John Willison - A Treatise Concerning the Sanctification of, and Meditations on, the Lord's Day
When you are up, hasten to put on your clothes, and spend as little time this day in dressing yourself as possible, that you may have time for secret duties, and retired converse with God. But, since the body must be clothed this day, let your thoughts be well employed in the time you are doing it: Think on sin, that was the cause of your soul's nakedness, and of your body's need of apparel. Remember from whom you have your clothes, to cover, keep warm, and adorn your bodies: even from God, it is his wool and his flax; therefore give thanks to him for your raiment, as well as your food. And though your clothes be not so fine as you would wish, yet mind, "that these of whom the world was not worthy, wandered about in sheeps skins and goats skins." And, if you be not so outwardly splendid as others, seek that decking which will "make you all glorious within." When others are following vain fashions seek ye to be "covered with the robes of Christ s righteousness." And, since you are this day to make a solemn appearance before God your heavenly Father, you must be sure, like Jacob, to come in the garments of your elder Brother, otherwise you cannot expect your Father's blessing. Put no confidence in your own righteousness; for it is no better than rags, or a garment full of holes, the least whereof is sufficient to let in the curse of God upon you. Therefore "put on the Lord Jesus," if you would this day appear before God, and be accepted of him. Take care also, that your bodies this day be gravely and decently appareled, and beware of pride and vanity this way, if ye would have God to own you; the adorning which he recommends, is not that "of plaiting the hair, wearing of gold, and putting on of apparel, but the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price," 1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.
Most people on the Sabbath are concerned to adorn their bodies with their best clothes; but, alas ! who among you is careful to attire his soul as he ought on this day, when he is going
to meet the blessed Redeemer of souls, the King of glory?
Vanity and gaudiness of apparel is opposite to the sanctification of the Sabbath. Some dress up themselves this day in such vain attire, and indecent fashions, as tend to draw the eyes of others to gaze upon them, and so their hearts to wander from God and his worship. Think what guilt you hereby draw upon yourselves, of the sins of others as well as your own. The practices of some heathens may put many professed Christians among us to the blush. Valerius Maximus tells of a heathen young man, named Sparina, who was exceeding beautiful ; but observing that many fixed their eyes on him, and fearing the consequences of it, he disfigured his face, lest his beauty should prove a snare to others. May not this heathen condemn such, who are so far from disfiguring themselves lest they should prove a temptation to others, that they disfigure their faces by painting and patching, to seem more beautiful than God has made them, without fearing
whatever the consequences of it may prove. Is not this a shewing a dislike of God s workmanship, and a desire to mend it? Jezebel was infamous for this art, and no sober woman should desire to follow her fashion. A Christian should be so far from being proud or vain of his apparel, that the sight of his garments should humble him, and keep him in mind how he came to need them: Was it not sin that stript man of his glory, covered him with shame, and put him to seek clothes for to hide it ? Would it not be distraction in a malefactor to pride himself in a stigma which he had got for a foul crime? Consider also the garments you are proud of, what they are: The beasts have the same naturally to cover them, and will you be proud of a beast s covering? It was the saying of a heathen to a vain gallant, "Why art thou proud of that which a sheep wore before thee?" Or, what though they be finer than wool? yet their original is no better, but rather worse: What are velvets, silks, and satins, but the excrements of a vile worm? and is that a matter to be vain of? Remember, that ere long God will cause thee to wear another suit thou wilt have small reason to be proud of ; he will even clothe thee with worms and putrefaction. May not the thoughts hereof keep you humble, and teach you to come to the church gravely and decently appareled? especially since you come into the presence of that God who resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Why "in so far as" goes too far and not far enough
There are two Latin words that are essential when defining how a confession. The first is "quia" (Latin for "because") the second is "quatenus" (Latin for "insofar as"). Quia subscription (a Confession is adhered to because it fully agrees with Scripture is an entirely accurate summary of the Scriptures) implies that the subscriber believes that there is no contradiction between the Confession and the Scriptures. Quatenus subscription (the Confession is adhered to insofar as it agrees with the Scriptures) implies that the subscriber leaves room for the possibility that there might be a contradiction of the Scriptures in the Confession, implies suspicion that there are areas identified by the subscriber as unfaithful to Scripture and that on these points the subscriber must abandon the Confession and adhere only to the Scriptures. "Quia" subscription does not make the Confession inerrant it simply acknowledges that it is an accurate summary of Scripture. Samuel Rutherford said that a Confession is rather like a translation of the Bible into a language. The content is the same as the original but it does not have the exact verbal inspired, infallible authority of the original. The precise wording of a Confession is not infallible but the truth it contains is.
The historic view of the Reformed (and Lutheran) Churches has been "quia" subscription. This has, however, been consistently attacked by those who oppose the truth. The orthodox at the Synod of Dort maintained quia subscription while the Remonstrants (Arminians) supported "in so far as" (quatenus). Rather than plead for an overthrow of the Confessional standard and a new standard to be prepared from scratch, they plead for a loose subscription to the Confession that will allow them room to deny whatever they wish both now and in the future. If, after subscription, someone comes to the view that there is something in the Confession that they cannot agree to as biblical then they must resign their office. "In so far as" subscription subverts the very purpose of subscription because subscription is meant to make it absolutely clear what a Church and its office-bearers confess and believe. To say that one subscribes 'quatenus' (in so far as) is to say that one does not really subscribe to anything at all. It could mean that nothing is seen as scriptural in the document and therfore nothing subscribed and confessed. We must agree with the Lutheran C.F.W. Walther who said that Christians could subscribe even the Mohammedans’ Koran “insofar as” it agrees with the Word of God. A quatenus subscription allows the individual to maintain the appearance of agreement in doctrine while also reserving the right to disagree wherever it may suit him. A Confession should be made not in so far as (quatenus) it agrees with the Word of God, but because (quia) it agrees fully with the word of God, the unchanging standard.
Those who defend "in so far as" subscription try to argue that the danger of quia subscription is that it seems to place the Confession above Scripture. It is evident from quia subscription itself that Scripture is the norm and the sole authority, the Confession only derives its authority "because" it adheres to Scripture. Scripture itself demands confession of its truth, the deposit entrusted to the Church which is "the pillar and ground of truth" “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. Acts 20:27 “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” 1 Tim 1:13 "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also".
Others try to say that "in so far as" really means the same as "according to the Scriptures" and it really has an orthodox sense. There is an obvious difference between “according to the Word of God” and “in so far as…consistent with the Holy Scriptures”. “According” means 'in full harmony, agreement, conformity and accord with' while “in so far as” bears the sense of ‘to the extent that’ and that what is referred to is not always the case or always possible. A mathematical way of expressing this difference would be that according is like = (equals/direct equivalent whereas in so far as is like >= (less than or equal to). We can use phrases such as "agreeable to the Word of God" "founded on God's Word" etc. but these never have the same in meaning as "in so far as". They are entirely different semantically. One expressing full harmony, agreement and accordance and the other expressing the conviction or at least possibility that the documents fall short of full consistency with Scripture.
Dutch example
The danger of the "in so far as" wording is best illustrated by the Dutch alteration of 1816. Until this point subscription was total but then there was a change to "we accept in good faith and heartily believe the doctrine, which according to God's holy word, is contained in the accepted forms of unity of the Netherlands reformed church". The difficulty with this change is that while it is basically orthodox and it was received by the orthodox in good faith that it was so- some were apt to take the phrase "which according to God's holy word" to mean that the doctrine was qualified and modified by their personal interpretation of the Scriptures. Rev. Molenaar, a contemporary wrote "Everyone who carefully considers this declaration, will see clearly that it does not say, that the Articles of our Church are according to God's Word, but with reservation, that one believes that doctrine which according to God's Word, is contained in the Articles of our Church. The subscription is therefore not made, because the articles are recognised as agreeable with God's word, but in so far as they are agreeable with God's word. Such a subscription can be made by every Christian faction, the papists can subscribe it, yes even the Jews can do it. If they had used the words in so far as, then every person would have noticed it and every one would have been on their guard" (Documenta Reformatoria Vol 2 p.114 letter of Rev. Molenaar in 1827).
'This, as well as others of the Protestant Churches on the Continent, once sound in the faith, may be reckoned on the side of Rationalism and Socinianism. This was effected not by any change in the standards, but by an alteration in the formula. The Dutch Reformed Church, by the alteration of a single word in the formula, completely altered the standard. The office bearers formerly adhered to the Confession because (quia) it was in accordance with the Word of God; now the formula runs, in so far as (quatenus) it is in accordance with the Word of God. By such a change their Confession became a totally different standard to them. 'The Government of the Kingdom of Christ, Part III. by James Moir Porteous chap VII.
Scottish Examples
Scottish Presbyterian history affords similar examples of the dangerous intrusion of quatenus subscription. In 1789 the Relief Church of Scotland Synod objected to the views of Rev. James Smith, Dunfermline. He had an erroneous view of the atonement but also belived that "systems of theology and creeds were too highly revered". Smith further declared that he was willing to subscribe the WCF only "in so far as it agreed with Scripture". The Synod opposed this as an obvious loophole for heretics to find refuge. They proceeded to pass the following resolution:
"That the minister who presides over the work of ordination or admission of any minister (not formerly ordained by any of the Presbyteries subject to the Synod) shall, in the Questions to be put to the person to be ordained or thus admitted, keep precisely to the Act of Assembly relative to that affair, and in particular shall not ask "Do you agree to the Confession of Faith in so far as it is agreeable to the Word of God", but put the Question in the identical words enjoined by the Assembly"
Similar examples can be found in the Victorian apostasising Free Church of Scotland. Take an instance at a service of ordination at Newton-on-Ayr in 1885. Some of the elders ‘although accepting the Confession of Faith substantially, stated privately that they accepted it (as it was accepted in the U.P. Church) only in so far as it agreed with the Word of God’ (Signal, May 1885, pp.129-32). The United Presbyterian questions at ordination of course required an acknowledgement of the WCF as "an exhibition of the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture".
In the Established Church of Scotland James Stuart, author of "The Principles of Christianity", when brought before the Presbytery of Edinburgh in January 1889 is reported as saying: “He could not see how the subordinate standard and the ultimate standard were on an equality. He regarded the sub-ordinate one as valid only in so far as it was based on the ultimate one.”
Moving on a century from Stuart we come to the Deed of Separation for the Associated Presbyterian Churches. This Deed states that the documents said to form their constitution, including the WCF are accepted only "insofar as each and every one of the documents is consistent with the Holy Scripture". This is a patent qualification and modifying clause pemitting individuals a declaratory Act to decide how far or to what extent each and every one of the documents is consistent with the Holy Scripture. On this basis any minister in the country could subscribe the subordinate standards - it opens things up wider than the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892. An "in so far as" clause would ratifies any sort of cherrypicking at the Confession that the individual in their subjective judgement prefers. It is not only inconsistent with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Resolution on Creed Subscription but also the declaration in the formula to be subscribed by Probationers, Ministers, Elders and Deacons "that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith". Either the whole of the standards are biblical or the Church should determine which parts are not and eliminate them accordingly.
Given the history of the words, the APC "in so far as" clause is in the camp of the loosest confessional subscription and not total subscription. Any 21st century equivalent of Rev. James Smith, Dunfermline in the APC can say to himself, ”I want to subscribe to the Confession only in so far as it is consistent with Scripture. I look at the vows and they don't seem to allow for this but when I look at the Church's constitution I see that it explicitly receives the WCF only in so far as it is consistent with Scripture. I think to myself – the Church is making generous allowance for me and using the words I would use myself”. Thus he proceeds to subscribe in good faith. He does not need to declare it publicly or make any reference to any scruples he has with the Confession.
Note that he does not need to express anything publicly because he has a Declaratory Act in the Constitution of the Church which he may avail of. In the case of the Free Church Declaratory Act, men could appeal to the Act mentally in subscribing the constitution but did not need to make any public declaration of this. Noone was allowed to record the fact that they were not appealing to the Declaratory Act. Any APC ordinand or minister need only to make mental appeal to the “in so far as” clause. This would be dishonesty on the part of the individual but the Church has provided an opportunity that was not there before. The only way to prevent this from happening would be to return to the previous wording of full commitment to the doctrinal constitution as entirely Scriptural.
One tends to act carefully in preparing constitutional documents and select words carefully. For instance, the 1893 Deed of Separation is based upon the 1843 documents. The APC founders have been careful enough in the Deed of Separation of 1989 to specify "each and every one" of the documents. The question is, where was the need to depart from the existing wording of the constitution and adopt the "in so far as" clause? There has been enough controversy over such matters in the presbyterian history of Scotland that anyone with some degree of acquaintance with that would recognise the danger of revision.
When a Church says that it receives the subordinate standards "in so far as each and every one of the documents is consistent with Holy Scripture", it is not just providing a potential refuge for heretics but altering its own relation to its fixed doctrinal constitution. It is not saying what the individual is at liberty to do - it is saying how the Church receives the subordinate standards. It cannot change the Confession as agreed in 1647 but it can alter its relationship to it (as was done by the Free Church in 1892) - but it then becomes a different Church with a different constitution. The APC cannot claim to be constitutionally or morally the true Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
There is all the difference in the world between saying that I "sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith...to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith" and saying that I agree with them only "in so far as" or to the extent that they are consistent with the Scriptures. In the one I am saying that there is nothing inconsistent with the Scriptures it is simply Scriptural truth gathered together, in the other I would be saying that I agree with them but there may be aspects that I do not consider to be consistent with Scripture or will not in the future consider to be consistent with Scripture and therefore I acknowledge only the parts that I consider to be consistent with Scripture.
But the APC also stands in the position of not making that full subscription itself and therefore backsliding from a full unequivocal profession of that body of truth in the WCF. It is the Church's duty to make its confession boldly and clearly and not to give an uncertain sound. It must be made clear that the Church holds to these documents because they do agree with Scripture entirely. To say that these are received only to the extent that they are consistent with Scripture is to cast a shadow on what is a true and faithful exposition of the Word of God. The APC founders in preparing this wording failed to maintain their vows in relation to the Confession which are to "firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain and defend the same".
When one approaches this issue from an historical perspective it is clear that an “in so far as etc.” clause for a Church's constitution is worse than unwise it is suicidal.
The historic view of the Reformed (and Lutheran) Churches has been "quia" subscription. This has, however, been consistently attacked by those who oppose the truth. The orthodox at the Synod of Dort maintained quia subscription while the Remonstrants (Arminians) supported "in so far as" (quatenus). Rather than plead for an overthrow of the Confessional standard and a new standard to be prepared from scratch, they plead for a loose subscription to the Confession that will allow them room to deny whatever they wish both now and in the future. If, after subscription, someone comes to the view that there is something in the Confession that they cannot agree to as biblical then they must resign their office. "In so far as" subscription subverts the very purpose of subscription because subscription is meant to make it absolutely clear what a Church and its office-bearers confess and believe. To say that one subscribes 'quatenus' (in so far as) is to say that one does not really subscribe to anything at all. It could mean that nothing is seen as scriptural in the document and therfore nothing subscribed and confessed. We must agree with the Lutheran C.F.W. Walther who said that Christians could subscribe even the Mohammedans’ Koran “insofar as” it agrees with the Word of God. A quatenus subscription allows the individual to maintain the appearance of agreement in doctrine while also reserving the right to disagree wherever it may suit him. A Confession should be made not in so far as (quatenus) it agrees with the Word of God, but because (quia) it agrees fully with the word of God, the unchanging standard.
