Creed or Chaos? Why We are Confessional

10/27/2011 -

Creed or Chaos. By Matthew Everhard.

If you ask a Presbyterian what he or she believes, there may be a number of good answers. We might reply, “We believe in Christ alone.” Or we might say, “We believe that we are justified through faith, not by works.” Perhaps we might even use the Reformation catch-words of sola scriptura; “We believe that Scripture alone is the sole authority for doctrine, life, and practice.” Indeed we do! Those would all be excellent replies.

One possible monkey wrench in the latter response is that a number of cults could ALSO say that THEY believe in the authority of the Bible as well. The Jehovah’s Witness come to mind. Surely we do NOT believe in the same content as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

For this reason, Reformed believers have tended to be confessional believers. That is, we adhere to what we call the “subordinate standards” of the historic creeds[1] and confessions. Those two words are both important: when we say “subordinate” we mean that our confessions are less authoritative than Scripture. Scripture stands over them as their master. The Bible is the Word of God; the confessions are the words of men. Yet they are also our “standards,” as Reformed people because they delineate clearly between what is orthodoxy and what is heresy.

Think for instance of the purpose of a good fence. The fence is not of itself intrinsically valuable. What it does is mark the boundaries of the field; if it does that well, it is a good fence! The field itself is where the true harvest lies, but the fence exists to keep the thieves out and to keep the fruit of the harvest safe. Or think for example of the walls of a castle. The walls of the castle are designed to keep invaders out and the residents of the royal family safe. In the same way, the historic confessions of the Reformed faith (such as the Westminster Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, the Canons of Dort etc.) are excellent summaries of pure doctrine. They are no substitute for the Bible, but they draw the firm line between what the Scriptures affirm and the dangerous and unmarked lands of heresy. 

Confessions are essentially concise summations of the Church’s doctrine, and they have a long and storied history. They are statements of our shared faith. For as long as Christian believers have gathered to worship, they have taught doctrine (propositional truth claims) in order to pass on the true faith from generation to generation (Jude 3). In fact, the New Testament itself records some proto-creeds that were in use in worship even before the close of the biblical canon. Examples of this type of creed include Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Timothy 3:16, and 2 Timothy 2:11-13. Many biblical scholars believe that these early creeds were memorized in the form of hymns aiding memorization in a pre-literate society. Within the first few centuries after the completion of the New Testament canon, the early church continued to encode its vibrant faith with early formulations of Christian teaching, such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and others.

In fairness, there are some branches of the Christian family tree that reject the notion of keeping creeds and confessions. However the vast majority of believers holding to the historic Christian faith have found great spiritual power in honoring the teachings of past generations. In fact, one strength of confessional Christianity is the abiding connection that is forged between previous generations and contemporary believers. Clearly, the universal Church of Jesus Christ connects believers not only to others around the world, but also to our forefathers in the faith who have gone before us in generations past. Creeds and confessions help modern believers to remain humble while avoiding what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery,” that is, the belief that one’s own generation is somehow superior to all those who have gone before it.

Furthermore, confessions and creeds serve to help assure us that the doctrinal faith that we articulate today has not subtly changed over time by being subject to the warping influence of secular society. Creeds stand as ancient landmarks denoting the “boundaries” of believers’ hearts in history. Noting where one deviates from an ancient creed gives a person a clearer understanding of where his or her own theological convictions stand in relation to other believers throughout history. Perhaps this also helps us to discover what direction we are moving. Are we moving closer to Christ? To God’s Word? To the heart of God Himself? Or are we moving further away?

The “subordinate standards” that our church subscribes to is the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the standard-bearing confessions in the Presbyterian branch of Christianity. Influenced heavily by the thinking of Reformation theologian John Calvin (1509-1564), the Westminster Confession (1647) is a confessional exemplar of Reformed theology.[2] The Westminster Confession of Faith is the premiere example of theological intellectualism absorbed in the beauty of the sovereignty of God. The Westminster Confession, and Calvin before it for that matter, were both completely committed to the theological framework that God is sovereign over the entire universe. Therefore, as you study this Confession you will undoubtedly encounter the Living God as ruler of the cosmos, the world, the events of your life, and hopefully your heart.

Historical Context

While the historical context of the writing of the Westminster Confession has been written about at length in other places and can not be repeated here, a few words about its composition are appropriate. “Composed by an Assembly of Divines convened at Westminster Abbey by the Long Parliament (1643-1648), the Confession was designed to unite the English and Scottish churches in their theology.”[3] In the first half of the 17^th century, England was in turmoil. Nearly torn apart politically, many believers in Britain looked to the Scriptures and to their Puritan theologians to help articulate hope for their lives. Many hoped that England, Scotland, and Ireland could all be brought together under one confessional standard. More than anything, believers needed their spiritual leaders to help them understand the whole of Scripture in the midst of a rapidly changing and often chaotic political climate.

Fortunately, these theologians and pastors sought to articulate the strong sovereignty of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Commissioned by the English House of Commons in 1643, work began on a new confession. Originally, it was thought that a mere revision of the Church of England’s Thirty Nine Articles was all that was necessary. It soon became apparent that more work needed to be done. They did not entirely reinvent the wheel; the crafters of this document had been inspired by prior works including the Irish Articles of 1615, principally drafted by James Usher, as well as the Genevan Catechism of John Calvin himself. Their final product was nothing less than breath-taking.

After 1,163 sessions meeting in Westminster Abbey, the so-called “Westminster Divines” (comprised of 151 believers including theologians, parliament members, and Scottish advisors)[4] completed a document that would stand as perhaps the most excellent summation of Reformation-inspired doctrine to date. The Confession was approved by the English Parliament and then also approved by the Scottish General Assembly in 1647.  While Calvinism itself waxed and waned throughout England’s history, the final product of the Westminster Assembly lives on in many denominations today.

The Westminster Confession also includes two “catechisms” (from the Greek word meaning instruction) that were designed to help believers learn to articulate their faith. These two surveys of biblical teaching take the form of question-and-answer sessions, as could be given from a mentor to a student. The Larger Catechism is designed to give thorough definitions of such great theological concepts as sanctification, effectual calling, and sin. Its precision has been of tremendous help to preachers, teachers, and theologians throughout the centuries. The Shorter Catechism is briefer and is suitable for use in Christian instruction for new converts, youth, and even children.

In America, the Adopting Act of 1729, “an action of the Synod of Philadelphia whereby the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms were adopted as the doctrinal position of the Presbyterian Church in colonial America,”[5] made the Confession a primary theological tool by which candidates for ministry were examined in the colonies of the New World. This act ensured that all ordained pastors and licensed preachers received the Confession “as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine; and… as the confession of our faith.”[6] Interestingly, the Westminster Confession of Faith was studiously learned by rote, as it was often included in copies of the New England Primer, the booklet by which most school children learned to read.

Today, the Westminster Confession of Faith lives on as the primary confessional standard of Reformed denominations such as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (the EPC), the Presbyterian Church in America (the PCA), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (the OPC), and several other denominations around the world.

If you have never done so before, perhaps it would be a good time for you to begin a study of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. You will find that, although it can never be a replacement for Bible reading, it greatly enhances your walk with Christ.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Catechism: Instruction in Doctrine

10/27/2011 -

By Matthew Everhard.

Professor Charles Hodge (1797-1878), one of the great and venerable Princeton theologians, lamented in his own time, “It is within memory of many now living that in almost every Presbyterian and Congregationalist family in the land, as a matter of course, the children were regularly taught the ‘Westminster Catechism.’ It is not so now.”[1]

If Hodge felt that the zeal in many homes for the Christian instruction of children was waning in his own time, he would certainly find no more comfort in our time, today!  Nevertheless, the weighty responsibility of training our children in the faith can be traced back at least as far as Moses’ speech to the Israelites on the plains of Moab in Deuteronomy six:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates” (Deut 6:4-9).

In our text above Moses, the great prophet of God has just reissued the Ten Commandments to the second generation of Israelites after the Exodus.  Because of their obdurate and recalcitrant hearts, God would not allow the first generation to enter the Promised Land.  No, because of their failure to obey God with unquestioning commitment and undivided hearts, God led the Israelites to wander in the wilderness until the first generation died off.  Now, God (through Moses) led this new generation of believers to the brink of the Promised Land; but, before they enter, Moses has rallied the nation for a series of three speeches that comprise the book of Deuteronomy.  His main point? The same as mine in this article: The mission begins at home!

In the very center of the monumental twelve verses printed above is Moses’ theology of the greatness of God: “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all your strength” (Deut 6:4-5).  If I could summarize those words in contemporary English I would say, “God is no side-show in our lives! God is not peripheral! God is not a secondary element! God is no trifle or trinket! He is to be our everything; the gravitational center around which we and our families revolve.”

Though documentation of our culture’s biblical illiteracy abounds, permit me one illustration.  One episode of the White Horse Inn radio program features an interviewer asking believers if they can name the Ten Commandments.  Sadly, in the montage of audio clips, not one interviewee is able to name them all.  One man jokes, “I may not know them, but I sure obey them!”  Another gal actually breaks one of the Ten Commandments by taking the Lord’s Name in vain during the interview.  Simply amazing!  Despite the fact that a 2005 USA TODAY/Gallup poll suggested that 76% of Americans want the 10 Commandments posted publically in schools and courts, apparently few Christian believers can actually name them.

Catechism = Instruction

Because of this widespread biblical illiteracy, it is incumbent upon Christian parents to catechize their children.  Let’s dig further into this idea.  The word “catechism” comes from the Greek word katakismos meaning “instruction.”  The use of formal catechisms to instruct believers can be traced back to the early church, as confessing candidates were prepared for baptism.  Baptismal services were, in many places, held only once per year, likely at Easter.  Many candidates for baptism were required to memorize large portions of Scripture to prepare for this monumental day.

During the time of the Reformation, more formal and detailed catechisms sprung up, notably Luther’s own Larger and Smaller Catechisms (1529), and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563).  In Switzerland, John Calvin also prepared a catechism for his exhortation and usage in Geneva (1541), revising it occasionally.

In England, alongside the Body of the Westminster Standards, the Divines of the Assembly saw fit to prepare two new catechisms for use in reformed English and Scottish churches (1647; mentioned by Hodge in the above quotation).  The Shorter Catechism was primarily an instructional device for children and youth.  The Larger and Shorter Catechisms are created with a passion for the glory and sovereignty of God.  Both, like many catechisms before them, use a “question and answer” style that could readily be adapted to family, small group, large group, or individual study purposes.

These Reformed Catechisms are valuable for personal devotional use, for prompting and enhancing our prayer lives, and for the commitment of Scriptural truths to heart and memory.  Because much of the Catechisms have a “devotional feel” to them, they read with a pastoral pathos.  Many of the answers contained in the Catechisms are full of personal assurance, grace-filled language, and confirming confidence.

Consider for example the most familiar catechismal question of the Reformed Tradition:

Q: What is the chief end of man?

A: Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever! (WSC #1).

Or take for example the amazing definition of prayer in the Larger Catechism:

Q: How are we to pray?

A: We are to pray with an awful apprehension of the majesty of God, and deep sense of our own unworthiness, necessities, and sins; with penitent, thankful, and enlarged hearts; with understanding, faith, sincerity, fervency, love, and perseverance, waiting upon him, with humble submission to his will (WLC #185).

Think also of the devotional depth of the Heidelberg Catechism’s first question:

Q: What is your only comfort in life and in death?

A: That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven: in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him (HC #1).

There is No Time!

At this point, I can almost hear someone objecting!  “Wait a minute! Are you telling me that in addition to school, tutoring, soccer practice, lacrosse camp, band rehearsal, boy scouts, glee club, FFA, NHS, NFL, PTA, and NRA meetings, the bee-keeping club, and the underwater basket weaving class—we have to add one more thing to the schedule?  We don’t have time!”  No. I’m not suggesting you add one more thing at all.  I am suggesting that you let your schedule fall apart, so that you are free to do the one thing that will prevent your family from falling apart—worship God together.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that one of the problems developing in our society is the seemingly irrepressible desire on the part of many parents to “outsource” the job of parenting to others:

• Education is being viewed as the responsibility of the state.
• Teaching sportsmanship is seen as the job of the Coach.
• Guidance in direction and vocation is seen as the responsibility of the school guidance counselor.
• Teaching human sexuality is seen as the responsibility of the health teacher.
• Discipleship is seen as the job of the Sunday school teacher or youth pastor.

