in getting the biggest and muddiest splash possible out of small puddles."

"To take our stand humbly with those whose eyes God has opened to recognize the perfect truthfulness of the Word He has spoken, does not mean that we are committed to all the woodenly literalistic interpretation that has been imposed on the Old Testament. But great caution is necessary at this point lest warning against one error, a far worse error be encouraged. The "worse error" we refer to is found in the dominant theological movement of our day, Barthianism, which denies the real, literal historicity of the key events in Scripture"

"The practical consequence is that the reins of Barthian interpretation are let loose and it runs amuck over the sacred records, dissolving Biblical history in the acid of theological allegorization - allegorization as unwarranted and undisciplined as its older, less sophisticated cousins. "

"Archaeological research has, or course, also posed some new problems with respect to the accuracy of Biblical history in points of detail. But this need cause no undue concern for the Bible student. On the Biblical side, allowance must be made for various possibilities of interpretation and, as we have seen, for a measure of textual variation. On the archaeological side, allowance must be made for the fragmentary nature of the evidence (only a few score of some 25,000 sites in Biblical lands have been excavated) and for the differences and uncertainties in the interpretation of the evidence available, due in part to the relative youth of this science."

"Those who recognize the Word of God for what it is can with patience of faith await the final vindication of the perfect truthfulness of that Word."

"It is not, however, the ever increasing witness of archaeology but the self-witness of the divine Word which leaves all negative criticism of that Word without acceptable excuse in the sight of its Author."

---------------

Anyway, its a great article, make sure you read the whole thing to get these quotes in their full context, here.

Geerhardus Vos and the Historical Reliability of Scripture

2009-05-17T19:09:00.000-07:00

The Princeton Theological Review published an article by Vos on the historical reliability of Scripture (1906). It's pretty lengthy but well worth the read.

Read the article here.

(HT: Nicholas T. Batzig at feedingonchrist.com)

A Quest For More

2009-04-27T00:33:00.000-07:00

check out the book here

Abraham and the Law

2009-03-31T23:05:00.000-07:00

"...Abraham therefore was not justified by circumcision, or receiving of the sacrament; for it is said that he was justified before he was circumcised. Afterward was added the sign of circumcision, as "the seal of the righteousness of faith," that is, the sign or sealing that all the seed of Abraham is justified by faith. The same our father Abraham was not justified by the law: for the law was four hundred and thirty years added to the promise, not to take away sin or to work justification, but to make sin appear, and to make us altogether empty; and, when we are once made empty, to send, and as it were compel us to fly, to Christ."

- Henry Bullinger, The Decades (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 1:116

Faith Is The True Knowledge That Maketh Men Wise.

2009-03-30T22:56:00.000-07:00

"Many men hope that they can attain to true wisdom by the study of philosophy: but they are deceived as far as heaven is broad. For philosophy doth falsely judge and faultily teach many things touching God, the works of God, the chief goodness, the end of good and evil, and touching things to be desired and eschewed. But the very same things are rightly and truly taught in the word of God, and understood and perceived by faith. Faith therefore is the true wisdom, and maketh us wise indeed".

- Henry Bullinger, The Decades (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 1:101

Testimony of The Fathers In Support Of The Reformed View Of The Lord's Supper

2009-03-29T17:16:00.000-07:00

The Testimony Of The Fathers In Support Of The Reformed View Of The Lord’s Supper:

Irenaeus: “The earthly bread being so called by the word of God, is no longer common bread; but because the eucharist, which consists of two things, the earthly and the heavenly”.

Tertullian: “The bread which Christ took, and distributed among the disciples, he made his own body, saying, This is my body, that is, The figure of my body”.

Clemens, of Alexandria: “To drink the blood of Jesus is to be made a partaker of our Lord’s immortality.

Cyprian: “The blood of Christ with which we are redeemed and justified cannot seem to be in the chalice, when there is no wine in it, by which the blood of Christ is showed, which is spoken of in every sacrament and testimony of the Scriptures. Again: As often as we do this, we do not sharpen our teeth for the purpose of eating, but we break and distribute they holy bread with a true faith, whilst we distinguish, and separate that which is divine from that which is human, and joining them again when they are separated, we confess on God and man; we are also by this sacrament made his body, and are cemented, and united to our head by the thing signified”.