Those who defend "in so far as" subscription try to argue that the danger of quia subscription is that it seems to place the Confession above Scripture. It is evident from quia subscription itself that Scripture is the norm and the sole authority, the Confession only derives its authority "because" it adheres to Scripture. Scripture itself demands confession of its truth, the deposit entrusted to the Church which is "the pillar and ground of truth" “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. Acts 20:27 “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” 1 Tim 1:13 "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also".
Others try to say that "in so far as" really means the same as "according to the Scriptures" and it really has an orthodox sense. There is an obvious difference between “according to the Word of God” and “in so far as…consistent with the Holy Scriptures”. “According” means 'in full harmony, agreement, conformity and accord with' while “in so far as” bears the sense of ‘to the extent that’ and that what is referred to is not always the case or always possible. A mathematical way of expressing this difference would be that according is like = (equals/direct equivalent whereas in so far as is like >= (less than or equal to). We can use phrases such as "agreeable to the Word of God" "founded on God's Word" etc. but these never have the same in meaning as "in so far as". They are entirely different semantically. One expressing full harmony, agreement and accordance and the other expressing the conviction or at least possibility that the documents fall short of full consistency with Scripture.
Dutch example
The danger of the "in so far as" wording is best illustrated by the Dutch alteration of 1816. Until this point subscription was total but then there was a change to "we accept in good faith and heartily believe the doctrine, which according to God's holy word, is contained in the accepted forms of unity of the Netherlands reformed church". The difficulty with this change is that while it is basically orthodox and it was received by the orthodox in good faith that it was so- some were apt to take the phrase "which according to God's holy word" to mean that the doctrine was qualified and modified by their personal interpretation of the Scriptures. Rev. Molenaar, a contemporary wrote "Everyone who carefully considers this declaration, will see clearly that it does not say, that the Articles of our Church are according to God's Word, but with reservation, that one believes that doctrine which according to God's Word, is contained in the Articles of our Church. The subscription is therefore not made, because the articles are recognised as agreeable with God's word, but in so far as they are agreeable with God's word. Such a subscription can be made by every Christian faction, the papists can subscribe it, yes even the Jews can do it. If they had used the words in so far as, then every person would have noticed it and every one would have been on their guard" (Documenta Reformatoria Vol 2 p.114 letter of Rev. Molenaar in 1827).
'This, as well as others of the Protestant Churches on the Continent, once sound in the faith, may be reckoned on the side of Rationalism and Socinianism. This was effected not by any change in the standards, but by an alteration in the formula. The Dutch Reformed Church, by the alteration of a single word in the formula, completely altered the standard. The office bearers formerly adhered to the Confession because (quia) it was in accordance with the Word of God; now the formula runs, in so far as (quatenus) it is in accordance with the Word of God. By such a change their Confession became a totally different standard to them. 'The Government of the Kingdom of Christ, Part III. by James Moir Porteous chap VII.
Scottish Examples
Scottish Presbyterian history affords similar examples of the dangerous intrusion of quatenus subscription. In 1789 the Relief Church of Scotland Synod objected to the views of Rev. James Smith, Dunfermline. He had an erroneous view of the atonement but also belived that "systems of theology and creeds were too highly revered". Smith further declared that he was willing to subscribe the WCF only "in so far as it agreed with Scripture". The Synod opposed this as an obvious loophole for heretics to find refuge. They proceeded to pass the following resolution:
"That the minister who presides over the work of ordination or admission of any minister (not formerly ordained by any of the Presbyteries subject to the Synod) shall, in the Questions to be put to the person to be ordained or thus admitted, keep precisely to the Act of Assembly relative to that affair, and in particular shall not ask "Do you agree to the Confession of Faith in so far as it is agreeable to the Word of God", but put the Question in the identical words enjoined by the Assembly"
Similar examples can be found in the Victorian apostasising Free Church of Scotland. Take an instance at a service of ordination at Newton-on-Ayr in 1885. Some of the elders ‘although accepting the Confession of Faith substantially, stated privately that they accepted it (as it was accepted in the U.P. Church) only in so far as it agreed with the Word of God’ (Signal, May 1885, pp.129-32). The United Presbyterian questions at ordination of course required an acknowledgement of the WCF as "an exhibition of the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture".
In the Established Church of Scotland James Stuart, author of "The Principles of Christianity", when brought before the Presbytery of Edinburgh in January 1889 is reported as saying: “He could not see how the subordinate standard and the ultimate standard were on an equality. He regarded the sub-ordinate one as valid only in so far as it was based on the ultimate one.”
Moving on a century from Stuart we come to the Deed of Separation for the Associated Presbyterian Churches. This Deed states that the documents said to form their constitution, including the WCF are accepted only "insofar as each and every one of the documents is consistent with the Holy Scripture". This is a patent qualification and modifying clause pemitting individuals a declaratory Act to decide how far or to what extent each and every one of the documents is consistent with the Holy Scripture. On this basis any minister in the country could subscribe the subordinate standards - it opens things up wider than the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892. An "in so far as" clause would ratifies any sort of cherrypicking at the Confession that the individual in their subjective judgement prefers. It is not only inconsistent with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's Resolution on Creed Subscription but also the declaration in the formula to be subscribed by Probationers, Ministers, Elders and Deacons "that I do sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith". Either the whole of the standards are biblical or the Church should determine which parts are not and eliminate them accordingly.
Given the history of the words, the APC "in so far as" clause is in the camp of the loosest confessional subscription and not total subscription. Any 21st century equivalent of Rev. James Smith, Dunfermline in the APC can say to himself, ”I want to subscribe to the Confession only in so far as it is consistent with Scripture. I look at the vows and they don't seem to allow for this but when I look at the Church's constitution I see that it explicitly receives the WCF only in so far as it is consistent with Scripture. I think to myself – the Church is making generous allowance for me and using the words I would use myself”. Thus he proceeds to subscribe in good faith. He does not need to declare it publicly or make any reference to any scruples he has with the Confession.
Note that he does not need to express anything publicly because he has a Declaratory Act in the Constitution of the Church which he may avail of. In the case of the Free Church Declaratory Act, men could appeal to the Act mentally in subscribing the constitution but did not need to make any public declaration of this. Noone was allowed to record the fact that they were not appealing to the Declaratory Act. Any APC ordinand or minister need only to make mental appeal to the “in so far as” clause. This would be dishonesty on the part of the individual but the Church has provided an opportunity that was not there before. The only way to prevent this from happening would be to return to the previous wording of full commitment to the doctrinal constitution as entirely Scriptural.
One tends to act carefully in preparing constitutional documents and select words carefully. For instance, the 1893 Deed of Separation is based upon the 1843 documents. The APC founders have been careful enough in the Deed of Separation of 1989 to specify "each and every one" of the documents. The question is, where was the need to depart from the existing wording of the constitution and adopt the "in so far as" clause? There has been enough controversy over such matters in the presbyterian history of Scotland that anyone with some degree of acquaintance with that would recognise the danger of revision.
When a Church says that it receives the subordinate standards "in so far as each and every one of the documents is consistent with Holy Scripture", it is not just providing a potential refuge for heretics but altering its own relation to its fixed doctrinal constitution. It is not saying what the individual is at liberty to do - it is saying how the Church receives the subordinate standards. It cannot change the Confession as agreed in 1647 but it can alter its relationship to it (as was done by the Free Church in 1892) - but it then becomes a different Church with a different constitution. The APC cannot claim to be constitutionally or morally the true Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
There is all the difference in the world between saying that I "sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith...to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith" and saying that I agree with them only "in so far as" or to the extent that they are consistent with the Scriptures. In the one I am saying that there is nothing inconsistent with the Scriptures it is simply Scriptural truth gathered together, in the other I would be saying that I agree with them but there may be aspects that I do not consider to be consistent with Scripture or will not in the future consider to be consistent with Scripture and therefore I acknowledge only the parts that I consider to be consistent with Scripture.
But the APC also stands in the position of not making that full subscription itself and therefore backsliding from a full unequivocal profession of that body of truth in the WCF. It is the Church's duty to make its confession boldly and clearly and not to give an uncertain sound. It must be made clear that the Church holds to these documents because they do agree with Scripture entirely. To say that these are received only to the extent that they are consistent with Scripture is to cast a shadow on what is a true and faithful exposition of the Word of God. The APC founders in preparing this wording failed to maintain their vows in relation to the Confession which are to "firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain and defend the same".
When one approaches this issue from an historical perspective it is clear that an “in so far as etc.” clause for a Church's constitution is worse than unwise it is suicidal.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Heaven on Earth
Heaven on earth was what was promised to Adam in the beginning but which he forfeited. Often the phrase heaven on earth is associated with establishing a utopian society or discovering a paradise but this is a very debased sense of the words when we consider them spiritually. There are various ways in which the phrase "Heaven on earth" has been used in an orthodox way. We might say that heaven on earth relates to the Christian life in a number of ways but chiefly three; Doctrine, duty and experience.
Doctrine
Martin Luther wrote that "doctrine is heaven". "I often advise, doctrine must be carefully distinguished from life. Doctrine is heaven; life is earth...Therefore there is no similarity at
all between doctrine and life. One point of doctrine is worth more than heaven and earth. This is why we cannot bear to have it violated". Doctrine is the mind of God unfolded and the eternal truth of heaven brought down to us. Zacharias Ursinus showed the connection between doctrine and comfort, particularly in the Heidelberg Catechism. Christ is the focus of all doctrine and the focus of heaven. Heaven is doctrine realised.
Duty
Many have found heaven on earth in serving God and doing His will and thereby glorifying Him. The Covenanter Donald Cargill believed that he would get a heaven here on earth in glorifying Christ. "God knows," said John Livingstone, "that I would rather serve God on earth, and then endure the torments of the lost, than live a life of sin on earth, and then have for ever the bliss of the ransomed." That is a testimony that it is not easy to attain to. Samuel Rutherford
described his own restoration from exile to service and the deliverance of the Church as "my second created heaven on earth". He "has turned my apprehended fears into joys, and great deliverance to His church, whereof I have my share and part", he said. Some of the puritans found it to be the case even in practical areas of obedience to God's revealed will. Richard Steele wrote that "A godly marriage is a bit of heaven on earth."
A.W. Pink makes Humble Heart to say "I cannot boast of my knowledge of God in Christ, yet by Divine grace this I may say: that I desire no other Heaven on earth than to know and to do God’s will, and be assured that I have His approval."
Experience
This brings us to experience, with which perhaps we most associate heaven on earth. The following anecdote perhaps defines much of what we think of as experiencing heaven on earth. "About the year 1785 the people of God had a remarkable blessing at a communion at Kilearnan [Ross-shire] and were filled to overflowing with the presence of God on the Sabbath. When the
congregation was dispersing a godly young man said to an aged woman a mother in Israel:-"Oh, would it not be well if what we now feel were to continue with us till we reached home". "Oh, Donald," she said, "it would be well if what we now feel were continued with us till we reached
the opposite bank of yonder stream, this is heaven on earth."
Thomas Brooks wrote of assurance as Heaven on Earth. Richard Sibbes writes helpfully on this: "Therefore let us labour first for interest in Christ's righteousness, and then for the righteousness of an holy life; for a conscience to justify us, that we have no purpose to live in any sin ; and a not accusing conscience will be a justifying conscience. What a blessed condition shall we be in, to be in Christ, and to know that we are so! the heaven on earth of
such a man as is in that condition! For which way soever he looks, he finds matter of comfort". Whether backwards into his own life of obedience or forward to heaven.
Christopher Love's wife wrote of him "He lived too much in heaven to live too long out of heaven; and sure I am that he lived a life of heaven on earth. His fellowship was with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." This is similar to what was said of Richard Sibbes; that heaven was in him before he was in heaven.
Richard Sibbes is perhaps the best writer on this subject, not surprisingly. He believes that heaven is an enlarging of our best experience here and an enlarging of our best parts to experience more of Christ. "Oh! beloved, what a blessed time will that be when this large heart of ours shall have that that will fill it; when the best parts of us, our understanding, will, and affections, shall be carried to that which is better and larger than itself, and shall be, as it were, swallowed up in the fulness of God...when a gracious heart expresseth itself, being full of joy, it expresscth itself in thanks and praises, in stirring up of others...Doth God
perform any promise, and so give cause of joy? let him sing. There is action for every affection, affection for every condition. And this may stir us up to begin the employment in heaven on earth here".
The employment of heaven is joy and praise. "Let us begin the employment of heaven beforehand.
For why doth God discover to us that he will bring us to glory? why doth he discover it to our faith, that excellent state? That we might begin heaven on earth, as much as might be. And how shall we do that? By the emploj'ment of heaven. What is that? ' Holy, holy, holy, Lord God
of hosts,' Rev. 4:8. There is nothing but magnifying and glorifying of God. There shall be no need of prayer. There are praises alway; and so much as we are in the praises of God, and glorifying of God for his mercy and love in Christ, so much we are in heaven before our time.
They that be in heaven are praising God, and so be they much in praising of God here. They that
be in heaven love to see the face of God, they joy in it. And they that be heavenly-minded here joy in the presence of God, in the word, the sacraments, and his children. If they be ascended in any degree and measure, this they will do. And then they will joy in communion with God all they can, as they do in heaven. You have some carnal dispositions that are never themselves but in carnal company like themselves. If ever we mean to be in heaven, we must joy in heaven on earth; that is, in them that be heavenly in their dispositions. If we cannot endure them here, how shall we ever live with them in heaven?"
We must be endeavouring after holiness without which no man shall see the Lord and seeking to have our affections set upon things above. Heaven on Earth is communion with Christ and the experience of His love. John Kennedy of Dingwall believed that "those who are heirs of heaven seek communion with Christ. They seek this now. This is their foretaste of heaven on earth, and this [they will have] in perfection in heaven at last.”
We ought to be encouraged that if we have any of this in any measure, there is heaven on earth in our experience, however, weakly we may perceive and recognise it.
Doctrine
Martin Luther wrote that "doctrine is heaven". "I often advise, doctrine must be carefully distinguished from life. Doctrine is heaven; life is earth...Therefore there is no similarity at
all between doctrine and life. One point of doctrine is worth more than heaven and earth. This is why we cannot bear to have it violated". Doctrine is the mind of God unfolded and the eternal truth of heaven brought down to us. Zacharias Ursinus showed the connection between doctrine and comfort, particularly in the Heidelberg Catechism. Christ is the focus of all doctrine and the focus of heaven. Heaven is doctrine realised.
Duty
Many have found heaven on earth in serving God and doing His will and thereby glorifying Him. The Covenanter Donald Cargill believed that he would get a heaven here on earth in glorifying Christ. "God knows," said John Livingstone, "that I would rather serve God on earth, and then endure the torments of the lost, than live a life of sin on earth, and then have for ever the bliss of the ransomed." That is a testimony that it is not easy to attain to. Samuel Rutherford
described his own restoration from exile to service and the deliverance of the Church as "my second created heaven on earth". He "has turned my apprehended fears into joys, and great deliverance to His church, whereof I have my share and part", he said. Some of the puritans found it to be the case even in practical areas of obedience to God's revealed will. Richard Steele wrote that "A godly marriage is a bit of heaven on earth."