But Moses would have none of this nonsense.  He says, “Parents: Impress them on your children!” This is why he immediately adds HOW this is to be done: “Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deut 6:7).  In other words, every chance you get!  You see, I think Moses knew that some of the most precious time in the day, is the time that many consider “throw-away” time: right after the meal when everyone’s belly is full; those precious moments before bed; on the way to school; on a walk. Life is replete with opportunities to impress the teachings of Scripture on our children, and if we as parents miss them, the guilt will fall upon our own heads

A New Resource for Catechism

As a pastor and as a dad myself, I do not believe that we have a moment to spare with our children.  It is for this reason that Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church has created our own Catechism resource to assist parents and their children with Scripture memory. Called simply the “Children’s Catechism,” we designed a workbook to ensure that the children of our church memorize 150 of the most important passages of Scripture - directly out of the Bible. We gave it a strong, durable cover, thick pages, and a sturdy spiral-binding, so that it could travel with children to wherever they are inspired to delve into the deep truths of God’s Word.

As children memorize a scripture, they are encouraged to attach one the colorful corresponding stickers included with each book to mark their progress.  The book is divided by topic with color-coded sections which serve to help teachers and parents coordinate lesson planning with the scriptures the children are learning at home, school, or church.  Posters for Sunday school rooms are also available to help teachers track and reward their students’ progress.

But what we have created is really nothing new—just a return to our roots as a Reformed, Bible-believing church.  Not long after the Puritans came to America, one of the first books printed in the colonies was called the New England Primer (1687).  Along with the alphabet, and beginning sentences for early readers, the New England Primer contained the text of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.  In other words, the early puritans valued discipleship, and most of this took place in the home as patient parents took care to ensure that their children—from the youngest ages—learned not only reading and writing, but biblical theology as well.  For the puritan children, as soon as you could pull up your own pants, you were expected to learn biblical theology—my kind of people!

In conclusion, let me make a very important clarification.  When Moses spoke to the tribes of Israel on the plains of Moab on this occasion in Deuteronomy 6, he meant more than mere mental memorization—but certainly not less.  The Commandments of God are not fully “upon the heart” as Moses said, until we begin to do them and live them. This can only happen as we live out God’s commands before our children’s eyes.

Whether you decide to use one of the more seasoned catechisms such as the Westminster, or a Scripture memory system as our church has adopted, we must make sure—to the best of our ability—that we impress God’s word upon small hearts.  After all, as Moses would have us to believe, the mission begins at home.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Francis Schaeffer on Baptism

03/16/2011 -

BAPTISM

By Francis A. Schaeffer  

(Note: the following is an excellent artile on the Reformed (or Presbyterian) position on baptism by Francis Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) was a Presbyterian pastor and one of the premier evangelical and Reformed theologians of the 20^th century. The author of a number of notable books (including “The Great Evangelical Disaster,” “How Should We Then Live,” “A Christian Manifesto,” and “He is There and He is Not Silent,” Schaeffer influenced a generation of pastors and lay persons with his writings. Schaeffer also made films, studied art, history, philosophy, and founded the L’Abri community in Switzerland.--M.V.E.)

In introduction, there are several things to emphasize as we begin this study.

1. We do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration.  Let me remind you that it was over the question of the sacraments that Calvin and Luther differed during the Reformation Period. To Calvin, and those who have followed him, the important thing is the individual's coming directly to Christ for salvation. In regard to baptism, we who are Presbyterians, are interested primarily not in the water baptism but in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which takes place when the individual accepts Christ as his personal Savior.

Our Confession of Faith, Chapter 28, Section 5, makes it very clear that our subordinate standards do not teach Baptismal Regeneration: "Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." Let us again say then, once for all, we do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

2. Further, in introduction, let us remind you that no one has to accept our view of baptism to join our churches. The door to membership in these local visible churches rests upon the individual's credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior.

3. Historically, Presbyterians have not made an issue over baptism. However, if we never teach or preach it, people forget the Biblical facts upon which our view of baptism rests. We should not ride our view of baptism as a hobby any more than any other teaching, it is not the center of our theology, but neither should we fail to teach it in its proper place.

4. At times people say that they believe in our view of baptism but do not practice it because of the abuse of the Roman Catholic Church. If this is good reasoning, then let us give up all use of the Lord's Supper, for the heart of classical Roman Catholic error has been its teaching concerning the Mass.

Further, let me remind you that the Cambellites , "the Christian Church" who practice immersion and adult baptism, are as in error concerning the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration as is the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, on this reasoning, those who are Baptistic should give up immersion and adult baptism. Further again, there are many outstanding modernists who are Baptists. Thus it is that the abuse of baptism by various parties proves nothing either way.

5. Finally, in introduction, let me remind you that we have good fellowship with our Baptistic brethren. We all realize that a Christian's view of baptism should not be the determining factor of such fellowship. Even further, those who are Baptistic are welcome to the Lord's Table in our church, and I praise God that we are welcome at the Lord's Table in many of the churches of our Baptistic brethren, This is as it should be. However, this does not mean that we are lukewarm in our view of baptism. We believe that our view is Biblical, and that the position of baptism by immersion only, or for adults only, is a mistake.

IMMERSION

First, in regard to immersion, let me say that, personally, I will immerse if the individual desires this mode of baptism. Second, it is well to remember that the Greek Catholic Church and certain groups of Brethren have immersed babies as well as adults, and hence there is no necessary link between the mode of baptism used and the question of the baptism of infants. I have never immersed an infant, but I would not refuse to do so.

As a matter of fact, from evidence from the Catacombs before 200, it would seem probable that effusion, pouring, could have been the most common mode of baptism in the early church. That is, they stood in water and then had water poured on their head. Our position as to the mode of baptism is that immersion is not the only mode.

The words baptizo and bapto in the classical Greek are used with great latitude.  Neither of these words can be said always to mean immerse. In the Septuagint , the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word "baptize" is used in such a way that it could not possibly always mean immersion. For example. in Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew. In the New Testament use of the word, it is equally true that the word 'baptize" cannot always mean immersion.

For example, in Hebrews 9:10, we read:
"Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

1 Corinthians 10.1-2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

Mark 7:4 is also clear: "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Again in the King James Version, the word "washings" is used, but the Greek again is "baptizing". If baptize always means immerse, it means that the Jews, each time they came from the market place, had to fill a tub with water and go under, head and all. This is impossible, for most of them had no such accommodation in their homes. Further, this passage would also say that they constantly immersed their tables. This is again obviously impossible. Many of the ancient versions add "and couches" to this passage. To say that they regularly immersed their beds, even if they did use bed rolls, is foolish.

At least three of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament are difficult to imagine as immersion. The eunuch was baptized by a desert road. The jailer was baptized in the middle of the night. Three thousand were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. It is easy to see how these took place if sprinkling or pouring were used, it is difficult if immersion is taken as the only mode.

Baptistic Arguments

The Baptistic argument that "Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water" means nothing. One year we took our vacation at the seashore. One of my little daughters went down into the water and came out of the water every' day, but she would not put her head under for all our coaxing. The simple fact is that the meaning of this passage is altogether fulfilled if Jesus went down until His feet were in the Jordan.

As to Romans 6:3-4: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death.”  This passage cannot be used to prove immersion. In the first place, if it is taken to mean water baptism, many of us believe that it proves too much, and that we would then logically have to believe in Baptismal Regeneration.  Surely, it is not the water baptism which baptizes us into Christ's death, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, however, even if it is taken to mean water baptism, this passage means more than the totally inadequate picture of burial that going under the water can give. What these verses teach is. The great and marvelous reality that, when we accept Christ as our Savior, we actually have died with Him.

These things are enough to show that the Word of God does not teach that baptism must be by immersion only.
Lastly, concerning this matter of immersion only, we would remind you that if immersion is the only mode, then the catholicity of the sacraments is destroyed. The Lord's Supper obviously can be given anywhere. Sprinkling can be performed anywhere, but if baptism is by immersion only, there are many parts of the world in which Christians must be denied this sacrament. Those in the desert, those in the land of unending cold, and those on beds of sickness cannot be baptized by immersion, even if they want to.

The fact is that the position that baptism is by immersion only is not tenable.

INFANT BAPTISM

We do not believe that those who are Baptistic have any more Biblical grounds for teaching adult baptism only than they have for teaching immersion only.

As we begin our thinking on this subject, let us place ourselves in the position of a Jew who has been saved in the early Christian era. He is a Jew, and now he has put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His mind has not changed overnight, and certain great truths which his people have known and believed for two thousand years are much in his thinking.

Salvation by Faith Alone

First of all, a Jew saved in the early Christian era would realize that even as he had been justified by faith alone, so also Abraham had been justified by faith alone two thousand years before. Romans 4:1 makes this abundantly clear: "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory'; but not before God. For what saith the scriptures? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Galatians 3-6 is just as definite: "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

The fact is that the Bible carefully emphasizes that Abraham was justified by faith and that only, just as we are. It is a serious mistake to believe that anyone in any dispensation, has been or can be saved in any other manner than by faith plus nothing. Religious or moral obedience has no place as far as personal salvation is concerned in any dispensation. Notice that it is Paul's writings that stress this fact so clearly.

The Covenant Is Immutable

Secondly, the Jew saved in the early Christian days would realize that the Covenant made with Abraham is immutable, that is, unchangeable. Hebrews 6:13-18: "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself. Saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swears by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."

This passage is very is definite that, first, the Covenant made with Abraham is unchangeable, and that, second, it includes us who are saved in this dispensation.

Covenant Is Primarily Spiritual

This Jew would also remember that the Covenant made with Abraham was primarily spiritual. For those of us who are Gentiles saved in this era the national promises made to the Jews do not apply, but the spiritual promises do apply. Romans 4:16 is clear concerning this. The 13th verse tells us definitely that God is here speaking of the promise to Abraham, and yet verse 16 is equally clear that we, the Gentiles saved in this present era, are the fulfillment of that promise. "Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." Therefore, the promise could not be primarily national, but spiritual. Galatians 3:7,8,13,14 and 25 tell us exactly this same thing. We, the Gentile Christians, are the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham; therefore, (though there is a natural, national portion of the Abrahamic covenant) the promise is not primarily national but spiritual. These passages also show that there is a spiritual unity in all dispensations.

Galatians 3:17 makes it abundantly plain that the spiritual promise made to Abraham was not set aside by the giving of the Mosaic Law four- hundred and thirty years afterward. The spiritual unity was not broken by the giving of the law on Sinai.
This Jew of ours, therefore, would have in his mind that Abraham was saved in the same manner as we are saved; and that the promise made to Abraham is immutable and primarily spiritual; and further, that we who are saved in this dispensation are included in that promise. He would have in mind the Unity of the Covenant.

The Outward Sign

This Christian Jew would also remember that the spiritual promise in the Old Testament days was sealed with a physical sign. Romans 4:10, 1 la: "How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." This passage says that Abraham was justified by faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness which was his by faith before he was circumcised.

The Old Testament and the New Testament alike also remind us that the circumcision of the flesh was to be an outward sign of the true circumcision of the heart. In other words, that true circumcision was a spiritual thing. Deuteronomy 10:16 reads: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked." Romans 2:28-29 says the same thing; "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Circumcision, therefore, was primarily spiritual.

Further than this, we must never forget that circumcision is not just a sign through the years of Abraham's faith, but it is a sign of the faith of the individual father. The case of the proselyte and his child proves this. Exodus 12:48; "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall he as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." In other words, when a Gentile became a true believer in the living God and wanted to have a part in the religious observances of the Passover, first of all he had to be circumcised, but all his children had to be circumcised too. Thus, circumcision was the sign of personal faith and not just the faith of Abraham.

Therefore, this Jew, saved in the early Christian era, would remember that not only was the promise made to Abraham primarily spiritual, but the outward seal, that was given to show the individual's faith, was also primarily to be of spiritual meaning.

This, of course, is exactly what baptism in the New Testament is; and, therefore, circumcision in the Old Testament was in that dispensation what baptism is in this, Colossians 2:11-12 is the final proof of this.  The King James Version is not as clear as it might be. The American Revised is more accurate and we quote from it. By omitting that which should be in parentheses, this is when we have: "In whom ye were also circumcised in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism." This being so, the Bible declares that Old Testament circumcision was what baptism is in the New Testament.

Sign Applied to Infants

Now, however, realizing that baptism in the New was what circumcision was in the Old, the Jew of whom we are speaking, saved in the early days of the Christian era, would also know that, in the Old Testament, circumcision as a sign of personal faith was applied not only to the believer himself, but also to all the boy babies in the home.

In applying this sign to the boy babies in the Old Testament, circumcision was still primarily spiritual and not just national. The sign was applied not only to Isaac who was the sole representative of the racial blessing, but to Ishmael as well. Deuteronomy 30:6 makes it plain that the circumcision of the child was primarily spiritual just as was the circumcision of the adult. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

The Jew living in the early New Testament days would know something further. He would know that in the Old Testament there were two great ordinances the Passover and Circumcision. I Corinthians 5:7-8, as well as the fact that Christ instituted the Lord's Supper at the time of the Passover meal, makes it plain that the Lord's Supper took the place of the Passover. Colossians 2:11, 12 and the other facts which we have considered make it evident that baptism took the place of circumcision.
These things all being so, it would be impossible for the saved Jew not to expect that, as in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the believer's child, so also the sign of his faith, baptism, should likewise be applied to his child. Why should he expect less in this dispensation of fullness than he would have possessed in the Old Testament era?