The Canon of The Council of Nice: “Here is also the Lord’s table; let us not childishly cleave to the bread and wine set before us, but let us, lifting our minds to heaven by faith, consider that on that holy table is placed the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world, who offered himself as a sacrifice without being slain by the priests; and let us, receiving his body and precious blood, believe that they are signs of our resurrection. It is for this reason that we only receive a small quantity, that we may know that it is not received for satisfying, but for our sanctification”.

Basil: “We have set before us the figures of the holy body and blood of Christ”.

Hilary (Hilarius): “that which is eaten, and drunk produces this effect, that we are in Christ; and Christ in us”.

Gregory Nizeanzen: “The figures of the body and precious blood of Christ”.

Ambrose: “Because we have been redeemed by the death of our Lord, we, being mindful thereof, signify in eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Lord which were offered for us. Again: This offering is a figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In 1 Cor. 11”.

Augustin: “Our Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body when he gave the sign of his body. Again: The Lord admitted Judas to that feast in which he gave to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. Again: If the sacraments had not a certain correspondence with the things of which they are sacraments, they would be no sacraments at all. And it is on account of this correspondence that they very often receive the names of the things themselves. As, therefore, the sacrament of the body of Christ is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ, and as the sacrament of the blood of Christ is his blood, so the sacrament of faith is faith. Again: As the celestial bread, which is Christ’s flesh, is in some way called the body of Christ in as much as it is the sacrament of his body, which is to say, of that visible, tangible, and mortal body which was nailed to the cross; and as the sacrificing of his flesh, which was accomplished by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, and crucifixion, not in the truth of the thing, but signifying it in a mystery; so the sacrament of faith, which is baptism, is faith. Again: These, my brethren, are called sacraments, because in them on thing is seen, and another is understood. That which is seen has a corporal form, whilst that which is understood has a spiritual benefit”.

Chrysostom: “This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins, which Christ said to show that his passion, and cross constitute a mystery, and that is might administer comfort to his disciples”.

Theodoret: “Our Saviour evidently changed the names of the signs, and the things signified, and gave the same name to his body which belongs to the sign; and to the sign that which belongs to his body. The reason of this change is manifest to those who have been initiated into divine mysteries. For he designs that those who partake of these divine mysteries, should not look to the things which are seen; but on account of the change of the names should believe the change which is made through grace. For he who called, that which is naturally a body, wheat and bread, and also called himself a vine, honored the signs which are seen with the title of his body and blood, not indeed by changing their nature, but by adding grace thereto”.

Macarius, The Monk: “The bread and wine are a type or figure corresponding with the flesh, and blood of Christ; and those who receive the bread which is showed, eat the flesh of Christ spiritually”. Macarius Homil. 27

- Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. George W. Williard (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1985), 403-06.

John Frame on Oscar Cullmann and the Already but Not Yet

2009-03-23T20:24:00.001-07:00

"In his atonement Jesus destroyed the power of sin, yet sin will cling to us until his return. He has destroyed Satan in principle, but this victory will not be consummated until the Lord's return. Oscar Cullmann compares this to the distinction between D-day and V-day in World War II. On D-day Allied troops entered France, in principle dooming the Third Reich. But it took many months of bitter fighting before the Nazis surrendered on V-day, victory day. The cross was like D-day, and Jesus' return will be like V-day. We live between the times, always in the tension of the already but not yet; and during that time there are many battles to be fought."

- John Frame, Salvation Belongs To The Lord (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006), 311.

Geoffrey Bromiley

2009-03-15T22:19:00.001-07:00

In his book "Children Of Promise - The Case For Baptizing Infants" Geoffrey Bromiley makes a great point in closing.

"In view of the biblical significance of baptism, churches should not give, and their members should not expect or request, a repetition of baptism when some first or new experience of the work or gifts of the Holy Spirit is enjoyed. Instead, they should be taught more effectively the meaning of the baptism they have as the sign and seal of the saving work of God and thereby be led to see in any new experience the fulfillment of this work and of baptism as its sign. God is one, the covenant is one, the people of God are one, and the work of God is one. So, too, baptism is one. There may be many experiences as we enter into God and his work, but there cannot be many baptisms, only a richer identification with that which baptism signifies."

Bromily, Geoffrey W. Children of Promise (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, 1979).

Find it here.

Why Johnny Can't Preach!

2009-03-13T14:50:00.000-07:00

In the most recent episode of the Reformed Forum's "Christ The Center" they interviewed T. David Gordon on his most recent book "Why Johnny Cant Preach". I am completely on board with Gordon's thesis. We MUST remember that teaching is not preaching. Our preaching must be PROCLAMATION!! Anyway give it a listen!

http://reformedforum.org/ctc60/

Buy this book for only $5.99 here.