A.W. Pink makes Humble Heart to say "I cannot boast of my knowledge of God in Christ, yet by Divine grace this I may say: that I desire no other Heaven on earth than to know and to do God’s will, and be assured that I have His approval."
Experience
This brings us to experience, with which perhaps we most associate heaven on earth. The following anecdote perhaps defines much of what we think of as experiencing heaven on earth. "About the year 1785 the people of God had a remarkable blessing at a communion at Kilearnan [Ross-shire] and were filled to overflowing with the presence of God on the Sabbath. When the
congregation was dispersing a godly young man said to an aged woman a mother in Israel:-"Oh, would it not be well if what we now feel were to continue with us till we reached home". "Oh, Donald," she said, "it would be well if what we now feel were continued with us till we reached
the opposite bank of yonder stream, this is heaven on earth."
Thomas Brooks wrote of assurance as Heaven on Earth. Richard Sibbes writes helpfully on this: "Therefore let us labour first for interest in Christ's righteousness, and then for the righteousness of an holy life; for a conscience to justify us, that we have no purpose to live in any sin ; and a not accusing conscience will be a justifying conscience. What a blessed condition shall we be in, to be in Christ, and to know that we are so! the heaven on earth of
such a man as is in that condition! For which way soever he looks, he finds matter of comfort". Whether backwards into his own life of obedience or forward to heaven.
Christopher Love's wife wrote of him "He lived too much in heaven to live too long out of heaven; and sure I am that he lived a life of heaven on earth. His fellowship was with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." This is similar to what was said of Richard Sibbes; that heaven was in him before he was in heaven.
Richard Sibbes is perhaps the best writer on this subject, not surprisingly. He believes that heaven is an enlarging of our best experience here and an enlarging of our best parts to experience more of Christ. "Oh! beloved, what a blessed time will that be when this large heart of ours shall have that that will fill it; when the best parts of us, our understanding, will, and affections, shall be carried to that which is better and larger than itself, and shall be, as it were, swallowed up in the fulness of God...when a gracious heart expresseth itself, being full of joy, it expresscth itself in thanks and praises, in stirring up of others...Doth God
perform any promise, and so give cause of joy? let him sing. There is action for every affection, affection for every condition. And this may stir us up to begin the employment in heaven on earth here".
The employment of heaven is joy and praise. "Let us begin the employment of heaven beforehand.
For why doth God discover to us that he will bring us to glory? why doth he discover it to our faith, that excellent state? That we might begin heaven on earth, as much as might be. And how shall we do that? By the emploj'ment of heaven. What is that? ' Holy, holy, holy, Lord God
of hosts,' Rev. 4:8. There is nothing but magnifying and glorifying of God. There shall be no need of prayer. There are praises alway; and so much as we are in the praises of God, and glorifying of God for his mercy and love in Christ, so much we are in heaven before our time.
They that be in heaven are praising God, and so be they much in praising of God here. They that
be in heaven love to see the face of God, they joy in it. And they that be heavenly-minded here joy in the presence of God, in the word, the sacraments, and his children. If they be ascended in any degree and measure, this they will do. And then they will joy in communion with God all they can, as they do in heaven. You have some carnal dispositions that are never themselves but in carnal company like themselves. If ever we mean to be in heaven, we must joy in heaven on earth; that is, in them that be heavenly in their dispositions. If we cannot endure them here, how shall we ever live with them in heaven?"
We must be endeavouring after holiness without which no man shall see the Lord and seeking to have our affections set upon things above. Heaven on Earth is communion with Christ and the experience of His love. John Kennedy of Dingwall believed that "those who are heirs of heaven seek communion with Christ. They seek this now. This is their foretaste of heaven on earth, and this [they will have] in perfection in heaven at last.”
We ought to be encouraged that if we have any of this in any measure, there is heaven on earth in our experience, however, weakly we may perceive and recognise it.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Richard Capel and the Special Providential Preservation of Scripture
Richard Capel (1586-1656) was a significant and very learned writer who has been called a "living library." This was first said of him in the memoir written by his friend Valentine Marshall. Marshall wrote that Capel ‘was a very living Library, a full store-house of all kinde of good Literature no lesse than a little University’ (Marshall, ‘To the reader’). Samuel Clarke in Lives of Thirty-Two English Divines, p. 311 also wrote:
He [Richard Capel] was a living library, a full storehouse of all good literature, a judicious preacher, and a sound orthodox divine.
Capel was also a Fellow of Magdalen College, where he tutored the poet George Herbert and William Pemble (whose works Capel later edited) amongst others. Richard Sibbes commended him in a preface to the book of as 'this godly Minister (my Christian friend) … [who] besides faithfulnesse, and fruitfulnesse in his ministry, hath beene a good proficient in the schoole of temptation himself’. When the sabbath-breaking Book of Sports was reissued in 1633 by Charles I, Capel declined to read it in his church and, voluntarily resigning his rectory, obtained from the bishop of Gloucester a licence to practise medicine. He settled at Pitchcombe, near Stroud. He is frequently mentioned as a Westminster Divine which is certainly true in the sense that he was nominated to the Westminster Assembly although there has been debate as to whether he ever took up his seat.
Richard Capel has some notable writings in relation to Scripture and its translation and special providential preservation. Capel's views point to the puritan consensus which produced with complete unanimity the chapter on the Holy Scriptures in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Capel's attitude to Scripture is best illustrated by the following quotation. "As faith worketh by love unto God, so it worketh by love unto his word. Love me, love my word: love a king, love his laws. So it did on David; so it should do on us: "O how love I thy law!" saith David. "O how love I thy law!" should every one of us say; not only because it is a good law, but chiefly because it is God's law".
Capel provides an important defence of the translation of Scripture into the languages of the world and states: “Translations are commanded by God, as Ordinance and constitution of Heaven itself”. Capel agrees with the Westminster Confession's ultimate appeal to the original languages of Scripture, the Confession states that "the Church is finally to appeal unto them" the original language texts preserved by Special providence. Capel points out that we do not believe that translations themselves are incapable of error so as to be our final appeal. "The translators and transcribers might err, being not...indued with that infallible spirit in translating, or transcribing. The Scriptures in their translated copies are not free from all possible corruptions."
Capel also points out that while we do not have the original autographs of the pen-men of Scripture and cannot we assert that every copyist was miraculously preserved from error, we should not therefore conclude that we cannot be certain of the true text. He alludes to a consensus then current, expressed in the Westminster Confession, that "The Old Testament in Hebrew...and the New Testament in Greek...being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical". Capel writes:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
It is not about holding up one particular manuscript as uncorrupt but rather the text as witnessed to by the majority of manuscripts. "To make one Copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no Copy can plead this privilege since the first autographs were in being.” He asserts that we it is not just a matter of being able to say that "all saving fundamental truth is contained in the Original Copies, but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire".
There is a danger in using the fact of some errors in manuscripts and the loss of the original manuscripts to seek to deny special providential preservation. Capel rejects such claims as "terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head and heart, but open the doore to Atheisme and quite to fling off the bridle, which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety: this is to fill the conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the Originals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be clean.” This is why this is such an important doctrine because the effects of not believing it
The publication of Capel's writing on this subject coincides with the year of publication for John Owen's work on providential preservation also. It is difficult to know whether Owen benefited from Capel's work but they certainly concurred. Owen writes in "Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures; With an answer to that inquiry How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God": "The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority".
Owen agrees with Capel that the idea that Scripture is no more preserved by special providence than any other book leads to atheism, because it overthrows the supernatural character of the Scriptures. "It can, then, with no colour of probability be asserted … that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say without offence, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands". On the critical view: "There is nothing left unto men but to choose whether they will be Papists or Atheists". When supernatural revelation is undermined in these ways "we shall quickly see what banks are cut, to let in a flood of atheism upon the face of the earth". This has been proved not only in the experience of critics who have become atheists, but in history. Owen was right to view the emergence of biblical criticism with the greatest alarm because it has led to the Englightenment rejection of the supernatural character of the Scriptures with historical criticism, liberal theology and atheism in various forms.
He [Richard Capel] was a living library, a full storehouse of all good literature, a judicious preacher, and a sound orthodox divine.
Capel was also a Fellow of Magdalen College, where he tutored the poet George Herbert and William Pemble (whose works Capel later edited) amongst others. Richard Sibbes commended him in a preface to the book of as 'this godly Minister (my Christian friend) … [who] besides faithfulnesse, and fruitfulnesse in his ministry, hath beene a good proficient in the schoole of temptation himself’. When the sabbath-breaking Book of Sports was reissued in 1633 by Charles I, Capel declined to read it in his church and, voluntarily resigning his rectory, obtained from the bishop of Gloucester a licence to practise medicine. He settled at Pitchcombe, near Stroud. He is frequently mentioned as a Westminster Divine which is certainly true in the sense that he was nominated to the Westminster Assembly although there has been debate as to whether he ever took up his seat.
Richard Capel has some notable writings in relation to Scripture and its translation and special providential preservation. Capel's views point to the puritan consensus which produced with complete unanimity the chapter on the Holy Scriptures in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Capel's attitude to Scripture is best illustrated by the following quotation. "As faith worketh by love unto God, so it worketh by love unto his word. Love me, love my word: love a king, love his laws. So it did on David; so it should do on us: "O how love I thy law!" saith David. "O how love I thy law!" should every one of us say; not only because it is a good law, but chiefly because it is God's law".
Capel provides an important defence of the translation of Scripture into the languages of the world and states: “Translations are commanded by God, as Ordinance and constitution of Heaven itself”. Capel agrees with the Westminster Confession's ultimate appeal to the original languages of Scripture, the Confession states that "the Church is finally to appeal unto them" the original language texts preserved by Special providence. Capel points out that we do not believe that translations themselves are incapable of error so as to be our final appeal. "The translators and transcribers might err, being not...indued with that infallible spirit in translating, or transcribing. The Scriptures in their translated copies are not free from all possible corruptions."
Capel also points out that while we do not have the original autographs of the pen-men of Scripture and cannot we assert that every copyist was miraculously preserved from error, we should not therefore conclude that we cannot be certain of the true text. He alludes to a consensus then current, expressed in the Westminster Confession, that "The Old Testament in Hebrew...and the New Testament in Greek...being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical". Capel writes:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . . As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and ‘tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
It is not about holding up one particular manuscript as uncorrupt but rather the text as witnessed to by the majority of manuscripts. "To make one Copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no Copy can plead this privilege since the first autographs were in being.” He asserts that we it is not just a matter of being able to say that "all saving fundamental truth is contained in the Original Copies, but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire".
There is a danger in using the fact of some errors in manuscripts and the loss of the original manuscripts to seek to deny special providential preservation. Capel rejects such claims as "terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head and heart, but open the doore to Atheisme and quite to fling off the bridle, which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety: this is to fill the conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the Originals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be clean.” This is why this is such an important doctrine because the effects of not believing it
The publication of Capel's writing on this subject coincides with the year of publication for John Owen's work on providential preservation also. It is difficult to know whether Owen benefited from Capel's work but they certainly concurred. Owen writes in "Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures; With an answer to that inquiry How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God": "The sum of what I am pleading for, as to the particular head to be vindicated, is, That as the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable; so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men, without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority".
Owen agrees with Capel that the idea that Scripture is no more preserved by special providence than any other book leads to atheism, because it overthrows the supernatural character of the Scriptures. "It can, then, with no colour of probability be asserted … that there hath the same fate attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say without offence, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands". On the critical view: "There is nothing left unto men but to choose whether they will be Papists or Atheists". When supernatural revelation is undermined in these ways "we shall quickly see what banks are cut, to let in a flood of atheism upon the face of the earth". This has been proved not only in the experience of critics who have become atheists, but in history. Owen was right to view the emergence of biblical criticism with the greatest alarm because it has led to the Englightenment rejection of the supernatural character of the Scriptures with historical criticism, liberal theology and atheism in various forms.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
1611 and 2011
Has any other Bible version been the subject of an early day motion in the House of Commons? And a debate(9 Dec 2009 : Column 97WH)? Or the subject of a BBC documentary?
See here for a secular national initiative to mark the anniversary of the AV but here for a more appropriate series of events.
See here for a secular national initiative to mark the anniversary of the AV but here for a more appropriate series of events.
Friday, May 14, 2010
What we must hold fast
We must hold fast the full deposit of truth and sound words as it has been once delivered in the Scriptures. This is emphasised throughout the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
We must not seek to hold merely the bare minimum; we have not been called to reduce the burden for our own ease. The Church must hold to all that it has received. If we do not maintain our heritage what deposit of truth will there be for future generations? We must seek to hold fast in order to pass the deposit of truth on to the succeeding generation, that is truly guarding or preserving it. That is truly holding fast.
The Church must be agreed on the confession that it is collectively holding fast (Hebrew 10:23 & Philippians 3:16) hence the value of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms which are accurate summaries of the truth. Hence also the value of subscribing all of these truths and professing them to be our own personal confession, ‘holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience’. There is a sacred deposit of truth, the form of sound words. This must be maintained and asserted at all costs. Many believe that the old truths are outworn and must give place to new ideas. They believe that we can improve on what we have received. They believe that we must lower the biblical standard so that we can arrive at something more acceptable to a greater number of people. Needless to say, this is not holding fast the truth.
One vital way of holding fast in this connection is the instruction of the young within the Church. They must receive the knowledge of the truth. A great encouragement in this work is Isaiah 59:21: “My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever”. This promise guarantees the continuance of a profession of the truth but it does not thereby take away our responsibility to instruct our seed. That responsibility is enjoined in Deuteronomy 29:29 “those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law”. This is a solemn duty and privilege. Fathers, elders, ministers must catechise the children of the visible Church so that they are immersed in the truth. (Deut 6:1)
We must not seek to hold merely the bare minimum; we have not been called to reduce the burden for our own ease. The Church must hold to all that it has received. If we do not maintain our heritage what deposit of truth will there be for future generations? We must seek to hold fast in order to pass the deposit of truth on to the succeeding generation, that is truly guarding or preserving it. That is truly holding fast.
The Church must be agreed on the confession that it is collectively holding fast (Hebrew 10:23 & Philippians 3:16) hence the value of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms which are accurate summaries of the truth. Hence also the value of subscribing all of these truths and professing them to be our own personal confession, ‘holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience’. There is a sacred deposit of truth, the form of sound words. This must be maintained and asserted at all costs. Many believe that the old truths are outworn and must give place to new ideas. They believe that we can improve on what we have received. They believe that we must lower the biblical standard so that we can arrive at something more acceptable to a greater number of people. Needless to say, this is not holding fast the truth.
One vital way of holding fast in this connection is the instruction of the young within the Church. They must receive the knowledge of the truth. A great encouragement in this work is Isaiah 59:21: “My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever”. This promise guarantees the continuance of a profession of the truth but it does not thereby take away our responsibility to instruct our seed. That responsibility is enjoined in Deuteronomy 29:29 “those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law”. This is a solemn duty and privilege. Fathers, elders, ministers must catechise the children of the visible Church so that they are immersed in the truth. (Deut 6:1)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The National Debt and our debt of sin
As fears rage over the national deficit in Greece (here)and its implications in other countries not least Britain - you may benefit from reading an article here that considers not only the National Debt but the reality of our debt of sin of which we ought to be reminded.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Voting and the Bible
Bigger turnouts. Tactical voting. Evidence-based voting.