New Testament Practice

These questions would be further aggravated by what this saved Jew himself would have heard taught in the New Testament time. For example, he would have heard Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2:38-39: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Remember, Peter said this to Jews, Jews who were used to having the outward sign of their faith applied to their children.

With all these things in his mind, he would expect his child to be baptized. If it were refused, what would you have done in his place? You would have asked the Apostles the reason why. So would the thousands of Christian Jews in that day. The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.

The only reason possible for the New Testament not dealing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews' minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.

In the light of the teaching of the whole Bible, were we not to baptize babies there would have to be a clear command in Scripture not to do so. Instead of that, the emphasis is all the other way. Of the seven cases of water baptism mentioned in the New Testament, three were of families. Someone may say, "But it does not say that them were infants involved." I would point out to you that in the light of the natural expectancy of the saved Jew, if babies were not baptized, the Scripture would have made it clear that such was the case. God deals with families in the O.T. and in the N.T. too. The promise made to the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:31b, "And thou shalt be saved, and thy house," adequately shows this. No matter what interpretation we, individually, may hold concerning this passage, certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well.

Let us never forget, God's use of signs is found in every era. He gave Noah the rainbow He gave circumcision and the Passover to the Old Testament Jew. He has given the visible church in this age the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The dispensational change from Circumcision to Baptism is no more than that of the change from the seventh day to the first as the day of worship.

Church History

Church history continues with the same lesson concerning infant baptism. Origen was born about 180 A.D. and he was baptized as an infant, Remember, this was eighty years or less after the death of the Apostle John. There are still earlier references which seem to speak of infant baptism, but there is no question in the case of Origen.  The first ones who argued against infant baptism, for example Tertullian, did not do so as though it were a new practice being brought in, but did so because they had come to the un-Biblical position that one should wait until just before death to be baptized.* Their arguments are therefore an incidental proof that the Church baptized infants from the beginning, for, if it were an innovation, these men who were against it because of their un-Biblical views would have delighted to have pointed out that infant baptism was not an Apostolic practice. Saint Augustine, writing concerning infant baptism, said, "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained." Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded.

In the light of this, the claim that infant baptism is a product of the Roman Catholic Church is totally mistaken.
Therefore, for now almost four thousand years, since the day of Abraham, those who have been saved by faith have been marked at the command of God by an external sign, and this external sign has, without a break, been applied not only to them but to their children.

We believe in Infant Baptism because of the unity of the spiritual promises in all dispensations. The national promises are for the Jews alone, but there is a unity of the spiritual promises throughout the whole Word of God. The basis of this unity is the great central fact of Scripture that all men of all eras are saved on the basis of the finished work of Christ through faith in Him, plus nothing, or they are not saved at all. This spiritual unity does not disturb the fact of the differences between the different eras, nor does it disturb our peculiar privileges as those saved and living in this age.

Baptistic Arguments

Let us look at the usual Baptistic arguments against infant baptism.

a) "Believe and be baptized." Notice that the same thing was said in effect to Abraham concerning circumcision, "Believe and afterward be circumcised," but that it is altogether clear that the sign of his personal faith was to be applied also to his child.
Further, in the case of the first days of the Christian era, everyone who believed was of necessity baptized an adult, because, the New Testament teaching being new, no one would have been previously baptized as an infant. The same thing is true on any new mission field of any day. There are no baptized infants until there are some Christian parents.

b) Often those who are Baptistic ask why we baptize both boys and girls, when only males were circumcised in the Old Testament. Galatians 3:28 gives the answer: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye all are one in Jesus Christ." In this era, there is no difference between the man and the woman before the Lord in worship.

c) The question is sometimes asked, "If baptism took the place of circumcision, why did baptism and circumcision exist side by side for a time among the Jewish Christians?" Many Jewish believers in the early Christian Church kept various Old Testament practices at least until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. As long as these were not thought of as adding something to Christ's finished work for personal salvation, they were allowed. Notice in this regard Paul's circumcision of Timothy, Acts 16:3, and also his partaking in the Temple worship, Acts 21:20, 26. The Bible says that Paul did these things for the sake of the believing Jews who still kept these practices. The answer, therefore, as to why baptism and circumcision existed together for a time is that this was part of the gradual clarifying of the dispensational changes.

d) Perhaps the most used Baptistic argument is that there is no definite command in Scripture in baptizing babies. There is also no command in Scripture to change the day of worship from the seventh day to the first. In certain parts of the United States, there is a small group known as the Seventh Day Baptists. I feel that they are mistaken on both of these counts, but at least they have the virtue of consistency. To be consistent, everyone who is Baptistic should worship on the seventh day.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, as we have our babies baptized, let us realize that it is not a matter of magic. As parents, what we do is to covenant with God to be faithful toward the child. It is the parents' work to train the child. It is the parents' privilege in many cases to lead the child to Christ. Christian parents should not depend upon the church's evangelistic services when the child becomes an adolescent, or even a full-grown adult, to lead him to Christ. The little child should learn of Jesus Christ from his parents from his earliest childhood, and in many cases when he is yet a child he should be led to a personal acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior by his father or his mother.

Take advantage of this God-given privilege of infant baptism. The Christian parent's heart, moved and guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit, has a natural urge to bring his child to God. This is so strong that even those who are Baptistic have come to the place of dedication of their children. There is no command for the dedication of children in the New Testament, but the saved parent feels such an urge to this that most Baptistic churches of necessity have dedication services for the children. They are not wrong in this - their only mistake is that they do not go far enough.

Let us not stop short of all that God means us to do and to have as Christian parents. If you are a Christian, your child is a child of the Covenant, and God means him to have the engagement sign of the Covenant. As a born-again parent, it is your privilege to apply it to him.

In the Old Testament, God disciplined those who did not circumcise their children. Moses and Zipporah found this out to their sorrow. God does not deal with His people in this age in this way. We are not killed for picking up sticks on the Lord's Day, but we keep the Lord's Day nevertheless because we love our Lord. We are not killed in this age for not baptizing our children, but we should do it nevertheless because God wants us to. The Baptism of your infants is a part of your privilege as a Christian. Take it with thanksgiving along with the other good things God gives you.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

What Should Children Know Before Speaking With An Elder About Receiving the Lord's Supper?

03/04/2011 -

By Matthew Everhard.

My son Elijah and I are pretty excited. Tonight at our community group, Eli is going to speak to the elders about taking Communion for the first time. Because he is my son and I love him deeply, we have been working to prepare for quite a few months now. That got me thinking about this important question; What should parents do to help prepare their children for this big moment of going before the elders?

As a church in the Reformed tradition, we have a high view of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We believe that this is more than just a memorial of Christ's death (although it certainly IS that) but that we are also brought into the Real Presence of Jesus Christ at the Table. For this reason, it is necessary for us ALL to heed Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 11:28 that a believer "examine himself before he eats the bread and drinks of the cup."

While the Elders have not created hard and fast rules written in cement for children who profess their faith in Jesus, I would suggest that the following guidlines make a good mental checklist for parents before having a child come before the elders:

1) Does the child have an awareness of his or her sinful condition before a holy God? If so, can he or she give a credible explanation about how the cross "paid for our sins"?  Can he or she state this in personal terms?

2) Is there an emphasis on God's Word at home to correspond with what is taught at church? Have the parents been working through the Children's Catechism Scripture memory system together? Is the child making adequate progress in learning the basic story of redemption?

3) Has the child memorized the Apostle's Creed yet? Being able to state the content of the Christian faith from memory is an important ability that he or she will want to acquire as soon as possible.

4) Has the child learned the Ten Commandments by heart yet? Can she give an age-appropriate definition of some of the more difficult words in the Commandments such as "Sabbath, "adultery" or "coveting"?

5) Has the child learned the Lord's Prayer by heart yet? This is a vital component of the prayer life of any believer. Is he or she able to pray in his or her own words aloud yet?

While we should be cautious not to make any legalistic requirements in order to "quantify" a child's faith, nevertheless, the thoughtful parent should be helping children to grow in their faith by consistently working on these five steps.

For both of my children, Soriah and Elijah, these steps took a number of months to master. But by tonight, Elijah is so confident in his knowledge of these Christian basics, he can't wait to "nail it" in my office tonight!

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Why Did He Come?

12/17/2010 -

Isaiah 7:14. Matthew Everhard

How Can This Be? I don’t know if you’ve ever wondered what God is “doing to you” before—say in taking  away a job that you loved, or in causing you to lose a relationship that you had really valued; or even by  giving you a stress or a burden that you supposed you could not handle—I don’t know if you’ve ever  wondered what God is “up to” before, but consider for a moment the plight of Mary.

Everything was going along just fine, she probably thought, until God got involved! Like most young gals,  Mary probably had great dreams; dreams of a beautiful traditional wedding. The whole village would gather to  celebrate the nuptials of Joseph and herself. Dreams of raising a family. Perhaps raising crops. Starting a  business. And then one day, apparently out of nowhere, Mary receives a stunning, beautiful, shocking and  upsetting announcement. Mary will conceive, out of full wedlock, and she being a virgin (untouched,  innocent, sexually pure) will bear the Messiah. Luke 1:29 says it best, Mary was greatly troubled at these  words.

I want to ask a great question. Maybe the greatest question that has ever been asked and certainly one  what would plague Mary for those nine months of pregnancy: Why would God see fit to visit humanity by  means of a miraculous virgin birth? Or to say it another way, why would God become man at all? I suppose  there could have been any number of possibilities for how God could save the world: He could have sent  down a fully formed, mature man from the Heavens. He could have taken a normal guy out of any Jerusalem  street and “zapped” him into a divine messenger. But no, God chose to become a man himself in order to  redeem the world. In this article, I want to ask one of the greatest theological questions that can ever be  pondered: Why did God choose to save the world through the incarnation of Christ?

Incarnation Defined: Now just to be precise, I want to define what I mean by the word incarnation, which  from the Latin means “In the Flesh.” First, let me give you Isaiah the prophet’s definition: “The Lord himself  will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which  means ‘God with us’)" (Isaiah 7:14). So Isaiah foresaw that God, in a mysterious and beautiful way, would  bring about His own presence in the world by means of a miraculous conception and birth. Christmas.

A second definition will be offered for those who love theological precision: “Christ, the Son of God, became  man by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost  in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.”  So the question is why  did God do THAT instead of something else?

At the risk of seeming playful, I am going to offer an acrostic to attempt to answer the great “why” question:  why did God become a man? So if you want to follow along I will be using the acrostic. “S.A.V.I.O.R.”

S: Show the Depths of God’s Love for Humanity: I don’t know if you’ve ever laid out on a lawn chair on a  starry night and looked up and the heavens and considered their vastness. But have you ever thought about  the immensity of the universe? Some of the recent photos from the Hubble Telescope are simply astounding  of the complexity of the universe. It is just mind-boggling how vast and enormous, and massive the universe  is. And then there is planet earth. You and I are just peons in the galaxy! In fact that is exactly the point of  Psalm 8 When I look at the works of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have set in place, what is  man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? And yet for no other creature in the  entire galaxy, light year upon light year in distance, for no other creature has God taken up residence among  them as He did in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The virgin birth, if anything at all, shows us that God desperately wants to have a relationship with us. It  doesn’t make complete sense. But by the foundation of His own will, God desires to know and to be known by  His human creatures and to do so, He became one of them. The power of relationship came across to me  forcefully one afternoon when Soriah and I were reading from the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S.  Lewis. I was really enjoying reading the book and explaining the scriptural imagery to her, telling her who  Aslan was and so on and then, as we were reading the book together through for the second time, I asked  her: “Soriah, what do you like most about this book?” And she looked up at me and with those bright blue  eyes she said, “Oh Daddy! I just love being with you!” We were created to love and to be loved, it is built  into the fabric of who we are, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ is the most radical statement of God’s deep  love for us.  

A: Atone for the sins of the Elect. Of all of the ways that God might have wiped away the sins of those who  repent and believe, He chose in His sovereignty to be Himself the sin-bearer.  But this is far more complicated  than we might first imagine. You see, in order to atone for the sins of mortals, He had to be man, a  representative of the human race, a federal head of the human race, had to serve as mediator. It would not  be fitting for an angel for instance to be sin-bearer because he could not in any way represent the human  race. At the same time, the sin-bearer had to be God, for no human being could ever stand unstained by sin.  No mere human being could ever be holy enough or pure enough to be an atoning sacrifice. So God broke the  succession of the transmission of sin by interceding in the line of humanity by a virgin birth, thus Himself a  true God-Man standing as sin bearer.