And check out T. David Gordon's lectures on Paul's Understanding of the Law while you are at it.

Padeocommunion

2009-02-17T00:52:00.000-08:00

In light of Cornelis P. Venema's forthcoming book titled "Children at the Lord’s Table?: Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion". I thought I would share Ursinus thoughts on the matter:

Obj. 3. But if the sign of the covenant belongs to all those to whom its promise belongs, then the Lord's Supper ought also to be administered to infants, because it is also a sign of the covenant. But it is not administered to infants. Therefore, they ought not to be baptized.

Ans. We do not say that every sign ought to be applied to infants; but only that there must be some sign of initiation into the church, which, in the new covenant, is baptism. This does not exclude infants, for it merely requires the Holy Ghost, and faith, whether it be actual or potential, as appears from the words of Peter, "Can any man forbid water," &c. Or, if the objection be thus framed: Infants ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper if they are to be baptized, in as much as the Lord's Supper is designed for the whole church, as well as baptism. But they are not admitted to the Lord's Supper. Therefore, they are not to be baptized: We reply, by denying the consequence, because there is a great difference between baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation, and reception into the church, so that none are to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, unless they be first baptized. But the Lord's Supper is the sacrament of our abiding in the church, or it is the confirmation of our reception: for God has instituted it that he might declare, and seal unto us, this truth, that having once received us into the church, he will forever preserve us, so that we shall not fall away from it; and that he will also continue the benefits once bestowed upon us, and will feed and nourish us upon the body and blood of Christ unto eternal life. Adults, who are beset with various temptations and trials need this support. Again: regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and faith, or an inclination to faith and repentance are sufficient for baptism; but in the Lord's Supper there are conditions added, and required which exclude infants from its use. It is required of those that observe it, that they shew the Lord's death, and examine themselves whether they have repentance and faith. In as much now as infants are incapacitated to do this on account of their age, it is evident that they are justly excluded from the Lord's Supper, but not from baptism. It does not follow, therefore, that infants are to be at once admitted to the Lord's Supper, because they are to be baptized; for they are to be admitted only to those sacraments which are signs of reception into the covenant and church, and which have no conditions that exclude them on account of their age. Baptism now is such a sacrament in the New Testament; but it is different with the Lord's Supper.

- Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. George W. Williard (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1985), 370-71.

Berkhof on Justification/Sanctification

2009-02-16T23:07:00.000-08:00

"Justification may be defined as that legal act of God by which He declares the sinner righteous on the basis of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.It is not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification, and does not affect the condition but the state of the sinner (emphasis mine). The following points of difference between justification and sanctification should be noted particularly:

1. Justification removes the guilt of sin and restores the sinner to all the rights of a child of God, including an eternal inheritance. Sanctification removes the pollution of sin and renews the sinner in conformity with the image of God.

2. Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, though it is appropriated by faith. Sanctification takes place in the inner life of man and gradually affects his whole being.

3. Justification takes place once for all: it is not repeated, nor is it a process; it is complete at once and for all time. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a continuous process which is not completed in the present life.

4. While both are fruits of the merits of Christ, the work of justification is ascribed more particularly to the Father, and that of sanctification to the Holy Spirit.

- Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1933), 256-57.

Hodge, Calvin, Owen, and MP3s

2009-02-01T20:15:00.000-08:00

If you are at all like me, and enjoy listening to audio books, or lectures on mp3, then you might enjoy this website. They have Hodge's Systematic Theology, Calvin's Institutes, The Works of John Owen (work in progress), as well as some stuff by Augustine and Jonathan Edwards.

If you are interested check it out: http://www.doxologypress.org/theaudio/index.html

Hodge on Assurance

2009-02-01T19:35:00.000-08:00

"Many sincere believers are too introspective. They look too exclusively within, so that their hope is graduated by the degree of evidence of regeneration which they find in their own experience. This, except in rare cases, can never lead to the assurance of hope. We may examine our hearts with all the microscopic care prescribed by President Edwards in his work on "The Religious Affections," and never be satisfied that we have eliminated every ground of misgiving and doubt. The grounds of assurance are not so much within, as without us." (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 3)

He then lists 5 points as the grounds for assurance:

"1) The universal and unconditional promise of God that those who come to Him in Christ, He will in no wise cast out; that whosoever will, may take of the water of life without money and without price. We are bound to be assured that God is faithful and will certainly save those who believe.