By now you will have voted, spoilt your ballot paper or not voted.
The Christian Institute produced a video encouraging Christians to vote with the question "How should Christians think biblically when considering ‘how’ or even ‘whether’ to vote?" The video was entitled "Voting and the Bible in 210 seconds". Their election briefing is invaluable but I'm not sure about the video. It refers to lots of bible passages but almost none directly relevant to voting. They are about praying for governments instead. The link above also links to a Southern Baptist document "Why Should Christians Vote?". This document does not do much better. One can be salt and light in society without casting a secret vote. It seems as if they are saying that these are the best passages it is possible to find in the bible with the closest fit with the issue.
The Bible does not use the words vote or voting. There is, however, a lot about government and national duty. Romans 13:1-14 doesn't really prescribe voting as a duty or active citizenship, more a subjection to the just authority of governments. One can render these duties unto Caesar without voting. It's hard to think that if Christians had the vote at this time they would have voted for the persecuting regime of Nero.
It would be an entire mistake to think that the Bible has nothing to say about choosing rulers simply because it does not refer to ballot by universal suffrage. It speaks frequently about the choice of rulers by a people and nation. Part of the difficulty is that people don't want to go to the Old Testament and find it. Deut 1:13 says "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you". Exodus 18:21 "thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens". We also read "he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God"(2 Sam. 23:3). Psalm 82 further describes the duties of rulers. The qualifications for a ruler could not be clearer and even if we allow for the fact of a changed situation from the nation-state of Israel as constituted by the Mosaic covenant, there are definite principles of general equity to apply here. Why do we have covetous and unjust rulers? Because they are neither men of truth nor men that fear God. In other words we cannot separate the Bible's mandate for voting from the Bible's requirements as to whom we can give a mandate for government.
Democracy means that power is invested in the people and that they loan out that power or delegate it to rulers. They give them the authority to implement their manifesto. That includes everything that they disagree with as well as everything they can support. It includes everything that they have said that they will leave untouched as well as all their explicit commitments.
If a party reneges on their manifesto commitments I can justly complain. If, however, they do what they have committed to and leave untouched that which they have left unaddressed, how can I complain? It goes further than this, however, because if I have given them the power to do that which is evil or to ignore existing evils they are doing that in my name and authority. I have become partaker in other men's sins. I have become involved in national sins. I can no longer point the finger at those who commit such things as Scripture condemns or at the government which fails to restrain them because I have a critical role in ensuring that this state of affairs is maintained (Exodus 23:2).
The default position of many Christians appears to be that of the tactical vote. Tactical voting has been described recently as voting with your head and not your heart. Choosing the best of the worst because you want to prevent those who would be worse from getting into power. Laying aside one's principles to vote for someone that you would not usually vote for and do not agree with entirely. This may work well in the expediency that discounts truth but the Christian is under an absolute duty not to do evil that good may come.
The duty of nations as nations and the duty of their governments is abundantly clear in Psalm 2. Are we giving power to those who are fighting against Christ as well as his law? In voting I am entering into a moral contract with the party voted for. It is entirely disallowed and condemned in Scripture that we should make a covenant of unity (as opposed to a peace treaty) with the enemies of God and his laws in this way (2 Chron. 16.1-10; 2 Kings 16.7,10; 2 Chron. 28.16-23; 2 Chron. 18.3; 2 Chron. 19.2; 2 Chron. 20.35). 2 Chron. 19:2, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?" What happens in voting is that we help politicians to do evil, but not to do good: while they help us do evil, and hinder us from doing good. Isaiah 8:12, 13: 'Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread'. Will we not be joined to them in the temporal judgement that they receive if we are joined with them in this moral contract (Is. 13:15)? We cannot have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness in this but rather reprove them.
To give a position of honour to a rejecter of God's law is not only not seemly (Prov. 26:1), it is like putting a dangerous weapon into their hand (Prov. 26:6&8) with which they can only injure or kill. Such rulers may be set up by "not by me" says the Lord (Hosea 8:4 and Ps. 94:20). They may be valid rulers but not lawful. We are not promoting Christian political parties as such but we are promoting a careful examination of conscience as well as policies and manifestos. Let us hope that some Christians across the country have been able to vote for candidates that are fit as well as willing to promote God's law. We fear that this will not have been universally the case, however. It is not just hung parliaments that create unholy alliances.
By now you will have voted, spoilt your ballot paper or not voted.
The Christian Institute produced a video encouraging Christians to vote with the question "How should Christians think biblically when considering ‘how’ or even ‘whether’ to vote?" The video was entitled "Voting and the Bible in 210 seconds". Their election briefing is invaluable but I'm not sure about the video. It refers to lots of bible passages but almost none directly relevant to voting. They are about praying for governments instead. The link above also links to a Southern Baptist document "Why Should Christians Vote?". This document does not do much better. One can be salt and light in society without casting a secret vote. It seems as if they are saying that these are the best passages it is possible to find in the bible with the closest fit with the issue.
The Bible does not use the words vote or voting. There is, however, a lot about government and national duty. Romans 13:1-14 doesn't really prescribe voting as a duty or active citizenship, more a subjection to the just authority of governments. One can render these duties unto Caesar without voting. It's hard to think that if Christians had the vote at this time they would have voted for the persecuting regime of Nero.
It would be an entire mistake to think that the Bible has nothing to say about choosing rulers simply because it does not refer to ballot by universal suffrage. It speaks frequently about the choice of rulers by a people and nation. Part of the difficulty is that people don't want to go to the Old Testament and find it. Deut 1:13 says "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you". Exodus 18:21 "thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens". We also read "he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God"(2 Sam. 23:3). Psalm 82 further describes the duties of rulers. The qualifications for a ruler could not be clearer and even if we allow for the fact of a changed situation from the nation-state of Israel as constituted by the Mosaic covenant, there are definite principles of general equity to apply here. Why do we have covetous and unjust rulers? Because they are neither men of truth nor men that fear God. In other words we cannot separate the Bible's mandate for voting from the Bible's requirements as to whom we can give a mandate for government.
Democracy means that power is invested in the people and that they loan out that power or delegate it to rulers. They give them the authority to implement their manifesto. That includes everything that they disagree with as well as everything they can support. It includes everything that they have said that they will leave untouched as well as all their explicit commitments.
If a party reneges on their manifesto commitments I can justly complain. If, however, they do what they have committed to and leave untouched that which they have left unaddressed, how can I complain? It goes further than this, however, because if I have given them the power to do that which is evil or to ignore existing evils they are doing that in my name and authority. I have become partaker in other men's sins. I have become involved in national sins. I can no longer point the finger at those who commit such things as Scripture condemns or at the government which fails to restrain them because I have a critical role in ensuring that this state of affairs is maintained (Exodus 23:2).
The default position of many Christians appears to be that of the tactical vote. Tactical voting has been described recently as voting with your head and not your heart. Choosing the best of the worst because you want to prevent those who would be worse from getting into power. Laying aside one's principles to vote for someone that you would not usually vote for and do not agree with entirely. This may work well in the expediency that discounts truth but the Christian is under an absolute duty not to do evil that good may come.
The duty of nations as nations and the duty of their governments is abundantly clear in Psalm 2. Are we giving power to those who are fighting against Christ as well as his law? In voting I am entering into a moral contract with the party voted for. It is entirely disallowed and condemned in Scripture that we should make a covenant of unity (as opposed to a peace treaty) with the enemies of God and his laws in this way (2 Chron. 16.1-10; 2 Kings 16.7,10; 2 Chron. 28.16-23; 2 Chron. 18.3; 2 Chron. 19.2; 2 Chron. 20.35). 2 Chron. 19:2, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?" What happens in voting is that we help politicians to do evil, but not to do good: while they help us do evil, and hinder us from doing good. Isaiah 8:12, 13: 'Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread'. Will we not be joined to them in the temporal judgement that they receive if we are joined with them in this moral contract (Is. 13:15)? We cannot have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness in this but rather reprove them.
To give a position of honour to a rejecter of God's law is not only not seemly (Prov. 26:1), it is like putting a dangerous weapon into their hand (Prov. 26:6&8) with which they can only injure or kill. Such rulers may be set up by "not by me" says the Lord (Hosea 8:4 and Ps. 94:20). They may be valid rulers but not lawful. We are not promoting Christian political parties as such but we are promoting a careful examination of conscience as well as policies and manifestos. Let us hope that some Christians across the country have been able to vote for candidates that are fit as well as willing to promote God's law. We fear that this will not have been universally the case, however. It is not just hung parliaments that create unholy alliances.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
James Begg on the Scottish Reformation
Next to the advent of our blessed Saviour, the Reformation from Popery is the most remarkable and glorious event recorded in modern history. The momentous consequences which have resulted from it to unnumbered multitudes can only be read in the annals of eternity.
Yet it is singular that this great event in Providence, to which Scotland owes so much, should never till now have received anything like a formal national acknowledgment. In 1660, when the first hundred years of the Reformation had passed away, no notice was taken of that event, the country being involved in a virtual revolution by the restoration of Charles II. In 1760, when
another eventful hundred years had finished their course, Scotland was sunk in profound torpor under the ecclesiastical dominion of men who have never at any period indicated much sympathy with the spirit of John Knox. Now, however, that 1860 has come, that a new spirit has breathed through the land, and that Rome is making determined efforts to regain her former ascendancy in Scotland, it is matter of earnest thankfulness to God that in a variety of ways the Reformation has been, and is likely to be, worthily commemorated, and the kingdom stirred up on the subject of its dangers and duties to its utmost depths.
[In 2010 the anniversary is given very little notice]
The apathy of the people of Scotland, so far as it exists on the subject of Romanism, is mainly to be traced to the want of zeal on the part of many ministers; and it is pretty evident that were the Reformation to be achieved now, some of them would not be found in the van of the
struggle. " If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, how wouldst thou contend with horses; and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they have wearied thee, what wouldst thou do in the dwellings of Jordan?"
We shall prove ourselves most unworthy descendants of the great Reformers and of God's great
mercies, if we do not seek by every means to stay the plague of evil. Let us especially pray that God himself, with whom is the residue of the Spirit, and who has been so gracious to
our land in ages past, making it the source of unnumbered blessings to the world, may not hide His face from us now, notwithstanding our great unworthiness, but may bring back our captivity like the streams of the south, cause us to see good according to the days in which we have been afflicted, and the number of the months in which we have seen evil, and make our latter end to be more glorious than the beginning. "Return, Lord, for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine
inheritance."
Yet it is singular that this great event in Providence, to which Scotland owes so much, should never till now have received anything like a formal national acknowledgment. In 1660, when the first hundred years of the Reformation had passed away, no notice was taken of that event, the country being involved in a virtual revolution by the restoration of Charles II. In 1760, when
another eventful hundred years had finished their course, Scotland was sunk in profound torpor under the ecclesiastical dominion of men who have never at any period indicated much sympathy with the spirit of John Knox. Now, however, that 1860 has come, that a new spirit has breathed through the land, and that Rome is making determined efforts to regain her former ascendancy in Scotland, it is matter of earnest thankfulness to God that in a variety of ways the Reformation has been, and is likely to be, worthily commemorated, and the kingdom stirred up on the subject of its dangers and duties to its utmost depths.
[In 2010 the anniversary is given very little notice]
The apathy of the people of Scotland, so far as it exists on the subject of Romanism, is mainly to be traced to the want of zeal on the part of many ministers; and it is pretty evident that were the Reformation to be achieved now, some of them would not be found in the van of the
struggle. " If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, how wouldst thou contend with horses; and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they have wearied thee, what wouldst thou do in the dwellings of Jordan?"
We shall prove ourselves most unworthy descendants of the great Reformers and of God's great
mercies, if we do not seek by every means to stay the plague of evil. Let us especially pray that God himself, with whom is the residue of the Spirit, and who has been so gracious to
our land in ages past, making it the source of unnumbered blessings to the world, may not hide His face from us now, notwithstanding our great unworthiness, but may bring back our captivity like the streams of the south, cause us to see good according to the days in which we have been afflicted, and the number of the months in which we have seen evil, and make our latter end to be more glorious than the beginning. "Return, Lord, for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine
inheritance."
Friday, April 30, 2010
The principles of the Scottish Reformation
The Reformation in Scotland may be briefly characterised as the development of three great principles—
1st, The supreme authority of the Word of God in all matters pertaining to religion;
2d, The sole sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head and King of the Church—understanding by the term Church, the company of believers comprising both ministers and people;
3d, The official equality of all ordained ministers.
From these primary principles flow others, secondary in position, but essentially necessary—
1st, The independent spiritual jurisdiction of the Church as a necessary consequence of the two first principles, and that the Church may obey Christ freely and fully according to the revelation of his mind in the Sacred Scriptures;
2d, The rights and privileges of the Christian people regarded as believers, and thereby entitled to enjoy the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free —this also follows from the two first;
3d, Presbyterian Church government, as necessarily arising out of the first three principles, and opposed both to Prelacy and Congregationalism ;
4th, The education of the people as a part of the Church system, and therefore based upon and thoroughly pervaded by the principles of sacred and revealed truth.
Authoritative Exposition of the principles of the Free Church of Scotland, 1845
1st, The supreme authority of the Word of God in all matters pertaining to religion;
2d, The sole sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head and King of the Church—understanding by the term Church, the company of believers comprising both ministers and people;
3d, The official equality of all ordained ministers.
From these primary principles flow others, secondary in position, but essentially necessary—
1st, The independent spiritual jurisdiction of the Church as a necessary consequence of the two first principles, and that the Church may obey Christ freely and fully according to the revelation of his mind in the Sacred Scriptures;
2d, The rights and privileges of the Christian people regarded as believers, and thereby entitled to enjoy the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free —this also follows from the two first;
3d, Presbyterian Church government, as necessarily arising out of the first three principles, and opposed both to Prelacy and Congregationalism ;
4th, The education of the people as a part of the Church system, and therefore based upon and thoroughly pervaded by the principles of sacred and revealed truth.
Authoritative Exposition of the principles of the Free Church of Scotland, 1845
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The greatest responsibility you have: the greatest privilege you could have
There are many questions in the world. The greatest of all questions that could be addressed to you is that which the Lord Jesus Christ addressed to Peter. "Lovest thou me?" This is not just a question asked by the greatest person about himself. It is the greatest question it is possible to ask about the greatest person. It is the greatest commandment. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment' (Mark 12:30). All our moral responsibility, the whole law hangs upon it.
This great commandment is in the gospel: 'Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him' (Psalm 2:12). It is the test of all our religious duty - without love to Christ, all is lost and nothing. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and knowledge, Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor; and Though I give my body to be burnt, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing." (1 Cor 13:1ff). It profiteth me nothing. As with a sum of money the zeros are important but without the whole number they are of no value no matter how many there may be. So with the love of Christ this is what gives value to anything that we do. This is a great question to ask of faith - is it working through love to Christ? Love and faith are joined together because they centre upon the same object, the Lord Jesus Christ. 'Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory' (1 Pet 1:8). The Pharisees had not the love of God in them (Jn 5:42) - this was the great charge against them - they would not come to Christ which was the great evidence of not having love toward God. This will be the great question on the day of judgement. "Lovest thou me more than these?" Our thoughts, words, actions will be sifted for love to Christ. This is laid upon us as vital to our eternal destiny, 'if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha' (1 Cor 16:22). Anathema means accursed, Maranatha means the Lord comes. At the Lord's coming he shall judge and shall pronounce either the curse or blessing. How solemn to be pronounced accursed at the coming of the Lord. He shall say 'Depart from me, I never knew you'. You never loved me and I never knew you in that way. This is the great distinguishing mark of regeneration, circumcision of heart must produce love to Christ (Deut 30:6). It is the test of whether or not we are in right relationship with God. Those that love Christ in sincerity have a primary mark of grace. They are the truly regenerate (Deuteronomy 30:6).