Let me tell you a story. In the 1500’s there was a great Christian missionary by the name of Mateo Ricci. As a  matter of fact, he was not a protestant like the great reformers Calvin and Luther a generation before, but  he was a Jesuit priest. Nevertheless Ricci had a great burden for the lost souls of the world to tell them of  Jesus dying on the cross. And his dying wish was to bring the gospel to China that some might hear the Name  of the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.  Now Ricci had very little ability to communicate with the Chinese and  so he brought with him a great supply of Christian art in order to illustrate his teaching. Well, as it turns out  the Chinese loved the story of the incarnation. They loved that fact that God became man and was born of a  virgin. But by the time Ricci introduced the artwork of Jesus suffering on the cross, they rejected it. They  could not imagine the God-Man suffering. And so, they instead worshipped the art of the pregnant virgin. Oh  to make that error is deadly! He was born to die! (1 Peter 2:24) He Himself bore our sins in His body on the  tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed.

V: Victory over Satan. The Word, the second person of the trinity, became flesh, so that a final, decisive  victory over Satan could be won. Did you know that the very first prediction of the Messiah is all the way  back in the Garden of Eden? In fact, let me share a Scripture with you (right after they fell into sin)
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your  head, and you will strike his heel. (Genesis 3:15).

In this passage, God is pronouncing a curse on Satan, the serpent in the Garden of Eden, for his role in the  fall of mankind into sin. But notice a couple things about this text. First of all, who will God place division  between? The offspring of Satan and the offspring of Eve. So already we have hints of a great one coming  through childbirth because in the very next verse (16) God details pregnancy. But notice also the result of  this enmity: the offspring of Eve will crush the head of Satan, while he can merely bite His heel! So then this  “offspring of Eve” which the rest of the OT points to as Jesus Christ, will be wounded, but in so doing will  strike a death blow to Satan.

I: Initiate a Relationship with Humanity. The Son of God, Immanuel, “God with us” became flesh to validate  the truth that God must be the initiator of our salvation. Did you know that Christianity is the only religion in  the entire world where God initiates, effects, and completes salvation? All other religions (all of them!) are  based upon a human being’s ability to work his way into the favor of God. Karma is essentially works based.  Reincarnation is works based. Islam is works based. Even Christian-like cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses  are all works based. Christianity explodes the mold because it is entirely an outpouring of grace, initiated and  completed by none other than God Himself and the ultimate expression of that divine initiation is the  incarnation of Jesus Christ.

If you read carefully the account of Jesus’ birth in Luke’s gospel, you will notice that God is the primary agent  of all the action in the story. God sent the angel Gabriel (1:26), the Lord God will give (the child) the throne  of David (1:32), the Holy Spirit will come upon Mary and overshadow her (1:35), as the angels greet the  shepherds in the Bethlehem fields, God is the one who receives the glory (2:14)—the plan to save the world  through the baby Jesus is thoroughly, finally, comprehensively, and completely a work of God’s own initiation.

And yet through Jesus (the Bethlehem Child) God is at His most tender and approachable self. Philip Yancey  writes this well in his book The Jesus I Never Knew. “Certainly the Jews associated fear with worship. The  burning bush of Moses, the hot coals of Isaiah, the (bizarre) visions of Ezekiel—a person “blessed” with a  direct encounter with God expected to be scorched or glowing or maybe half-crippled like Jacob. These were  the fortunate ones: Jewish children learned stories of the sacred mountain in the desert that proved fatal to  everyone who touched it. Mishandle the ark of the covenant and you die. Enter the most Holy Place and  you’d never come out alive….(but) what can be less scary than a newborn with his limbs wrapped tightly  against his body? In Jesus God found a way of relating to human beings that did not involve fear.”

O: Open our Eyes to a New Way of Life. The Eternal Christ took on human flesh to show us a radically new  way to live. Sometimes we have the tendency to reduce the entire person of Jesus to two great events: His  birth and His death. And while these events are monumental, He was also born to show us a new, fuller way  to live! Now let me take you back to the context of Isaiah 7 for a moment. Isaiah spoke this great prophetic  hope in the midst of one of the most depressing times in history. Israel was essentially in a civil war between  north and south. Israel (north) had its own king and Judah (south) had its own King. In fact Israel has formed  an alliance with Syria (Aram) and is attempting to squeeze Judah into compliance. Yet King Ahaz, the  recipient of the prophecy is far more interested in pacifying Assyria than any cooperation.

Doesn’t it seem like some things never change? Someone is always at war! One country is always trying to  destroy another! The 20th century has certainly seen a stunning amount of carnage and this century has all  the makings of another violent time. But even when the nations are quiet, interpersonal wars and  backstabbing and murders both physical and verbal and emotional rage. And yet Jesus Christ comes into the  world the Prince of Peace (more on that Christmas Eve) and declares stop! Cease with the war! There is  another way, a radical one but a beautiful one! Jesus Himself said it in John 10:10 when He said I came that  they may have life and have it abundantly.

How else would we know how to heal if Jesus hadn’t touched lepers?

How else would we know how to love if Jesus didn’t forgive prostitutes?

How else would we know how to serve if Jesus didn’t wash the disciples’ feet?

How else would we know how to turn the other cheek if Jesus did not turn His back to the whip?

How else would we know how to die if Jesus didn’t die for us?

R: Reveal the fullness of God’s glory. And finally, and I think most powerfully, the last reason Jesus Christ  came into the world: the reveal the fullness of God’s glory. And I want you to listen to this very carefully. In  Jesus Christ, the broadest range of God’s Excellencies are on display. 1) God could have existed alone in the  universe forever and ever and never grown bored of His own greatness and glory. His holiness would have  forever been on display. 2) God could have merely created the world and the universe and the stars and the  sun and the moon. And His creative power would have been on display.  3) God could have made humanity in  His own image and then let them fall and justly send each and every one of us to hell. He could have very  truly and purely and honestly and justly condemned the entire world to hell. And no one could ever cry foul!  And His justice would have been on display. 4) But only when He sent His Son into the world: to live with  fallen people, to exist among our disease, to feel the sting of a fisted punch, to cry at the death of a friend,  to die as the atonement for our sins—is God’s mercy and compassion on their fullest possible display. And I  don’t know about you, but that is enough reason for me to want to worship and praise Him for the rest of my  life! Amen.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

The Deity of Jesus

12/09/2010 -

The Deity of Jesus Christ. By Matthew Everhard

Who is Jesus? This is the most important question of all of history. Everyone has an opinion. Muslims say Jesus is a prophet.  Hindus say He is one of millions of “gods”. Jehovah’s witnesses say Jesus is the archangel Michael. Buddhists say He is an enlightened man like Buddha. Scientologists say Jesus is a “thetan” (Don’t ask me, I don’t read science fiction!). Liberals say He is a peace-loving Mr. Rogers-like hippie. Fidel Castro says Jesus is a socialist. Hitler said He is a fellow Nazi.

Of those, C.S. Lewis is probably the most helpful when he gave us a very useful framework in his famous “trilemma.” Lewis wrote that Jesus is either a liar (for He deceived many) a lunatic (He deceived Himself) or else He is Lord (He rules over all, just as He said). Let us examine the evidence from Scripture.

There is much in Scripture that teaches clearly the divinity of Christ. First, we could look at the  direct statements about His divinity (John 1:1 and 14; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:8-9; Hebrews 1:3). Secondly, we could look at His fulfillment of scores of OT prophesies (Isaiah 9:6; Daniel 7:13-14), and specifically prophesies where the Greek word “Kurios” (Lord) is applied to Jesus, translating the Hebrew “Yahweh” or “Adonai.” Thirdly we could consider His divine miracles over nature (Matthew 8:23-27; 14:13-21, 22-36; John 2:1-11), sickness and disease (Mark 2:1-12; Matthew 9:18-26) and even death (John 11:38-44; Matthew 28:6).

Nevertheless, we will limit our discussion to just ten of Jesus’ many claims to be God, from the most subtle to the most overt. For space considerations, we will do this in outline form:

1.    "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). This is His coy way of suggesting His divinity.

2.    His use of the title, “Son of Man” such as when He said, "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30).
a.    Note that the title “Son of Man” is used by Jesus of Himself about 84 times.
b.    This name is rooted in Daniel in the OT. 13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14).
c.    Thus Jesus selected this clearly divine ascription and uses for Himself regularly.

3.    His sinlessness. “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?” (John 8:46). Not even His brothers could verify His sins. Would this be a challenge you would take upon yourself?

4.    He judges the world. “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” (John 5:21-22).

5.    He is able to forgive sin. Consider this event: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home” (Mark 2:5-11).

6.    He rightly receives worship. “Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:28). If this was a mistake on Thomas’ part, there was never a more important moment for Jesus to correct His disciples—unless He actually is worthy of their worship!
a.    Jesus does not correct Thomas for worshipping Him, instead He hands out blessings, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).
b.    Notice too that the author of the Gospel, John, breaks into the narration in verse  30 and says, “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” In other words, this is the whole reason I wrote!

7.    “All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to me…” (Matthew 28:18).

8.    The ascription of divine titles to Jesus such as “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 22:13) and “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

9.    "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58).
a.    We know that the divine name (Yahweh, as expressed by the four Hebrew letters YHWH) means “I am.” Grammatically, if Jesus had not meant to give Himself the very name of God here, He would have said “I was” or “I existed.” But His claim is twofold: not only is He pre-existent, but He takes God’s very sacred and holy Name unto Himself.
b.    Notice how the Pharisees get it clearly by attempting to throw stones at Him! There was no equivocation there. They understood His claim and were ready to stone Him for it.
 
10.     His most obvious claim is: “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30).
a.    Again, notice how the Pharisees clearly understood this by saying, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Answers to Common Questions:

Question: How can one person be both God and man?
Answer: Jesus alone had fully all the properties of both God and of humans. The properties of a man, i.e. body, mind, soul, were added to His divine nature. As someone once said, “remaining what He was, He became what He was not.”

Question: Isn’t this a contradiction? How can a person be fully human if they are omnipotent, and omniscient? Humans by definition are neither.
Answer: To be fully human is not equal with being merely human. Jesus had everything all humans have but more.

Question: If Jesus had all the knowledge of God (omniscience) why did He claim that He did not know “the last day”? Mark 13:32
Answer: In His divine prerogative, He laid aside His divine knowledge to intentionally not know. He is able (that is, He has the power) to know, but chooses not to. Just like I am able to find out what my Christmas presents are (since I know where my wife hides them) but I choose not to access that knowledge.

Question: If Jesus had all the power of God (omnipotence) why did He not heal certain people (cf. Matthew 13:58)?
Answer: The Bible says that Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men”. Again, Jesus did not fully access His power at times, willingly laying them aside, just as I lay aside my full wrestling skills when I wrestle with my son Elijah.





 

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

James Vs. Paul

07/28/2010 -

By Matthew Everhard.

There is no doubt that James 2:24 presents a difficulty to those who hold the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide (that is, that believers are justified by faith alone apart from works of the law). This present writer is one such man who holds firmly to Sola Fide without compromise. Briefly, how is it that we can hold firmly to the doctrine that justification is given by God as a gift through faith alone when James specifically says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone"? Does this single verse present a mortal wound in the Reformed understanding of justification by faith?

Worse still, many have attempted to show that the Apostles James and Paul are at irreconcilable war with one another. Paul, has written clearly, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (Romans 3:28). Because of this apparent discrepancy or contradiction, some have thrown out the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture altogether. While Martin Luther certainly did not throw the “baby” of inerrancy out with the “bathwater” of this troubling text in James, he certain was befuddled by the perplexity of this difficulty. He called James the “epistle of straw!”

However, when viewed in light of their respective literary contexts, James and Paul can both be understood to be holding swords—not against one another—but standing back to back to defend the gospel against different foes.

Paul’s primary concern is to defend the gospel of faith alone against a deeply entrenched (and misguided) Jewish understanding of a man’s right standing before God. Many had assumed they there were “in” merely because of their ethnic heritage. In Romans 1-3, Paul labors to show that all of humanity has fallen. This includes both Jew and Gentile. Because even one sin disqualifies us from salvation (a statement upon which James and Paul would certainly agree; compare Romans 3:23 and James 2:10), all of mankind stands in desperate need of salvation. Paul argues forcefully that salvation cannot be attained by obeying the Law (i.e. performing “works”) since no man can fully uphold the Law. Condemned under the weight of the Law, mankind is helpless and needs a Savior. This Savior is none other than Jesus Christ who died to atone for the sins of all who believe, satisfying the righteous requirements of the Law and propitiating the wrath of God.

James’ primary concern however is to defend against the error commonly called today “easy believism.” That is, that a person can be saved by merely reciting a creedal statement with no more commitment than mental assent to the facts of the gospel. James refutes the theoretical possibility by showing that any one who claims to have such mere “faith” (note James says claims in verse 14), yet demonstrates no real life change, cannot truly said to be a believer. James fights against a different enemy than Paul—one who would suggest that mere words are enough “faith” to save. No, the Apostle’s point is that saving faith—true, sincere saving faith—always consists of a radical renewal of the inner nature.