2) The infinite, immutable, and gratuitous love of God. In the first ten verses of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and in the eighth chapter of that epistle from the thirty-first verse to the end, the Apostle dwells on these characteristics of the love of God, as affording an immovable foundation of the believer's hope.

3) The infinite merit of the satisfaction of Christ, and the prevalence of his continued intercession. Paul, in Romans viii. 34, especially emphasizes these points.

4) The covenant of redemption in which it is promised that all given by the Father to the Son, shall come to Him, and that none of them shall be lost.

5) From the witness of the Spirit, Paul says, "We.... rejoice in hope of the glory of God," because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost given unto us. That is, the Holy Ghost assures us that we are the objects of that love which he goes on to describe as infinite, immutable, and gratuitous. (Rom. v. 3-5) And again, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." If, therefore, any true believer lacks the assurance of faith, the fault is in himself and not in the plan of salvation, or in the promises of God."

- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1952)

Thoughts ?

Basking in the Benefits

2009-01-15T19:16:00.000-08:00

In the most recent issue of Tabletalk magazine my pastor Kim Riddlebarger has an excellent article titled "Basking in the Benefits." In it he says:

"There are those frightening moments when doubt comes rushing in like a flood. We question whether or not we are Christ's, or ever were. At other times we worry that we may have done something that will cause Christ to cast us away.
The good news in all of this is that because of the finished work of Jesus Christ (the message of the Gospel), it is always well with our souls, whether we feel that way of not. While the benefits of our salvation are always secure, it is our ability to grasp these benefits and then live in the light of them that is one of the most difficult struggles of the Christian life."

Did you catch that? The good news is that it is Christ's finished work not ours! And its in the face of that great piece of news that our fears are cast away, and our assurance can be found! He goes on:

"Even though God saves us through the doing and dying of Jesus (objective, historical, and not at all dependent upon how we feel), our feelings about ourselves at any given moment (whether we have peace or turmoil) is too often the basis of our own understanding of the assurance of our salvation. Our emotional state and personal circumstances then become the standard by which we evaluate our progress in the Christian life. Our gaze shifts from the cross to our own navels, and the benefits or what Christ has accomplished for us seem to be lost, even though our Good, Shepherd will never let us slip from his grasp (John 10:27-29)."

Struggling in your Christian life? Look to the cross!

To Mark Or Not To Mark?

2008-12-13T20:22:00.000-08:00

I'm reading "How To Read A Book" by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren right now and I came across this wonderful little bit that I thought I would share.

"Confusion about what it means to "own" a book leads people to a false reverence for paper, binding, and type -- a respect for the physical thing -- the craft of the printer rather than the genius of the author. They forget that it is possible for a man to acquire the idea, to possess the beauty, which a great book contains, without staking his claim by pasting his bookplate inside the cover. Having a fine library doesn't prove that its owner has a mind enriched by books; it proves nothing more than that he, his father, or his wife, was rich enough to buy them."

"There are three kinds of book owners. The first has all the standard sets and best sellers -- unread, untouched. (This deluded individual owns woodpulp and ink, not books.) The second has a great many books -- a few of them read through, most of them dipped into, but all of them as clean and shiny as the day they were bought. (This person would probably like to make books his own, but is restrained by a false respect for their physical appearance.) The third has a few books or many -- every one of them dog-eared and dilapidated, shaken and loosened by continual use, marked and scribbled in from front to back. (This man owns books.)"

I must confess the idea of writing in my book scares me and as of right now I take notes in a notebook, but this is pretty good stuff here!

If you are at all interested in learning how to get the most out of what you read I'd highly recommend this book.

Baptism Debate

2008-11-24T01:07:00.000-08:00

David Vandrunen and Thomas Schreiner Debated "What Should Be Practiced: Infant or Believer's Baptism?" on Friday.

The actual presentations are not nearly as good as the dialogue that they engaged in afterwards. I highly recommend that you listen to the entire debate! No matter what side you come down on... this is a good example of how to engage with those who disagree with us on this issue.

Just a heads up this is supposedly a "ruff" (unedited) version so the debate begins after some singing... so hang in there! I believe it started at around 7 or 8 minutes in.

To listen to the debate click here

Friday Nov. 14

2008-11-13T22:07:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow R. Scott Clark will be speaking at my church (Christ Reformed Church, Anaheim). It should be really interesting to hear him talk about his motivations for writing the book, and what being Reformed really means!

If you are at all Interested in Reformed Theology you should try to make it!

For info click here.