It is also the highest privilege that there is. To love Christ. He is the greatest object for our affections. No-one higher may be loved in heaven or upon earth (Ps 73:25). The psalmist's question, 'Whom have I in the heavens high, but thee O Lord alone?' is not just a personal question but a question that is unversally true. 'And in the earth whom I desire, besides thee, there is none'. All the things that we may desire are not to be compared to him. One of the old writers says that an individual's worth is to be measured according to the object of their affections and satisfaction. Christ is an infinite person and therefore those that make him the object of their affections and satisfaction have an infinite worth attaching to them. He is the only object of true and ultimate affection and satisfaction and to seek this elsewhere is idolatry. If we are placing our chief affections elsewhere, this is upon comparatively worthless objects which makes us in turn worthless. The more we love Christ the more we become like him. Christ is not only infinite but eternal. This love is therefore everlasting - it is the queen of all graces because it outshines them and outlasts them. It brings all other graces in its train. 'Charity edifieth'. It brings joy unspeakable and quickens obedience. It is a heavenly affection that puts heaven in us before we are in heaven. Heaven is a world of love. Love to Christ is also the highest of privileges that brings all other privileges in its train. Those that love God are remembered by him in a special way and looked upon in a special way. They are preserved. That God should love us is beyond our grasp. That God should condescend to accept our love is something more - an even more mysterious thing. It is a condescension shining with glorious, matchless grace. There can be no greater privilege. 'My beloved is mine and I am his' is the very heights of redemptive privilege. Is it not a wonderful thing To be able to be able to lay claims of love upon Christ?
The poet George Herbert brought the greatest responsibility and the greatest privilege together in his poem "The Affliction". He writes:
Ah my dear God! though I am clean forgot,
Let me not love thee, if I love thee not.
It is of course a paradox, saying I do not deserve to love God unless I love him sincerely. God forbid that I would be allowed the greatest privilege and mercy of loving thee if I do not fulfil the greatest commandment.
This great commandment is in the gospel: 'Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him' (Psalm 2:12). It is the test of all our religious duty - without love to Christ, all is lost and nothing. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and knowledge, Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor; and Though I give my body to be burnt, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing." (1 Cor 13:1ff). It profiteth me nothing. As with a sum of money the zeros are important but without the whole number they are of no value no matter how many there may be. So with the love of Christ this is what gives value to anything that we do. This is a great question to ask of faith - is it working through love to Christ? Love and faith are joined together because they centre upon the same object, the Lord Jesus Christ. 'Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory' (1 Pet 1:8). The Pharisees had not the love of God in them (Jn 5:42) - this was the great charge against them - they would not come to Christ which was the great evidence of not having love toward God. This will be the great question on the day of judgement. "Lovest thou me more than these?" Our thoughts, words, actions will be sifted for love to Christ. This is laid upon us as vital to our eternal destiny, 'if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha' (1 Cor 16:22). Anathema means accursed, Maranatha means the Lord comes. At the Lord's coming he shall judge and shall pronounce either the curse or blessing. How solemn to be pronounced accursed at the coming of the Lord. He shall say 'Depart from me, I never knew you'. You never loved me and I never knew you in that way. This is the great distinguishing mark of regeneration, circumcision of heart must produce love to Christ (Deut 30:6). It is the test of whether or not we are in right relationship with God. Those that love Christ in sincerity have a primary mark of grace. They are the truly regenerate (Deuteronomy 30:6).
It is also the highest privilege that there is. To love Christ. He is the greatest object for our affections. No-one higher may be loved in heaven or upon earth (Ps 73:25). The psalmist's question, 'Whom have I in the heavens high, but thee O Lord alone?' is not just a personal question but a question that is unversally true. 'And in the earth whom I desire, besides thee, there is none'. All the things that we may desire are not to be compared to him. One of the old writers says that an individual's worth is to be measured according to the object of their affections and satisfaction. Christ is an infinite person and therefore those that make him the object of their affections and satisfaction have an infinite worth attaching to them. He is the only object of true and ultimate affection and satisfaction and to seek this elsewhere is idolatry. If we are placing our chief affections elsewhere, this is upon comparatively worthless objects which makes us in turn worthless. The more we love Christ the more we become like him. Christ is not only infinite but eternal. This love is therefore everlasting - it is the queen of all graces because it outshines them and outlasts them. It brings all other graces in its train. 'Charity edifieth'. It brings joy unspeakable and quickens obedience. It is a heavenly affection that puts heaven in us before we are in heaven. Heaven is a world of love. Love to Christ is also the highest of privileges that brings all other privileges in its train. Those that love God are remembered by him in a special way and looked upon in a special way. They are preserved. That God should love us is beyond our grasp. That God should condescend to accept our love is something more - an even more mysterious thing. It is a condescension shining with glorious, matchless grace. There can be no greater privilege. 'My beloved is mine and I am his' is the very heights of redemptive privilege. Is it not a wonderful thing To be able to be able to lay claims of love upon Christ?
The poet George Herbert brought the greatest responsibility and the greatest privilege together in his poem "The Affliction". He writes:
Ah my dear God! though I am clean forgot,
Let me not love thee, if I love thee not.
It is of course a paradox, saying I do not deserve to love God unless I love him sincerely. God forbid that I would be allowed the greatest privilege and mercy of loving thee if I do not fulfil the greatest commandment.
Monday, April 26, 2010
What it means to hold fast
Revelation 2:24-25 “I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.”
Undoubtedly we live in an evil day. What we have in these words from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ is valuable counsel for His Church in the midst of an evil day.“That which ye have already, hold fast”. To hold fast implies that when we make a sincere and open profession of the truth there will be significant opposition in our way and there will be great difficulties and even danger in fulfilling this duty.
John Owen writes concerning the original word translated hold fast that it includes:
(1.) A supposition of great difficulty, with danger and opposition, against this holding the profession of our faith. (2.) The putting forth of the utmost of our strength and endeavors in the defense of it. (3.) A constant perseverance in it.
Holding fast also implies that in an evil day our main responsibility and duty is to retain and maintain the heritage or deposit of truth with which we have been entrusted: “I will put none other burden upon you”. “Hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This is our basic duty. It may take all of our energy just to swim against the high waves of opposition and iniquity, even just to hold our ground. The man who slackens to attend to anything else while swimming against the tide will never succeed in either task by which his attention is divided.
Christ gives us “none other burden”, we are not to take additional burdens from anyone else. Men love to add burdens, the Pharisees piled duties upon the people which blinded them to the real necessities of their responsibility towards God. “I have spoken to them the great things of my law, but they were accounted as a strange thing”. The apostolic Church could say of their synodical decrees “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things’ (Acts 15:28).
In a day of small things men like to add new burdens in the Church of God. They bring in inventions of their own, innovations in the worship of God which are neither commanded nor necessary. These are the burdens of men and they hinder rather than help us in holding fast. It is gross disobedience to “teach for doctrines the commandments of men”. Others will remove from the testimony and water down the whole counsel of God in order to make the truth more palatable to a rebellious age. This too is forbidden. We are to maintain the whole truth and nothing but the truth: “that which ye have already, hold fast”. “Earnestly contend for the saints once delivered to the saints”.
Men also like to bind burdens on the people of God which will detract from a careful and holy profession of Christ. There were trends in the Church in Thyatira which encouraged walking closely with the world, conforming in certain areas to whatever was required in the trade guilds such as eating in the temples of idols. No doubt there were those who could justify it from the perspective of building bridges with the world but the truth is, as in our own day, that those who advocate running to the same places of sinful pleasure with the world are not extending the influence of the Church in the world but rather that of the world in the Church. Such are seeking to weaken the grip of the Christian and even wrestle out of their grasp the burden that Christ has given to them. In the natural world we often see a bird find a morsel of food, no sooner than he can make away with it in his beak he is pursued by another and then by several birds harrying and chasing to see if they can make him drop his prized meal. So it is with the Christian, no sooner does he take up a profession of the Saviour and the world, the flesh and the devil are all upon him to see if they can make him lose that which he must hold fast.
Undoubtedly we live in an evil day. What we have in these words from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ is valuable counsel for His Church in the midst of an evil day.“That which ye have already, hold fast”. To hold fast implies that when we make a sincere and open profession of the truth there will be significant opposition in our way and there will be great difficulties and even danger in fulfilling this duty.
John Owen writes concerning the original word translated hold fast that it includes:
(1.) A supposition of great difficulty, with danger and opposition, against this holding the profession of our faith. (2.) The putting forth of the utmost of our strength and endeavors in the defense of it. (3.) A constant perseverance in it.
Holding fast also implies that in an evil day our main responsibility and duty is to retain and maintain the heritage or deposit of truth with which we have been entrusted: “I will put none other burden upon you”. “Hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This is our basic duty. It may take all of our energy just to swim against the high waves of opposition and iniquity, even just to hold our ground. The man who slackens to attend to anything else while swimming against the tide will never succeed in either task by which his attention is divided.
Christ gives us “none other burden”, we are not to take additional burdens from anyone else. Men love to add burdens, the Pharisees piled duties upon the people which blinded them to the real necessities of their responsibility towards God. “I have spoken to them the great things of my law, but they were accounted as a strange thing”. The apostolic Church could say of their synodical decrees “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things’ (Acts 15:28).
In a day of small things men like to add new burdens in the Church of God. They bring in inventions of their own, innovations in the worship of God which are neither commanded nor necessary. These are the burdens of men and they hinder rather than help us in holding fast. It is gross disobedience to “teach for doctrines the commandments of men”. Others will remove from the testimony and water down the whole counsel of God in order to make the truth more palatable to a rebellious age. This too is forbidden. We are to maintain the whole truth and nothing but the truth: “that which ye have already, hold fast”. “Earnestly contend for the saints once delivered to the saints”.
Men also like to bind burdens on the people of God which will detract from a careful and holy profession of Christ. There were trends in the Church in Thyatira which encouraged walking closely with the world, conforming in certain areas to whatever was required in the trade guilds such as eating in the temples of idols. No doubt there were those who could justify it from the perspective of building bridges with the world but the truth is, as in our own day, that those who advocate running to the same places of sinful pleasure with the world are not extending the influence of the Church in the world but rather that of the world in the Church. Such are seeking to weaken the grip of the Christian and even wrestle out of their grasp the burden that Christ has given to them. In the natural world we often see a bird find a morsel of food, no sooner than he can make away with it in his beak he is pursued by another and then by several birds harrying and chasing to see if they can make him drop his prized meal. So it is with the Christian, no sooner does he take up a profession of the Saviour and the world, the flesh and the devil are all upon him to see if they can make him lose that which he must hold fast.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Greek Translation of the Old Testament
There is an interesting debate as to whether the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagaint or whether the copies we have of the Septuagaint have been altered to fit with the New Testament quotations. John Owen and Francis Turretin did not believe that the apostles were quoting from the Septuagaint. There is a good introduction to this debate here. A fuller analysis is found here. Other contributions are here and here. There is no complete agreement on the fact that Greek translation of the Old Testament existed and was widely used at the time of Christ.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
the doctrine of the Church a fundamental truth of the gospel
Rev. Stuart Robinson (1814-1881), professor of church government and pastoral theology at Danville Seminary and pastor of Second Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Kentucky wrote a very helpful book on the Church called The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel, and the Idea, Structure, and Functions Thereof. The book has been reprinted by the OPC
Robinson shows that the church is an essential element of the gospel, and is intended by God for accomplishing the purpose of redemption. It is a full-orbed defence of the visible church and its government. He had an evident interest in tracing out the progress and development of redemption history in a way which is slightly similar to the biblical theological approach favoured today. The book expands upon a note in another book Discourses of redemption. Robinson there speaks of the need "to perceive clearly and grasp firmly the great doctrine of the Church as a fundamental truth of the gospel revelation". This is an interesting assertion given the fact that the Great Commission of Matt. 28 is given in terms of an assertion of the kingship of Christ and observing His commandments in the Church. He maintains that "the fact that the doctrine of the Church is a fundamental truth of the gospel, and is entitled to the same sort of consideration as other articles of theology" is generally overlooked. He observes that it is essential to the wellbeing of the Church given "the fact that a Calvinistic theology cannot long retain its integrity and purity save in connection with a Calvinistic ecclesiology, and for the more general fact, already referred to, of the intimate connection between a wrong theology and wrong views of the Church".
"The visible Church is an important, if not a necessary, means of revealing to men the whole counsel of God ; and, for aught we know, such is the constitution of the human mind that by no other method could have been communicated to human intelligence that peculiar feature of the purpose of God which contemplates the redeemed not as individuals merely, but as the mediatorial body of the Redeemer. In another view, the Church is an indispensable means of accomplishing the great purpose of his love to his chosen people, as an institute for the calling, training, and edifying the elect".
“It is Jehovah’s vineyard, well fenced, indeed, but oftentimes having vines therein that bring forth wild grapes. It is Jehovah’s garden, well cared-for and well tilled, but in which many of the fig-trees may be barren. It is the wheat-field, which the
husbandman has carefully sown, yet in which tares grow up with the wheat. It is the great net, as an instrument in the hand of Jehovah for gathering his chosen ones out of the great deeps of a world of sin; but the very operation by which he gathers the good must, in the nature of the case, gather the bad with them also. It is a heap of choice wheat in his threshing-floor, from which the chaff is yet to be winnowed. It is a rich vineyard, leased out for a time to husbandmen who may be wicked enough to beat away the owner’s servants,—yea, even to slay his son and heir. It is, in short, a body called out of the world, yet in which are many called more than are chosen”.
He writes that the government of the church has always been representative and through elders following the family rule of the patriarchs. "So soon as, under the covenant with Abraham chartering a distinct community of the chosen, such a community actually existed, as the shortening of human life no longer permitted a patriarchal rule, the elders, as the successors of the patriarchs, are found intrusted with the government of the Church visible. Before the national organization under Moses there were elders in charge of the covenant-people; and to them must Moses exhibit the seals of his commission as the authorized agent of the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, come to execute the stipulations of the ancient covenant. Through the elders was given to the Church the ordinance of the passover. Before them, as representatives of the Church, was the typical rock smitten. To the Church, through her elders, after solemn preparation, were the revelations of Sinai made, and these in form of a solemn covenant between Jehovah and his people. The elders partook with Moses of the solemn sacrificial feast in the Mount, as preparatory to the reception of the ecclesiastical and ritual constitution from Jehovah. The elders, with the priests, constituted the supreme ecclesiastical tribunal to which all appeals should come. Even in Israel under tho apostasy the form of government was not lost sight of, but the elders sat with Elisha. So, too, even after the fall of the nation as such, the elders met with God's prophet on the river Chebar. And in the wasted and corrupt Jerusalem the form of Jehovah's appointed court of the Church survived all regard and fear of Jehovah, and a corrupt court of the priests and elders condemned to death his prophet Jeremiah for speaking the warnings of Jehovah. When Messiah came to his own and his own received him not, the regard for the divinely-appointed form of ecclesiastical government is found still surviving, though men made void the divine law through their traditions. Priests and elders formed the council that condemned the Son of God. The elders, under the dispensation of the Spirit, still occupy their position towards the Church, appointed by the Holy Ghost to take oversight, as in the Church of old."