The point of discrepancy, however, is most acutely felt in the use of the word “justify” and its variants. Paul says we are justified by faith alone (Romans 3:28) and James says it is by works (James 2:24). This dilemma dissolves easily when we simply understand that the word “justify” has different meanings in different contexts.

We all know that words may have different meanings. For instance, the dictionary contains over 20 definitions for the word “run.” Sometimes words even change over a matter of a few years. Recall for example that the English language contains the word “gay” which until recent decades meant “happy.” How that word has changed! Obviously, context is everything.

When Paul uses the word “justify” he is taking this word in the most technical, theological sense. He commonly uses the word to denote a man’s being DECLARED righteous before a holy God. Without the atonement of the cross, wiping away a believer’s sin, this declaration would be impossible. Only when the righteousness of Jesus Christ is given to a believer through faith is a man justified (that is, considered and declared righteous before God.)

However, when James uses the word “justify” and its variants in James 2, he is NOT taking it in its technical theological sense. No, he is using it in its more common connotation of “proving,” “defending,” “showing,” “revealing,” or “authenticating.” Another such usage of the same verb appears in Luke 10:29. James’ point is simple: a man of faith PROVES the reality of his conversion by his corresponding outward behavior.

In conclusion, we find that both James and Paul are in agreement: we cannot separate Jesus Christ as the Savior from Jesus Christ the Lord of our lives. True salvation always and necessarily results in a life-change spilling over into a joyful response of obedience and the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Understanding that Paul and James use the word “justify” differently causes the apparent contradiction to melt and disappear altogether.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Heaven: What Will We Do There?

10/01/2009 -

Recently in our Burning Questions series, we spoke of the joys of Heaven. I quoted Jonathan Edwards who wrote some amazing things about our eternal destiny in his sermon called "Praise: One of the Chief Employments of Heaven." If you have never read anything from Edwards before, this would be an excellent start. This sermon is one of his easier messages to comprehend (surprisingly!) It is beautiful in its serenity and majestic in scope. For those who are interested in going a little bit deeper into either the glories of Heaven our eternal home, or reading the works of this astonishingly powerful Puritan writer, start here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xv.x.html

-Pastor Matthew

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

One Hour, One Chapter, Eight Cookies

09/25/2009 -

The Importance of Community Groups in Church Growth

Pastor Dave and I are convinced that in the next year, one of the primary steps to growing Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church is the development of small, intimate, “Community Groups.”  What exactly do we have in mind here?

A Community Group is defined as:
    a. Two or more people...
    b. that meet regularly...
    c. to glorify God.

If you are in the choir, handbells, a men's or women's Bible study, an accountability group, a prayer group, or other smaller fellowship, you are already in a Community Group!

So, why this new emphasis on smaller groups? Here are ten reasons why we believe it is Biblical, appropriate, and necessary for believers to meet in such small groups in addition to our large-group worship services...

1) A Community Group nurtures true, authentic, Christian friendships.
2) When people are connnected relationally, they are more likely to commity to the larger body.
3) Community Groups provide a context for deeper, more personal sharing.
4) Community Groups can often go deeper than the sermon or lecuture by their ability to discuss, probe, and review Scripture line by line.
5) Every believer must have people to whom they can confess their struggles and from whom they seek support.
6) Community Groups are modeled after the ministry of Jesus Christ who spent the bulk of His ministry discipling 12 men. Among those men He spent particular time with Peter, James, and John.
7) Community Groups afford believers the opportunity to gather around a common interest (prayer, book study, or life-situation such as age, gender, widowhood, parenthood etc.)
8) When Community Groups meet in homes (as opposed to the Church building) a greater intimacy and informality is possible.
9) Believers are enabled to better pray for others and to be prayed for themselves.
10) Community Groups resist the isolationist tendancies of an increasingly self-centered culture.

For these reasons, the leadership of Faith Church is challenging the congregation to form ten new in-home Bible studies by the end of this year! If God is leading you to start a Community Group in your home, please follow the three steps below:

First, contact Pastor Dave; he will serve as our Community Groups coordinator.
Secondly, select a topic, book, or curriculum. We have available DVD series, group studies, and other ideas to help you get started. Your group can be as easy as popping in a teaching video and simply discussing the content, or as simple as reading the Scriptures line by line together with others and then taking prayer requests.
Finally, Faith Church will help you to promote your group, cooridinate meeting times, and advertise your group if necessary.

Yours in Christ,

Pastor Matthew
 

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Vision Statement Announced!

09/08/2009 -

Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church
exists for three primary purposes:

1) To Magnify and glorify God the Father through our worship
and praise...

2) To Manifest the love of Jesus Christ through our ministry, service, and witness and...

3) To Multiply by making disciples of all nations through the power
of the Holy Spirit.

It is with joy that I can announce that the elders of Faith EPC and I have finalized our new Vision Statement for the Church (printed above). Let me tell you the story of how we arrived at the final wording.

My personal goal for my first year at Faith EPC was simply to get to know the people of the Church, to begin to truly love them as their pastor, and to establish a healthy equilibrium in my teaching and preaching ministry. Soon, my petitions to God began to morph. While my prayers consisted originally of “Help me to know and love my people!” after about nine months I began asking the Lord to “Help me to see the Church not as it IS, but how it COULD be.”  I had no idea that my prayers would receive such a deluge of insight from the Lord!

One of the first things that God showed me is that while the Church is already very healthy in most regards, we needed to have a vision statement for what we OUGHT to strive to be. After all, “where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18 KJV).

Late one night I began scratching words furiously into my bedside journal. “Show me who we must become!”  I prayed. I etched three words onto the page: Magnify, Manifest, Multiply. Those three words struck me in a powerful way. They seemed regal. They conveyed power and majesty. They were not flimsy or trite. I took the three words and divided them under three columns. “Magnify” (worship, exalt, lift up) seemed to be directed towards God the Father; He is, after all, the King whom we praise and adore. “Manifest” seemed best to describe the work of the Son, taking the love and holiness of God and bringing it tangibly into the world through His incarnation. As believers, we too must manifest (make evident, demonstrate, reveal) the love of the Son in our broken and hurting world. “Multiply” seemed to me to convey the great task of the Church, given in Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8, the Great Commission. This cannot be done without the power and attestation of the Holy Spirit. After finding all of these in Acts 2:42-47 rooted in the life of the early Church, I knew something powerful was afoot.

Next, I took the early form of the vision statement to the elders. I presented them with this reasoning for creating a vision statement in the first place:

Rationale:

1) Faith Church needs a coherent vision statement that succinctly defines our purpose as a church. By precisely defining what our priorities ARE, the elders of Faith Church will be better able to discern what programs, staffing, and events must be implemented in our local church context. In the same way, the elders of Faith Church will be better able to determine what programs and events DO NOT contribute to this end.

2) While Faith Church already has a mission statement (“Preaching Jesus; Changing Lives”), it seems to suggest that those who are not engaged in preaching are not central to the identity of the church. Our vision statement will supplement, but not replace, this.

3) A vision statement must be easy enough to memorize and yet profound enough to inspire our people to rally to a unified cause.  A coherent statement of vision allows our people to build excitement as we together give our lives in sacrifice and service.

As Presbyterians, we do not have one sole human leader in the Church; rather we have a board of qualified, godly men under the Kingship of Christ. Our leadership, of course, is patterned off of the New Testament design evidenced in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. For this reason, I gave the elders a sample of the Vision Statement and asked them to pray about it for a month. While the early sentiment was receptive to the Vision Statement as I had prepared it, and we likely could have adopted it in early August, I asked the elders to think deeply for another month and beg God to show us how to adjust it, tweak it, and conform it to His will for our Church.

On September 5th, the elders and I went on a retreat to Lakewood Retreat Center. Here after spending time together praying aloud for our Church, her growth, health, and sanctification, we sat down to finalize the Vision Statement. We carefully combed through each line, parsing words carefully. Ultimately, though many changes were suggested, the final form ended up being exactly like the original version! Though we tried repeatedly, we could not seem to improve the Vision Statement by either adding anything that did not make the wording cumbersome, or eliminating wording that could improve its brevity. With prayer, and a vote, the Vision Statement became official!

As I stated in the above “rationale,” my desire for the Vision Statement was to draft something succinct, yet profound. Let me explain some of the intricacies.

1) Notice that the statement is Trinitarian; it intentionally focuses the heart and mind on each person of the godhead in turn. Much like the Apostles Creed, the Vision Statement sequentially turns the heart to each of the three persons of the Trinity. First the majesty of the Father is upheld, next the incarnation of the Son is exemplified, and finally the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit is invoked.

2) Secondly, notice that the statement is built around three strong verbs beginning with the letter “M.” This device of alliteration makes the statement easy to memorize for adults and children alike. It can be summarized as follows, “Magnify, Manifest, Multiply.” By using the literary device of alliteration the statement is easy to commit to memory.

3) Finally, the statement builds from the inside out. The core goal of Faith Church is to begin with a passion for worship. We might call this our “blazing center” (to borrow a phrase from John Piper). Without worship as our central purpose, we are flat, hollow, and shallow. Yet worship must begin to move outward, consuming the whole of the Christian life. For this reason, we intend for our passion for God’s glory to move outward to the immediate vicinity in which our live are centered, i.e. our families, places of employment, and community. Finally, we desire to culminate our worship by faithfully discharging Christ’s Great Commission with our ultimate goal of spreading the glory of God throughout the whole world by evangelism, discipleship, and missions.

These three goals, magnification, manifestation, and multiplication are simultaneously attainable—yet inexhaustible. They can be done; and yet they cannot be completed. Thus, we march onward until Christ returns and we hear the words we have longed for “Well done good and faithful servants.”

Pastor Matthew

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards

08/03/2009 -

Note: Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) was a reformed theologian and pastor during the First Great Awakening. His sermons were so passionate and God-exalting that they often caused people to tremble in their pews. Best known for his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," Edwards left a legacy of great theological teaching on the majesty of God with an incomparable zeal for the truth of God's Word. As a young man, Edwards penned these seventy resolutions to govern his life.

--Pastor Matthew

The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards

Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God's help, I do humbly entreat him by his grace to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ's sake.

Remember to read over these Resolutions once a week.

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

2. Resolved, to be continually endeavoring to find out some new invention and contrivance to promote the aforementioned things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Resolved, when I think of any theorem in divinity to be solved, immediately to do what I can towards solving it, if circumstances don't hinder.

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

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

14. Resolved, never to do anything out of revenge.

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

16. Resolved, never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonor, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Resolved, frequently to take some deliberate action, which seems most unlikely to be done, for the glory of God, and trace it back to the original intention, designs and ends of it; and if I find it not to be for God's glory, to repute it as a breach of the 4th Resolution.

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

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

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

27. Resolved, never willfully to omit anything, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions.

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

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

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

31. Resolved, never to say anything at all against anybody, but when it is

perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of Christian honor, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said anything against anyone, to bring it to, and try it strictly by the test of this Resolution.

32. Resolved, to be strictly and firmly faithful to my trust, that that in Prov. 20:6, "A faithful man who can find?" may not be partly fulfilled in me.

33. Resolved, always to do what I can towards making, maintaining, establishing and preserving peace, when it can be without over-balancing detriment in other respects. Dec.26, 1722.

34. Resolved, in narration's never to speak anything but the pure and simple verity.

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

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

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

38. Resolved, never to speak anything that is ridiculous, sportive, or matter of laughter on the Lord's day. Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722.

39. Resolved, never to do anything that I so much question the lawfulness of, as that I intend, at the same time, to consider and examine afterwards, whether it be lawful or no; except I as much question the lawfulness of the omission.

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

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

42. Resolved, frequently to renew the dedication of myself to God, which was made at my baptism; which I solemnly renewed, when I was received into the communion of the church; and which I have solemnly re-made this twelfth day of January, 1722-23.

43. Resolved, never henceforward, till I die, to act as if I were any way my own, but entirely and altogether God's, agreeable to what is to be found in Saturday, January 12. Jan.12, 1723.

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

45. Resolved, never to allow any pleasure or grief, joy or sorrow, nor any affection at all, nor any degree of affection, nor any circumstance relating to it, but what helps religion. Jan.12 and 13.1723.

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

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

48. Resolved, constantly, with the utmost niceness and diligence, and the strictest scrutiny, to be looking into the state of my soul, that I may know whether I have truly an interest in Christ or no; that when I come to die, I may not have any negligence respecting this to repent of. May 26, 1723.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

57. Resolved, when I fear misfortunes and adversities, to examine whether ~ have done my duty, and resolve to do it; and let it be just as providence orders it, I will as far as I can, be concerned about nothing but my duty and my sin. June 9, and July 13 1723.

58. Resolved, not only to refrain from an air of dislike, fretfulness, and anger in conversation, but to exhibit an air of love, cheerfulness and benignity. May27, and July 13, 1723.

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

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

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

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

63. On the supposition, that there never was to be but one individual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Christian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true luster, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever part and under whatever character viewed: Resolved, to act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time. Jan.14' and July '3' 1723.

64. Resolved, when I find those "groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. 8:26), of which the Apostle speaks, and those "breakings of soul for the longing it hath," of which the Psalmist speaks, Psalm 119:20, that I will promote them to the utmost of my power, and that I will not be wear', of earnestly endeavoring to vent my desires, nor of the repetitions of such earnestness. July 23, and August 10, 1723.

65. Resolved, very much to exercise myself in this all my life long, viz. with the greatest openness I am capable of, to declare my ways to God, and lay open my soul to him: all my sins, temptations, difficulties, sorrows, fears, hopes, desires, and every thing, and every circumstance; according to Dr. Manton's 27th Sermon on Psalm 119. July 26, and Aug.10 1723.

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

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

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

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

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

Aug. 17, 1723

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

John Calvin A Brief Overview of His Life and Influence

07/30/2009 -

Pastor Matthew Everhard, Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

You don’t have to attend a Presbyterian, Reformed, or evangelical church very long before you hear the name John Calvin bandied about. In fact, this stalwart hero of Christian history is honored in most protestant churches still today, five hundred years after his death. Dozens of denominations trace their spiritual lineage through this man in some way or another. In fact, in a recent Time Magazine article, the “New Calvinism” was heralded as one of the most influential movements in the world today.  Period! In other words, a renewed interest in this man and his teaching is energizing the Christian movement worldwide.

This year we celebrate the 500th birthday of John Calvin. But why is this man so significant? Why is he so popular? Why is he still so influential? Hopefully this article will help you to understand more about this monumental figure in Christian history and why the present writer (a pastor myself) gravitates toward him.

Personal Life
John Calvin was born in Noyon France in 1509. Like most in France at that time Calvin was raised as a Roman Catholic. Displaying a sharp mind from his youth, Calvin was reared and groomed by his father to attain a career as a churchman, perhaps a priest or even bishop. Later, his father changed his mind and switched the young Calvin to the pursuit of a career in law. Calvin had many privileges as a young man, perhaps the most important of which was his formal education at the University of Paris, and the College de Montaigu among others. His acumen for intellectual precision would serve him well in his later years as a theologian, but we can’t get ahead of ourselves just yet.

During his college years, the ideas of a certain German named Martin Luther were sweeping through Europe. One generation younger than Luther, Calvin was soon swept up on the coattails of the Reformation. Of course at the time, Luther did not want to create any new “denomination,” he merely sought the restructure and purity of the existing church. It is difficult to pin down, but at some time during his university years, Calvin would become inflamed with the gospel truths put forth by Luther and his followers. In his own words, he experienced a “sudden conversion.” In a controversial moment, one of Calvin’s dear friends, Nicholas Cop was asked to give an address at the University of Paris. In the address, this bold young man took the opportunity to promote the Reformation gospel. Some suspect, due to the brilliance of the essay, that Calvin himself may have written it for him!

In any case the address was highly controversial and Calvin bolted town, feeling the heat. As you may imagine, to be counted among the “reformed” Christians was a deeply controversial thing in a profoundly Roman Catholic nation such as France. Due to political pressures, many of the Reformed sought out other havens to escape the increasing persecution. Calvin too would soon be seeking refuge elsewhere. In January of 1535, he arrived in Basel Switzerland, a safe haven.

Calvin became increasing consumed by knowing the Scriptures in a comprehensive way. No surface familiarity with Scripture would do. He needed to master them. He was driven by His love for God and His Word. He soon rose above his peers in his ability to know, understand, and articulate the Scriptures. Calvin acquired an immense knowledge of the Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew (as well as Latin) and began penning a work that would truly become one of the most important Biblical works of theology of all time. He called it “The Institutes of the Christian Religion.” At first, the Institutes were a simple book, six chapters. With parallel versions in French and Latin, Calvin’s goal was to show the world (especially the King of France to whom he addressed the preface) that the Reformers taught a biblically pure doctrine—certainly no heresy as they were often accused of propagating. It must be remembered that Calvin wrote to defend the biblical doctrine for which many of his brothers in the faith were literally dying at the stake. To isolate the Institutes from its historical context is to rob it of much of its power today.

Well, to make a long story short, the Institutes were a smashing success. Since Luther was a bold, outspoken (and often brash) man—who spent most of his time putting out the fires of controversy—Calvin neatly stepped into the role of the Reformation’s most excellent, precise, and Spirit-filled theologian. Philip Melanchthon, Luther’s immediate successor and closest friend, called Calvin simply “The Theologian.” Luther himself, who never met Calvin, read one of his works on the Lord’s Supper and was deeply impressed, “This is a work that has hands and feet!” Luther boasted in rare fashion.

As with all great men, history would soon foist itself upon Calvin. Enjoying some success with his hot little book, Calvin determined to retire and live the “ivory tower” life of a professional theologian, away from the controversy and excitement of the day. His goal was to move to Strasbourg, a German protestant city. Serendipitously, Calvin was literally and physically deterred from his path to retirement and ease as a scholar. On his way, Calvin was forced to take a detour through Geneva—the armed conflict between France and the German emperor literally blocked his path. He never intended to stay, but on that night a fiery redhead named William Farel heard of Calvin’s brief stop in the equivalent of a Genevan Motel 6.  Having heard of Calvin’s now famous work, Farel immediately went to Calvin’s room and proceeded to call down the fires of heaven cursing Calvin’s retirement unless he should stay in Geneva to help establish the Reformation there. Farel himself had already persuaded the city counsel in Geneva of the worth of the Reformed movement; he needed only a partner.

Because of Farel’s insistence (and not a little bit of fear from his imprecation!) Calvin agreed. Here in Geneva, he would find his most important pastoral work. He was made pastor of the Church of St. Peter. There, he worked tirelessly preaching as many as five sermons a week to the gathered people, hungry for God’s Holy Word. One might hope that Calvin could have found the peace he had longed for to work on his Biblical commentaries and the constant revisions of his burgeoning Institutes. Unfortunately, this could not be. Embroiled in a political power struggle with the City Counsel, Calvin and Farel were both soon kicked out of the very city they loved! In Easter of 1538, they were sent away.

For a couple of years, Calvin labored as a pastor to the French refuges in Strasbourg. Surprisingly in 1541, the city counsel of Geneva abruptly changed course and invited the Reformers back, admitteding the error of their ways! Famously, when Calvin returned to Geneva after his expulsion, he resumed his preaching—on the very next verse of the text in which he had left off those months ago!

Soon Calvin became increasingly more powerful in his authority as a Bible expositor. By 1559 the Institutes had reached their full potential and Calvin had now become satisfied at their final form. The once-small pamphlet had become a massive tome that encompasses over 1,300 pages of miniscule type-font in my bedside edition! Each page, of course, was stocked full of the most precise biblical exposition and application imaginable, unfolding a truly comprehensive systematic theology of the Christian faith. Calvin continued to do a few things very well: he preached, taught, instructed seminary students, helped plant churches, and of course, wrote fervently. Calvin wrote massive commentaries of nearly all of the books of the Bible. Just to get an idea: my collection of his works, when setting next to each other on a book shelf, are longer than my leg!

As for his personal life, Calvin married a widow and mother named Idelette de Bure. His bride, however, died leaving him with the step-children that he had gained through marriage. I think it interesting that the world’s most excellent theologian in the last 500 years was also a step-father! Physically, Calvin was born with a frail physique and suffered from his weak condition most of his life. Remaining portraits of Calvin present a man often gaunt and emaciated. Like most men of his era, Calvin suffered immensely with physical conditions that could not be countered by the medical technology of his day. For this reason, working through pain, his production in his writings is absolutely amazing.

Theology
As I said earlier, Calvin’s theology is nothing short of brilliant—not for its innovation, but rather for its fidelity to God’s Word. We might be able to summarize his theology accurately under four primary headings. First, as a basic presupposition, Calvin held that the Bible is the very Word of God. While we may take this for granted today, it was not at all certain among those living in the 1500’s! Church tradition, the authority of the Pope, and even “the dreams of fanatics” (a phrase he often used to deride his heretical opponents) all battled for authority against the sacred text of Scripture. He often relied heavily upon this doctrine, “Sola Scriptura,” with his many conflicts against the Roman Catholics as well as against outright heretics like Michael Servetus. If the Bible was not seen to be the Word of God, common ground would be impossible. Calvin worked tirelessly to overthrow all rivals to Scripture itself.

Secondly, Calvin was absolutely consumed by the glory of God. For Calvin, God was the supreme ruler over the entire universe. God is the creator of all things, the writer of all history, and the planner of all events. For this reason, Calvin was consumed by the providence of God as an explanation for all events, including the salvation of the soul. Calvin rightly recognized that, due to the fall of man, human beings are simply incapable of being saved by their own work or efforts. God Himself would have to intervene. God’s chosen way of intervention to redeem humanity was to become a human being Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ’s perfect life and death on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice afforded mankind the only hope of salvation by grace, through faith. Calvin insisted, as all evangelicals rightly do today, that “salvation is found in no one else; for there is no other name given under heaven among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Because of Calvin’s passion for the sovereignty of God, he firmly taught the biblical doctrine of election (or predestination) found in such Biblical texts as Ephesians one and Romans nine. This, for Calvin, was an essential that must be understood, for apart from divine grace through election, mankind was simply unable to “choose” God on his own without God intervening first, to give new birth to the heart. Salvation then, for Calvin, was entirely a matter of God’s work. True, mankind must repent and believe the gospel, this much is certain, but without God’s work through the power of the Holy Spirit to change our hearts (conversion) and give us new life (regeneration) we are simply too blind to recognize the danger of our sinful condition or the necessity of saving faith in Jesus Christ on our own. God would have to do the work of conversion!

Thirdly, Calvin placed a tremendous stress on Christian piety, or holy living. Having been redeemed by grace through faith alone, man can do no other thing that respond in joy and obedience. Having been saved, Christians ought to determine to live lives of joyful obedience and mission. The Law in the Old Testament, Calvin taught, still had three primary purposes for the believer that must be put into effect. First, the Law shows us our weaknesses. Like looking at our dirty faces in the mirror, the commands of the Scripture show us where we constantly need to repent and improve. Second, Calvin taught that the commands of the Bible (especially the Ten Commandments) show us how to live in harmony and unity as the covenant people of God. Even unbelievers ought to be restrained by the promises of a harmonized society and the dangers of punishment for disobedience! But thirdly and most importantly, Calvin stressed that the precepts of the Lord show us how we can truly live lives that please and glorify God! This, Calvin would insist, ought to be the purest motivation for Christian obedience.

A fourth primary heading of Calvin’s theology might be summarized by his ardent stress on the nature of the Church and the mandate of Christian witness in the world. For Calvin, the true Church was defined as a covenant community of believers where the Scripture are proclaimed faithfully as the authoritative Word of God, and the Sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are rightly administered. Surprising to some who are new to Calvin’s works, his longest chapter in the Institutes is not about predestination, but rather on prayer! Yes, the Church and her people, empowered by the Holy Spirit, are to be the primary vehicle by which the Kingdom of God is triumphantly proclaimed in the world. For this reason, Calvin’s successors would be ardent missionaries, planting hundreds of churches in France and beyond! Calvin urged his parishioners to live boldly together as the people of God must: bound in submission to the Word of God, yet free to live as Spirit-empowered witnesses in a broken and hurting world.

Because of Calvin’s powerful passion for the unrivaled glory of God, it is no wonder that many of his hearers would rather die for their faith in Jesus Christ than recant their newfound passion for the saving grace of God!

Calvin’s later followers would summarize his teaching in the compact acronym called “TULIP.” While Calvin himself did not invent or use this device, those who read and value his writings have held this to be a faithful representation of his work for several centuries:

Lasting Legacy
Calvin left a huge legacy for us to follow as Christians in general and as pastors in particular. I will briefly summarize this legacy with the following points.

1. First of all, his literary legacy is unmatched. From his Everest-like work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, to his nearly unending series of Biblical commentaries, to his heart-felt letters, and his printed sermons, Calvin left enough Biblical teaching for a lifetime of learning. Considering the age in which he lived, the technology through which he wrote (pen and quill!) and the turmoil in which he fought, Calvin’s attention to every detail of every Greek verb is simply amazing. While reading his works are daunting and sometimes technical, one is always amazed at the way in which Calvin so clearly spoke as a tender pastor, relentlessly concerned for his people.

2. As a pastor, Calvin stands as one of the greatest of all times. I will give just a bit of evidence of this. Even though he fought valiantly on the cutting edge of theological controversy of his day, Calvin took the time to visit all of the sick and even wrote letters to the martyrs who were suffering under French rule. More than that, Calvin counseled compassionately those who were hurting and in despair, even visiting daily those who were sick or dying under his care.