He further notes that "every revelation ever communicated, every ordinance appointed, every promise and covenant made of God, has been, not to and with men as men, or as constituting nations, but to and with the Church, as such,—a body organized or contemplated as the elements of an organization. In the widest sense, to the ancient Church were committed the Oracles of God. The successive revelations come not from God as Creator to men as creatures, but from Messiah as Prophet and Bang over his Church ,to his own peculiar people. The revelations of Sinai are expressly declared to have been made to the covenant-people; and when Moses wrote the words of the Lord in the book, they were formally ratified as the covenant between God and the Church. After Moses, all additional records of inspiration are given to the Church as the depository of the Oracles of God".
Robinson shows that the church is an essential element of the gospel, and is intended by God for accomplishing the purpose of redemption. It is a full-orbed defence of the visible church and its government. He had an evident interest in tracing out the progress and development of redemption history in a way which is slightly similar to the biblical theological approach favoured today. The book expands upon a note in another book Discourses of redemption. Robinson there speaks of the need "to perceive clearly and grasp firmly the great doctrine of the Church as a fundamental truth of the gospel revelation". This is an interesting assertion given the fact that the Great Commission of Matt. 28 is given in terms of an assertion of the kingship of Christ and observing His commandments in the Church. He maintains that "the fact that the doctrine of the Church is a fundamental truth of the gospel, and is entitled to the same sort of consideration as other articles of theology" is generally overlooked. He observes that it is essential to the wellbeing of the Church given "the fact that a Calvinistic theology cannot long retain its integrity and purity save in connection with a Calvinistic ecclesiology, and for the more general fact, already referred to, of the intimate connection between a wrong theology and wrong views of the Church".
"The visible Church is an important, if not a necessary, means of revealing to men the whole counsel of God ; and, for aught we know, such is the constitution of the human mind that by no other method could have been communicated to human intelligence that peculiar feature of the purpose of God which contemplates the redeemed not as individuals merely, but as the mediatorial body of the Redeemer. In another view, the Church is an indispensable means of accomplishing the great purpose of his love to his chosen people, as an institute for the calling, training, and edifying the elect".
“It is Jehovah’s vineyard, well fenced, indeed, but oftentimes having vines therein that bring forth wild grapes. It is Jehovah’s garden, well cared-for and well tilled, but in which many of the fig-trees may be barren. It is the wheat-field, which the
husbandman has carefully sown, yet in which tares grow up with the wheat. It is the great net, as an instrument in the hand of Jehovah for gathering his chosen ones out of the great deeps of a world of sin; but the very operation by which he gathers the good must, in the nature of the case, gather the bad with them also. It is a heap of choice wheat in his threshing-floor, from which the chaff is yet to be winnowed. It is a rich vineyard, leased out for a time to husbandmen who may be wicked enough to beat away the owner’s servants,—yea, even to slay his son and heir. It is, in short, a body called out of the world, yet in which are many called more than are chosen”.
He writes that the government of the church has always been representative and through elders following the family rule of the patriarchs. "So soon as, under the covenant with Abraham chartering a distinct community of the chosen, such a community actually existed, as the shortening of human life no longer permitted a patriarchal rule, the elders, as the successors of the patriarchs, are found intrusted with the government of the Church visible. Before the national organization under Moses there were elders in charge of the covenant-people; and to them must Moses exhibit the seals of his commission as the authorized agent of the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, come to execute the stipulations of the ancient covenant. Through the elders was given to the Church the ordinance of the passover. Before them, as representatives of the Church, was the typical rock smitten. To the Church, through her elders, after solemn preparation, were the revelations of Sinai made, and these in form of a solemn covenant between Jehovah and his people. The elders partook with Moses of the solemn sacrificial feast in the Mount, as preparatory to the reception of the ecclesiastical and ritual constitution from Jehovah. The elders, with the priests, constituted the supreme ecclesiastical tribunal to which all appeals should come. Even in Israel under tho apostasy the form of government was not lost sight of, but the elders sat with Elisha. So, too, even after the fall of the nation as such, the elders met with God's prophet on the river Chebar. And in the wasted and corrupt Jerusalem the form of Jehovah's appointed court of the Church survived all regard and fear of Jehovah, and a corrupt court of the priests and elders condemned to death his prophet Jeremiah for speaking the warnings of Jehovah. When Messiah came to his own and his own received him not, the regard for the divinely-appointed form of ecclesiastical government is found still surviving, though men made void the divine law through their traditions. Priests and elders formed the council that condemned the Son of God. The elders, under the dispensation of the Spirit, still occupy their position towards the Church, appointed by the Holy Ghost to take oversight, as in the Church of old."
He further notes that "every revelation ever communicated, every ordinance appointed, every promise and covenant made of God, has been, not to and with men as men, or as constituting nations, but to and with the Church, as such,—a body organized or contemplated as the elements of an organization. In the widest sense, to the ancient Church were committed the Oracles of God. The successive revelations come not from God as Creator to men as creatures, but from Messiah as Prophet and Bang over his Church ,to his own peculiar people. The revelations of Sinai are expressly declared to have been made to the covenant-people; and when Moses wrote the words of the Lord in the book, they were formally ratified as the covenant between God and the Church. After Moses, all additional records of inspiration are given to the Church as the depository of the Oracles of God".
Monday, April 12, 2010
Spurgeon's Practical Wisdom
Spurgeon's Practical Wisdom:or Plain Advice for Plain People, by
Charles H Spurgeon, published by the Banner of Truth Trust, Large
clothbound, 328 pages
Charles H Spurgeon, published by the Banner of Truth Trust, Large
clothbound, 328 pages
In this book, Spurgeon adopts the character of John Ploughman, an old
country farmworker, in order to teach moral and spiritual lessons in a
homely and semi-humourous plain style. The theme of these short
chapters is generally suggested by a proverb which is connected to
other similar sayings and pithy anectdotes as he proceeds. In the
course of his talks, Spurgeon covers many practical subjects such as
anger, temptation, gossip, pride, cruelty, debt, thrift, marriage and
childrearing. He defended his approach by saying "I have aimed my
blows at the vices of the many, and tried to inculcate those moral
virtues without which men are degraded. Much that needs to be said to
the toiling masses would not well suit the pulpit and the Sabbath".
This book presents "John Ploughman's Talk" and "John Ploughman's
Pictures" attractively with all of the illustrations from the original
two volumes. It is not difficult to see why the books were
outstandingly popular in Victorian times. A wider contemporary
audience might have been gained for them by the Banner of Truth in
reprinting them separately in paperback form. Though dated in their
language and illustrations, these chapters retain an appeal and will
be appreciated by readers of all ages. It is noticeable that moral as
opposed to gospel applications are more frequent. Spurgeon defended
this by saying that "it has led many to take the first steps by which
men climb to better things". One certainly goes away from reading them
humbled rather than entertained.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
John Forbes of Alford and Spiritual Experience
John Forbes of Alford (c.1565–1634) was the cousin of Andrew Meville. Forbes is not to be confused with his nephew, the Aberdeen Doctor John Forbes, of Corse (1593–1648). Forbes of Corse was very learned and indeed was taught by his uncle. He was also a very pious man who kept a diary of his ‘fearful wrestlings and comfortable victories through Christ’ and records a number of personal covenants with God: ‘the Covenant serveth to waken me to the careful avoiding of sin’. Strangely, however, he could not consent to the social and national covenanting of Scotland in 1638.
Forbes of Alford is an interesting individual not so well known as he ought to be. In 1593 he was ordained minister of Alford, Aberdeenshire. He was a stalwart defender of the spiritual liberties and independence of the Church. This was first evident when the privy council interfered with the proceedings of the synods of Aberdeen and Moray against the Catholic marquess of Huntly. The synods sent Forbes to London in March 1605 to seek redress from King James VI and I. The Synods commended ‘his fidelity and uprightness, and his sincere affection borne to the kingdom of God, his majesty's service and peace of the land’. Forbes ultimately succeeded in this difficult trip.
In July of the same year (1605) Forbes was elected moderator of the Aberdeen assembly. This assembly was held in defiance of the king's command, however. Along with others he was summoned before the privy council to answer. The ministers declined the jurisdiction of the council to deal with spiritual matters which were only to be judged by church courts of the kirk. They were imprisoned in Blackness Castle, tried for high treason and banished from the king's dominions for life. They sailed from Leith for Bordeaux on 7 November 1606.
After visiting Scots exiles in France, he was settled as pastor of a British congregation at Middelburg in 1612 after an interim period from 1610. He remained here for ten years. He was offered a return to Britain but on terms which would compromise his convictions and in 1616 the king who promised to revoke his sentence of exile, but this was not fulfilled. He is said to have been influential in organising the non-conforming British exiles and also upon the Dutch States-General. He greatly detested the set forms of the Prayer Book. He became pastor of the British church at Delft in 1621 where he preached to the Merchant Adventurers. In the same year he organised a classis or presbytery of the English speaking congregations in the Netherlands. Through the influence of Thomas Hooker, however, he seemed to be brought to lean to some Independent ideas. By 1634 he was removed by the influence of Charles I and Laud after a lengthy struggle. In August 1634 he died at Veere from 'a fit of the stone' which brought on a burning fever. He was aged about sixty-nine and was buried in the Netherlands.
In one of his last sermons at Delft Alford preached on 1 Tim 6:15 stating: "We must not obey the king against that king that made him a king".
He was the author of The Saint's Hope, and Infallibleness Thereof (Middelburg, 1608); Two Sermons (Middelburg, 1608); A Treatise Tending to the Clearing of Justification (Middelburg, 1616); A Treatise how God's Spirit may be Discerned from Man's Own Spirit (London, 1617); Four Sermons on 1 Tim. Vi. 13–16 (1635); A Sermon on 2 Tim. Ii. 4 (Delft, 1642); Certaine Records Touching the Estate of the Kirk in the Years 1605 and 1606 (Edinburgh, Wodrow Society, 1846).
He also wrote a Letter to the merchants adventurer at Stoad which was published at Middelburg in 1617.
In this he writes the following rich expressions of high spiritual experience:
So whatever the Word doth persuade our heart touching God and his love in Christ, that is the testimony of the spirit and therefore when hearing the word of God, our hearts receive any assurance or persuasion of redemption, or remission of sins &c the same must be the spirit's testimony... but still we must not mistake the spirit's testimony, for the spirit, by the word persuades in two manner of ways... specially - 1. when it witnesses and reveals of grace particularly to a man but imprints not the
thing revealed in the heart, neither seals it in the soul. 2. When the promise is written in the heart and sealed in the soul: this is the Covenant with the elect, assurance of God's effectual speaking, when he writes the testimony in the heart - the word must abide in the heart.
He also spoke of when the Spirit pours in the love of God and all the graces revealed in the Word and sheds them abroad in the heart as faith, and so makes the heart to receive, enjoy, and possess the promise by imprinting therein. So if a man could see the soul of a true child of God he should see engraven on it mercy, peace, love, righteousness, life, joy, and Christ himself and all the promises of God and Christ written therein...
...the saint will feel strange affects wrought in their minds, which they neither know whence they come and whereunto they tend...
Forbes of Alford is an interesting individual not so well known as he ought to be. In 1593 he was ordained minister of Alford, Aberdeenshire. He was a stalwart defender of the spiritual liberties and independence of the Church. This was first evident when the privy council interfered with the proceedings of the synods of Aberdeen and Moray against the Catholic marquess of Huntly. The synods sent Forbes to London in March 1605 to seek redress from King James VI and I. The Synods commended ‘his fidelity and uprightness, and his sincere affection borne to the kingdom of God, his majesty's service and peace of the land’. Forbes ultimately succeeded in this difficult trip.
In July of the same year (1605) Forbes was elected moderator of the Aberdeen assembly. This assembly was held in defiance of the king's command, however. Along with others he was summoned before the privy council to answer. The ministers declined the jurisdiction of the council to deal with spiritual matters which were only to be judged by church courts of the kirk. They were imprisoned in Blackness Castle, tried for high treason and banished from the king's dominions for life. They sailed from Leith for Bordeaux on 7 November 1606.
After visiting Scots exiles in France, he was settled as pastor of a British congregation at Middelburg in 1612 after an interim period from 1610. He remained here for ten years. He was offered a return to Britain but on terms which would compromise his convictions and in 1616 the king who promised to revoke his sentence of exile, but this was not fulfilled. He is said to have been influential in organising the non-conforming British exiles and also upon the Dutch States-General. He greatly detested the set forms of the Prayer Book. He became pastor of the British church at Delft in 1621 where he preached to the Merchant Adventurers. In the same year he organised a classis or presbytery of the English speaking congregations in the Netherlands. Through the influence of Thomas Hooker, however, he seemed to be brought to lean to some Independent ideas. By 1634 he was removed by the influence of Charles I and Laud after a lengthy struggle. In August 1634 he died at Veere from 'a fit of the stone' which brought on a burning fever. He was aged about sixty-nine and was buried in the Netherlands.
In one of his last sermons at Delft Alford preached on 1 Tim 6:15 stating: "We must not obey the king against that king that made him a king".
He was the author of The Saint's Hope, and Infallibleness Thereof (Middelburg, 1608); Two Sermons (Middelburg, 1608); A Treatise Tending to the Clearing of Justification (Middelburg, 1616); A Treatise how God's Spirit may be Discerned from Man's Own Spirit (London, 1617); Four Sermons on 1 Tim. Vi. 13–16 (1635); A Sermon on 2 Tim. Ii. 4 (Delft, 1642); Certaine Records Touching the Estate of the Kirk in the Years 1605 and 1606 (Edinburgh, Wodrow Society, 1846).
He also wrote a Letter to the merchants adventurer at Stoad which was published at Middelburg in 1617.
In this he writes the following rich expressions of high spiritual experience:
So whatever the Word doth persuade our heart touching God and his love in Christ, that is the testimony of the spirit and therefore when hearing the word of God, our hearts receive any assurance or persuasion of redemption, or remission of sins &c the same must be the spirit's testimony... but still we must not mistake the spirit's testimony, for the spirit, by the word persuades in two manner of ways... specially - 1. when it witnesses and reveals of grace particularly to a man but imprints not the
thing revealed in the heart, neither seals it in the soul. 2. When the promise is written in the heart and sealed in the soul: this is the Covenant with the elect, assurance of God's effectual speaking, when he writes the testimony in the heart - the word must abide in the heart.
He also spoke of when the Spirit pours in the love of God and all the graces revealed in the Word and sheds them abroad in the heart as faith, and so makes the heart to receive, enjoy, and possess the promise by imprinting therein. So if a man could see the soul of a true child of God he should see engraven on it mercy, peace, love, righteousness, life, joy, and Christ himself and all the promises of God and Christ written therein...
...the saint will feel strange affects wrought in their minds, which they neither know whence they come and whereunto they tend...