3. Thirdly, Calvin’s vision for church planting was way ahead of his time. While most within the Reformation movement were concerned more with theological faithfulness, Calvin was burdened to begin as many churches as possible. Newer research is showing that more than ever before thought, Calvin’s church and academy in Geneva was responsible for literally planting hundreds of churches in France, Europe—and even one attempt as far away as Brazil! The Genevan Academy under Calvin’s tutelage continually reproduced impassioned Christ-loving pastors ready to go forth from Geneva and die for the faith.

4. Fourth, Calvin’s theology sunk into the daily lives of his hearers in an unusual way. Because of his fixation upon the glory of God, Calvin taught his followers that God must be glorified by every act of our daily lives! One example will suffice. Today, if you have a watch from Geneva (still the source of all of the very best watches, clocks, and timepieces) it is no doubt because Calvin taught his Genevan brothers 500 years ago to aspire towards excellence in all things for the glory of God.

5. Fifth, Calvin, by his very precision as a theologian, has inspired generation after generation of believers to forsake the error of “easy-believe-ism” as strive instead toward a full and rich theology of heart and mind. Some of the best scholar-theologians in history were inspired by the French Master himself; from the English Puritans to the Dutch Reformed; from the Westminster Divines to Jonathan Edwards; from John Owen of Britain to Benjamin Warfield of New Jersey; from the French Huguenots to the American Presbyterians; from pastors living today such as John Piper of Minneapolis to Mark Driscoll in Seattle—Calvin towers above them all and summons them upwards.

In the end, Calvin would probably be a little bit disturbed if not angry to hear of his followers being called “Calvinists.” I am guessing that he would have disdained that terminology. He had no desires or aspirations in this life for fame or glory and would be satisfied only that his followers were Bible-preaching, God-exalting Christians. Dying in May of 1564, Calvin’s final wishes were honored: he was buried in an unmarked grave in a simple pine box. His lasting testimony was that John the Baptist’s words be made manifest in his own life: “He must become greater; I must become less! (John 3:30). 


Recommended Reading for Beginning Students of John Calvin
• John Piper, John Calvin and His Passion for the Majesty of God. (Wheaton IL: Crossway Books, 2009). A simple and very short 59-page overview of Calvin’s life and ministry by one of the most popular pastors of today.
• Christopher Elwood, Calvin for Armchair Theologians. (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.) A delightful book with some hilarious cartoons (really!) overviewing the life and ministry of Calvin. This book is a good introduction, but at the end of the day, I wasn’t sure if Elwood was really a fan of Calvin or not.
• John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, Edited by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne. (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 2004). This version is a significantly shortened version of the Institutes (thus the slightly altered title). In this condensed presentation, Lane and Osborne present Calvin’s teaching optimistically, that is, they leave out most of his more controversial teaches, especially his attacks on his opponents. For this reason, the book is a good enough sum of what he taught, while leaving out what he taught against.
 

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

John Calvin: The Theologian. An Article by R.C. Sproul

07/08/2009 -

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

What Does a Pastor Do on Vacation?

06/23/2009 -

I assume that many people think that pastors are strange people. Men who enjoy studying for a living (most people want to get done with school as fast as possible), preaching (most people hate public speaking), and hanging around hospitals and funerals must be a bit "off kilter." If you think pastors are strange, you're right. I admit it!

But let me be the first to tell you that pastors are also pretty normal people. Very normal in fact. Take my recent vacation for example. Much of our time was spent with family and friends, eating hotdogs, and downing soda (pop, for you northerners) by the gallon.

We did take in a few interesting sights while in the homeland of Ohio: We went to the President McKinley Memorial in Canton, a pretty cheap thrill for 5 bucks. The museam had dinosaurs which Elijah liked and a planetarium which Soriah liked. We also went to the Akron Zoo as well as a very quaint park call Tuscora Park near New Philadelphia.

Kelly and I both visited our aging grandparents. My grandfather is a legitimate war hero and fought at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge. I asked him to tell the children the story of D-Day. Perhaps this may be the last time to hear this story from my grandfather's own mouth. We have to take every opportunity to enjoy these few remaining members of the "greatest generation."

My home church also threw us a impromptu party immediately after church on Sunday. Many people at Hudson Presbyterian Church stayed at the get-together until nearly 5pm. Wow. I was flattered by their interest in our new lives down here in Florida. I was surprised to hear that many of them follow our church on our podcasts and facebook.

Spiritually, my time on vacation was very fulfilling. I have been studying like a madman in preparation for our new sermon series "Creation and the Fall" which we are beginning this week. I have been using works by Wayne Grudem, Louis Berkhoff, Norman Geisler, and Jonathan Edwards for preparation. Also, I am slogging through John Calvin's great work "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" as I have been for serveral months now. This monumental work in the Reformed faith may be the single greatest influence in Protestant theology today. The book is so thick theologically as well as in length (over 1200 pages) that I have decided to read it slowly and purposely over a course of three years. I covered several chapters in my free time. Devotionally, I have been reading the Old Testament through and was afforded many opportunities to read the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles. As a pastor, I try to read the Scriptures first and foremost every day, before any other reading or work I have to accomplish in any given day. On the tail end of the trip I read through Revelation taking special note of the praise songs recorded in the heavenly scenes.

Finally, while on vacation, I want you to know that I prayed often for you, my people at Faith EPC. I took several "mini-retreats" while on vacation to pray for the staff, elders, deacons and worshippers belonging to this local expression of Christ's Body for which I have been given charge. There is not a day that this great responsibliity of prayer and preaching does not press down on me and challenge me to be a better man. Even when on vacation.

Can't wait to get back in the pulpit! See you Sunday!

Matthew

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

...But WHEN you fast...

06/04/2009 -

Jesus had a spiritual secret that He used to sustain Himself during particularly difficult times in which the rigors of life and ministry were especially draining. It wasn’t something that He made a big deal about. It wasn’t something that He made a central point of His ministry. Nevertheless, He did not shy away from direct teaching about it, especially when this practice became the subject of controversy. It’s rarely something we talk about today (we practice it even less). What was it? Fasting.

Jesus’ most notable fast was during this desert temptation recorded in both Matthew and Luke. Both
accounts happen to take place in the fourth chapters of each gospel. Here we see Jesus preparing for His life of ministry. Yet incredibly, instead of fueling up, He fuels down. He drops His dependence on earthy sustenance, and increases his caloric intake of the Word of God.

During one crucial moment of temptation from Satan, the devil challenges Him to create His own bread using His divine powers as the Son of God. He refuses, offering instead what some may choose to adopt as a life principle: “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). At other points in His ministry, Jesus downplays fasting, essentially stating, “Do it, but don’t make a big deal about it” (that’s my paraphrase of Matthew 6:16-18). Then he says something that we skip over often, “But WHEN you fast…” (NIV, direct quote, emphasis mine). Did you catch that?

Jesus taught with the assumption that fasting would if fact be a normal spiritual discipline in the Christian life. His purpose was not to discourage fasting, but rather to give guidelines for the attitude of the heart. For the early church too, fasting was considered not merely a formal part of their spiritual life, but more than that, a formative time. It was done when the church was called by God to either great discernment, times of deliberation, or the commissioning of mission workers. Consider Acts 14:23, “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (ESV).

Fasting is a gift of God, a tool of spiritual formation, by which we deprive ourselves of all human temptations and inclinations, so that we may be filled with the Spirit in greater measure, and thereby become more sensitive to His call and direction. In this crucial time of economic challenge, perhaps this might be a moment when you would consider emptying yourself from your normal human dependencies in order that you may be filled in a fuller measure with an understanding of God’s will.

For some, a fast can be a simple as skipping a single lunch break to read the Word. Others may consider fasting for a whole day or more. The time period is not essential. Don’t try anything that would hurt you. And remember, there are specific times in our lives when the people of God must be especially given over to prayer and submission to the will of God. For Faith Church, this may be one of those times.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Pastors With Purses? The Role of Women as Teaching Elders

05/13/2009 -

By Pastor Matthew Everhard.

Recently, the Presbytery of Florida (our regional body) was asked to study the role of women in church leadership, specifically the question of whether or not women should assume the role of teaching elder (pastor) in the local church. In our recent Presbytery meeting last weekend, we voted to sustain our current position, that is, the complementarian position (see below). In order to help our own elders (the session) study this issue, I prepared these notes in outline form of my own understanding of this complex issue.

Female Leadership in the Church
A Defense of the Complementarian Position—Outline
Pastor Matthew Everhard

I. Definitions of Orthodox Positions

•    Complementarian: Men and women are created equal in value; and yet distinct in role. God ordained that men and women would each have unique gifts and abilities; among them is the male’s leadership role in the church and home. This view holds that men alone are to hold the position in the Church of Teaching Elder.  This is the traditional position of Reformed Theology.

•    Egalitarian: Men and women are created equal in value and equal in role. God created men and women as virtual equals in all things. This position can be summarized with the motto, “Whatever a man can do, a woman can do.”  This position is non-traditional in Reformed Theology, but gaining ground.

II. Definitions of Unorthodox Positions

•    Heirarchical: Men are created superior to women in value and/or role. This position is rejected in Reformed Theology.

•    Hyper-Feminist: Women are created superior to men in value or role. This position is rejected in Reformed Theology.

III. Thesis: This brief outline will summarize the primary arguments that advance the orthodox complementarian position above. We will show that this is the understanding of biblical doctrine, the practice of the early New Testament Church, and the historical position of Reformed/Presbyterian churches.

IV. Arguments in Favor of Complementarianism:

1.    The primary hermeneutic of Reformed Theology holds that Scripture is the ultimate authority for faith and practice. For this reason, Scripture is to interpret Scripture (cf. WCF 1.9). Because there is no higher authority on which to base our understanding of difficult texts or dilemmas, these questions are to be interpreted in light of the most clear biblical passages. The most clear passages that speak to the issue of female church leadership are the following:
a.    1 Timothy 2:11-3:5:  A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)
b.    1 Corinthians 13:22-35.  As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
c.    Because these passages are explicit (women are not permitted to have teaching authority over men), the “burden of proof” lies in the court of those who would show that teaching eldership is also opened to women.

2.    Those texts in which Paul enumerates the “requirements” of eldership stand unequivocally in favor or male leadership. The Greek pronouns Paul employs when listing the qualifications of eldership are male and thus these regulations stand firmly in the complementarian camp. Those primary texts are
a.    1 Timothy 3:1-7.  Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
b.    Titus 1:6-9. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
i.    The argument that male pronouns in Greek can be gender inclusive is ruled out by 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 which make it clear that the candidate being described is a man. Furthermore, gender inclusive pronouns are usually restricted to plurals and not third person singulars as above. In this case there can be no mistaking the fact that Paul is speaking exclusively of men.
ii.    We note that these texts are also prescriptive and not merely descriptive. That is, these MUST be the qualifications by which elders are discerned and selected.
iii.    If women are to be considered for the offices here described by the Apostle, Scriptural texts must be offered to demonstrate that the above are overruled. As no such overruling texts exist, male eldership must continue to be the standard for the Church.

3.    The Creation order suggests both equality in value and yet distinction in role for males and females as the complementarian position suggests.
a.    Human value is equal as both male and female are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-2).
b.    In marriage, they are “one flesh” underscoring their equality in value (Gen 2:24).
c.    Yet, as first created, the male (Adam) stands with the unique responsibilities of the firstborn including responsibility over the estate (Gen 2:15-20).
d.    Eve was designed as the “helper” to Adam (Gen 2:18-22). This suggests subordination without any hint of degradation. Also, 1 Corinthians 11:9-9.
e.    Adam’s leadership is ratified again in the curse pronounced after the fall (Genesis 3:16) as God states to Eve “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

4.    The Creation order emulates the Trinity. Complete equality in personhood; and yet distinction and subordination in role is apparent in the godhead.
a.    The three persons of the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in majesty, perfection, holiness, excellence, eternality etc. and yet maintain distinctions in role.
b.    The Son saw no belittlement in His divine status as subordinate to the Father in role (John 14:28).
c.    Nor the Spirit in subordination to both Father and Son (John 15:27, 16:13-15).
d.    Marriage itself is compared to the godhead in Ephesians 5:22-33.
e.    Therefore those who would argue that subordination in role demands or implies differentiation in value must also quibble with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which maintains subordination and equality.