Monday, March 22, 2010
Truth bears Repetition
Repetition is a key feature of the Scriptures. It is very remarkable
because not everything that could have been has been included about
the life of Christ, the history of Israel or of the early Church. Only
that which is necessary according to divine wisdom has been included.
Repetition draws out attention to key truths. When God says something
once, we must always listen, when He says something twice (Job 33:14;
Ps. 62:11) we must pay close attention and when He speaks three times
we must give ourselves wholly to it because it is being reinforced.
Every verse and word in Scripture is essential, there is nothing
included that is non-essential or merely to provide context. There is
no such thing as mere repetition in Scripture. Some phrases are
repeated hundreds of times such as the "name of the LORD". Christ
used repetition in His ministry, declaring the same truths on numerous
occasions. The gospels repeat many incidents concerning Christ three
times amongst themselves. Typology is, as it were, a way of
reiterating truths in Scripture.
because not everything that could have been has been included about
the life of Christ, the history of Israel or of the early Church. Only
that which is necessary according to divine wisdom has been included.
Repetition draws out attention to key truths. When God says something
once, we must always listen, when He says something twice (Job 33:14;
Ps. 62:11) we must pay close attention and when He speaks three times
we must give ourselves wholly to it because it is being reinforced.
Every verse and word in Scripture is essential, there is nothing
included that is non-essential or merely to provide context. There is
no such thing as mere repetition in Scripture. Some phrases are
repeated hundreds of times such as the "name of the LORD". Christ
used repetition in His ministry, declaring the same truths on numerous
occasions. The gospels repeat many incidents concerning Christ three
times amongst themselves. Typology is, as it were, a way of
reiterating truths in Scripture.
The number of times that something is repeated is not an accident but
significant and with purpose. The phrase "and God saw that it was
good" is repeated seven times in Genesis 1:4-31. The phrase "He that
hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" is
also repeated seven times (Revelation chapters 2 & 3). There are also
seven repetitions of the word "blessed" in the book of Revelation
(1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14).
Counter-reformation Roman Catholic theologians such as Bellarmine
maintained that "many things not necessary have been written; as all
the histories of the old Testament, many of the new, some of the Acts
of the Apostles, and all the salutations in the apostolic epistles".
Post-Reformation theologians such as William Whitaker granted that
some of this information is not essential to the being of faith but it
is still essential to its wellbeing. That things are repeated in
Scripture does not make them redundant but underlines their necessity.
Whitaker states: "as to many things being frequently repeated, this
makes it still more a rule; since that repetition is
profitable to our better and surer understanding of what is said".
John Arrowsmith who was one of the Westminster Divines wrote
concerning repetition in Scripture in '"Theanthropos, God made Man."
The summary is pithy, concise and instructive.
1. In prayer, repetition serves to express fervency and earnestness.
Matthew 26:44
2. In prophecies, repetition serves to note the certainty of them. Genesis 41:22
3. In threats, repetition indicates unavoidableness and, perhaps,
suddenness. Ezekiel 21:27
4. In precepts repetition serves to note a necessity in performing
them. Psalm 47:6
5. In truths, repetition serves to show the necessity of believing
them and of knowing them. John 3:3, 5, 17
We take great exception, however, to the language of the Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The "Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of
evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in
the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by
nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman
L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold
Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert
Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John
Wenham.
The Statement says in relation to translation:
the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians,
at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of
excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude
that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of
the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it
deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through
the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its
meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
This is evangelical reductionism gone mad and an improper deduction
from repetition in Scripture. All we need from Scripture it says is
what is necessary for salvation. You may see how far it diverges from
Whitaker's view above and instead approaches the position held by
Bellarmine. The "assured results of science" have always been less
than assured in theological matters and here no less so. The fact is
that some translations do obscure the main matters and key doctrines
through inaccurate translation or through preference for corrupted
manuscripts. Some things are reiterated but not repeated in the same
way and that is an important distinction. Yet we ought to be thankful
that there is something of the truth remaining which can be used to
make one wise for salvation.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
the continual presence of God in our hearts
Every night before bed mark God's mercies to you as love tokens from your husband. What we should esteem of is the continual presence of God in our hearts, for therein stands our happiness, and our life, where the Lord is, there is life, liberty, and comfort. Your heart must ay be in heaven.
John Welsh of Ayr
John Welsh of Ayr
The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart
Duty must be cordial and hearty for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. The matter must swim not in the head or understanding, but it must be in the heart - not just persuaded but affectionately persuaded, loving and liking the thing - a heart business, a soul business, yea, not a business in the outer courts of the affections but in the flower of the affections and in the innermost cabinet of the soul where Christ is formed. Christ as the bridegroom will have the heart or nothing, love or nothing, marriage love which goeth from heart to heart, love of espousals or nothing.
William Guthrie, The Christian's Great Interest
William Guthrie, The Christian's Great Interest
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Clothing ourselves to the glory of God
Clothing (as opposed to insufficient covering) was first provided by God. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). Thomas Boston writes "Our first parents made their first garments, and God made the next, which were effectual for the use of garments. Whence we may learn the utter insufficiency of our own righteousness to cover spiritual nakedness, and
the absolute necessity of the righteousness of God, the imputed righteousness, with its fitness eyery way to clothe the sinful soul".
The law of the first mention relates to the interpretation of Scripture by placing importance on the first mention of something in Scripture. Boston writes that it was "a humbling memorial to them of the spring of their ruin". we ought to remember that The least rag for our clothing, crumb for our food, breathing in God's air, etc. is what we deserve not at the hand of God, (Luke 17:10)". Here we see the principle that clothing is necessary due to the fall and that is God's right to order in general the nature of that clothing. The sinful natural tendency of man is to seek a covering that is insufficient in design, both in terms of distinction of the sexes and in terms of its function of preserving modesty. God's provision was designed to deal with both. Whatsoever we do we must do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Note number 3.
In his commentary on Ezekiel 16, the puritan William Greenhill considers “for what ends the Lord hath given apparel and ornaments”:
(1.) To cover man’s nakedness. God set man and woman naked in the world at first, that they might see they had nothing of their own, that all was the Lord’s who created them; but when they sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, they were ashamed of their nakedness, and sought to cover it, Gen. 3:7, 21; yea, God made them ‘coats of skins, and clothed them,’ ver. 21, that so their nakedness and shame might not be seen, that so modesty and chastity might be preserved: Hos. 2:9, ‘I will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.’
(2.) To arm and defend them against the injury of the air, the violence of wind and weather, heat and cold [Prov. 31:21; 25:20; Job 24:7] . . .
(3.) To distinguish one sex from another. God would not have men and women dressed and adorned alike; Deut. 22:5, ‘The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment:’ God would not have men to be effeminate, nor women to be mannish . . .
(4.) To preserve the healthiness of our bodies. ‘Man is born to labour, as the sparks fly upward,’ Job 5:7; and man labouring, his body sweats . . . which our vestures receiving are to be changed, and so health preserved: so in time of sickness, Job 30:18 . . .
(5.) To notify the conditions, ranks, and places of men [Gen. 41:42; Esth. 6:8; Acts 12:21 ; Psalm 45:13, 14; II Sam. 13:18 ; Lam. 4:5; Matt. 11:8; 27:28] . . .
(6.) To adorn the body [Gen. 27:15; Isa. 52:1; Hos. 2:13 ] . . . Jer. 2:32 , ‘Can a maid forget her ornaments?’ Exod. 28:40, Aaron’s sons must have coats, girdles, bonnets, ‘for glory and beauty’ . . .
(7.) To testify grief or joy. Mordecai put on sackcloth in a time of mourning [Joel 1:13 ; Luke 15:22 ; Isa. 61:10; Eccl. 9:8] . . . (I have taken this from the booklet Christian Clothing which contains a lot of helpful information although there are various points that are a matter of debate amongst those that hold to gender-distinctive dress and roles)
There is a sensitive and adept treatment of the subject of gender-distinctive dress by a young woman here. The article is called "Decent and Distinct".
The verse Deuteronomy 22:5 is important here. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God". Another blog demonstrates the historical interpretation and application of thishere and
here and here is another interesting contribution. (The writer seems to regard headcovering in I Cor. 11 as a cultural matter which is incorrect, it is an aspect of the public worship of God in all cultures for the New Testament Church). The author is American, so for pants read trousers.
The writer elsewhere notes the following in relation to Deuteronomy 22:5. "It doesn't say that the garment is an abomination or that the activity is an abomination. The person is an abomination. This is the only time in Scripture that a person is an abomination unto the LORD for doing something. Why? Because it attacks or rebels against God's design. At a root level, God is our Creator (Rom 1:25). He wants recognition of that by the acknowledgment of His design. It is also another way that those roles are preserved. Appearance is the primary way that roles are taught. This is why we have a gigantic passage in the New Testament that also deals with this issue (1 Cor 11:3-16)".
He continues:
It doesn't say "men should look like men and women should look like women." It says nothing about transvestism or Canaanite worship, some of the new inventions to avoid practicing the text. It says nothing about women putting on military gear. It doesn't say, "they both wore robes," because it isn't about removing distinctions. What it does say is that a man should not ever have on the woman's article and that the woman should not wear the male garment. It assumes that there is a male item of clothing designated to differentiate him from the woman, as well as a female item designated to differentiate her from the man.
He shows that this issue impacts upon men as much as women:
our culture has eliminated the male garment. There is none. The woman still has the skirt or the dress. The man has nothing...When the world did away with the male garment, Christians protested. When women started wearing pants, Christians opposed it. When Christian women started wearing pants, it wasn't because a group of godly women got together and prayed about it and sought God's will. No. It was a matter of rebellion and then the church went along with the world on this one. It's been so long since most churches practiced this, that it doesn't even seem like a biblical teaching any more.
the absolute necessity of the righteousness of God, the imputed righteousness, with its fitness eyery way to clothe the sinful soul".
The law of the first mention relates to the interpretation of Scripture by placing importance on the first mention of something in Scripture. Boston writes that it was "a humbling memorial to them of the spring of their ruin". we ought to remember that The least rag for our clothing, crumb for our food, breathing in God's air, etc. is what we deserve not at the hand of God, (Luke 17:10)". Here we see the principle that clothing is necessary due to the fall and that is God's right to order in general the nature of that clothing. The sinful natural tendency of man is to seek a covering that is insufficient in design, both in terms of distinction of the sexes and in terms of its function of preserving modesty. God's provision was designed to deal with both. Whatsoever we do we must do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). Note number 3.
In his commentary on Ezekiel 16, the puritan William Greenhill considers “for what ends the Lord hath given apparel and ornaments”:
(1.) To cover man’s nakedness. God set man and woman naked in the world at first, that they might see they had nothing of their own, that all was the Lord’s who created them; but when they sinned in eating the forbidden fruit, they were ashamed of their nakedness, and sought to cover it, Gen. 3:7, 21; yea, God made them ‘coats of skins, and clothed them,’ ver. 21, that so their nakedness and shame might not be seen, that so modesty and chastity might be preserved: Hos. 2:9, ‘I will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.’
(2.) To arm and defend them against the injury of the air, the violence of wind and weather, heat and cold [Prov. 31:21; 25:20; Job 24:7] . . .
(3.) To distinguish one sex from another. God would not have men and women dressed and adorned alike; Deut. 22:5, ‘The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment:’ God would not have men to be effeminate, nor women to be mannish . . .
(4.) To preserve the healthiness of our bodies. ‘Man is born to labour, as the sparks fly upward,’ Job 5:7; and man labouring, his body sweats . . . which our vestures receiving are to be changed, and so health preserved: so in time of sickness, Job 30:18 . . .
(5.) To notify the conditions, ranks, and places of men [Gen. 41:42; Esth. 6:8; Acts 12:21 ; Psalm 45:13, 14; II Sam. 13:18 ; Lam. 4:5; Matt. 11:8; 27:28] . . .
(6.) To adorn the body [Gen. 27:15; Isa. 52:1; Hos. 2:13 ] . . . Jer. 2:32 , ‘Can a maid forget her ornaments?’ Exod. 28:40, Aaron’s sons must have coats, girdles, bonnets, ‘for glory and beauty’ . . .
(7.) To testify grief or joy. Mordecai put on sackcloth in a time of mourning [Joel 1:13 ; Luke 15:22 ; Isa. 61:10; Eccl. 9:8] . . . (I have taken this from the booklet Christian Clothing which contains a lot of helpful information although there are various points that are a matter of debate amongst those that hold to gender-distinctive dress and roles)
There is a sensitive and adept treatment of the subject of gender-distinctive dress by a young woman here. The article is called "Decent and Distinct".
The verse Deuteronomy 22:5 is important here. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God". Another blog demonstrates the historical interpretation and application of thishere and
here and here is another interesting contribution. (The writer seems to regard headcovering in I Cor. 11 as a cultural matter which is incorrect, it is an aspect of the public worship of God in all cultures for the New Testament Church). The author is American, so for pants read trousers.
The writer elsewhere notes the following in relation to Deuteronomy 22:5. "It doesn't say that the garment is an abomination or that the activity is an abomination. The person is an abomination. This is the only time in Scripture that a person is an abomination unto the LORD for doing something. Why? Because it attacks or rebels against God's design. At a root level, God is our Creator (Rom 1:25). He wants recognition of that by the acknowledgment of His design. It is also another way that those roles are preserved. Appearance is the primary way that roles are taught. This is why we have a gigantic passage in the New Testament that also deals with this issue (1 Cor 11:3-16)".
He continues:
It doesn't say "men should look like men and women should look like women." It says nothing about transvestism or Canaanite worship, some of the new inventions to avoid practicing the text. It says nothing about women putting on military gear. It doesn't say, "they both wore robes," because it isn't about removing distinctions. What it does say is that a man should not ever have on the woman's article and that the woman should not wear the male garment. It assumes that there is a male item of clothing designated to differentiate him from the woman, as well as a female item designated to differentiate her from the man.
He shows that this issue impacts upon men as much as women:
our culture has eliminated the male garment. There is none. The woman still has the skirt or the dress. The man has nothing...When the world did away with the male garment, Christians protested. When women started wearing pants, Christians opposed it. When Christian women started wearing pants, it wasn't because a group of godly women got together and prayed about it and sought God's will. No. It was a matter of rebellion and then the church went along with the world on this one. It's been so long since most churches practiced this, that it doesn't even seem like a biblical teaching any more.
Monday, March 08, 2010
the exclusion of conviction
Kenneth Clarke was on Radio 4's Any Questions last Friday stridently contemning all forms of extremism whether atheistic, islamist or those "way-out extreme evangelicals" (is that a description of all or only some evangelicals?). The idea was to make any kind of firmly held conviction a species of extremism, to exclude and marginalise it. Much better not to care about conviction and especially not about whatever convictions anybody else has. The absurdity of this position is of course not apparent to those who presuppose that you shouldn't have firmly held convictions but its circularity is reassuring to them. It's the conviction-rejecting politics of Gallio who "cared for none of these things" (Acts 18:17). Matthew Henry comments: "it was wrong to speak slightly of a law and religion which he might have known to be of God, and which he ought to have acquainted himself with. In what way God is to be worshipped, whether Jesus be the Messiah, and whether the gospel be a Divine revelation, are not questions of words and names, they are questions of vast importance. Gallio spoke as if he boasted of his ignorance of the Scriptures, as if the law of God was beneath his notice. Gallio cared for none of these things. If he cared not for the affronts of bad men, it was commendable; but if he concerned not himself for the abuses done to good men, his indifference was carried too far. And those who see and hear of the sufferings of God's people, and have no feeling with them, or care for them, who do not pity and pray for them, are of the same spirit as Gallio, who cared for none of these things."
Channel Four’s “Bible: A History” series contained a programme presented by Howard Jacobson. What he said about Richard Dawkins was similar:
“I don’t practise any religion nor worship any God, and fear all fanaticism and that’s bred by faith so I ought really to be sympathetic to Dawkins’ book ‘The God Delusion’. But it moves me – to be frank – to fury. Partly because it assumes that men were stupid until science rescued them. Partly because its ignorance sees no reason not to remain ignorant of what belief is like for those who do believe. Partly because of its certainty, Where’s the point of attacking religion for thinking it has all the answers, when you think you have all the answers yourself? Blind faith is fatuous, but so is blind doubt. This is where I find myself: unable to share the faith of the religious, but unable to share the mockery of the atheists. The big question for me is how to believe, and not to believe, at the same time. Let’s confront the absolutists: those who absolutely believe and those who absolutely don’t.”
Though men think that they have found a position of safety, the no-man’s land between faith and unbelief is in truth a mirage.
Channel Four’s “Bible: A History” series contained a programme presented by Howard Jacobson. What he said about Richard Dawkins was similar:
“I don’t practise any religion nor worship any God, and fear all fanaticism and that’s bred by faith so I ought really to be sympathetic to Dawkins’ book ‘The God Delusion’. But it moves me – to be frank – to fury. Partly because it assumes that men were stupid until science rescued them. Partly because its ignorance sees no reason not to remain ignorant of what belief is like for those who do believe. Partly because of its certainty, Where’s the point of attacking religion for thinking it has all the answers, when you think you have all the answers yourself? Blind faith is fatuous, but so is blind doubt. This is where I find myself: unable to share the faith of the religious, but unable to share the mockery of the atheists. The big question for me is how to believe, and not to believe, at the same time. Let’s confront the absolutists: those who absolutely believe and those who absolutely don’t.”
Though men think that they have found a position of safety, the no-man’s land between faith and unbelief is in truth a mirage.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
The Religious Blogosphere
Noone needs an academic research paper to tell us that blogging is big here. According to the mixture of metaphors in the title which examines the New Landscape of the Religion Blogosphere, they focus upon the major mountains so to speak. Only one of which appears in my landscape, but they seem more interested in the discussion of religion and politics. I'm not sure that the paper gets behind many more interesting questions such as why people blog and what they do achieve or whether blogging encourages or discourages reading. There is an old survey that gets a bit nearer. Someone has produced some principles of Christian blogging, which is fair but essentially the principles ought to be the ten commandments as defined in their full biblical parameters by the Westminster Larger Catechism. I think that a clutch of relevant proverbs would help too, the following are starters. Proverbs 10:19 "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise". Proverbs 18:17 "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him".
In my view onto the blogosphere, the best posts are as follows. Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, Number 4, Number 5, Number 6 and Number 7.
In my view onto the blogosphere, the best posts are as follows. Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, Number 4, Number 5, Number 6 and Number 7.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Calvin on who should be kept from the Lord's Supper and why
From: Calvin's Ecclesiastical Advice
Calvin's "Essay on the Lord's Supper" from, The Form of Prayers, 1542 and 1545.
The Eucharist is the communion of the body and blood of the Lord. As St. Paul explains, it ought to be taken in order that we might abide and live more fully in Christ and he might live and abide more fully in us. For this reason St. Paul stresses that in the celebration of the Holy Supper we ought increasingly to desire to live and abide in Christ (i.e., to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lord) and to receive this meat and drink with greater fruitfulness and religious fervor. Hence, it is necessary to institute and to control this sacrament in order that the people might be duly instructed and admonished as to the necessity of their frequent participation in the flesh and blood of the Lord as well as to its great benefits, which are received from this participation and mastication.
From this it follows, first, that the Supper ought only to be offered to those who are willing and able to live in the Lord, who have him living in them, and who desire that his life be increased and made greater in them. For the reason why the communion of the body and blood of Christ is given in the Holy Supper is to the end that we might live entirely in him and he in us. Consequently, it is necessary for God's faithful ministerial dispensers to know that those to whom they wish to give the Lord's Supper are already incorporated by baptism into the Lord Christ, knowing that they are his true and living members, and that they hunger for this meat of eternal life and thirst for this holy drink. Christian charity, religion, and holy administration have always required this. Other persons, because they cannot participate in the sacrament without condemning themselves, must be kept away from the Holy Supper by the deacon (as the early church commanded). This is true also for those who have not yet been fully instructed in the Christian religion, the wicked, and those who have had to leave the church and who should be making penance, but who have not yet been received in grace. For this reason our Lord himself gave the first supper only to those more elect disciples. It is not fitting to give what is holy to dogs nor to give the meat of eternal life to those who do not hunger for it.
Therefore the Lord's Supper should only be given to those who are known and approved by the rule of charity and religion, a rule which must be practiced in the administration of the Supper, also requiring confession and the acknowledgment that, in our life, nothing contradicts it. Ministers, therefore, act in a holy and correct manner, both by their ministry and by its dignity, when they receive only those persons to the sacrament whom they first of all know to be approved and instructed. Moreover, since this meat and drink of eternal life ought to be administered only to those who truly desire it, it follows that the people to whom the Supper is administered should be admonished so thoroughly as to understand how important it is for them to profit from communion with Christ and what benefits are offered in it to them.
Translated by: Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley
T&T CLARK, EDINBURGH
Calvin's "Essay on the Lord's Supper" from, The Form of Prayers, 1542 and 1545.
The Eucharist is the communion of the body and blood of the Lord. As St. Paul explains, it ought to be taken in order that we might abide and live more fully in Christ and he might live and abide more fully in us. For this reason St. Paul stresses that in the celebration of the Holy Supper we ought increasingly to desire to live and abide in Christ (i.e., to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lord) and to receive this meat and drink with greater fruitfulness and religious fervor. Hence, it is necessary to institute and to control this sacrament in order that the people might be duly instructed and admonished as to the necessity of their frequent participation in the flesh and blood of the Lord as well as to its great benefits, which are received from this participation and mastication.
From this it follows, first, that the Supper ought only to be offered to those who are willing and able to live in the Lord, who have him living in them, and who desire that his life be increased and made greater in them. For the reason why the communion of the body and blood of Christ is given in the Holy Supper is to the end that we might live entirely in him and he in us. Consequently, it is necessary for God's faithful ministerial dispensers to know that those to whom they wish to give the Lord's Supper are already incorporated by baptism into the Lord Christ, knowing that they are his true and living members, and that they hunger for this meat of eternal life and thirst for this holy drink. Christian charity, religion, and holy administration have always required this. Other persons, because they cannot participate in the sacrament without condemning themselves, must be kept away from the Holy Supper by the deacon (as the early church commanded). This is true also for those who have not yet been fully instructed in the Christian religion, the wicked, and those who have had to leave the church and who should be making penance, but who have not yet been received in grace. For this reason our Lord himself gave the first supper only to those more elect disciples. It is not fitting to give what is holy to dogs nor to give the meat of eternal life to those who do not hunger for it.
Therefore the Lord's Supper should only be given to those who are known and approved by the rule of charity and religion, a rule which must be practiced in the administration of the Supper, also requiring confession and the acknowledgment that, in our life, nothing contradicts it. Ministers, therefore, act in a holy and correct manner, both by their ministry and by its dignity, when they receive only those persons to the sacrament whom they first of all know to be approved and instructed. Moreover, since this meat and drink of eternal life ought to be administered only to those who truly desire it, it follows that the people to whom the Supper is administered should be admonished so thoroughly as to understand how important it is for them to profit from communion with Christ and what benefits are offered in it to them.
Translated by: Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley
T&T CLARK, EDINBURGH
Friday, February 19, 2010
Both Callings
"There are Two Callings to be minded by All Christians. Every Christian hath a General Calling, Which is to Serve the Lord Jesus Christ and Save his own Soul in the Services of Religion that are incumbent on all the Children of men....But then, every Christian hath also a Personal Calling; or, a certain Particular Employment by which his Usefulness in his Neighbourhood is distinguished....
"A Christian, at his Two Callings, is a man in a Boat, Rowing for Heaven, the House which our Heavenly Father hath intended for us. If he mind but one of his Callings, be it which it will, he pulls the Oar but on one side of the Boat, and will make but a poor dispatch to the Shoar of Eternal Blessedness...."
--Cotton Mather, from "A Christian at His Calling" (1701)
This is an excellent quote posted on the Puritan Writing blog. Of course using one oar more than the other takes you off course. Rowing only with one oar takes you round in circles. No wonder we feel stressed if we give to much to our earthly calling.
"A Christian, at his Two Callings, is a man in a Boat, Rowing for Heaven, the House which our Heavenly Father hath intended for us. If he mind but one of his Callings, be it which it will, he pulls the Oar but on one side of the Boat, and will make but a poor dispatch to the Shoar of Eternal Blessedness...."
--Cotton Mather, from "A Christian at His Calling" (1701)
This is an excellent quote posted on the Puritan Writing blog. Of course using one oar more than the other takes you off course. Rowing only with one oar takes you round in circles. No wonder we feel stressed if we give to much to our earthly calling.
Monday, February 15, 2010
my songs in the house of my pilgrimage
Pilgrims need songs for their journey. The pilgrims that went up to Zion at the three appointed feasts in the year had an ample store of divinely inspired psalms in the Songs of Degrees (or Ascents) (Pss. 120–134). The songs that we need in this valley of Baca are those which are the word of God or the statutes of God. 'Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage' (Ps 119:54).
The psalms are the Scriptures in miniature; everything that is necessary and appropriate for our use is found there in its sufficiency. There are psalms appropriate for each stage and experience of the journey. Songs for the valley and the heights; the rough path and the plain; the day and the night. The story is told of the Scotsman who was accustomed to travel 20 miles in order that, as he put it, "he might get a guid sing at the auld psalms". Evidently he had at least 20 miles worth in memory, it would be well for us to get our 20 miles worth in memory for even in that selection there will be a diversity to suit our needs. The time may come when the written page is not to hand or if it is, we cannot read it. 'I will
never forget thy precepts, for with them thou hast quickened me'.
The Church Father Jerome mentions how the psalms had their own influence on daily life where he lived in Palestine: "The Psalms were continually to be heard in the fields and vineyards of Palestine. The plowman, as he held the plow, chanted the Hallelujah, and the reaper, the vinedresser, and the shepherd sang something from the Psalms of David. Where the meadows were coloured with flowers, and the singing birds made their plants, the Psalms sounded even more sweetly. These psalms are our love songs, these instruments of our agriculture".
Two books have sought to gather up the fragments of the impact that the psalms have made within Church history and upon individuals. There is Roland Prothero's 'The Psalms in Human Life'. James Kerr in 'The Psalms in History and Biography' writes:
What a wonderful story they could tell if we could gather it all from lonely chambers, from suffering sick-beds, from the brink of the valley of the shadow of death, from scaffolds and fiery piles witnessing in sunlight, from moors and mountains beneath the stars, and in high places of the field turning to flight the
armies of the aliens!
The book of Psalms, beyond every book of man, and most parts of the book of God, can be brought into this connection with life. We can take passage after passage and write out for it some grief it has comforted, some doubt it has solved, some deliverance it has wrought or celebrated.
If we can read the hook, or a part of it, in the light of such experiences, we may be helped to make it more our own, to take it home to our heart and to keep it for a possession. There are promises in the Bible which seem beyond our reach; we have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. But some one, like ourselves, has been there before us, and has left a cup to be let down with his name and story engraven on the rim: 'For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found'.
George Horne's valuable commentary on the psalms shows that they have three applications; David/psalmist's life and experience; the individual believer and the Church; and Christ. The psalms arose from the experience of David and as the divinely worded transcript of that experience they speak to our own experience also - "deep unto deep doth call". As James Kerr puts it, the altogether fitly spoken words of the psalms are the apples of gold set in the pictures of silver of our own experience.
This is true of none more than Christ Himself, Whose inner thoughts, emotions and experiences are recorded in the psalms. He could say that they were His songs in the house of his pilgrimage, as He tabernacled amongst us in a house of clay in the days of His flesh. O to have Christ yet with us on our Emmaus pilgrim road to draw along side us and open up to us all the things concerning Himself in the psalms. The journey will not be long as the well-known psalm will then become a new song put in our hearts to magnify our God.
The psalms are the Scriptures in miniature; everything that is necessary and appropriate for our use is found there in its sufficiency. There are psalms appropriate for each stage and experience of the journey. Songs for the valley and the heights; the rough path and the plain; the day and the night. The story is told of the Scotsman who was accustomed to travel 20 miles in order that, as he put it, "he might get a guid sing at the auld psalms". Evidently he had at least 20 miles worth in memory, it would be well for us to get our 20 miles worth in memory for even in that selection there will be a diversity to suit our needs. The time may come when the written page is not to hand or if it is, we cannot read it. 'I will
never forget thy precepts, for with them thou hast quickened me'.
The Church Father Jerome mentions how the psalms had their own influence on daily life where he lived in Palestine: "The Psalms were continually to be heard in the fields and vineyards of Palestine. The plowman, as he held the plow, chanted the Hallelujah, and the reaper, the vinedresser, and the shepherd sang something from the Psalms of David. Where the meadows were coloured with flowers, and the singing birds made their plants, the Psalms sounded even more sweetly. These psalms are our love songs, these instruments of our agriculture".
Two books have sought to gather up the fragments of the impact that the psalms have made within Church history and upon individuals. There is Roland Prothero's 'The Psalms in Human Life'. James Kerr in 'The Psalms in History and Biography' writes:
What a wonderful story they could tell if we could gather it all from lonely chambers, from suffering sick-beds, from the brink of the valley of the shadow of death, from scaffolds and fiery piles witnessing in sunlight, from moors and mountains beneath the stars, and in high places of the field turning to flight the
armies of the aliens!
The book of Psalms, beyond every book of man, and most parts of the book of God, can be brought into this connection with life. We can take passage after passage and write out for it some grief it has comforted, some doubt it has solved, some deliverance it has wrought or celebrated.
If we can read the hook, or a part of it, in the light of such experiences, we may be helped to make it more our own, to take it home to our heart and to keep it for a possession. There are promises in the Bible which seem beyond our reach; we have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. But some one, like ourselves, has been there before us, and has left a cup to be let down with his name and story engraven on the rim: 'For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found'.
George Horne's valuable commentary on the psalms shows that they have three applications; David/psalmist's life and experience; the individual believer and the Church; and Christ. The psalms arose from the experience of David and as the divinely worded transcript of that experience they speak to our own experience also - "deep unto deep doth call". As James Kerr puts it, the altogether fitly spoken words of the psalms are the apples of gold set in the pictures of silver of our own experience.
This is true of none more than Christ Himself, Whose inner thoughts, emotions and experiences are recorded in the psalms. He could say that they were His songs in the house of his pilgrimage, as He tabernacled amongst us in a house of clay in the days of His flesh. O to have Christ yet with us on our Emmaus pilgrim road to draw along side us and open up to us all the things concerning Himself in the psalms. The journey will not be long as the well-known psalm will then become a new song put in our hearts to magnify our God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