5.    Jesus Christ, when choosing the twelve disciples, and having prayed vigorously concerning the matter (Luke 6:12-16), chose only men. These disciples would become the Apostles, on whose shoulders the witness the “apostolic authority” of church teaching rests.
a.    Jesus, as Son of God, was not afraid to be counter-cultural in order to stand for the truth.
b.    Jesus, as Son of God, did in fact go against the culture of the day often, even when it brought persecution. Jesus stood against the culture of His day on the issues of healing on the Sabbath (Mark 1:21-17), temple vendors/exchangers (John 2:14-17), eating with sinners (Matthew 9:11), and washing before eating (Mark 7:1-23) to name a few.
c.    We note especially the way that Jesus broke cultural expectations in reference to women! Especially by
i.    Befriending them (John 4:7ff.)
ii.    Speaking publically with them (Luke 7:12ff.)
iii.    Loving them as sisters (Luke 10:38-39)
iv.    Teaching them theology (Luke 10:38-42; 23:27-31; John 20: 10-18).
v.    Commissioning them as the first witnesses to the Resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10).
d.    Jesus, then, did not use “the culture of the day” to support His selection of only men. When teaching on gender matters in general, Jesus referred not to cultural mores, but to the Creation design itself (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7-8).
e.    The “culture of the day” argument does not bear weight for Paul’s epistles either. Both Jesus and Paul were willing to die for their convictions and would not have allowed “culture” to shape their views on such important matters.
i.    Paul, too, spoke of the creation order for gender roles rather than cultural factors. (Cf. Eph 5:31; 1 Timothy 2:14; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9).

6.    The teachings and practices of Jesus and Paul on this matter stand in accord with the Old Testament Law, having prescribed male leadership exclusively for the priesthood (Exodus 28-29; Leviticus 8-9).

7.    Male leadership in the family is explicitly compared to the manner in which Christ relates to His Church in Ephesians 5:22-33. In this passage, Paul underscores role distinction within the genders and yet upholds the dignity of both leadership and submission.
a.    Indeed, leadership implies a willingness to die for the led, just as Christ bled and died for the Church.
b.    Because of this sacrifice, the value of the subordinate is not negated but reinforced.

8.    Aside from these biblical arguments, at least two other weighty factors can be considered to support the complementarian position.
a.    Argument from nature: While men and women are clearly created equal in value, nevertheless there appears to be some roles to which  men are prone, gifted, and naturally excel above women (i.e. fighting off a home intruder), just as there are some areas to which women are prone, gifted, and excel above men (nurturing children and infants.) Church and family leadership are two such roles that men incline towards naturally.
b.    Argument from history: The historical position of most Christian leaders throughout the centuries favors almost overwhelmingly the complementarian position. Such advocated include but are not limited to Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.
i.    The complementarian position is the overwhelming majority position with Reformed/Presbyterian Churches with the exception of the most liberal mainline denominations.
ii.    The egalitarian position, as such, represents a theological novelty within the Visible Church in general and the Reformed Church specifically.

V. Conclusions. For the above reasons, we find that women may NOT assume the role of teaching elder, but MAY assume the following prerogatives within the Church:
1.     Shared corporate worship
2.     Teaching/leadership amongst other women
3.     Teaching/leadership over children and teens
4.     Staff positions
5.     Studying and learning theology
6.      Prayer
7.      Participation in the Sacraments
8.     And a multiplicity of other leadership and service roles aside from teaching men and assuming the right to the office of Teaching Elder (1 Timothy 2:12).



 

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

A Mother's Day Poem for Kelly

05/05/2009 -

Men: When is the last time you did something beautiful and wonderful for your mother or your wife (the mother of your children!) This year, I was inspired to tell my wife how I feel about her since she is the best mother I know (well, next to my own mother of course). Here goes!

A Mother’s Day Poem for Kelly

I look back now to that day and that time

when I became yours and you became mine;

your white wedding dress etched in my head,

you walk the aisle towards me the day that we wed.

With flowing white train also in tow

gliding ov’r petals of roses below.

Step after step your gentle feet crept;

closer t’the altar where I stood inept

peering at beauty defined by your gaze

o’whelmed with thankfulness, wonder, and praise

to God the Maker and Creator of all

holding my breathe I tried not to fall.

Finally your father gave over your hand;

we exchanged rings at the pastor’s command.

Facing each other right square now we step;

your smile dethrones the tears that you wept.

And then in the presence of God and of man

we took oaths and vows under strict reprimand

that should come illness, poverty, death

we’d leave not the other until our last breath.

And if that day were not too sweet to bear,

two years later and another was there;

a child, an infant growing inside you

a sweet little girl, and beautiful like you.

And but a blink later, another life joy

Conceived and growing inside you: a boy!

Two children now; again my pride swelled.

your courage in childbirth was unparalleled.

A family you’d given me; I desire no other

I love you dear Kelly as both wife and mother

of the children you’ve given me, permitted by God

your work, your labor, your love I applaud.

Together the four of us live, strive, and love

To honor and glorify our Father above

And filled with His Spirit guiding our way

We seek to honor Him day after day.

And so we are blessed beyond counting I cry

by God and His Christ who draw us still nigh

to each other; our love was pure from the start

and ever will be: “till death do us part!”

M.V.E. May, 2009

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Vital Organs. What My Experience as a Northerner Taught Me About Tough Financial Times

04/16/2009 -

Lifetime Floridians might not know the feeling of being cold, really cold! But if you are like me and are from the north (i.e. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York) you have probably experienced the feeling of the beginning stages of hypothermia at least once in your lifetime. Perhaps you had to walk two miles to school, up hill (both ways!) during a rough January. Or perhaps you played out in the snow as a child until you realized that you couldn’t feel your toes anymore in a February blizzard.

The human body is an amazing thing. When it becomes really cold, it automatically begins to conserve the blood in the vital organs such as the brain, heart, lungs etc. On the other hand, the body seems to know what parts are expendable. The fingers and toes are the first things to go numb because the body intrinsically knows what parts it could do without if it had to. And so our hands and feet yield their lifeblood to the more necessary functions.

In this difficult financial time, there is no doubt that your household has had to make do without certain luxuries. Perhaps eating out is the first thing to go in order to make sure that the mortgage gets paid. It’s the hypothermia effect taking place in your wallet. Perhaps the satellite dish gets shut off for a while so that the fridge stays filled. We will do what we have to in order to stay alive.

The church, too, has to make adjustments during these financial difficulties. Because we have budget constraints brought on by the economy, we too are making those decisions that reveal where our “heart” is (pun clearly intended). As a pastor, here are a few things that I believe we should never compromise.

1. The gospel message. No matter how challenging the times may be, you can be sure that Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church will continue to faithfully expound the gospel message of Jesus Christ’s life, atoning death, and resurrection. We need practically no external devices to make sure this happens. Our priorities here will never change. A preacher, a Bible, and the willing hearts and minds of the people to listen are all that is necessary to preach on. May God’s Spirit guide us as we advance the Kingdom through His Word.

2. Our commitment to missions. One of the easiest ways to shave off expenses would be to minimize our mission support. But while it may be the easiest choice, it probably wouldn’t be the most faithful. Expect Faith Church to continue a strong emphasis on evangelism at home and abroad. We believe that our missionaries are part and parcel of our Church and want them to be as equipped and supplied as possible.

3. Our youth ministry. We believe that the young people are not only “the next generation,” they comprise THIS generation as well. For many years, the young people of this church and our community have enjoyed the dedicated work of a committed staff, adult volunteers, and a Christ-centered program. I can’t see this ever changing.

4. Our worshipping identity. Sunday morning and Wednesday nights are two of our identifying marks as a Church. As each body of believers has its own local flavor and style of worship, so also Faith Church has found a wonderful balance between the freedom of contemporary worship and the majesty of a traditional worship experience. My prayer is that our worship times will continue to be God-exalting, awe-inspiring and life-changing.

5. Compassion ministries. Our purpose, as Isaiah expressed it, is to bind up the broken-hearted. For this reason, my ardent desire is that Faith Church will continue to serve as a compassionate hospital for wounded sinners. May we always be the kind of people that are a lookout post for the lost, a care-provider for the sick, and a tender shoulder for the broken.

When the vital organs of the church body are identified, no amount of financial deep-freeze can change who we are!

Pastor Matthew

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Repent or Perish: Thoughts for Good Friday from Luke 13:3.

04/09/2009 -

When I served as a missionary in Africa during the months after I graduated from Malone College in 1999, I lived in a land where water was plentiful—but extremely dangerous. One swig of the well water, or even fresh running water from a stream would leave a mortal American bound to the facilities for days.  We purified water with tablets, filters, and even the sun. In one method, we painted one side of a 2-liter plastic bottle with a reflective black paint. Then, we filled the bottles with water, and set them on the roof for five days. Amazingly the sun, reflecting off the black paint, would purify the water of all harmful bacteria.

In this article, especially since we are approaching Good Friday, I would like to focus on the discipline of repentance. I say that repentance is a discipline on purpose—because it is difficult and rigorous.

The Apostle John describes it this way, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:8-9 ESV). True repentance, you see, means more than a mere admission that we have sin in our lives in general terms. Rather, Biblical repentance means laying our sins out particularly and specifically before God in order that (like the bacteria in the water) God might decontaminate, destroy, remove, and sanitize our sin by His presence.

Jesus made His expectation for us clear: repentance is a serious deal. In fact, one time Jesus went so far as to say “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3 ESV). Perish? Are you sure? This week, go back and read the context of His statement: what prompted Jesus to say these strict words? What situation was Jesus responding to that He would speak so strongly? But more than that, ask “What are some ways that I can practice the discipline of repentance during this Holy Week?”

Jesus says “Repent or perish.” True enough, if repentance were mere child’s play, the cross would be unnecessary. If repentance was like the apology of many children—a simple ‘I’m sorry’ to mom and dad knowing he will still get a nice dinner whether or not he really “means it”—the whole thing would amount to a charade. A mere formality. What then could we make of the cross? I suppose it would be some over-the-top demonstration, though I’m not sure of what kind. If hell were not on the line because of our wickedness, why would God the Father put His Son through hell on the cross to atone for us? No, sin is serious, the cross is deadly serious, and repentance is a grave matter as well.

Let me give you one practical way that you can repent more intentionally this month: Confess your way through the 10 Commandments daily. In fact I have them printed in the front flap of my Bible, one or two for each day of the week. If you focus on just one commandment per day you will find that your times of confession are greatly enhanced. Really take your time though. You may even want to journal specific confessions under the heading of each commandment. For example you might take the second commandment and list all of the people, possessions, and pleasures that you have put before the love of God lately. This is hard work, but desperately needed. Far too many Christians do not live intentionally introspective lives.

Having confessed regularly and with thorough attention to your fallenness, you will find that your spirit grows in love, prayer, and compassion. Most of all, you will begin to see that the radiance of God’s love will purify you more completely than the rays of the sun ever could.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Direct Link]   [Share This]

Something Good in the News! (Finally)

03/29/2009 -

I was utterly shocked to read Time Magazine’s recent edition containing the “Ten Ideas that are Changing the World Right Now” (March 23, 2009). I expected to read the usual gibbering from a liberal news source. Not this time. You will never guess the #3 idea sweeping through the world right now that is changing the course of human history: a rediscovery of Calvinism! (As an evangelical Presbyterian, I was shocked to see a concession to a Christian idea at all from the media, much less one with such theological substance, depth, and nuance.)

The kind of Christianity that is making the most difference in the world right now, suggests David Van Biema, is a rediscovery of the majesty, glory and holiness of God. Apparently, we are now seeing a generation rising up that cries out for a supreme, all-satisfying Savior. “Calvinism,” as we know, is nothing more than biblical doctrine well understood. To say it another way, Calvinism is the systematic attempt to understand the full scope of biblical truth, advanced by the great reformer John Calvin and his followers (such as modern day Presbyterians). Calvin’s doctrine—a far cry from the “evangelly-fish,” no-depth, watered-down Christianity of Joel Osteen and other popular pastors and writers recently—boasts of a God that stands transcendent above Creation, guiding human history (yes, including your life) towards His own invincible ends.

Van Biema writes in part…

Calvinism is back… John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.

Like the Calvinists, more moderate Evangelicals are exploring cures for the movement's doctrinal drift, but can't offer the same blanket assurance. "A lot of young people grew up in a culture of brokenness, divorce, drugs or sexual temptation," says Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists. "They have plenty of friends: what they need is a God." Mohler says, "The moment someone begins to define God's [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist." …

Calvin's 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin's latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country's infancy.

Wow. Not bad for a secular news source. In fact, it is rather astounding. One wonders, though, how this rediscovery of biblical doctrine could be anything less than #1 on Time’s list. Ironic, isn’t it, that the #1 idea “changing the world right now” is that one’s job is one’s most secure asset. Unfortunately, Time Magazine can’t resist the temptation to give another kickback to good old self-reliance. I guess we Calvinists still have some work to do.

We can only hope that the “new Calvinism” about which Van Biema writes is nothing other than the “old Calvinism.” If this is the case, a whole generation of Americans may soon be introduced to the greatness of a God who not only loves you, created you, and can save you from all of your sins, but who also has a definite plan for your life, indeed a plan for all of human history.

(Find the full article here) http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html

[Back to Top]   [Print]